All Activity

“Kellum’s tenure will succeed only if he recognizes that the agency he now leads cannot rebuild trust without acknowledging, clearly and without qualification, the depth of the failures that preceded him and his commitment to charting a new course.” By Hirsh Jain, Ananda Strategy Late on the Wednesday evening before Thanksgiving, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) quietly announced the appointment of Clint Kellum as the next director of the state Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). The timing of the announcement, released at a moment when the Newsom administration could be confident that few Californians would be paying attention, was not lost on close observers of the cannabis market. It revealed the administration’s deep discomfort with the conversation this transition should provoke: a candid examination of DCC’s failures under the leadership of current director (and longtime Newsom ally) Nicole Elliott, and the profound damage those failures have inflicted on California’s legal cannabis market. It is a conversation that’s long overdue. Nearly a decade after the passage of Proposition 64, California’s legal cannabis system bears little resemblance to what voters were promised. Instead of a well-regulated market that displaced the illicit one, the state has allowed unlicensed cannabis operators to flourish, unsafe and untested products to proliferate and enforcement to collapse. The legal market is now forced to compete with the very illicit activity legalization was meant to eliminate. But many of the industry’s deepest wounds were not inevitable consequences of legalization. They were regulatory failures, and specifically failures of DCC under its longtime leadership. Since its inception, DCC has been at the center of a long and unbroken sequence of scandals and breakdowns. Most prominent was the pesticide testing scandal, in which the agency allowed products contaminated with banned pesticides to be sold on the legal market. This failure undermined the very premise of “legal and tested” cannabis in California, a premise the state had used to justify stringent compliance costs and high taxation. As the regulatory agency tasked with ensuring safety failed at the most basic level of product oversight, consumer confidence in the legal cannabis market predictably collapsed. Equally damaging was DCC’s failure to close loopholes in its “track and trace” system that allowed so-called “burner distributor” licenses to move illicit cannabis into the legal supply chain. These loopholes were well known within the industry, repeatedly discussed in public forums and raised directly with regulators. Yet DCC declined for years to take meaningful enforcement action, allowing illicit actors to benefit from a system that was supposed to regulate them. This failure not only deprived legal operators of a level playing field, it further blurred the line between legal and illicit commerce. It produced the very outcome legalization was intended to prevent. DCC’s mismanagement also extended to the administration of local grant programs. In a formal report, the California state auditor criticized DCC’s “inadequate oversight” of cities receiving millions of dollars in state equity grants, describing the “inappropriate expenditures” made using these taxpayer dollars. Programs intended to remedy decades of disproportionate enforcement instead became examples of weak accountability and public corruption, perhaps unsurprising in a state where large sums of taxpayer funds routinely go missing. The state auditor found that cities received funding without ensuring that grants reached their intended beneficiaries, and that DCC did little to intervene. Tellingly, DCC faced serious allegations from its own employees as well. A whistleblower lawsuit accused the agency of retaliating against employees who had raised concerns about DCC’s regulatory failures and uneven, retaliatory enforcement practices. Such allegations reinforced a broader perception that the agency was animated by personal grudges, resistant to criticism, unable to self-correct and particularly intolerant of dissent within its own ranks. These substantive failures were compounded by DCC’s unyielding insistence, often stated boldly and publicly, that the legal cannabis market in California was “healthy” and “growing.” In reality, legal cannabis sales in California have fallen by more than 30 percent since 2021—a staggering decline. DCC’s refusal to acknowledge these declines fostered an Orwellian culture of official unreality. Instead of confronting the crisis, the agency’s messaging sought to obscure it, hindering reform and leaving legislators, operators and consumers without an honest assessment of the system’s condition. Meanwhile, senior statewide leaders have begun to say openly what DCC has long refused to admit. State Treasurer Fiona Ma (D) recently stated that California’s cannabis legalization framework was a “failure” and suggested that the state may need to start over entirely. Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) acknowledged that California’s cannabis taxes are punitively high and are responsible for pushing consumers back into the dangerous illicit market. These comments represent clear and unambiguous admissions, from the highest levels of state government, that the system is not working. The cumulative effect of these failures has been devastating. Hundreds of municipalities in California still prohibit legal cannabis businesses, understandably citing the visible failure of the legal market across much of the rest of the state as justification. Licensed dispensaries continue to compete with unlicensed storefronts that operate in the open, in part because state and local authorities lack a coherent enforcement strategy. Consumers face high prices, limited access, questionable testing integrity and a regulatory environment that provides little confidence that legal products are meaningfully safer or more reliable than illicit alternatives. California’s failures have also rippled nationwide. Because California is by far the largest potential cannabis market in the United States, its chronic underperformance has suppressed the growth of the cannabis industry nationwide. If California’s legal cannabis market reached per-capita performance levels comparable to other states like Michigan or Montana, its annual legal sales would be more than three times higher—thirteen billion dollars, rather than the merely four billion dollars recorded today. The national implications are staggering. If the California market were functioning properly, the United States legal cannabis industry would now exceed forty billion dollars annually, rather than the roughly thirty-two billion dollars it currently generates, and would support one hundred thousand additional jobs in the cannabis industry. Instead of propelling the national industry forward, California has become a drag on national growth, an anchor weighing down an industry that should be expanding far more rapidly. These failures have also weakened the political case for cannabis legalization across the country. In red and purple states, policymakers regularly point to California’s regulatory chaos as evidence that legalization produces disorder, fuels illicit activity and overwhelms enforcement systems. California, once expected to be the national model for cannabis regulation, has become a cautionary example that opponents of reform invoke to slow progress elsewhere. DCC’s refusal to acknowledge these failures is not merely a bureaucratic flaw. It is a political one. For more than a decade, then-candidate and now-Governor Newsom has presented himself as a champion of cannabis reform and promised that California would build the most effective and equitable cannabis system in the world. By any honest assessment, these promises were never fulfilled. Under Newsom’s watch, legalization faltered, the illicit market expanded, local bans entrenched themselves and regulatory incoherence became the norm. The administration has consistently avoided acknowledging these failures, treating any admission of systemic breakdown as a political liability for Newsom’s future ambitions, rather than a logical prerequisite for urgently needed reform of California’s system. DCC’s insistence that the California market is “healthy” and “growing” reflects the governor’s unwillingness to admit that his cannabis legacy has been defined by unfulfilled promises and steadily worsening conditions. But Newsom is now a lame-duck governor, whose focus has clearly left California and drifted toward national politics. This creates an opening for Clint Kellum—that is, if he is willing to exercise independence in his new role—not too much to ask in a position that pays a $230,000 base salary ($300,000 in “total compensation” once the lavish benefits for California state executives are included). Unbeknownst to most taxpayers footing the bill, it turns out that “public service” in California pays quite well. Clint Kellum appointed new DCC Director by Governor Newsom@CAcannabisdept pic.twitter.com/OkdVwOuqFz — Hirsh Jain (@anandastrategy) November 27, 2025 A new DCC director cannot, on his own, revise tax structures, mandate local participation or rewrite Proposition 64. But Kellum can do something that has been conspicuously absent from the agency in recent years. He can speak honestly. Kellum can acknowledge the failures that occurred under his predecessor, describe the structural weaknesses the agency now faces, reject the “political spin” that suggests the California market is healthy and growing and commit to forthright, data-driven leadership going forward. He can echo what Ma and Bonta have already said: that California’s cannabis system has been a failure, that it has harmed market participants and consumers alike and that it requires immediate and comprehensive reform. Honesty, however, is not a responsibility that falls on regulators alone. For years, many California cannabis stakeholders—including operators, attorneys, consultants and even trade associations—declined to criticize DCC publicly, out of fear of retaliation or a desire to preserve professional relationships. Some spoke critically of DCC behind closed doors, while offering praise in public settings. That omission was not a neutral decision. It was an act of complicity. It insulated the agency from accountability, allowed dysfunction to deepen and contributed to the erosion of the legal market. A sustainable regulatory system cannot exist unless those subject to regulation are willing to criticize the regulator, even at the cost of maintaining personal relationships with powerful officials, which many “white collar” professionals are often loath to do. California’s cannabis industry now faces a choice. It can continue to treat regulators with a dishonest deference in public and frustration in private, a pattern that has helped produce the system that exists today. Or it can insist on transparency, accountability and integrity from an agency whose decisions affect billions of dollars and tens of thousands of livelihoods. DCC does not need perfection. It needs competence, candor and a willingness to confront the truth—lacking to date. Kellum’s tenure will succeed only if he recognizes that the agency he now leads cannot rebuild trust without acknowledging, clearly and without qualification, the depth of the failures that preceded him and his commitment to charting a new course. Moreover, whether the coming years become a period of recovery for the California cannabis market or simply a continuance of a “lost decade” of cannabis regulation will depend not only on Kellum’s choices, but also on the willingness of all industry stakeholders to be unafraid to publicly insist that California’s cannabis regulator finally rise to the level of the important task before it. However it unfolds in California, the entire country will be watching. Hirsh Jain is the CEO of Ananda Strategy, a cannabis-focused business advisory firm that works with many of California’s leading cannabis brands and retailers on matters ranging from competitive licensing, legislative strategy, regulatory intelligence, market expansion, and other corporate initiatives. The post New Top California Cannabis Regulator Appointed By Newsom Must Fix The Program’s Failures (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A public interest law firm representing a man who says federal law unconstitutionally infringed on his property rights has joined the chorus of voices urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case challenging a key underpinning of federal marijuana prohibition. In an amicus brief filed with the court on Wednesday, the Pacific Legal Foundation—representing Florida resident Michael Colosi—said their client’s property dispute “exemplifies” how the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been misinterpreted and misapplied, giving the federal government unsanctioned authority over intrastate commerce. In Colosi’s case, he was told by his local government that, in order to build a home on a specific property in Charlotte County, he needed to pay $200,000 development fee because a bird species known as the Florida scrub-jay could someday populate the area. That’s because the federal government classifies the species as “threatened.” “Colosi sued, alleging that the federal government has no authority to regulate an intrastate species without a direct connection to interstate commerce,” the brief says. “Colosi and Petitioners face the same dilemma: they are injured by federal regulation of activities the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate.” To that point, the Massachusetts-based marijuana businesses that are asking the Supreme Court to take their case similarly argue that federal law unconstitutionally prohibits intrastate cannabis activity, contravening the Commerce Clause. “Canna Provisions is not the first petitioner to ask this Court to clarify the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses’ scope, but its case presents a unique opportunity to temper wrongly decided past precedent and protect property rights,” the filing says. “Colosi’s effort to build a house was blocked by federal regulation because a threatened, intrastate species, the Florida scrub-jay, may nest on the land. When challenged as to the condition it placed on Colosi’s planned land use, the federal government used the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to justify its regulation of intrastate species with no aggregate impact on interstate commerce. Its argument is made possible by this Court’s acceptance of the rational basis test in its Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clause jurisprudence. Colosi is not the first, and will not be the last, landowner harmed by government overreach under unconstitutional federal laws.” “This Court should seize this chance to correct its Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clause precedents before federal overreach harms more people,” it says, adding that the policy dissonance “has broad negative impacts on property owners, local governments, and the liberty that the enumerated powers are meant to protect. This Court should grant the petition.” The filing highlights how the cannabis case, if taken up by the high court, could end up having broad implications beyond the marijuana issue specifically, depending on how the justices rule. The amicus brief was filed one day after The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, similarly implore justices to consider the case, Canna Provisions v. Bondi. The court scheduled a closed-door meeting for next month to consider addressing the issue. The powerhouse law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP last month submitted their petition for writ of certiorari from the court on behalf of their clients, and the Justice Department earlier this month declined the opportunity to file a brief for or against the case’s consideration by the justices. A lead attorney representing the petitioners recently told Marijuana Moment that he’s “hopeful”—albeit somewhat “nervous”—about the prospect of justices ultimately taking up the matter and deciding to address the key legal question about the constitutionality of federal cannabis prohibition. “Time is of the essence,” Josh Schiller said, noting the dramatic shift in public opinion and state laws governing cannabis. “We think that this is the right time for this case because of the need—the industry needs to get relief from federal oversight at the moment.” Before the conference was scheduled, the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity Foundation also submitted an amicus brief encouraging justices to take the case. A U.S. appeals court rejected the arguments of the state-legal cannabis companies the firm is representing in May. It was one the latest blows to the high-profile lawsuit following a lower court’s dismissal of the claims. But it’s widely understood that the plaintiffs’ legal team has long intended the matter to end up before the nine high court justices. Four justices must vote to accept the petition for cert in order for the court to take up the case. While it is not clear if SCOTUS will ultimately take the case, one sign that at least some on court might be interested in the appeal is a 2021 statement from Justice Clarence Thomas, issued as the court denied review of a separate dispute involving a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary. Thomas’s comments at the time seemed to suggest it’d be appropriate revisit the precedent-setting case, Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court narrowly determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation that took place wholly within California based on Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. The initial complaint in the current case, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argued that government’s ongoing prohibition on marijuana under the CSA was unconstitutional because Congress in recent decades had “dropped any assumption that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is necessary.” — 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. — At oral arguments on appeal late last year, David Boies told judges that under the Constitution, Congress can only regulate commercial activity within a state—in this case, around marijuana—if the failure to regulate that in-state activity “would substantially interfere [with] or undermine legitimate congressional regulation of interstate commerce.” Boies, chairman of the firm, has a long list of prior clients that includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and the plaintiffs in a case that led to the invalidation of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, among others. Judges, however, said they were “unpersuaded,” ruling in an opinion that “the CSA remains fully intact as to the regulation of the commercial activity involving marijuana for non-medical purposes, which is the activity in which the appellants, by their own account, are engaged.” The district court, meanwhile, said in the case that while there are “persuasive reasons for a reexamination” of the current scheduling of cannabis, its hands were effectively tied by past U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Raich. This comes in the background of a pending marijuana rescheduling decision from the Trump administration. President Donald Trump said in late August that he’d make a determination about moving cannabis to Schedule III of the CSA within weeks, but he’s yet to act. Meanwhile, last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear a separate case on the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana or other drugs from buying or possessing firearms. The Trump administration has argued that the policy “targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearm” and should be upheld. The post Supreme Court Should Hear Marijuana Case That Could Affect Other Issues, Man In Endangered Species Act Dispute Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is proposing to raise the quota for legal production of multiple psychedelics—including psilocybin, 5-MeO-DMT and methylone—for research purposes in 2026. In a notice published in the Federal Register on Friday, DEA said it is moving to boost the quotas for the psychedelics substances so researchers can study whether they could serve as “potential treatment of conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.” The proposed production goal for psilocybin rose from 30,000 grams this year to 40,000 grams in 206, while the psilocyn quota increased from 36,000 grams to 48,000 grams. DEA also evidently sees ample potential for research into lesser-known psychedelics as well. For example, it is proposing to nearly triple the quota for 5-MeO-DMT—from 11,000 grams this year to 30,000 grams in 2026. Just four years ago, in 2021, the agency only called for 35 grams of the psychedelic. That grew to 2,550 grams in 2022 and 11,000 grams the next year, where it’s stayed until this latest proposal. And for methylone, an MDMA-like compound, the increase is even more dramatic: In 2025, the agency set a goal of 5,200 grams, but in 2026 it wants 30,000 grams produced. Like 5-MeO-DMT, the production goal for methylone was minuscule four years ago, when DEA proposed the manufacturing of just 40 grams of the substance. The same quota was set in 2022 before increasing to 5,200 grams for each subsequent year until this latest proposal. Over recent years, DEA has generally ramped up production goals for marijuana and certain psychedelics as interest in their therapeutic potential has grown within the public and scientific community. The proposed 2026 quotas for cannabis, THC, ibogaine, MDMA, LSD and mescaline were not adjusted since last year, however. “These proposed 2026 quotas reflect the quantities that DEA believes are necessary to meet the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, lawful export requirements; and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks,” DEA said. The agency said that, in setting the quotas, it took into account several factors, including “projected demand for such class as indicated by procurement quotas,” information obtained by federal health agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and “other factors affecting medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs in the United States and lawful export requirements.” The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) requires the attorney general to set APQs for Schedule I and Schedule II drugs each year. Notably, that would mean marijuana would not be part of this annual research production list if President Donald Trump follows through on a campaign pledge to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA. DEA said in a notice last month, however, that the rescheduling process remains stalled, despite the head of agency’s prior commitment to senators that he would prioritize the issue if confirmed for the role. Also, earlier this month, a lawyer for DEA faced a grilling by a federal appeals court over delays in a request for a religious group to use the psychedelic ayahuasca in their practice—a complaint similar to one that marijuana reform advocates have vented over decades amid repeated efforts to end federal cannabis prohibition. Photo courtesy of Dick Culbert. The post DEA Moves To Boost Production Of Psychedelics To Explore Therapeutic Potential For PTSD And Depression appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A GOP congressional leader says he’s “cautiously optimistic” that President Donald Trump will move forward with marijuana rescheduling, arguing that it aligns with the administration’s “America first” agenda and states’ rights principles touted by Republicans. Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), the House chief deputy whip, also talked about his support for medical marijuana, which he said “serves as an alternative to highly addictive opioids,” including for military veterans who return home with severe pain or other health conditions. The congressman made the remarks on Sunday at IgniteIt’s Cannabis Capital & Policy Summit, where Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) was also a featured speaker. Cresco Labs CEO Charlie Bachtel, who led the conversation with Reschenthaler, asked to get the lawmaker’s take on the prospects of federally rescheduling cannabis under the Trump administration. The president endorsed the reform on the campaign trail and said in mid-August that he’d make a decision within weeks, but that hasn’t materialized yet. “We know the president is interested. He’s made some comments, and if you look at the president’s track record, he has a habit taking what seems like very complex issues—controversial issues—distilling it, getting behind it and then moving forward,” Reschenthaler said, pointing to Trump’s role in relocating the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “When it comes to rescheduling, I think I’m cautiously optimistic with the administration, and as soon as he gets behind it and does it, I think everything’s going to fall into place,” he said. “Ultimately the DEA has the statutory authority to do it, and again I feel cautiously optimistic we’re going to see something on that.” Part of that optimism comes from the fact that “parties are shifting just in general” on the issue, with more GOP buy-in for reform, the congressman said. “I mean, the bases are so different than what they were 10 years ago—so just a totally different political landscape. But there’s a lot of reasons why it’s become an issue on the right,” he said. “I think if we look at what happened to global war on terror, a lot of people coming coming back [are] being helped by medical cannabis and other forms of treatment.” That includes Reschenthaler’s colleague, Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), who’s been candid about his experience receiving psychedelic therapy that helped him recover from serious brain injuries he incurred in combat as a Navy SEAL. The point of providing access to medical cannabis is “making sure that veterans get care,” Reschenthaler said. “You also then have the opioid epidemic, where we have an alternative that is not physically addictive [like] opioids.” “Then you have just the states’ rights position of the Republican party, where it should be up to the states to decide, so I hear a lot of congressmen who may not be supportive of [marijuana reform], but they think that this is really a state issue. The federal government shouldn’t be involved.” He said that’s why Congress should move forward and advance incremental policy changes, including a bipartisan bill he’s previously sponsored to let U.S. cannabis businesses get listed on stock exchanges at a time when Canadian companies are already able to be listed. “It’s technically offensive that you can have Canadian companies that are involved in the same exact business activities as American companies that are traded on our stock exchanges,” Reschenthaler said. Another measure he said is ripe for passage is one that would provide cannabis businesses access to the banking system and other basic financial services. The congressman said, “If you’re engaged in lawful activity, you should be able to have the same access to capital and the same access to banks as of any other business.” “For all those reasons, I’m feeling we’re turning the corner—and I think it’s very important that you just keep the [issue] bipartisan,” he said, as first noted by Ignite It. The conversation touched on a variety of marijuana policy topics, and Reschenthaler repeatedly noted his support for providing access to medical cannabis for people with certain health conditions. “The more we can say, when it comes to medical cannabis, that there’s an alternative to highly addictive opioids, I think that’s going to help too,” he said. “And I think one of the pathways through the veteran community.” Commenting on the omission of provisions to expand that marijuana access for veterans in a spending bill Trump signed this month, Reschenthaler said he’s “not happy that that fell out of the discussion.” “We were looking at the [continuing resolution] moving that forward,” he said, adding that there’s “a lot of sausage-making” and, while it may be too late to put the medical cannabis language into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this year, “I think that there’s a way forward.” “It’s already been moving and very close to being finished, but we might be able to do it on an appropriations bill. That might be possible. We might be able to take another bite in a minibus appropriations package as well moving forward,” the congressman said. “So there’s other ways we can do this.” He also advised cannabis proponents to try and convince the House Freedom Caucus to get on board with reform—without mentioning the fact that one of the chamber’s most anti-marijuana lawmakers, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), chairs that caucus. Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images. The post GOP Congressional Leader Is ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ Trump Will Reschedule Marijuana—Which He Says Is ‘An Alternative To Highly Addictive Opioids’ appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

A top conservative think tank says the federal government needs to step up and create a national standard for marijuana product labeling in legal states in a way that’s consistent with tobacco—even as cannabis remains federally prohibited. In a new report, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) called out the “regulatory free-for-all” for marijuana labeling that’s resulted from the patchwork of state laws amid the federal government’s inability to adopt regulations. “The absence of federal policy means there is no standard nationwide package warning for cannabis products as there is for tobacco,” it says. Some legal states might require warning labels with information about potential harms of marijuana use, but the inconsistency warrants national-level guidance, Howard Husock, senior fellow in domestic policy studies at AEI, said. “In this regulatory free-for-all, it would make sense for some federal entity to suggest standardized warning labels and graphics.” The report says that, although the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has identified 12 potential health issues related to marijuana use, no states that have legalized cannabis “cite all those concerns.” California and Nevada require labels to include information about seven out of 12, and nine states “merely note that the products should be kept away from children and avoided by pregnant women.” “The relatively rapid move at the state level toward cannabis legalization has occurred despite cannabis’s continued federal classification as a drug whose dangers put it formally on a par with heroin,” AEI said, referring to marijuana’s Schedule I status. “It is akin to allowing states to set their own alcohol policies during Prohibition.” “The result is a hodgepodge of warnings and public health education programs that can alert consumers to the fact that cannabis is far from a risk-free product,” the report says, adding that it would “make sense” in this regulatory environment for a “federal entity” such as a the surgeon general, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) or Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to recommended “standardized warning labels and graphics.” “It is one thing to legalize the use of cannabis but another to acquiesce to its use. Responsible governments should use their authority to discourage cannabis use and minimize the harm that impairment can inflict on individual users, their families, and the general public,” AEI said. The report comes about a year after the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) under NIH awarded researchers a $2.9 million grant to study how to improve the efficacy of cannabis warning labels—a project involving interviews with state regulators and online experiments designed to develop and implement “more effective warning labels that inform people about the risks associated with cannabis use.” In 2023, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) urged states where marijuana is legal to include warning labels on cannabis products that caution against driving while under the influence. The board noted that federal prohibition is a barrier to nationalizing such consumer education to mitigate public safety risks, recognizing at the time that several legal states already require such labeling, but others don’t. Also last year, a coalition of marijuana reform organizations called on regulators across the world to adopt a universal symbol for marijuana products in the interest of promoting safety in the evolving cannabis market and making it easier to facilitate interstate commerce if states choose to enact that policy. The groups said in a letter to regulators that there should at least be uniformity in labeling so that people know what products contain cannabis no matter where they’re shopping. The International Intoxicating Cannabinoid Product Symbol (IICPS)—a yellow triangle with an image of a cannabis leaf and black border—has already been adopted by Montana, New Jersey, South Dakota and Vermont, while other states like Alaska are also considering it. Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), which played a leading role in developing the symbol and is spearheading the campaign for its universal adoption, said in a press release at the time its goal was “communicating a simple public health message,” which is: “Caution with cannabis.” David Nathan, founder and president of DFCR, also criticized New York regulators in an op-ed for Marijuana Moment after the state moved forward with a more complex, individualized label for cannabis products despite being encouraged to follow the lead of other states and adopt the universal symbol. The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM)—which in 2023 adopted national standards for cannabis packaging, labeling and storage—has considered adopting guidance calling for a universal label on marijuana products. But last year it opted to forego that plan because members were concerned that the body, which focuses primarily on scientific measurement, lacked the necessary health expertise to craft an appropriate label. The post Leading Conservative Think Tank Calls For Federal Marijuana Labeling Standards Despite Prohibition appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Senate report warns DC about marijuana; Dem lawmakers’ hemp plan; Top FL Dem says state will legalize in 2026; SCOTUS cannabis brief Subscribe to receive Marijuana Moment’s newsletter in your inbox every weekday morning. It’s the best way to make sure you know which cannabis stories are shaping the day. Get our daily newsletter. Email address: Leave this field empty if you're human: Your support makes Marijuana Moment possible… Hold on, just one second before you read today’s news. Have you thought about giving some financial support to Marijuana Moment? If so, today would be a great day to contribute. We’re planning our reporting for the coming months and it would really help to know what kind of support we can count on. Check us out on Patreon and sign up to give $25/month today: https://www.patreon.com/marijuanamoment / TOP THINGS TO KNOW The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is preparing to provide coverage for CBD in line with a proposed rule change set to be published in the Federal Register on Friday—and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently discussed the policy with the head of an organization that President Donald Trump promoted a cannabis video from. Senate Appropriations Committee Republicans released a bill that would continue blocking Washington, D.C. from legalizing recreational cannabis sales and a report warning the District that “marijuana remains illegal under Federal law, which includes enhanced penalties” for sales near schools. Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tina Smith (D-MN), alongside Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), discussed plans to reverse the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products before it takes effect—with Omar saying House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) is “amenable” to the idea. Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried told Marijuana Moment that a new federal ban on hemp THC products is why people “hate government”—and predicted that voters in her state will legalize cannabis on the ballot next year. The Cato Institute filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a lawsuit from marijuana businesses that are challenging the constitutionality of federal prohibition—saying it touches on whether “Congress may wield a near-boundless commerce power to criminalize activity that is lawful under state law and confined within a state’s borders.” FundCanna CEO Adam Stettner argues in a new Marijuana Moment op-ed that recriminalizing hemp THC products was an “incredibly shortsighted” move that will “put consumers at risk, rob municipalities and states from taxable revenue and ultimately hurt farmers nationwide.” The Michigan Court of Claims held a hearing on a marijuana industry lawsuit challenging the state’s newly approved cannabis tax increase. / FEDERAL Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. again spoke about wanting to see dinosaurs while taking LSD as a teenager. The Drug Enforcement Administration promoted a podcast about culturally tailored drug prevention programs. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) defended his effort to recriminalize hemp THC products, saying it is aimed at “rooting out the bad actors and protecting the growing hemp industry.” Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) tweeted, “Reschedule Marijuana = Win the Midterms.” / STATES A Missouri court ruled that counties can collect taxes from marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated areas but not from those within municipal boundaries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit revived lawsuits challenging Rhode Island regulators’ marijuana social equity business licensing system. California announced a recall of marijuana products due to packaging and labeling that is attractive to children. Colorado regulators announced a recall of marijuana products with pesticides above acceptable limits. Oklahoma regulators announced a recall of medical cannabis products that failed microbial testing. Oregon regulators filed changes to rules about communications with marijuana businesses. A former Massachusetts marijuana regulator coauthored a journal article titled, “Same Story, Different Seller: Teaching the Public How Cannabis Models Driven by Profit Create the Same Injustices as Prohibition.” Washington, D.C. officials shut down more unlicensed marijuana businesses. The Minnesota Board of Marriage and Family Therapy heard a report on cannabis issues. — Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. — / LOCAL New York City’s mayor-elect joked about looking like he ate a cannabis edible on his flight to meet President Donald Trump at the White House. Evanston, Illinois officials are seeing fewer cannabis revenues to support the city’s reparations program than expected. / INTERNATIONAL The Canadian federal government and provinces have generated more than C$5.4 billion in marijuana tax since legalization in late 2018. / SCIENCE & HEALTH A study “confirms the effectiveness and good tolerability of CBD in a real-world [developmental and epileptic encephalopathies] population, including off-label use.” A review concluded that “psilocybin seems to reset Default Mode Network (DMN) activity, thereby reducing depressive symptoms with long-term and sustainable antidepressant efficacy.” / ADVOCACY, OPINION & ANALYSIS The Journal Gazette editorial board is calling on Indiana lawmakers to take up medical cannabis legislation in 2026. / BUSINESS Tilray Brands, Inc. implemented a one-for-ten reverse stock split. 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 Feds plan to cover CBD under Medicare (Newsletter: November 28, 2025) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Great to see such diverse voices in cannabis advocacy! The variety of perspectives from business leaders to activists really enriches the conversation. I've been exploring different platforms lately and stumbled upon Suika Game - it's surprisingly relaxing after intense business content like this. The merge mechanics are oddly satisfying when you need a mental break from heavy industry discussions.

Erica Fuller has been an active Grassroots Member since February 2018 and has attended over 37 Tokeativity events. As the Founder of Fuller Strategies, a Political Consulting Firm, she is dedicated to being a major dot connector in Oregon and beyond. Erica is running for the Centennial School Board At-large Director Position 6. If you live in the Centennial district in Gresham, OR, please vote for her on 5/18! And don’t forget to take a break and play Slope for some fun!

The levels in Wacky Flip are quick but exciting. You’ll flip over hills, bounce off platforms, and aim for perfect landings. It’s fast-paced fun that keeps you focused.

Wacky Flip has a variety of missions that keep the action exciting and interesting, including survival runs, trick goals, score challenges, and daily duties. These exciting obstacles turn every single session into a different experience, which in turn encourages players of every level to flip, progress, and enjoy themselves.

“What this will do is put consumers at risk, rob municipalities and states from taxable revenue and ultimately hurt farmers nationwide.” By Adam Stettner, FundCanna Congress just did something incredibly shortsighted. They slipped a massive policy change into a budget deal and erroneously called it “public safety.” If the change holds, it will wipe out a $28+ billion market, kill roughly 300,000 jobs and erase one of the best functioning national pathways we currently have toward safe, sensible cannabis reform and regulation. A great example of government burning down a house to kill a spider. This isn’t policymaking. It is an example of underhanded politics being used to reverse the 2018 Farm Bill and kill an industry without the courage to address it head-on. The Straw Man: “Unregulated hemp is dangerous, so we need a blanket ban.” Proponents of the change argued that hemp-derived intoxicants like Delta-8 THC are a public health threat. That they’re sold to kids. That they’re untested. That they slipped through a loophole in the 2018 Farm Bill. While there are some elements of truth in their arguments, this isn’t representative of the whole truth. In short, that narrative is written to support blanket prohibition. Every industry has bad actors, companies and people that game the system. Instead of destroying an entire industry to rid yourself of the bad actors, you analyze the problem, determine the underlying issue and use logic and the law to create, regulate and enforce structure. That is not what Congress did. Leading this charge is Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who appears to be trying to clean up what he sees as a legislative mess he authored. Back in 2018, he championed the Farm Bill that legalized hemp. Today, he argues that this law unintentionally unleashed an unregulated floodgate of what he calls “gas station cannabis” and that the only solution is to shut down the entire industry. The correct solution? A framework that includes max potency, lab testing, package size, distribution guidelines, age gating and the structure to enforce the above. All of which would address the buzzword concerns about “gas station hemp” and danger to kids. In short, I am supportive of regulation. This isn’t regulation. It’s eradication. The Reality: This is a Legal, Licensed, Thriving, Job-Creating Industry The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp. That law was written, passed and signed by Congress and President Donald Trump, who himself has since endorsed the benefits of CBD and cannabinoids and affirmed that cannabis policy should be left to the states. In the years since, an entire market has grown around hemp-derived cannabinoids. Manufacturers, retailers and financial partners have invested hundreds of millions in building compliant, taxpaying, job-creating businesses. Cannabis entrepreneurs have built legitimate, highly regulated businesses that now employ hundreds of thousands of Americans. Their success depends not on speculation but on sustainable business models, sound financial management and steady access to capital—the same fundamentals that drive growth in any emerging industry. The new provisions prohibit products with more than 0.4mg of THC per container. If upheld, that would eliminate 95 percent of the hemp-derived market, according to industry estimates. And it would do so without a single hearing or public comment period—driving an industry begging for regulation underground. What this will do is put consumers at risk, rob municipalities and states from taxable revenue and ultimately hurt farmers nationwide. It will drive cultivation, production and manufacturing to the black market like it has done with every other instance of prohibition or haphazard legal structure. One just has to look at the state legal cannabis market still operating under federal prohibition to see a legal market that has grown to $35 billion but at the same time, fueled an illicit market that is estimated to be north of $100 billion. Prohibition does not work. Half-baked structures and scattershot laws without clear framework, understanding of basic economic principals and lacking regulation/enforcement do not work. “This Is Just the Beginning”? Let’s Not Invent Ghosts Some in the broader cannabis industry fear this is a stalking horse for future attacks on legal THC. That paranoia is understandable, but wrong. This is not part of a coordinated federal crackdown. It’s a misguided, last-minute attempt to solve a real consumer safety concern using the wrong tool. The cannabis industry’s maturity will be defined by its ability to differentiate good policy from bad process. This is the latter. Every part of the plant, no matter the label, needs logic, science back education, data, debate and reasonable and thoughtful regulation. Want Safety? Regulate, Don’t Annihilate Intoxicating products should be tested, sales should be restricted to adults, packaging and potency should be clearly labeled. That’s called regulation. We regulate alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. We regulate thousands of other industries. What we do not do is ban entire industries through fine print in budget bills. If Congress wants to fix the flaws in the Farm Bill, then hold hearings. Invite scientists. Ask the Food and Drug Administration to lead. Bring industry leaders to the table. What we don’t need is a stealth policy reversal that’s shoe-horned into a spending bill with no public debate. Over decades, prohibition brought us figures like Al Capone and El Chapo, and created drug trafficking from all corners of the world. It leads to crime, money laundering, lost lives—and is all unnecessary. What will prohibition create in this instance? One can only imagine. Despite scientifically being more dangerous than cannabis, regulated alcohol and tobacco industries today employ millions, generate billions in sales and most critically, offer consumers safer, standardized products through proper oversight. Yet we continue to vilify and prohibit rather than regulate. The Financial Consequences Are Real Ban hemp, and you don’t just eliminate “gas station” hemp. You kill an entire industry, even the good parts. You eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. You wipe out tax revenues federally and at the state and municipal level. You remove $30 billion from the economy instantly and push that money to illicit channels instead. You deliver the product you have outlawed directly into the hands of children and those you claim you want to protect. Removing jobs and the opportunity for regulation, oversight, safer product and age gating in the process. Banning the industry doesn’t protect consumers, rather it punishes law abiding, responsible business owners who are open to regulation and oversight. The cannabis sector doesn’t want a free pass, but it deserves fair and responsible regulation. That begins with policymaking that is deliberate, transparent and informed by the people doing the work on the ground. Congress, your actions have created a problem that is much larger than the problem you sought to fix. If you want to keep our children safe and support our farmers and industry, do it the right way by regulating with logic. There is a way to have it all, this isn’t it. Adam Stettner, CEO of FundCanna, has has overseen more than $20 billion in lending across underserved markets. Photo courtesy of Max Jackson. The post Hemp Isn’t A Loophole—It’s A Legal Industry, And It’s Under Attack (Op-Ed) appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

The chair of the Florida Democratic Party, Nikki Fried, says the looming federal hemp ban that was tucked into a spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law this month is precisely why people “hate government”—with a multi-billion-dollar industry now in jeopardy just years after the crop was federally legalized. And she believes lawmakers will have “no choice” but to come back and “fix this” as the cannabis business communities rallies for a reversal. Fried, who previously served as Florida’s agriculture commissioner and helped foster the state’s then-nascent hemp market, told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview that small farmers and businesses immediately began reaching out to her after the appropriations measure was enacted, expressing confusion, fear and “anger across the board” over provisions banning consumable hemp products that are currently set to take effect next November. “It is gut wrenching,” she said, describing stories of people who “put their entire life savings into these small businesses” and “finally started to see positive revenue” before Congress abruptly took the step of rolling back federal hemp laws amid concerns about unregulated intoxicating cannabinoid products. “This is why people hate government. These are people’s livelihoods,” the state party chair said. “And in the middle of the night, to see people making votes on an issue that they have zero understanding and zero knowledge on come in and ban an entire industry, picking winners and losers, is what turns people off—regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on.” Fried, who as Florida’s agriculture commissioner sued the Biden administration over a federal law blocking medical cannabis patients from having firearms, has been closely monitoring marijuana and hemp policy issues at the federal and state level for years. That includes another effort in her state to put adult-use cannabis legalization on the ballot—which she believes will prevail even if Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) tries to “play games” and prevent it from going to voters next year. At the federal level, while Fried is frustrated to see the hemp ban move forward, she thinks the marijuana rescheduling proposal awaiting action by the president—who endorsed the policy change on the campaign trail—still has a chance of being implemented. “I hope that he follows through on that promise and that there are enough people in his ears that are telling him that the polling is showing the American people are in support of not only decriminalizing, but completely descheduling” marijuana, she said. Marijuana Moment spoke with Fried about the potential impact of the federal hemp ban, Trump administration cannabis policy issues and more. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Marijuana Moment: As you know, the president signed a spending bill with controversial provisions that would ban most consumable hemp products starting next year. What are you hearing from the cannabis business community about how this will impact them? Nikki Fried: The small business owners, our smaller farmers, have been reaching out to me since they woke up and saw that this [becoming law]. It’s gut-wrenching stories of people who have finally started to see positive revenue, that put their entire life savings into these small businesses—mom and pop stores, small farmers—and they’re scared. They’re scared that their entire life savings and their entire opportunities in this industry are going to be gone. There’s a lot of confusion. There’s a lot of questions and a lot of anger across the board from from people that I’ve interacted with here in Florida and across the country. In the middle of the night, [Congress] passed a piece of legislation that banned something that’s going to impact jobs, the economy, small businesses, farms and regulatory standards that we’ve all been operating under since 2018. There’s a lot of fear and frustration. MM: With the one-year implementation delay build into the hemp language, stakeholders are hoping to see Congress change course and enact a regulatory framework for cannabinoid products, rather than an outright ban. Are you hopeful lawmakers will heed that call? Nikki Fried: They will have no choice. They made a colossal mistake, killing an entire industry that has benefited farmers growing alternative crops and small businesses. The industry has finally gotten to a point where the consumers are used to looking for products, patients that have gotten off of opioids and other pharmaceutical drugs using hemp-derived products as an alternative for our seniors—including my grandmother who used to take some gummies before she played poker—and to veterans who don’t want to be on the medical marijuana registries across our country that are using these products. [Lawmakers are] going to hear from their constituents, and they’re going to hear anger. They’re going to be frustrated with government when you are talking about 400,000+ jobs and a $50 billion industry. And that’s just the core industry. That’s not all of the other support mechanisms, from trade shows to processing plants to testing labs. There’s going to be a lot of frustrated people, and they’re going to have their day with their elected representatives, and they’re going to have no choice but to come in and fix this. This will have such a drastic impact on communities. They’re going to have to come in and they’re going to have to fix this. Yea, y’all f**ked up real bad here. Farmers, small businesses, veterans, seniors, 400k plus jobs, local economy, interstate commerce, law enforcement, banking … all impacted. what are you guys doing up there!?! This is why people hate government. https://t.co/NCxSkVIFwt — Nikki Fried (@NikkiFried) November 17, 2025 MM: If Congress doesn’t act, do you anticipate that more states like Florida will independently work to develop regulatory hemp policies that allow these businesses to continue and operate within their borders? Nikki Fried: I think that’s one of the big things that we’re going to have to deal with, is that we’re going to go look into a state-by-state regulatory program. Look at what’s happened in the marijuana space. You still have issues with banking, tax reforms, interstate commerce. And so while each state is going to figure out whether or not they want to come into the space and regulate it, there is going to be a problem with interstate commerce that these companies are not going to be able to figure out how to get around. I think that the industry as a whole always understood that more regulations were necessary. I came into this space in 2019 wanting to create a program with checks and balances, creating an environment where entrepreneurs can grow their businesses, farmers can use this as an alternative crop—but at the end day, we have to make sure it’s still safe for consumers. That’s increasing of testing standards, QR codes, age restrictions, pesticide [restrictions]. all of that has to be regulated. There is a way if people can put aside the special interests that play in this arena, from alcohol to tobacco to pharma to the multi-state operators. [Consumers are] demanding alternatives to Big Pharma. They’re demanding alternatives to alcohol—to some of the the consumer friendly products—and the states are going to have to figure out where they go from here. But at the end of the day, this is a big step backwards, and they’re going to find very quickly that this was not the right call. MM: The president said in August that the administration would make a decision on federal marijuana rescheduling within weeks. Three months later, there’s still no update. Trump endorsed rescheduling while campaigning for his second term—do you think he’ll follow through? Nikki Fried: The one thing I do know to be true is that President Trump relies a lot on polling, and the American people are tired of this prohibition. They’re tired of lawmakers coming in who have zero understanding of the impacts of the cannabis industry—the economic impacts, the healthcare impacts and making laws based on lobbyists and financial resources that have been provided to those elected. Trump is no different. When he looks at the polling that the American people are wanting [cannabis] not only rescheduled, but more importantly descheduled to allow for this industry to grow and to eliminate a lot of the barriers that have been put in front of so many in the industry. Again, whether it’s banking, whether it’s insurance, whether it’s 280E or interstate commerce, the regulatory framework doesn’t work. I’m obviously not in President Trump’s ears like I was in the previous administration that first made the decision to move to rescheduling, but I’m hopeful that he’s hearing from small businesses, that he’s hearing from farmers, that he’s hearing from veterans who are using this as alternatives to the pharmaceuticals that they were being prescribed at the VA and that they start moving on this. This is way too long. The people of this nation are tired of this fight, and it’s time to end prohibition. MM: Some have suggested that GOP lawmakers effectively “forced” Trump to approve the hemp ban by inserting it into a major spending bill, despite the White House saying he supported the re-criminalization provisions. In your estimation, is the president on the hemp industry’s side on this issue? Nikki Fried: I do believe that the hemp industry is organized. They have a couple of trade associations—and, from my conversations with the industry, they are planning on a full-court press not only to Trump and his inner circles, but also to, obviously, Congress. I don’t know what side he’s on. I’m always hopeful that he’s on the side of the American people. I can’t always be a predictor of that one, but I do hope that he is seeing and will be hearing from enough of these stories that I’ve been hearing—from the small business owners, the small farmers, the veterans, the seniors who are now grappling with how they’re going to get their medicine, because they view it as medicine to them. You know, I don’t know whose side he’s on, but I certainly hope that he’s on the side of enough is enough. MM: A Florida campaign behind another marijuana legalization initiative is moving through the process to get on the ballot. Do you expect the measure to qualify? And if it does, do you think it will have enough support from voters to pass next November? Nikki Fried: I do see it getting onto the ballot. I think Ron DeSantis is doing his last attempt to play politics and to play games to keep it off the ballot, and trying to use maneuvers that are not legal and not constitutional. So he’s going to lose in the court, and then this will have an opportunity to get back in front of the Florida Supreme Court with very similar language that they approved last time with some cleanups. I do believe that it will get on to the ballot in 2026 and the language that they have changed to should quell any of the propaganda that was used to take it down the first time. The fact that 56 percent voted for this the first time, with $50 million dollars of taxpayer-funded propaganda spent to take it down, DeSantis won’t have that luxury of taxpayer dollars the next round. And so I believe that the campaign will be able to get across the finish line in 2026. MM: What do you make of the increased tension within the cannabis sector over the federal and state hemp policy issues, with certain marijuana stakeholders aligned with prohibitionists in their support for hemp re-criminalization? Nikki Fried: There is a way for both the hemp side and the [multi-state operator] side to be able to come together. Everybody has to put on their big girl and boy pants, realize that there is a large enough market—that there is an upside benefit of full legalization of this plant—and it’s going to take industry leaders to come together and try to propose a full regulatory program that takes care of those that have decided to go towards the hemp space and those that are staying in the traditional marijuana space until which time that better angels prevail on both sides and they recognize that everybody has an opportunity to move this ball forward. But we got to do it together. You’re going to continue to see this tension. It’s people’s bottom lines. It’s their families and businesses, and people take this personally so we need to get the industry leaders together to put aside their egos, to put aside their financial windfalls and to start recognizing that there’s a way to do it—but we’ve got to do it together. MM: Any closing thoughts on the consequence of this dramatic development in federal hemp laws? Nikki Fried: This is why people hate government. These are people’s livelihoods that they have invested all of their life savings in. This is their kids’ college funds. This is retirement funds. And in the middle of the night, to see people making votes on an issue that they have zero understanding and zero knowledge on—to just come in and ban an entire industry and picking winners and losers—is what turns people off, regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on. You saw the Republicans voting one way. You saw a whole bunch of Democrats voting that way too. And so this isn’t a partisan fight on this issue. This is bad government. The post Florida Democratic Party Chair Slams Congress Over Federal Hemp Ban, Saying Her State Will Legalize Marijuana Next Year appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Frequent goes to here i will discuss the obvious way to appreciate it on your attempt, which often is why Now i am viewing the internet site day-to-day, in search of completely new, useful facts. Quite a few, many thanks! slot demo Certainly great, remarkable, fact-filled tips these. Ones own content articles Be required to fail, thinking that obviously is true these on top of that. One normally generate an intriguing browse. On earth do you enlighten So i'm shocked?: )#) Compete the great articles and reviews. top ppc agency I had most recently initiated a fabulous web page, the details you will provide you with here comes with really helped others really. Regards just for all of the effort & succeed. slot gacor Helpful — I valued the transparency on player complaint resolution timelines. Quick, fair resolution processes prevent toxic situations from escalating. Real votes showed which teams are responsive. togel 4d Excellent roundup — I appreciated the filter for low-population but active servers. Smaller communities often offer friendlier vibes and cooperation. Real player rankings showed which small servers thrive. แทงมวย one Excellent list — the server comparison tools simplified my decision. Side-by-side stats like drop rates and population were priceless. Real votes added the final confirmation. วัวชน168 Certainly great, remarkable, fact-filled tips these. Ones own content articles Be required to fail, thinking that obviously is true these on top of that. One normally generate an intriguing browse. On earth do you enlighten So i'm shocked?: )#) Compete the great articles and reviews. https://dokaichon.com Frequent goes to here i will discuss the obvious way to appreciate it on your attempt, which often is why Now i am viewing the internet site day-to-day, in search of completely new, useful facts. Quite a few, many thanks! slot toto

Positive site, where did u come up with the information on this posting? I'm pleased I discovered it though, ill be checking back soon to find out what additional posts you include. bandar togel

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. https://ls2011-mods.com

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. Slot Qris i read a lot of stuff and i found that the way of writing to clearifing that exactly want to say was very good so i am impressed and ilike to come again in future.. Fantasy book cover design This is very interesting content! I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your points and have come to the conclusion that you are right about many of them. You are great. 카드 현금화 Thanks for sharing the post.. parents are worlds best person in each lives of individual..they need or must succeed to sustain needs of the family. toto togel 4d Superbly written article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet would be a far better place.. prediksi macau hari ini toto togel 4d

Hey what a brilliant post I have come across and believe me I have been searching out for this similar kind of post for past a week and hardly came across this. Thank you very much and will look for more postings from you. toto togel

I hope that your story — if it becomes more widely known — will help reduce prejudice and open Retro Bowl 26 up a broader conversation about: postpartum women need to be understood, properly supported, and have many safe options, not simply “tough it out”.

Thanks for a very interesting blog. What else may I get that kind of info written in such a perfect approach? I’ve a undertaking that I am simply now operating on, and I have been at the look out for such info. Situs depo 10k thank you for your interesting infomation. board game artwork Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly comeback. 카드 현금화 Thank you very much for this great post. kiko toto This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is very nice one and gives indepth information. Thanks for this nice article. olxtoto olxtoto

assda

A federal health agency plans to soon authorize health insurance coverage for CBD under certain Medicare programs. The policy change is being circulated about a month after U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. met with the head of an organization behind a video President Donald Trump shared over the summer that touted the therapeutic potential of the cannabinoid. That video specifically called for Medicare coverage for seniors who want to use CBD as an alternative treatment. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under HHS is set to publish a notice in the Federal Register on Friday about a series of changes concerning “marketing and communications, drug coverage, enrollment processes, special needs plans, and other programmatic areas” for insurance programs it oversees. One of those changes deals with cannabidiol coverage. While CMS implemented an earlier 2026 final rule in April specifically stipulating that marijuana, as well as CBD that can be derived from federally legal hemp, are ineligible for coverage under its Medicare Advantage program and other services, the agency is now revising that policy. The proposed rule for 2027 would amend regulations, which currently state that any “cannabis products” cannot be covered. The new policy would prevent coverage for only “cannabis products that are illegal under applicable state or federal law, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” Since hemp and its derivatives like CBD are federally legal, the change suggests patients in states where such products are legal could make valid insurance claims to pay for the alternative treatment option, as long as the product is also federally legal. That said, recent changes to federal hemp law that are set to take effect next year—and a growing push from states to restrict the sale of consumable cannabinoids—could significantly limit the types of products patients could access. The way the law is written will permit such limited concentrations of THC that most growers and manufacturers say the idea of a CBD carve-out is infeasible. And for companies marketing such non-intoxicating products, that could spell doom—or at least force them to take on the significant added cost of extracting CBD isolates so as not to run afoul of the law. CMS said in the filing set to be published this week that “hemp and hemp-derived cannabis products that meet the current 2018 definition are not federally controlled substances through November 11th, 2026, and those that meet the amended definition beginning on November 12th, 2026, will remain not federally controlled substances as of that date.” “If such products comply with all other applicable federal laws, including any future changes to the definition of hemp and applicable provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), then they are not illegal under federal law,” it said. The revised language broadly discusses coverage eligibility for cannabis products legal at the state and federal level, but the agency also explicitly noted that the rule would allow Medicare Advantage provides to “offer hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder, and hemp seed oil” given that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already completed a review concluding that those materials are considered generally recognized as safe (GRAS). The CMS policy change around cannabidiol was detailed in a summary Bloomberg reviewed, with the news organization reporting that the document suggested an early version of the plan could focus on seniors in oncology and palliative care settings—though it’s unclear to what extent the report relates to the latest Federal Register notice, which it did not mention. But the proposed rule is also being released about a month after Kennedy—the HHS secretary who has previously endorsed providing access to cannabis and psychedelics for therapeutic purposes—met with Howard Kessler, CEO of the Commonwealth Project, to discuss the issue, according to Bloomberg. Kessler’s organization produced a video Trump promoted on Truth Social in late September that promoted the health benefits of cannabis—suggesting that covering CBD under Medicare would be “the most important senior health initiative of the century.” “It’s time to educate doctors on the endocannabinoid system, provide Medicare coverage for CBD and give millions of seniors the support they deserve,” it said. The video Trump posted also briefly featured a Fox News clip describing the economic benefits of medical marijuana legalization, saying that on an annual basis it would amount to cost savings of “$64 billion a year if cannabis is fully integrated into the healthcare system.” The Commonwealth Project was also a participant in since-stalled hearings on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration. It submitted a comment to the federal docket arguing that the “historic” proposal would provide for “greater, but not complete, certainty for seniors, researchers, and physicians to engage in research or pilot health care projects that examine the benefits and distribution of medical cannabis.” The post Federal Health Agency Moves To Allow CBD Coverage Under Medicare, As Promoted In Video Trump Posted appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

It’s amazing how music can instantly bring back the vibe of a specific moment, and each of these Tokeativity events had such a distinct energy. Platinum Promotions

A leading libertarian think tank is imploring the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case challenging the constitutionality of federal marijuana prohibition, arguing that the imposition of that policy on states that have enacted laws to regulate cannabis undermines a “foundational feature of our constitutional structure.” The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief with the court on Tuesday supporting the Massachusetts-based marijuana companies that are seeking to resolve the issue and get the court to reach a ruling that protects intrastate cannabis activity from federal intervention. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which currently lists marijuana as a Schedule I drug, “exemplifies how the federal government has all too often displaced the states as this country’s primary policymakers, aided in that effort by this Court’s modern Commerce Clause precedents,” the institute said. “Before 1970, states regulated and then criminalized marijuana use as an exercise of their police power,” it said. “But that year, Congress enacted the CSA to ban all marijuana commerce—interstate and intrastate alike.” The amicus brief was submitted to the court on the same day that justices scheduled a closed-door meeting for next month to discuss the case, Canna Provisions v. Bondi. “The time has come to correct course and restore the Constitution’s first principle of limited national power,” the Cato Institute said. “This case presents an ideal vehicle for that task. By extending federal criminal law to purely intrastate, state-licensed marijuana activity, the decision below collapses the distinction between national and state authority and erases structural limits that preserve federalism.” “In criminalizing the cultivation and possession of marijuana that never crosses a state border, the CSA regulates not commerce but agriculture, manufacturing, and consumption—matters reserved to the states,” it continues. “The commerce that the CSA regulates here isn’t interstate. In Massachusetts’s marijuana program, every gram of marijuana grown, processed, transported, and sold within the Commonwealth is tracked from seed to sale under comprehensive state law.” “This case squarely presents whether Congress may wield a near-boundless commerce power to criminalize activity that is lawful under state law and confined within a state’s borders. Allowing Congress to regulate purely local conduct under a theory of aggregated economic effects erases the distinction between national and state authority on which our federal system depends. It converts the Commerce Clause into a general police power, one the Framers deliberately withheld from the national government. Such an intrusion offends the Constitution’s structural guarantee of liberty and allows an unfettered Congress to regulate nearly all aspects of our lives.” The powerhouse law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP last month submitted their petition for writ of certiorari from the court on behalf of their clients, and the Justice Department earlier this month declined the opportunity to file a brief for or against the case’s consideration by the justices. A lead attorney representing the petitioners recently told Marijuana Moment that he’s “hopeful”—albeit somewhat “nervous”—about the prospect of justices ultimately taking up the matter and deciding to address the key legal question about the constitutionality of federal cannabis prohibition. “Time is of the essence,” Josh Schiller said, noting the dramatic shift in public opinion and state laws governing cannabis. “We think that this is the right time for this case because of the need—the industry needs to get relief from federal oversight at the moment.” Before the conference was scheduled, the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity Foundation also submitted an amicus brief encouraging justices to take the case. A U.S. appeals court rejected the arguments of the state-legal cannabis companies the firm is representing in May. It was one the latest blows to the high-profile lawsuit following a lower court’s dismissal of the claims. But it’s widely understood that the plaintiffs’ legal team has long intended the matter to end up before the nine high court justices. Four justices must vote to accept the petition for cert in order for the court to take up the case. While it is not clear if SCOTUS will ultimately take the case, one sign that at least some on court might be interested in the appeal is a 2021 statement from Justice Clarence Thomas, issued as the court denied review of a separate dispute involving a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary. Thomas’s comments at the time seemed to suggest it’d be appropriate revisit the precedent-setting case, Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court narrowly determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation that took place wholly within California based on Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. The initial complaint in the current case, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, argued that government’s ongoing prohibition on marijuana under the CSA was unconstitutional because Congress in recent decades had “dropped any assumption that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is necessary.” — 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. — At oral arguments on appeal late last year, David Boies told judges that under the Constitution, Congress can only regulate commercial activity within a state—in this case, around marijuana—if the failure to regulate that in-state activity “would substantially interfere [with] or undermine legitimate congressional regulation of interstate commerce.” Boies, chairman of the firm, has a long list of prior clients that includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and the plaintiffs in a case that led to the invalidation of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, among others. Judges, however, said they were “unpersuaded,” ruling in an opinion that “the CSA remains fully intact as to the regulation of the commercial activity involving marijuana for non-medical purposes, which is the activity in which the appellants, by their own account, are engaged.” The district court, meanwhile, said in the case that while there are “persuasive reasons for a reexamination” of the current scheduling of cannabis, its hands were effectively tied by past U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Raich. This comes in the background of a pending marijuana rescheduling decision from the Trump administration. President Donald Trump said in late August that he’d make a determination about moving cannabis to Schedule III of the CSA within weeks, but he’s yet to act. Meanwhile, last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear a separate case on the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana or other drugs from buying or possessing firearms. The Trump administration has argued that the policy “targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearm” and should be upheld. Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan. The post Libertarian Think Tank Urges Supreme Court To Hear Marijuana Case And Restore ‘Foundational’ Constitutional Principle appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

Minnesota congressional Democrats are committing to preventing the collapse of the hemp industry after lawmakers passed a now-signed spending bill banning the sale of most consumable THC products, stressing the need to “fix it” before recriminalization takes effect next year and laying out opportunities to achieve that. And according to one lawmaker, it’s not just Democrats who understand the urgency to prevent the outright ban. A key GOP leader in the House is also “amenable” to advancing an alternative policy solution, she said. At a press conference on Monday, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tina Smith (D-MN), along with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), addressed the pending hemp prohibition, which they said should be corrected by replacing that policy with a regulatory framework similar to what Minnesota has implemented at the state level to prevent youth access and ensure product safety for adults. Klobuchar, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, called this a “pivotal moment for many farmers, workers and small business owners who have built our state’s successful hemp industry.” The senator touted the fact that she helped secure language in appropriations legislation that provides grant funding for the University of Minnesota to explore novel ways to utilize hemp for industrial purposes such as construction materials and pet bedding. At the same time, however, she said consumables like cannabinoid-infused beverages represent a “critical” component of the state’s economy that’s “creating jobs” and should be protected from federal interference. “We are in a good position to try to do something to fix this,” she said. “That’s not easy to say in Washington right now, but we may have a Farm Bill that’s going to be coming through at some point. We’ll have other vehicles where we can do something to fix this.” Hemp was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term, with then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) leading the push to end criminalization of the crop at the time. But the senator has insisted that the policy change wasn’t intended to allow consumable products with THC, so he’s been determined to close what he describes as a “loophole” in the law. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) attempted to remove the hemp ban language from the spending bill Trump signed earlier this month, but a majority of members voted to table his amendment. Klobuchar and Smith were among those who voted against the motion to table. “This is about jobs. It’s about our small businesses. It’s about our breweries and our farmers. Hemp is actually an old crop with a strong history in our state,” Klobuchar said at Monday’s event. “A one-size-fits-all measure in Congress is the last thing we need right now.” “Yes, we must protect kids. That has been what a lot of my work as county attorney and since been about—protecting kids. And Minnesota has a regime that does it, including actually outlawing labeling that would be at all appealing to kids, including requiring labeling, including a 21-year [age] limit—and we can protect kids and we can support our small businesses at the same time. That’s what our state rules do. The hemp provisions in this government funding bill simply don’t strike the right balance.” “Every day we fail to address this is another day of uncertainty in a very uncertain time in our economy,” Klobuchar said. “I want our state small businesses and farmers to know that we have their back, and we will do everything we can in our power, in a very difficult Congress, to change this.” The members of the Minnesota congressional delegation who spoke at the press conference each emphasized the last-minute legislative tactics used to advance the hemp ban, with senators handed a massive spending package that included the cannabis provisions just one day before they were expected to decide on the legislation. ‘There was no hearing. There was no planning. People hadn’t heard from their constituents on this because of the way Sen. McConnell did it,” she said. “I don’t think anyone’s surprised that he would do something in this fashion, but that’s what caused, I believe, a lack of information about what this meant and what this did.” Industry stakeholders, advocates and lawmakers are stressing the urgency of the situation. While the hemp ban won’t take effect until one year after enactment, that still leaves little time in the congressional calendar to reverse course or create an alternative regulatory framework for products set to be banned. “Knowing that we have a short period of time, our job is to work with Sen. Paul and others—including some Republicans that may have voted one way, but are now hearing from their constituents, particularly in Midwest states—and see if we can come up with something that would either allow for state frameworks,” Klobuchar said. The senator also floated the idea of having the federal government adopt Minnesota’s regulations for hemp, or at the very least extending the timeline before implementation of the national ban to give stakeholders the opportunity to put forward legislative options for lawmakers to consider. “There are other Republicans that want to work with us on this, so that’s what’s in front of us,” the senator said, adding that she’s looking ahead toward the possibility of amending the enacted law through a “skinny” Farm Bill or other vehicles that touch on agriculture issues. “Right now, the key is to get people educated about how bad this is, and that’s where I’m not as worried about what our language is as I am about getting that kind of political support to get it done,” she said. Smith echoed many of her colleague’s points, pointing out that Minnesota was the first state to specifically legalize hemp-derived THC products and “did it in the right way, with clear guardrails and bipartisan support and a regulatory framework that is grounded in public health and consumer safety and in supporting small businesses.” “It’s working working here in Minnesota for farmers and producers and retailers and distributors, and is working for consumers who want safe, legal and clearly labeled and record well regulated products,” she said. To that point, even the national retailer Target recently started selling cannabis drinks at select locations in Minnesota as a pilot program. “This is what a responsible, growing Minnesota-made market looks like, but in a last-minute move, Republicans added a provision to the budget bills that pulled the rug out from underneath this growing market,” Smith said. The ban is “going to [create] a much, much more chaotic regulatory environment. It’s going to be impossible to develop national markets for Minnesota-made products, and it’s going to make banking for these businesses incredibly complicated and hard to organize.” “We need to fix this. This is something that we need to fix,” she said. “It is impossible to have this federal law in place barring Minnesota businesses for doing what they know how to do best.” There are issues with federal hemp law as it stands, the senator acknowledged, and for many who think about the consumable cannabinoid market, they associate it with potent intoxicating products being sold at gas stations without age-gating requirements or other regulations to ensure public safety. “It’s not uncommon in a new and growing industry that you’ve got a couple of bad actors that kind of screw things up for everyone,” the senator said. “And I think that some of the folks who voted [to table] the Paul amendment, who voted for this ban, were really thinking reasonably about those bad actors and what we need to do to dial that back and to protect kids.” “But so now we have a really important education job to help folks understand that you can have a safe and secure and responsible market that is good for businesses [and] good for consumers. That’s the job that we had ahead of us. And I’m very open-minded about what the solutions are, but I do think we need to bring some urgency to this because farmers right now are trying to figure out what they’re going to put in the ground come the spring.” Omar, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus in the House, said at the press conference that she was “grateful” that lawmakers were coming together to “raise the alarm and stand with the hemp small business industry in Minnesota.” A federal hemp ban will devastate thousands of hemp small businesses in Minnesota and nationwide. As Co-Chair of the Cannabis Caucus, I'm doing everything in my power to roll back this nonsensical and irresponsible provision. pic.twitter.com/Iy3jvHDb1t — Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) November 25, 2025 “At a last minute, without a single public hearing—without talking to people who are affected— small group of Washington insiders slipped a provision that would have catastrophic consequences for hemp small businesses in Minnesota and across this country,” she said. “This is unacceptable. Minnesota did everything right. Our state created one of the strongest, most responsible regulatory framework in the entire country. We implemented age limits to keep products out of kids hands, strict rules for retailers, high-quality testing, clean labeling and real accountability,” the congresswoman said. “Because of that hard work, Minnesota now has a vibrant and safe economy.” “A one-size-fits-all federal ban punishes our state for doing it the right way, while doing nothing to stop and regulate it or bad actors elsewhere,” Omar, who has been rallying lawmakers to get behind the push for a hemp ban correction, continued. “That is just unsensible policy, and it encapsulates everything wrong with the current GOP-controlled Congress.” “We can and we should regulate these products, but banning entirely everything nationwide is unacceptable… All this will do is kill good jobs, reduce consumer safety and choice and push people back into the unregulated—and sometimes dangerous—black markets. So here is what we must do: Congress needs to fix this, and it needs to fix it quickly. This should not be a zero sum game. We need a sensible federal framework—one that sets strong safety standards, protects kids and ensures product quality without dismantling a thriving industry that states like Minnesota worked so hard to build. We must get this way to protect small businesses, workers and consumers. I will be fighting alongside everyone here today and won’t give up until we roll back this harmful provision, because now is not the time for us to stop fighting and to give up.” Notably, while the group of congressional lawmakers at the press conference were all Democrats, Omar said her office has also reached out to Republican offices within the Minnesota delegation and she conveyed that House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) “understands just how much the industry is vital to the economy of Minnesota, so he’s much more amenable than the others.” “We continue to work with them, trying to make the impression that this is, as you’ve heard from the industry leaders, an economic issue for Minnesota,” she said. “This is about job creation. Is about a tax base. And it certainly has been something that—we don’t like to brag as Minnesotans, but it’s something that we certainly brag about getting it right. It is unfair for us to be punished for doing the right thing instead of being looked at as a model across the country.” Paul, meanwhile, said last week that he’ll soon file a bill to protect the hemp industry from the impending hemp ban. And he also called out alcohol and marijuana interests for allegedly “join[ing] forces” to lobby in favor of the prohibitionist policy change, which will restrict access to a plant and its derivatives that are often used therapeutically. The senator said the forthcoming legislation would make it so state policy regulating hemp cannabinoid products—with basic safeguards in place to prevent youth access, for example—”supersedes the federal law.” Meanwhile, Minnesota’s Democratic top prosecutor, Keith Ellison, was one of 39 state and territory counterparts who sent a letter to congressional leaders earlier this month that voiced support for the hemp provisions of the spending bill Trump signed. Ellison later defended his decision, in part by arguing that states with regulations in place for cannabinoid products like Minnesota should not have to worry about hemp entering their market from unregulated, out-of-state operators. On the other end of the debate, Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who helped secure the hemp re-criminalization language, said last week that he’s not concerned about attempts to undercut the enacted law, brushing off arguments about the possible consequences of the policy change as “desperate mistruths from an industry that stands to lose billions of dollars by selling intoxicants to children.” Overall, there’s been widespread outcry over the pending hemp re-criminalization law, drawing criticism from parents of cannabis patients, veterinarians and influencers like Joe Rogan, for example. In response to the hemp ban, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) filed bill that would strike the contested provisions of the appropriations legislation. But some stakeholders worry that approach could backfire, and they’re hoping to see bipartisan bills introduced in he near future that would provide a robust regulatory model for intoxicating hemp products as a viable alternative to blanket prohibition. Meanwhile, GOP political operative Roger Stone said this week that President Donald Trump was effectively “forced” by Republican lawmakers to sign the spending bill with the hemp THC ban language. However, a White House spokesperson said prior to the bill signing that Trump specifically supported the prohibition language. The Democratic governor of Kentucky said earlier this month that the hemp industry is an “important” part of the economy that deserves to be regulated at the state level—rather than federally prohibited, as Congress has moved to do. Also, a leading veterans organization is warning congressional leaders that the newly approved blanket ban on consumable hemp products could inadvertently “slam the door shut” on critical research. While many hemp stakeholders say the ban would effectively eradicate the industry–even applying to nonintoxicating CBD products that people use for medical reasons—there’s latent hope that they can strike a compromise deal with lawmakers before the prohibition is implemented this time next year. Lawmakers such as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) also say that window could provide an opportunity to advance legislation to create an alternative regulatory model for consumable hemp products. — 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. — Since 2018, cannabis products have been considered legal hemp if they contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis. The new legislation specifies that, within one year of enactment, the weight will apply to total THC—including delta-8 and other isomers. It will also include “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).” The new definition of legal hemp will additionally ban “any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products which are marketed or sold as a final product or directly to an end consumer for personal or household use” as well as products containing cannabinoids that are synthesized or manufactured outside of the cannabis plant or not capable of being naturally produced by it. Legal hemp products will be limited to a total of 0.4 milligrams per container of total THC or any other cannabinoids with similar effects. Within 90 days of the bill’s enactment, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies will need to publish list of “all cannabinoids known to FDA to be capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in peer reviewed literature,” “all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant” and “all other known cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids.” The language slightly differs from provisions included in legislation that had previously advanced out of the House and Senate Appropriations panels, which would have banned products containing any “quantifiable” amount of THC, to be determined by the HHS secretary and secretary of agriculture. The post Congressional Democratic Lawmakers Weigh Plans To Save Hemp Industry From Looming Federal Ban appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net

“As the leading cannabis trade association, we’re here in court fighting to protect the will of Michigan voters.” By Katherine Dailey, Michigan Advance The state’s new 24 percent tax on all cannabis products, which was passed as a part of the fiscal year 2026 budget package, came before the Michigan Court of Claims on Tuesday, with the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association arguing that the tax was unconstitutional. The hearing was held in Detroit on Tuesday morning. Since its passage, the tax has been criticized by many cannabis business owners and employees, who say that it will force small retailers out of business and boost the black market. The association is seeking an injunction to the new law, which is slated to go into effect on January 1, 2026, and is hoping that its lawsuit in Michigan Cannabis Industry Association v. Michigan will result in the tax being struck down. Specifically, the association argued that the new law seeks to change the language of the 2018 ballot proposal that legalized cannabis in the state, the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, which specifically included a 10 percent excise tax on all recreational marijuana purchases. The association said that because the new tax in the 2025 Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act was passed by only a simple majority vote, and not the supermajority required to amend the law put in place by the ballot initiative, the change bucked the tenets of the amendment. “As the leading cannabis trade association, we’re here in court fighting to protect the will of Michigan voters,” Rose Tantraphol, a spokesperson for the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association, said in a statement after the hearing. “Michigan voters made their voices heard loud and clear in 2018 when they passed a citizen ballot initiative legalizing cannabis, and this 24 percent wholesale tax was imposed in violation of provisions in the state’s constitution.” In a court filing responding to the complaint and request for a preliminary injunction, the Michigan Department of Attorney General, representing the state Legislature, argued that the new 24 percent is not an amendment to the original sales tax on marijuana products. “Given that the [marijuana tax act’s] excise tax is directed only at a retail transaction, the [road funding act’s] wholesale excise tax does not ‘revise, alter or amend’ the [marijuana tax act],” the filing said. It also notes that the 10 percent tax is imposed “in addition to all other taxes,” according to the law, and as such, it did not directly negate or change the initial law. The new tax was a crucial piece of the current fiscal year’s budget, and will be used to fund road repairs and new construction, a centerpiece of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s goals for her final full year in office. It passed on thin margins in the early morning hours on October 1 after a months-long budget fight. “There are limited public resources for the state and all the various decisions the state makes with the public fisc, including for Michigan’s infrastructure,” the state’s filing said. “That certain entities might have pecuniary interests that are impacted by legislation does not outweigh the public interests of Michigan’s 10-plus million citizens who travel, and should travel safely, on Michigan’s roads.” This story was first published by Michigan Advance. The post Michigan Court Hears Marijuana Industry Lawsuit Challenging New Tax Increase appeared first on Marijuana Moment. View the live link on MarijuanaMoment.net