What's new
  • ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

:::::::USA Set to Reschedule Cannabis::::::: HHS Releases Recommendation Documents:::::::

pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
full


www.marijuanamoment.net

Majority Of U.S. Likely Voters Back Legalizing Marijuana ‘In All 50 States,’ New Poll From GOP Research Firm Shows

A majority of American likely voters, including most Republicans under the age of 55, support legalizing marijuana “in all 50 states,” according to a new poll from a prominent GOP firm. The survey from the Tarrance Group found that 57 percent of respondents favor nationwide cannabis...
www.marijuanamoment.net www.marijuanamoment.net

“The results indicate that a generational shift on cannabis is well underway, and a bipartisan majority is rapidly emerging in favor of federal legalization,” Josh Glasstetter, a spokesperson for the U.S. Cannabis Council (USCC), told Marijuana Moment.

“Younger voters will be highly sought-after in this year’s election, and they strongly support legalization,” he said. “Candidates should take note.”
 
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
www.marijuanamoment.net

Senators Tell DEA To Fully Legalize Marijuana, Demanding Answers On Rescheduling Process

Twelve senators are calling on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to fully legalize cannabis and answer questions about the agency’s ongoing scheduling review. In a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on Monday, the lawmakers—led by Sens...
www.marijuanamoment.net www.marijuanamoment.net


Twelve senators are calling on the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to fully legalize cannabis and answer questions about the agency’s ongoing scheduling review.
In a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on Monday, the lawmakers—led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and John Fetterman (D-PA), along with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other champions of marijuana reform—denounced the “devastating impact” and “out of step” policy of prohibition, arguing that cannabis should be fully removed from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Doing so would present a “rare opportunity to shape the new cannabis industry from the ground up, designing a federal regulatory system untainted by the corporate capture that has influenced alcohol and tobacco regulations, and advancing federal cannabis reforms that acknowledge and repair the harms of cannabis criminalization.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended that DEA move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA following a scientific review that concluded cannabis does have therapeutic applications and is less harmful than other controlled substances on lower schedules. DEA makes the final decision, however, and is not bound by the HHS recommendation.
“While rescheduling to Schedule III would mark a significant step forward, it would not resolve the worst harms of the current system,” the senators’ letter, which was first reported by NBC News, says. “Thus, the DEA should deschedule marijuana altogether.”

The lawmakers acknowledged that incremental rescheduling “would have some important policy benefits,” however, such as eliminating barriers to research and federal employment for medical cannabis patients, as well as allowing state-licensed marijuana businesses to take federal tax deductions that they’re currently barred from utilizing under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E.
“However, rescheduling would do little to rectify the most severe harms of the current system,” they wrote. “Many of the CSA’s criminal penalties for marijuana will continue as long as marijuana remains in the CSA, because those penalties are based on the quantity of marijuana involved, not the drug’s schedule status. Thus, criminal penalties (including prison sentences, fines, and asset forfeiture) for recreational marijuana use, and medical use of marijuana products that lack federal approval, would still exist, disproportionately penalizing Black and Brown communities.”

“These harms could be remedied only through fully descheduling marijuana,” they said. “Once descheduled, marijuana can still be subject to public health regulations, drawing from lessons learned through the regulation of alcohol and tobacco.”
The senators also preemptively argued that DEA should not base its scheduling decision on an outmoded interpretation of international treaty obligations, stating that the United Nations (UN) has already rescheduled cannabis and permitted medical and recreational legalization in other member states such as Canada. DEA has previously claimed that global drug conventions require the U.S. to keep cannabis in Schedule I or II.

The senators’ letter concludes:
“The DEA has never kept a drug in Schedule I after HHS recommended removing it, and it must not do so now. It is imperative that the DEA remove marijuana from Schedule I as several members of Congress and state attorneys general have urged. The DEA should do so promptly; its past record of taking years to resolve rescheduling petitions should not be repeated here. Furthermore, the DEA and HHS should be fully transparent about the evidence relied upon in the course of their review processes. The Biden Administration has a window of opportunity to deschedule marijuana that has not existed in decades and should reach the right conclusion—consistent with the clear scientific and public health rationale for removing marijuana from Schedule I, and with the imperative of relieving the burden of current federal marijuana policy on ordinary people and small businesses.”

Other signatories on the letter include Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Peter Welch (D-VT), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Alex Padilla (D-CA).
Senators also included an addendum with six questions about DEA’s scheduling review process that they’re asking the agency to answer by February 12.
For example, they want DEA to provide an update on the status of its review and the timeline for removing marijuana from Schedule I. They also asked what type of evidence the agency is relying on to inform its decision, and whether it intends to request data from future clinical trials before it proposes a scheduling change.

Further, the senators are seeking information about what changes, “if at all,” there would be to criminal penalties for marijuana if it was moved to any of the other four CSA schedules.
As referenced in the letter, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently detailed the limitations of simple rescheduling—emphasizing that state cannabis markets would continue to run afoul of federal law, and existing criminal penalties for certain marijuana-related activity would remain in force.
“To what extent does DEA’s evaluation of marijuana’s scheduling acknowledge or address the harms of cannabis criminalization and related collateral consequences, and racial disparities associated with federal marijuana enforcement?” the senators also asked.

“We thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your prompt action,” they said.
Meanwhile, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said this month that his agency has “communicated” its “position” on marijuana rescheduling to DEA and has continued to offer additional information to assist with the final determination.
DEA has steadfastly maintained it has “final authority” over the matter and can make any scheduling determination that it sees fit.
“DEA has the final authority to schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act, after considering the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria and HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation,” the agency said in a letter to lawmakers last month. “DEA is now conducting its review.”

The statement came in response to an earlier letter from 31 bipartisan lawmakers, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), that urged the agency to consider the “merits” of legalization as it carried out its review.
DEA has faced pressure on both sides of the marijuana policy debate over recent months, with advocates pressing for a Schedule III decision, or complete descheduling, and prohibitionists urging the agency to keep cannabis in Schedule I.
Prior to HHS releasing a trove of documents concerning its cannabis recommendation, a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general implored DEA to move forward with federal marijuana rescheduling, calling the policy change a “public safety imperative.”
In another letter last month, 29 former U.S. attorneys called on the Biden administration to leave cannabis in Schedule I.
Last month, the governors of six U.S. states—Colorado, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Louisiana—sent a letter to Biden calling on the administration to reschedule marijuana by the end of last year.
Meanwhile, six former DEA heads and five former White House drug czars sent a letter to the attorney general and current DEA administrator voicing opposition to the top federal health agency’s recommendation to reschedule marijuana. They also made a questionable claim about the relationship between drug schedules and criminal penalties in a way that could exaggerate the potential impact of the incremental reform.

Signatories include DEA and Office of National Drug Control Policy heads under multiple administrations led by presidents of both major parties.

In October, Advocates and lawmakers who support cannabis reform marked the one-year anniversary of Biden’s mass marijuana pardon and scheduling directive this month by calling on him to do more—including by expanding the scope of relief that his pardon had and by expressly supporting federal legalization.



Two GOP senators, including the lead Republican sponsor of a marijuana banking bill that cleared a key committee in September, also filed legislation late last year to prevent federal agencies from rescheduling cannabis without tacit approval from Congress.


A coalition of 14 Republican congressional lawmakers, meanwhile, has urged DEA to “reject” the top federal health agency’s recommendation to reschedule marijuana and instead keep it in the most restrictive category under the CSA.


Meanwhile, a recent poll found that about one-third of marijuana consumers say they would go back to the illicit market if cannabis was rescheduled and only made legally available as a Food and Drug Administration- (FDA) approved prescription drug.


Another recent survey found that President Joe Biden stands to make significant political gains if marijuana is rescheduled under his administrative directive. Of course, Biden doesn’t directly control the final outcome.



The president has routinely touted his 2022 scheduling directive, as well as a mass pardon he granted for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses. He followed up on that action last month with a renewed and expanded pardon proclamation. The Justice Department has already begun issuing certifications for people who applied under the second round.


Read the senators’ letter to DEA on descheduling marijuana below:
 
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Important Excerpt from Senators' letter:

"Finally, in 2016 the DEA considered its international treaty obligations a bar to rescheduling marijuana to anything less restrictive than Schedule II.33 Since then, cannabis has been rescheduled under international law — a change that the United States and the World Health

Organization supported, in light of “the legitimate medical use” of certain cannabis products.34 Now, the relevant treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (Single Convention), has removed cannabis from the most restrictive schedule and placed it in a schedule that requires countries to limit the drug’s use to only “medical and scientific purposes.”35 Additionally, since 2016, the DEA has found that placing the first cannabis-based FDA-approved drug in Schedule V (and later descheduling it altogether) was consistent with the Single Convention.36 The United States can persuasively argue that decriminalizing marijuana activity is consistent with its treaty obligations. As the U.S. State Department and United Nations have clarified, the relevant narcotics treaties are “highly respectful of the legal frameworks of states party”37 and “allow for sufficient flexibility for States parties to design and implement national drug policies according to their priorities and needs.”38 Furthermore, the treaties are primarily concerned with the trafficking of narcotics “having an international dimension,” rather than purely domestic matters39 — and research has found that marijuana legalization may actually reduce violent international drug trafficking.40 As it has done in the past,41 the DEA can in good faith reinterpret''

its obligations under the Single Convention. It could argue that even adult-use marijuana legalization would still permit a civil regulatory regime that prevents abuse and international trafficking while satisfying the country’s domestic policy need to advance an evidence-based harm reduction approach, protect the settled expectations of U.S. states, and comply with international human rights obligations that weigh against the disproportionate criminalization of people of color.42 The United States would not be the first mover; many fellow signatories of the Single Convention have legalized cannabis for medical and non-medical uses.43 And arguably, the United States is already among them as a country that has largely permitted cannabis at the state level. The Case for Descheduling Marijuana The case for removing marijuana from Schedule I is overwhelming. The DEA should do so by removing cannabis from the CSA altogether, rather than simply placing it in a lower schedule. Although HHS recommended rescheduling, its analysis could support a decision to deschedule — particularly its emphasis on the fact that marijuana has less adverse outcomes (including less potential of an overdose) and less potential of abuse than substances that are descheduled (alcohol) or scheduled below Schedule III (such as benzodiazepines).44 The DEA has final decision-making authority45 and should ultimately deschedule marijuana. To be sure, rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would have some important policy benefits. It would pave the way toward increasing scientific research of marijuana’s medical uses,46 eliminating barriers to federal employment for medical marijuana users, and permitting the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to prescribe marijuana to veterans.47 It would allow marijuana businesses to access standard tax deductions for ordinary business expenses.48 Rescheduling would also represent the first federal acknowledgment of marijuana’s legitimate medical uses —

though, importantly, it would not automatically permit marijuana to be used as a medicine; medical marijuana would still have to undergo FDA drug approval, the DEA registration process for manufacturers, and compliance with prescription regulations in order to be legally prescribed under federal law.49 However, rescheduling would do little to rectify the most severe harms of the current system. Many of the CSA’s criminal penalties for marijuana will continue as long as marijuana remains in the CSA, because those penalties are based on the quantity of marijuana involved, not the drug’s schedule status.50 Thus, criminal penalties (including prison sentences, fines, and asset forfeiture) for recreational marijuana use, and for medical use of marijuana products that lack federal approval, would still exist, disproportionately penalizing Black and Brown communities.51 Similarly, non-citizens could still be denied naturalization and green cards, and even deported, based on most marijuana offenses.52 Furthermore, rescheduling marijuana would not restore access to public housing or nutrition assistance for individuals who use marijuana recreationally or engage in other marijuana activity against federal law.53 Nor would rescheduling resolve the growing inconsistency between federal and state law; states’ regulatory systems for the recreational marijuana industry — and for medical marijuana products that have not been federally approved — would continue to lack federal legal recognition.54

These harms could be remedied only through fully descheduling marijuana. Once descheduled, marijuana can still be subject to public health regulations, drawing from lessons learned through the regulation of alcohol and tobacco. And here, the federal government has the rare opportunity to shape the new cannabis industry from the ground up, designing a federal regulatory system untainted by the corporate capture that has influenced alcohol and tobacco regulations,55 and advancing federal cannabis reforms that acknowledge and repair the harms of cannabis criminalization. Conclusion The DEA has never kept a drug in Schedule I after HHS recommended removing it,56 and it must not do so now. It is imperative that the DEA remove marijuana from Schedule I as several members of Congress and state attorneys general have urged.57 The DEA should do so promptly; its past record of taking years to resolve rescheduling petitions should not be repeated here.58 Furthermore, the DEA and HHS should be fully transparent about the evidence relied upon in the course of their review processes. The Biden Administration has a window of opportunity to deschedule marijuana that has not existed in decades and should reach the right conclusion — consistent with the clear scientific and public health rationale for removing marijuana from Schedule I, and with the imperative to relieve the burden of current federal marijuana policy on ordinary people and small businesses.

To help the American people understand what steps the DEA is taking to act on HHS’s rescheduling recommendation, we request responses to the following questions no later than February 12, 2024:

1. What is the current status of the DEA’s review of marijuana’s scheduling, pursuant to President Biden’s 2022 directive and HHS’s 2023 recommendation?


a. What is the DEA’s timeline for removing marijuana from Schedule I?

2. What evidence does the DEA intend to consider in reaching its decision regarding the scheduling of marijuana? a. If the DEA believes clinical trials testing marijuana are necessary in order to change its scheduling, what is the DEA’s roadmap for developing clinical-trial evidence, in light of roadblocks to accessing funding for such studies?

3. In the course of this review, is the DEA still assessing cannabis’s medical use based on the five-factor test that the agency created for itself in 1992,59 which differs from HHS’s analysis?

4. Specifically, how (if at all) would the criminal enforcement of marijuana by the DEA change if marijuana were moved to another schedule in the CSA? Please provide an answer for Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV, and Schedule V.

5. What specific steps has the DEA taken to ensure that its marijuana-related policies and programs, including its marijuana enforcement strategy, comply with Executive Order 13985 and 14091?60

6. To what extent does the DEA’s evaluation of marijuana’s scheduling acknowledge or address the harms of cannabis criminalization and related collateral consequences, and racial disparities associated with federal marijuana enforcement? We thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your prompt action.


Sincerely,

United States Senator Elizabeth Warren
United States Senator John Fetterman
United States Senator Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator Cory A. Booker
United States Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator Bernard Sanders
United States Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
United States Senator Ron Wyden
United States Senator John Hickenlooper
United States Senator Peter Welch
United States Senator Chris Van Hollen
United States Senator Alex Padilla
 
Last edited:
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
hempfeedcoalition.org

Hemp Feed Coalition: Federal approval of hemp as animal feed.

Revolutionizing Animal Nutrition: Advocating for Hemp Feed Regulation and Innovation Our vision is to grow hemp producers and processors access to the billion-dollar animal feed and supplements market; completing a local supply chain from farmer to feeder. Become a Member Hemp Seed Meal...
hempfeedcoalition.org hempfeedcoalition.org

I didn't realize hemp can't be used as animal feed for production! I figured that was solved in the 2018 Farm bill which legalized hemp farming.

Using hemp in animal production, we should be having some really healthy livestock and better quality foods.

Its almost like they delayed this to allow the pesticide and GMO industry to reap their final profits before hemp is legalized for use in animal feed.

This will be great! Could replace Soy as a protein source guys! The pesticide companies will take a hit because hemp requires little to no pesticides to produce.
 
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
press seed for oil, eat the seeds after baking, make durable cloth or hempcrete out of the fibers, burn what little is left for heat/power production, or bury it to help rejuvenate the soil. plus, hemp pulls heavy metals (lead, cadmium, and nickel) from degraded soil such as is left after mining operations. you -probably- wouldn't want to EAT those seeds though. :noway: or feed them to anything you WOULD eat...
 
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
www.marijuanamoment.net

Florida Lawmakers Approve Bill To Place THC Limit On Recreational Marijuana Ahead Of Possible Legalization Ballot Vote

With an adult-use marijuana legalization measure potentially headed for Florida’s ballot this November, Lawmakers on the state’s House Healthcare Regulation Subcommittee approved an amended version of a measure that would preemptively limit THC in recreational cannabis products. Before advancing...
www.marijuanamoment.net www.marijuanamoment.net

Florida Lawmakers Approve Bill To Place THC Limit On Recreational Marijuana Ahead Of Possible Legalization Ballot Vote​


eb4c56ade55267b6d49f31b7367da5b3

Published
21 mins ago
on
February 1, 2024
By
Ben Adlin

With an adult-use marijuana legalization measure potentially headed for Florida’s ballot this November, Lawmakers on the state’s House Healthcare Regulation Subcommittee approved an amended version of a measure that would preemptively limit THC in recreational cannabis products.
Before advancing the bill, HB 1269, the panel first adopted an amendment from its sponsor, Rep. Ralph Massullo (R) significantly raising the proposed cap on THC for marijuana flower to 30 percent, up from 10 percent in the bill as originally introduced.
Members then voted 13–4 to report the bill favorably.

“Due to a variety of reasons, we’re only at the beginning of understanding the potential long-term benefits and harms of high-potency THC marijuana products,” Massullo told subcommittee members, noting that his proposed limits “will only take affect if the constitutional amendment is adopted.”
“I’m not going to tell you my opinion on recreational marijuana,” he said before the panel vote, “but I will say this: We are tasked with keeping the public safe. It’s important that we think about that with a long-term vision and not be reactive.”

As more states have legalized marijuana and highly concentrated THC products become more widely available, some have raised concerns about apparent associations between high-THC products and mental health problems, especially in developing brains.
In addition to the revised restriction on smokable marijuana, Massullo’s measure would also impose a 60 percent THC limit on all other marijuana products and set a 10-milligram THC serving size for edibles, with no more than 200 mg per package.

Despite the subcommittee advancing the bill, some members expressed concerns with the proposal.
The panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Robin Bartleman (D), said she was voting against the bill because “I don’t believe we should be piecemealing this.” Instead, she urged colleagues to prepare to adopt “a more comprehensive package” that includes a suite of adult-use cannabis regulations.
“I’d rather wait and deal with everything at once,” Bartleman said.
Rep. Kelly Skidmore (D) expressed similar concerns. While she applauded the bill for “being visionary and looking forward,” she said THC caps were just one of the things lawmakers would need to address if voters approve recreational marijuana.
“How are we going to regulate that? Who’s going to get those licenses? Is it going to be in every convenience store?” she asked. “I think there are many, many things that we need to talk about and discuss, and this is just a little bit premature for me.”

Two other lawmakers said they had reservations but would nevertheless support the proposal, especially in light of the increased THC cap on marijuana flower.
“Oftentimes, you know, people are driven to the illicit marketplace. It’s not regulated at all,” said Rep. Gallop Franklin II (D), noting that hazardous adulterants in unregulated products can cause more harm than THC itself.
Rep. Adam Anderson (R), another yes vote, said an unintended consequence of low THC limits could simply be people consuming more marijuana “to get the effects that they want”—a concept known as self-titration.

“They’re going to be smoking more and more of the plant, which might have other additives and other materials that could potentially be harmful,” he said.
Anderson said he decided to support the amended bill because he felt it’s “our responsibility as lawmakers to be proactive.”
“I commend your efforts to get ahead of this and being productive and sending some guidance out to the industry of what this policy will look like,” he told Massullo.
The bill, introduced by Massullo last month, would take effect 30 days after voters pass any constitutional amendment to enact legalization.
Florida’s medical cannabis dosage limits, meanwhile,—which were revised under controversial rules adopted in 2022, despite pushback from then-Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D)—are not based on the percentage of THC in a given product.

While the legalization measure itself has not yet officially qualified for November’s ballot, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) recently predicted a favorable legal outcome for activists in the Supreme Court in the face of a challenge from the attorney general who is seeking to block the vote.
“I think the court is going to approve that,” the governor said at his final campaign event in New Hampshire last month, “so it’ll be on the ballot.”
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) has asked the court to invalidate the measure, despite activists collecting nearly one million signatures for ballot placement. The state official previously successfully petitioned justices to prevent a 2022 legalization initiative from receiving voter consideration.

That won’t be the case this round, according to the governor. While he opposes the reform—and pledged not to federally decriminalize marijuana if elected president when he was running—he says voters will get a chance to decide on the issue this time.
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case against the Smart & Safe Florida campaign last November, but it has not issued a ruling yet. It will need to do so by April 1.
DeSantis also weighed in on another relevant cannabis policy issue last week when he separately told Murphy that he doesn’t believe the federal gun ban for state-legal marijuana consumers is constitutional. Florida’s former agriculture commission, Nikki Fried, brought a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the rule, though the governor did not get involved.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce released a poll last month showing that the reform proposal enjoys majority support from likely voters—but not quite enough to meet the state’s steep 60 percent threshold for passage.
That said, other previous polls have found that voters are well positioned to pass the legalization initiative with more than enough support. For example, the University of North Florida put out a survey last month that showed 67 percent of voters back the proposal.
The multi-state marijuana company Trulieve has contributed more than $40 million to the Smart and Safe Florida campaign to date. The state attorney general has accused the company of supporting the measure in order to have a “monopolistic stranglehold” on the state’s cannabis market.

With an adult-use marijuana legalization measure potentially headed for Florida’s ballot this November, Lawmakers on the state’s House Healthcare Regulation Subcommittee approved an amended version of a measure that would preemptively limit THC in recreational cannabis products.
Before advancing the bill, HB 1269, the panel first adopted an amendment from its sponsor, Rep. Ralph Massullo (R) significantly raising the proposed cap on THC for marijuana flower to 30 percent, up from 10 percent in the bill as originally introduced.
Members then voted 13–4 to report the bill favorably.

“Due to a variety of reasons, we’re only at the beginning of understanding the potential long-term benefits and harms of high-potency THC marijuana products,” Massullo told subcommittee members, noting that his proposed limits “will only take affect if the constitutional amendment is adopted.”
“I’m not going to tell you my opinion on recreational marijuana,” he said before the panel vote, “but I will say this: We are tasked with keeping the public safe. It’s important that we think about that with a long-term vision and not be reactive.”

As more states have legalized marijuana and highly concentrated THC products become more widely available, some have raised concerns about apparent associations between high-THC products and mental health problems, especially in developing brains.
In addition to the revised restriction on smokable marijuana, Massullo’s measure would also impose a 60 percent THC limit on all other marijuana products and set a 10-milligram THC serving size for edibles, with no more than 200 mg per package.

Despite the subcommittee advancing the bill, some members expressed concerns with the proposal.
The panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Robin Bartleman (D), said she was voting against the bill because “I don’t believe we should be piecemealing this.” Instead, she urged colleagues to prepare to adopt “a more comprehensive package” that includes a suite of adult-use cannabis regulations.
“I’d rather wait and deal with everything at once,” Bartleman said.
Rep. Kelly Skidmore (D) expressed similar concerns. While she applauded the bill for “being visionary and looking forward,” she said THC caps were just one of the things lawmakers would need to address if voters approve recreational marijuana.
“How are we going to regulate that? Who’s going to get those licenses? Is it going to be in every convenience store?” she asked. “I think there are many, many things that we need to talk about and discuss, and this is just a little bit premature for me.”

Two other lawmakers said they had reservations but would nevertheless support the proposal, especially in light of the increased THC cap on marijuana flower.
“Oftentimes, you know, people are driven to the illicit marketplace. It’s not regulated at all,” said Rep. Gallop Franklin II (D), noting that hazardous adulterants in unregulated products can cause more harm than THC itself.
Rep. Adam Anderson (R), another yes vote, said an unintended consequence of low THC limits could simply be people consuming more marijuana “to get the effects that they want”—a concept known as self-titration.

“They’re going to be smoking more and more of the plant, which might have other additives and other materials that could potentially be harmful,” he said.
Anderson said he decided to support the amended bill because he felt it’s “our responsibility as lawmakers to be proactive.”
“I commend your efforts to get ahead of this and being productive and sending some guidance out to the industry of what this policy will look like,” he told Massullo.
The bill, introduced by Massullo last month, would take effect 30 days after voters pass any constitutional amendment to enact legalization.
Florida’s medical cannabis dosage limits, meanwhile,—which were revised under controversial rules adopted in 2022, despite pushback from then-Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D)—are not based on the percentage of THC in a given product.

While the legalization measure itself has not yet officially qualified for November’s ballot, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) recently predicted a favorable legal outcome for activists in the Supreme Court in the face of a challenge from the attorney general who is seeking to block the vote.
“I think the court is going to approve that,” the governor said at his final campaign event in New Hampshire last month, “so it’ll be on the ballot.”
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) has asked the court to invalidate the measure, despite activists collecting nearly one million signatures for ballot placement. The state official previously successfully petitioned justices to prevent a 2022 legalization initiative from receiving voter consideration.

That won’t be the case this round, according to the governor. While he opposes the reform—and pledged not to federally decriminalize marijuana if elected president when he was running—he says voters will get a chance to decide on the issue this time.
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case against the Smart & Safe Florida campaign last November, but it has not issued a ruling yet. It will need to do so by April 1.
DeSantis also weighed in on another relevant cannabis policy issue last week when he separately told Murphy that he doesn’t believe the federal gun ban for state-legal marijuana consumers is constitutional. Florida’s former agriculture commission, Nikki Fried, brought a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the rule, though the governor did not get involved.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce released a poll last month showing that the reform proposal enjoys majority support from likely voters—but not quite enough to meet the state’s steep 60 percent threshold for passage.
That said, other previous polls have found that voters are well positioned to pass the legalization initiative with more than enough support. For example, the University of North Florida put out a survey last month that showed 67 percent of voters back the proposal.
The multi-state marijuana company Trulieve has contributed more than $40 million to the Smart and Safe Florida campaign to date. The state attorney general has accused the company of supporting the measure in order to have a “monopolistic stranglehold” on the state’s cannabis market.
—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,000 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.
—

If approved, the measure would change the state Constitution to allow existing medical cannabis companies in the state like Trulieve to begin selling marijuana to all adults over 21. It contains a provision that would allow—but not require—lawmakers to take steps toward the approval of additional businesses. Home cultivation by consumers would not be allowed under the proposal as drafted.
Adults 21 and older would be able to purchase and possess up to one ounce of cannabis, only five grams of which could be marijuana concentrate products. The three-page measure also omits equity provisions favored by advocates such as expungements or other relief for people with prior cannabis convictions.
Economic analysts from the Florida legislature and DeSantis’s office estimate that the marijuana legalization initiative would generate between $195.6 million and $431.3 million in new sales tax revenue annually if voters enact it. And those figures could increase considerably if lawmakers opted to impose an additional excise tax on cannabis transactions that’s similar to the ones in place in other legalized states.
But DeSantis has made clear he would not support the measure regardless of the economic potential. He also recently suggested that the increase in Florida’s medical cannabis patient population is partly due to people using the program as a “pretext” for recreational use.
Last summer, a law enacted by the governor took effect that added restrictions to medical marijuana advertising and manufacturing, prohibiting any products or messages that promote “recreational” cannabis use, while adding more stringent eligibility requirements for workers in the industry.

Additionally, the governor approved a bill in June that expressly prohibits sober living facilities from allowing residents to possess or use medical marijuana, even if the patient is certified by a doctor to legally use cannabis therapeutically in accordance with state law. All other doctor-prescribed pharmaceutical medications may be permitted, however.
He also signed legislation in July banning sales of any consumable hemp products—including cannabis “chewing gum”—to people under 21, an expansion of an existing prohibition on young people being able to purchase smokable hemp.
The organizer of a separate Florida ballot initiative to legalize home cultivation of medical marijuana by patients recently withdrew the proposal, explaining that the campaign raised barely more than $4,000 and couldn’t cover costs associated with trying to qualify the measure.
In the legislature, meanwhile, a Florida Republican senator introduced a bill in December to allow licensed medical cannabis businesses to take state tax deductions that they are barred from claiming at the federal level under an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E.
 
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Not sure if contaminants would be concentrated in the seeds though. Most farm ground isn't contaminated to the extent that hemp cultivated there would be dangerous to consume.

Its very costly to do these studies for approval of feeding hemp to production livestock for human consumption. They said studies cost approximately $500,000 per sub-species.
 
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Tudo

Tudo

Troublemaker
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
What I would wish for is to all those politicians and people with power who stand in the way legalization and of freeing us all to partake of this gift from G-d, be it for disease, unrelenting pain or any reason, what I wish for is, no physical harm to them, I wish them great success in life, lots of whatever it is that floats their boat, but also to have a loved one, someone they really and truly love deep in their hearts if they even have the capacity to do so, to suffer an illness and pain that reacts most favorably to cannabis and only cannabis . That's all.
 
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Exactly, they are legislating on something they really know nothing about. They really are just going off what they are told, and are not aware of the gentle effectiveness of cannabis flower.

They want to cap the THC limit, but high potency cannabis doesn't require as much to be consumed and can be self titrated. High potency cannabis is the only thing effective enough to work in some cases.
 
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
pipeline said:
They want to cap the THC limit
Click to expand...
let's say they cap it at 10%. how are growers supposed to grow quality cannabis and it NOT ever exceed that % ? what if their whole damn crop tests at 12% ? WTF? is the grower out all of that plus time etc invested because of a 2% discrepancy in THC level ? NOBODY will want a chunk of that, or they'll grow something far short of the cut-off so they'll be able to market it. who would go into that knowing that the feds might make them mulch it and plow it under for doing a good job? different branches on a plant might test lower/higher... :chin:
 
armedoldhippy

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
pipeline said:
www.marijuanamoment.net

GOP Lawmakers Team Up With Marijuana Prohibitionists On Resolution Calling For Research Into High Potency THC Products

GOP House and Senate lawmakers well-known for opposing marijuana reform have introduced a concurrent resolution calling on federal agencies to study the potential risks of high potency THC products. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) filed the legislation, which they...
www.marijuanamoment.net www.marijuanamoment.net
Click to expand...
always looking for risks, and ready to hide benefits if accidentally found.
 
pipeline

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Can you out compete the black market with low potency cannabis, no you can't

Any risk would be a supporting point for regulation and age restrictions. Also education and awareness of potential risks is a better policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top