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

[pipeline]

U.S. House Votes To Ban Military From Testing Recruits For Marijuana As A Condition Of Enrollment

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a large-scale defense bill that includes a section to prevent military branches from testing recruits for marijuana as a condition of enlistment has been left intact, despite opposition from the White House. While the House Rules Committee on...

www.marijuanamoment.net

 

[pipeline]

Is the Access to Medical Marijuana a Fundamental Right?

We write blog posts about cannabis, but most of the time the posts are about things that are happening in the cannabis world. This post is about whether something should happen in the cannabis world. Specifically, should American courts recognize the access to marijuana as a fundamental right...

natlawreview.com

Is the Access to Medical Marijuana a Fundamental Right?
by: Whitt Steineker, Mason Kruse of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP - Budding Trends
Thursday, March 23, 2023

Related Practices & Jurisdictions​

• Biotech Food Drug
• Civil Rights
• Litigation Trial Practice

• All Federal

Print Mail Download i
We write blog posts about cannabis, but most of the time the posts are about things that are happening in the cannabis world. This post is about whether something should happen in the cannabis world. Specifically, should American courts recognize the access to marijuana as a fundamental right for all Americans? This is not intended to be a partisan piece; rather, one that examines marijuana in the context of existing Constitutional jurisprudence as recognized by United States Supreme Court precedent.
Let’s be very clear: You can read the Constitution from start to finish, and you will not find any provision that expressly enumerates the right to access marijuana. So, if the right is to exist, it must be one of a limited number of unenumerated fundamental rights that have been recognized by courts.

What Is a Fundamental Right?​

Unenumerated fundamental rights are, essentially, a creation of the courts arising from the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in relevant part: “No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The Supreme Court has defined a fundamental right as a right that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Examples of fundamental rights recognized by the Supreme Court include:

• The right to marriage;
• The right to public education;
• The right to interstate and intrastate travel; and
• The right to privacy.

Does Marijuana Meet the Definition of a Fundamental Right?​

Let’s get this out of the way: Adult-use marijuana is almost certainly not soon – if ever – to be recognized as an unenumerated fundamental right. While it is conceivable that a Constitutional amendment would provide that right, the right is not one that lends itself neatly to being recognized as fundamental by the judiciary.
But when it comes to marijuana used for medicinal purposes, the analysis – even if not the result – should be different. After all, the right to access medicine, and use that medicine to treat diseases, is inherently different from the right to experience a certain type of feeling simply for recreational purposes.

Framing the Issue​

The difference between the medicinal and recreational uses of marijuana perhaps brings us to one of the first critical questions in determining whether the right to use marijuana for medical purposes is protected by the Constitution: How do you phrase the question presented to a court about the scope of the right?
Oftentimes in fundamental rights cases, the answer to whether a right is fundamental is determined by how the right is phrased. The Supreme Court has said as much: “[W]e have a tradition of carefully formulating the interest at stake in substantive due process cases.”
By way of example, the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to refuse life-saving medical treatment recommended by a physician (i.e., “the liberty of competent, terminally ill adults to make end of life decisions free of undue government interference”), but in the same opinion, declined to recognize a right for that same physician to assist in ending the patient’s life. While these are tough questions, reasonable people can disagree as to whether this is a distinction without a difference.
As another example, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing the constitutionality of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act in Loving v. Virginia, which made interracial marriage a felony. The Court struck down the law, reasoning that “[m]arriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. Fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Surely there is little doubt that, right or wrong, had the question been presented to the Supreme Court in 1967 whether there was a right to same-sex marriage (and not marriage generally), the Court would have reached a different conclusion. After all, it was a different time with different popular beliefs. We can’t overlook the fact that it took the Court another 48 years to extend Loving’s marriage protections to same-sex relationships. In 2015, the Court did finally recognize that right in its Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
As a final example, the Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade recognizing the fundamental right to an abortion under certain circumstances (which, of course, was overturned in 2022 by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) was the result of a series of cases where the Court had recognized a right to privacy. Just as in the case of interracial marriages, I suspect the Court that originally recognized a general right to privacy may not have been willing at that time to extend that right to the right to an abortion under certain circumstances.
Viewed under the lens of these examples, it seems important to present to the Court a purported fundamental right that the Court is prepared to recognize. Said another way: Phrasing is everything.

Supreme Court Cases Examining Marijuana​

The issue of access to medical marijuana has come before the Court on at least two occasions, one directly and one indirectly.
First, in the 2001 case U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, the Court addressed whether there was a medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act’s prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. While the Court did not address the fundamental rights issue directly, it suggested that it would be futile to press a claim of constitutional right to access marijuana as a form of medical treatment. In so doing, the Court assumed a highly deferential stance toward congressional fact finding:

Only [then-]Justice Stevens, who concurred in the judgment, obliquely noted that the question whether the medical necessity defense “might be available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering”—that is, whether the defense might be recognized if a patient rather than a distributor had raised it—“is a difficult issue that is not presented here.”

Then in the 2005 case Gonzalez v. Raich, which is widely known as a case examining the extent of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, the Court held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce authorized it “to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana.”
The Court rationalized that Congress had “enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity” and that “exemption” for local use could undermine this “comprehensive” regime. The Court stressed that Congress had decided “to prohibit entirely the possession or use of [marijuana]” and had “designate[d] marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Prohibiting any intrastate use was thus, according to the Court, “‘necessary and proper’” to avoid a “gaping hole” in Congress’s “closed regulatory system.”
At the time Raich was decided, maybe that was true, maybe not. But no reasonable person can dispute that federal marijuana policy has changed since 2005.

A Pathway to Recognition of a Fundamental Right​

This is a point we’ve made before in a different context:

Ironically the Ninth Circuit’s 2007 opinion on remand after the Raich decision – even though it ultimately concluded that there was no fundamental right to the use of marijuana for medical purposes – provides a straightforward and remarkably prescient roadmap for the current liberal Justices to conclude that such a right does now exist.

On the question of whether marijuana is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history,” the Ninth Circuit noted that:

It is beyond dispute that marijuana has a long history of use — medically and otherwise — in this country. Marijuana was not regulated under federal law until Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, and marijuana was not prohibited under federal law until Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. There is considerable evidence that efforts to regulate marijuana use in the early-twentieth century targeted recreational use but permitted medical use. By 1965, although possession of marijuana was a crime in all fifty states, almost all states had created exceptions for persons for whom the drug had been prescribed or to whom it had been given by an authorized medical person.

On the question of whether a right that may not have been recognized as fundamental in the past may nonetheless be recognized as a fundamental right, the Court used Lawrence v. Texas as an example:

The Lawrence Court noted that, when the Court had decided Bowers v. Hardwick, twenty-four States and the District of Columbia had sodomy laws. By the time a similar challenge to sodomy laws arose in Lawrence in 2004, only thirteen states had maintained their sodomy laws, and there was a noted “pattern of nonenforcement.” The Court observed that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”

On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit was troubled by the fact that medical marijuana had not yet been adopted by a sufficient number of states:

Though the Lawrence framework might certainly apply to the instant case, the use of medical marijuana has not obtained the degree of recognition today that private sexual conduct had obtained by 2004 in Lawrence. Since 1996, ten states other than California have passed laws decriminalizing in varying degrees the use, possession, manufacture, and distribution of marijuana for the seriously ill.

But the court noted that it may have reached a different conclusion if medical marijuana had been permitted in more states and more popularly accepted:

We agree with Raich that medical and conventional wisdom that recognizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes is gaining traction in the law as well. But that legal recognition has not yet reached the point where a conclusion can be drawn that the right to use medical marijuana is “fundamental” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” For the time being, this issue remains in “the arena of public debate and legislative action.”
For now, federal law is blind to the wisdom of a future day when the right to use medical marijuana to alleviate excruciating pain may be deemed fundamental. Although that day has not yet dawned, considering that during the last ten years eleven states have legalized the use of medical marijuana, that day may be upon us sooner than expected. Until that day arrives, federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to alleviate excruciating pain and human suffering.

Whether you agree with the analysis of the Ninth Circuit, it would border on intellectual dishonesty to argue that the concerns of the Ninth Circuit in 2007 have – rightly or not – been allayed at this point. Just two years ago, Justice Thomas laid out all of the ways that marijuana is no longer the subject of a comprehensive nationwide prohibition and the various mixed signals sent by the federal government in recent years:

• In 2009 and 2013, the Department of Justice issued memoranda outlining a policy against intruding on state legalization schemes or prosecuting certain individuals who comply with state law.
• In 2009, Congress enabled the District of Columbia’s government to decriminalize medical marijuana under a local ordinance.
• In every fiscal year since 2015, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice from “spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their own medical marijuana laws.”
• Nearly 40 states allow medicinal marijuana use, and approximately 22 of those states (and D.C.) also allow recreational use.

Put another way, everything that the Ninth Circuit stated had not yet occurred in 2007 has in fact occurred by 2023. It is extremely difficult to imagine that the same court would reach the same conclusion now.

Could Congress or States Still Regulate Marijuana if It Is Recognized as a Fundamental Right?​

Of course! When abortion was recognized as a fundamental right, abortion restrictions were upheld provided that the restrictions did not impose an undue burden on that right. Even express rights in the Constitution can be regulated – after all, you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater. If the Court recognizes access to marijuana for medical purposes as a fundamental right, Congress could still regulate the time, place, and manner in which that right was exercised. For example, a state surely could prohibit smoking marijuana in schools, even if for medical purposes. Or prohibit driving while impaired even if the impairment was caused by the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

---

Should the right to access marijuana for medical purposes be recognized as fundamental by the United States Supreme Court? It’s a close call, and certainly would engender some controversy for the Court just as virtually every other newly recognized fundamental right has. But we suspect (and repeated polls confirm) one that if recognized would be largely greeted with acceptance by a large portion of Americans.
Perhaps we should look to cartoonist Gilbert Shelton, who may have summed up the issue more succinctly than even the more erudite justices could: “Weed will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no weed.” How much more fundamental can you get?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Is the Access to Medical Marijuana a Fundamental Right?

We write blog posts about cannabis, but most of the time the posts are about things that are happening in the cannabis world. This post is about whether something should happen in the cannabis world. Specifically, should American courts recognize the access to marijuana as a fundamental right...

natlawreview.com

Is the Access to Medical Marijuana a Fundamental Right?
by: Whitt Steineker, Mason Kruse of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP - Budding Trends
Thursday, March 23, 2023

Related Practices & Jurisdictions​

• Biotech Food Drug
• Civil Rights
• Litigation Trial Practice
• All Federal

Print Mail Download i
We write blog posts about cannabis, but most of the time the posts are about things that are happening in the cannabis world. This post is about whether something should happen in the cannabis world. Specifically, should American courts recognize the access to marijuana as a fundamental right for all Americans? This is not intended to be a partisan piece; rather, one that examines marijuana in the context of existing Constitutional jurisprudence as recognized by United States Supreme Court precedent.
Let’s be very clear: You can read the Constitution from start to finish, and you will not find any provision that expressly enumerates the right to access marijuana. So, if the right is to exist, it must be one of a limited number of unenumerated fundamental rights that have been recognized by courts.

What Is a Fundamental Right?​

Unenumerated fundamental rights are, essentially, a creation of the courts arising from the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in relevant part: “No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
The Supreme Court has defined a fundamental right as a right that is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Examples of fundamental rights recognized by the Supreme Court include:

• The right to marriage;
• The right to public education;
• The right to interstate and intrastate travel; and
• The right to privacy.

Does Marijuana Meet the Definition of a Fundamental Right?​

Let’s get this out of the way: Adult-use marijuana is almost certainly not soon – if ever – to be recognized as an unenumerated fundamental right. While it is conceivable that a Constitutional amendment would provide that right, the right is not one that lends itself neatly to being recognized as fundamental by the judiciary.
But when it comes to marijuana used for medicinal purposes, the analysis – even if not the result – should be different. After all, the right to access medicine, and use that medicine to treat diseases, is inherently different from the right to experience a certain type of feeling simply for recreational purposes.

Framing the Issue​

The difference between the medicinal and recreational uses of marijuana perhaps brings us to one of the first critical questions in determining whether the right to use marijuana for medical purposes is protected by the Constitution: How do you phrase the question presented to a court about the scope of the right?
Oftentimes in fundamental rights cases, the answer to whether a right is fundamental is determined by how the right is phrased. The Supreme Court has said as much: “[W]e have a tradition of carefully formulating the interest at stake in substantive due process cases.”
By way of example, the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to refuse life-saving medical treatment recommended by a physician (i.e., “the liberty of competent, terminally ill adults to make end of life decisions free of undue government interference”), but in the same opinion, declined to recognize a right for that same physician to assist in ending the patient’s life. While these are tough questions, reasonable people can disagree as to whether this is a distinction without a difference.
As another example, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with reviewing the constitutionality of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act in Loving v. Virginia, which made interracial marriage a felony. The Court struck down the law, reasoning that “[m]arriage is one of the basic civil rights of man. Fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Surely there is little doubt that, right or wrong, had the question been presented to the Supreme Court in 1967 whether there was a right to same-sex marriage (and not marriage generally), the Court would have reached a different conclusion. After all, it was a different time with different popular beliefs. We can’t overlook the fact that it took the Court another 48 years to extend Loving’s marriage protections to same-sex relationships. In 2015, the Court did finally recognize that right in its Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
As a final example, the Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade recognizing the fundamental right to an abortion under certain circumstances (which, of course, was overturned in 2022 by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) was the result of a series of cases where the Court had recognized a right to privacy. Just as in the case of interracial marriages, I suspect the Court that originally recognized a general right to privacy may not have been willing at that time to extend that right to the right to an abortion under certain circumstances.
Viewed under the lens of these examples, it seems important to present to the Court a purported fundamental right that the Court is prepared to recognize. Said another way: Phrasing is everything.

Supreme Court Cases Examining Marijuana​

The issue of access to medical marijuana has come before the Court on at least two occasions, one directly and one indirectly.
First, in the 2001 case U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, the Court addressed whether there was a medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act’s prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. While the Court did not address the fundamental rights issue directly, it suggested that it would be futile to press a claim of constitutional right to access marijuana as a form of medical treatment. In so doing, the Court assumed a highly deferential stance toward congressional fact finding:

Then in the 2005 case Gonzalez v. Raich, which is widely known as a case examining the extent of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, the Court held that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce authorized it “to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana.”
The Court rationalized that Congress had “enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity” and that “exemption” for local use could undermine this “comprehensive” regime. The Court stressed that Congress had decided “to prohibit entirely the possession or use of [marijuana]” and had “designate[d] marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Prohibiting any intrastate use was thus, according to the Court, “‘necessary and proper’” to avoid a “gaping hole” in Congress’s “closed regulatory system.”
At the time Raich was decided, maybe that was true, maybe not. But no reasonable person can dispute that federal marijuana policy has changed since 2005.

A Pathway to Recognition of a Fundamental Right​

This is a point we’ve made before in a different context:

On the question of whether marijuana is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history,” the Ninth Circuit noted that:

On the question of whether a right that may not have been recognized as fundamental in the past may nonetheless be recognized as a fundamental right, the Court used Lawrence v. Texas as an example:

On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit was troubled by the fact that medical marijuana had not yet been adopted by a sufficient number of states:

But the court noted that it may have reached a different conclusion if medical marijuana had been permitted in more states and more popularly accepted:

Whether you agree with the analysis of the Ninth Circuit, it would border on intellectual dishonesty to argue that the concerns of the Ninth Circuit in 2007 have – rightly or not – been allayed at this point. Just two years ago, Justice Thomas laid out all of the ways that marijuana is no longer the subject of a comprehensive nationwide prohibition and the various mixed signals sent by the federal government in recent years:

• • In 2009 and 2013, the Department of Justice issued memoranda outlining a policy against intruding on state legalization schemes or prosecuting certain individuals who comply with state law.
  • In 2009, Congress enabled the District of Columbia’s government to decriminalize medical marijuana under a local ordinance.
  • In every fiscal year since 2015, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice from “spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their own medical marijuana laws.”
  • Nearly 40 states allow medicinal marijuana use, and approximately 22 of those states (and D.C.) also allow recreational use.

Put another way, everything that the Ninth Circuit stated had not yet occurred in 2007 has in fact occurred by 2023. It is extremely difficult to imagine that the same court would reach the same conclusion now.

Could Congress or States Still Regulate Marijuana if It Is Recognized as a Fundamental Right?​

Of course! When abortion was recognized as a fundamental right, abortion restrictions were upheld provided that the restrictions did not impose an undue burden on that right. Even express rights in the Constitution can be regulated – after all, you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater. If the Court recognizes access to marijuana for medical purposes as a fundamental right, Congress could still regulate the time, place, and manner in which that right was exercised. For example, a state surely could prohibit smoking marijuana in schools, even if for medical purposes. Or prohibit driving while impaired even if the impairment was caused by the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

---

Should the right to access marijuana for medical purposes be recognized as fundamental by the United States Supreme Court? It’s a close call, and certainly would engender some controversy for the Court just as virtually every other newly recognized fundamental right has. But we suspect (and repeated polls confirm) one that if recognized would be largely greeted with acceptance by a large portion of Americans.
Perhaps we should look to cartoonist Gilbert Shelton, who may have summed up the issue more succinctly than even the more erudite justices could: “Weed will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no weed.” How much more fundamental can you get?

Regardless of what some words on paper say, you and I and any other person have the fundamental right to grow and consume cannabis. Rights don't come from other people, if they did, those would be revokable privileges, not rights.

Cannabis is a statutory crime in many places, but many (most?) statutory crimes are laden with bullshit, victimless, and the statutes themselves, embody the real crime.

Rights, after all do not come from other people, especially from other people who want to put you in jail for disobeying their edicts or for failing to give them a cut or you'll get hurt. (that's extortion)
Those people are liars, thieves and prohibitionist control freaks. That's about the nicest way to put it.

Since, neither you or I or anyone else has the individual right to prevent a person from growing (on their own land or land the owner has granted permission) no person could possibly delegate that "nonexistent right" to a body politic to prevent other people from doing so. It's literally impossible to delegate a nonexistent right you don't possess to anyone, even if those people claim to be special people and part of "government". It is an absurdity to assert otherwise and relies on an inversion of logic.

Yes...The entire claim of government prohibitionists is based in the idea that a right no individual possesses can somehow have been delegated to them. Cue Bullshit alarms!

They have the power to hurt you, but that is not evidence they have the right to do it.

THEY are the real criminals. Regulations, laws, and rules etc, which restrict an otherwise peaceful person from making choices about their own body, their own property etc. provide the evidence of who the real criminals are, and it ain't you and me!

 

[pipeline]

Exactly! Natural rights come from God, they exist naturally in creation, and they can not be taken away by any man.

Galatians 5 NKJV​

Christian Liberty
1Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
Love Fulfills the Law
7You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.
11And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!
13For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
Walking in the Spirit
16I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

 

[pipeline]

Bipartisan Pennsylvania Lawmakers Announce Marijuana Legalization Bill As Neighboring Ohio Readies Market Launch Across Border

Bipartisan Pennsylvania lawmakers have announced their intent to file a new bill to legalize recreational marijuana, soliciting support from colleagues amid a revived push for reform in the legislature as neighboring states move forward to open legal cannabis markets. In a cosponsorship memo...

www.marijuanamoment.net

 

[pipeline]

Marijuana Rescheduling Opponents Slam FDA Process, Saying It Relied On ‘Very Bad Studies’

Leaders of a prohibitionist group spent close to an hour last week publicly complaining that the government’s planned rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act amounted to a politically motivated move, one they said was unsupported by scientific evidence. They’re...

www.marijuanamoment.net

 

[mudballs]

...yeah well...flat earthers have a right to co-exist among us too

 

[pipeline]

Going to be a long battle. So are the new studies they are doing going to be done by the DEA then? Wonder what kind of conclusions they plan on making?

 

[mudballs]

DEA is just enforcement, they won't do studies...like a cop, but with no regard for the hungry child the mother just stole an apple for

 

[pipeline]

State AGs And Former DEA Leaders Push Agency To Hold Public Hearing On Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal

In a filing with the federal government ahead of a key deadline this week, a group of former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) leaders is asking the agency to hold a public hearing on the proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act...

www.marijuanamoment.net

Look at how backwards this is. The representative lawmakers we who we vote for are asking permission to have a public hearing. They want to use the public hearing to put a stop the the resheduling, but it is in the public interest, lets put the facts out there and knock down the lies. Lets have it heard on the floor of Congress though, not in some small special court. Our lawmakers need to be involved in this and they are doing everything they can without actually touching the issue. What an embaressment.

Bunch of cowards....... looking after their own interests. Trust in God, not man. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.

 

[pipeline]

Ohio Regulators Issue Provisional Marijuana Licenses To Dozens Of Businesses, Readying Imminent Launch Of Adult-Use Sales

Ohio marijuana regulators have approved dozens of provisional licenses for existing medical marijuana operators to convert to dual-use licenses, setting the stage for a potentially imminent launch of the state’s recreational market. As of Friday afternoon, the Division of Cannabis Control (DCC)...

www.marijuanamoment.net

 

[pipeline]

Colorado And Maryland Governors Want Marijuana Rescheduling Finalized ASAP Amid Reports Of DEA Resistance

The governors of Colorado and Maryland say that, as states move forward with marijuana reform, they want the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to finalize the Biden administration’s federal cannabis rescheduling move as quickly as possible. Amid reports that DEA leadership has pushed back...

www.marijuanamoment.net

​

Thankfully you can't fool everybody all the time. Truth and grace will always triumph over lies and corruption. God is good, and is a just judge, just have to wait.

Psalm 27 NKJV​

​

An Exuberant Declaration of Faith​

A Psalm of David.​

1The Lord is my light and my salvation;
Whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the strength of my life;
Of whom shall I be afraid?
2When the wicked came against me
To eat[a] up my flesh,
My enemies and foes,
They stumbled and fell.
3Though an army may encamp against me,
My heart shall not fear;
Though war may rise against me,
In this I will be confident.

4One thing I have desired of the Lord,
That will I seek:
That I may dwell in the house of the Lord
All the days of my life,
To behold the https://biblehub.com/nkjv/psalms/27.htm#footnotesbeauty of the Lord,
And to inquire in His temple.
5For in the time of trouble
He shall hide me in His pavilion;
In the secret place of His tabernacle
He shall hide me;
He shall set me high upon a rock.

6And now my head shall be [c]lifted up above my enemies all around me;
Therefore I will offer sacrifices of [d]joy in His tabernacle;
I will sing, yes, I will sing praises to the Lord.

7Hear, O Lord, when I cry with my voice!
Have mercy also upon me, and answer me.
8When You said, “Seek My face,”
My heart said to You, “Your face, Lord, I will seek.”
9Do not hide Your face from me;
Do not turn Your servant away in anger;
You have been my help;
Do not leave me nor forsake me,
O God of my salvation.
10When my father and my mother forsake me,
Then the Lord will take care of me.

11Teach me Your way, O Lord,
And lead me in a smooth path, because of my enemies.
12Do not deliver me to the will of my adversaries;
For false witnesses have risen against me,
And such as breathe out violence.
13I would have lost heart, unless I had believed
That I would see the goodness of the Lord
In the land of the living.

14Wait[e] on the Lord;
Be of good courage,
And He shall strengthen your heart;
Wait, I say, on the Lord!

 

[pipeline]

Groups Push DEA To Hold Hearing On Biden Administration’s Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal

Opponents of federal marijuana reform—and some legalization supporters—are requesting that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hold public hearings on the government’s planned move to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. Prohibitionists...

www.marijuanamoment.net

 

[pipeline]

Top United Nations Health Official Calls On Countries To Replace War On Drugs With ‘Alternative Regulatory Approaches’

A United Nations expert on the right to health is urging member nations to end the war on drugs and instead enact harm-reduction policies such as decriminalization, supervised consumption sites, drug checking and widespread availability of overdose reversal drugs like naloxone—while also moving...

www.marijuanamoment.net

This is big! Sweet God with us! Hope this goes somewhere and gets consideration by our legislators.

Top United Nations Health Official Calls On Countries To Replace War On Drugs With ‘Alternative Regulatory Approaches’​

Published

on
June 24, 2024
By
Ben Adlin


A United Nations expert on the right to health is urging member nations to end the war on drugs and instead enact harm-reduction policies such as decriminalization, supervised consumption sites, drug checking and widespread availability of overdose reversal drugs like naloxone—while also moving toward “alternative regulatory approaches” for currently controlled substances.
“Criminalization is but a single—and extreme—option within a regulatory system,” says a new report from Tlaleng Mofokeng, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to health. It instead calls for regulatory frameworks around substances to be “more or less restrictive depending on scientific evidence and considering power asymmetries” and notes that “regulation models may consider whether permitting and regulating access would reduce overall harms.”
Among the UN report’s recommendations is that countries “decriminalize the use, possession, purchase and cultivation of drugs for personal use and move toward alternative regulatory approaches that put the protection of people’s health and other human rights front and centre.”

The 19-page report from Mofokeng, who is also a medical doctor and professor at Georgetown University’s Law School, urges that leaders “move from a reliance on criminal law and instead take a human rights-based, evidence-based and compassionate approach to harm reduction in relation to drug use and drug use disorders.”
“All stakeholders must respect people who use drugs, people with drug use disorders and people whose health and well-being is affected by drug laws and policies,” the special rapporteur said in a statement.

Efforts to enforce drug laws often cause more harm than good, the report contends.
“The criminalization, overuse of incarceration, arbitrary deprivation of life, unnecessary use of lethal force in drug enforcement and application of the death penalty as punishment in the name of public health have resulted in various human rights violations,” it says. “In contrast, when well designed and implemented, drug laws and policies—including in harm reduction—can protect and promote public health while contributing to the realization of human rights in a mutually reinforcing way.”

.@drtlaleng, independent expert on the right to health, calls for an end to the ‘war on drugs’.
"The enforcement of drug laws and policies compounds other forms of discrimination & disproportionately affects certain individuals."
New report to #HRC56: https://t.co/ZK1wyzOKnF pic.twitter.com/zw75Yo9wv1
— United Nations Geneva (@UNGeneva) June 24, 2024

The document also includes a number of specific tools—what it calls a “non-exhaustive list of practical harm reduction measures” that member states have begun to implement, such as needle and syringe programs, medication-assisted treatment of opioid dependence and use disorders, safe injection sites, drug checking and overdose prevention and reversal.

It also says that basic needs and services, such as housing, employment and education “should not be conditional on the discontinuation or reduction of drug use, or maintained through mandated or compulsory tests.”
While the root causes of drug use and drug use disorder are multifaceted, research has shown that the deterioration of social and economic well-being is associated with increases in overdose deaths – often referred to as ‘deaths of despair,'” the UN report says. “In addition, legal services and legal training for people who use drugs can assist with access to housing, health and social services and awareness of rights and when those rights are being violated.”

But funding for harm reduction globally is “inadequate and shrinking,” Mofokeng’s assessment says: “Reportedly, only $131 million is currently available for harm reduction in low- and middle-income countries and less than 7 per cent of international donor funding for harm reduction is given to community-led harm reduction organizations. There is a 95 per cent funding gap for harm reduction in low- and middle-income countries.”
The UN special rapporteur also drew attention to the inequitable impacts of the policing of drug laws.

“The enforcement of drug laws and policies compounds other forms of discrimination and disproportionately affects certain individuals, such as persons in situations of homelessness or poverty, persons with mental health issues, sex workers, women, children, LGBTIQA+ persons, Black persons, Indigenous Peoples, migrants, persons who are incarcerated or detained, persons with disabilities, persons living with HIV, tuberculosis or hepatitis, and persons living in rural areas,” Mofokeng told the UN’s Human Rights Council. “International drug control conventions have negatively affected the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of certain drugs used as medicines.”

The Special Rapporteur on the right to health, @drtlaleng, calls for an end to the "war on drugs."
In her latest report to the @UN Human Rights Council, she asks States to adopt a human rights-based approach to drug policy.#HRC56 pic.twitter.com/jHsv2c2JQK
— United Nations Human Rights Council

#HRC56 (@UN_HRC) June 24, 2024

The human rights organization Amnesty International cheered the UN report for encouraging a “move away from punitive responses to drugs and to instead take an approach grounded on harm reduction and human rights,” saying it “powerfully highlights that another way is possible.”
“This is a bold and urgent call on governments worldwide to finally abandon the manifestly failed policies of the so-called ‘war on drugs,’” Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s senior director for research, advocacy, policy and campaigns, said in a statement. “For over six decades, this ill-conceived approach to public health has not only failed to reduce the use and supply of drugs, it has also resulted in widespread human rights violations, violence, mass incarceration, suffering and abuse across the globe, affecting disproportionately people from historically marginalized communities.”
“Many lives have been sacrificed and it’s time to stop wasting resources,” Guevara-Rosas continued. “Governments must consign the ‘war on drugs’ to history and start implementing all the recommendations outlined in this report. This includes decriminalizing personal use, possession, cultivation and acquisition of drugs and moving towards the effective regulation of drugs to ensure legal and safe access for those authorized.”

Separately, Amnesty International released a report this week calling for the legalization and regulation of all drugs. That report, titled Time for Change: Advancing New Drug Policies That Uphold Human Rights, was published to mark World Drugs Day, which is on Wednesday, the group said.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health's new report is a bold and urgent call on governments worldwide to finally abandon the manifestly failed policies of the so-called 'war on drugs'.
Read more

https://t.co/w1XnVQJq7e
— Amnesty International (@amnesty) June 24, 2024

The UN report comes as international bodies and national governments across the world adjust their approaches to drug control and regulation.
Late last year, for example, 19 Latin American and Caribbean nations issued a joint statement acknowledging the need to rethink the global war on drugs and instead focus on “life, peace and development” within the region.
A report last year from an international coalition of advocacy groups, meanwhile, also found that global drug prohibition has fueled environmental destruction in some of the world’s most critical ecosystems, undermining efforts to address the climate crisis.
And a year ago, UN special rapporteurs in a separate report said that “the ‘war on drugs’ may be understood to a significant extent as a war on people.”

“Its impact has been greatest on those who live in poverty,” they said, “and it frequently overlaps with discrimination directed at marginalised groups, minorities and Indigenous Peoples.”
In 2019, the UN Chief Executives Board (CEB), which represents 31 UN agencies including the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), adopted a position stipulating that member states should pursue science-based, health-oriented drug policies—namely decriminalization.

 

[pipeline]

Bipartisan Congressional Bill Would Create Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research And Set A Federal Marijuana Science Agenda

Bipartisan congressional lawmakers have reintroduced a bill to set a federal marijuana research agenda and create a designation of “Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research” for universities to carry out cannabis studies with federal grant money. The legislation filed by Reps. Scott Peters...

www.marijuanamoment.net

Here they go, we have to study it before we begin to legalize and regulate it. Even though its historically one of the oldest crops in agriculture, and has been accepted as safe for medical use around the world. Are we going to harm society with the oppressive consequences of prohibition?

 

[pipeline]

Bipartisan Congressional Bill Would Create Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research And Set A Federal Marijuana Science Agenda

Bipartisan congressional lawmakers have reintroduced a bill to set a federal marijuana research agenda and create a designation of “Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research” for universities to carry out cannabis studies with federal grant money. The legislation filed by Reps. Scott Peters...

www.marijuanamoment.net

​

Bipartisan Congressional Bill Would Create Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research And Set A Federal Marijuana Science Agenda​

Published

on
June 28, 2024
By
Kyle Jaeger

Bipartisan congressional lawmakers have reintroduced a bill to set a federal marijuana research agenda and create a designation of “Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research” for universities to carry out cannabis studies with federal grant money.


The legislation filed by Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Dave Joyce (R-OH) on Friday is nearly identical to the version they filed last session—except that its title was revised to exclude a marijuana-related punny acronym, omitting the phrase “Developing and Nationalizing Key,” or DANK, from the “Cannabis Research Act.”


In any case, the measure would require the National Institutes on Health (NIH) to collaborate with other agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to develop “a national cannabis research agenda that addresses key questions and gaps in evidence.”



That agenda must include six primary research objectives. For example, the agencies must prioritize studies into the safety and efficacy of cannabis in the treatment of multiple conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, chemotherapy-related pain and nausea, as well as the use of marijuana as an opioid alternative.


Other agenda items include research into the effects of cannabis on “at-risk populations” like children and pregnant women, the “nontherapeutic impacts” of marijuana, the relationship between cannabis use and behavioral health, the “clinically appropriate dosages and modes of delivery of cannabis” and other public safety considerations related to potency, youth access and misuse.



Under the legislation, federal agencies would also be mandated to work together to “carry out surveillance activities to collect population-wide data on cannabis use.”


There would be data collection related to the health outcomes, demographics, types of products and delivery methods and “other relevant health information to improve the understanding of cannabis use in all age groups and sub-populations.”


Further, the bill calls for data to be compiled from “public health surveillance systems, surveys, questionnaires, and databases of health care records” such as the federally funded Monitoring the Future health survey.



There’s a privacy provision attached to that section, stipulating that data collection must be conducted in a way that “protects personal privacy to the extent, at a minimum, that is required under applicable Federal and State law.”


The third section of the legislation would require the head of NIH to designate certain universities as “Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research for the purpose of interdisciplinary research related to cannabis and other biomedical, behavioral, and social issues related to cannabis.”


Institutions interested in receiving that designation would need to submit an application to NIH that contains information about their research capabilities, ability to coordinate studies across different disciplines, personnel and facilities, qualifications for administering academic courses to train students and professionals on marijuana-related topics and state funding opportunities.



“In selecting institutions of higher education for designation as Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research, the Director of NIH shall give priority to such institutions that have proven track records in medicinal cannabis research,” the measure says. The designations would be valid for five years, after which point an institution may reapply.


NIH would have the authority to issue grants or enter into cooperative research agreements with up to 10 Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research, and they’d be able to distribute $50 million for each fiscal year from 2024 to 2028.



“The Director of NIH shall promptly disseminate research results under this subsection to relevant governmental, academic, and research entities,” the measure states.


Finally, the bill contains a section that’s meant to streamline the registration process for researchers at universities interested in conducting cannabis studies. Designated Centers of Excellence in Cannabis Research would also be protected against federal sanctions for obtaining marijuana from state-legal dispensaries for study purposes.


“In California, you can walk into a store and legally purchase a marijuana gummy to help you fall asleep, but a researcher can’t buy that same gummy to analyze its short- and long-term benefits and risks,” Peters said in a press release. “Our Cannabis Research Act clears the path for scientists, including those at the world-renowned UC San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research, to study cannabis without fear of prosecution. Our bill also importantly sets a national agenda to ensure all the Centers of Excellence are coordinated in their research.”

The bill is substantively similar to a measure filed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) in 2019, as well as a companion measure introduced by some House lawmakers that year, but a key difference is that the earlier legislation also included a provision to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). With the Biden administration moving to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug, that provision may no longer be necessary, pending final rulemaking.



In December 2022, President Joe Biden separately signed into law a bill meant to streamline cannabis research, marking the first time that a standalone marijuana reform measure was enacted.


“Federal bureaucracy continues to create unnecessary obstacles for both researchers and growers in the cannabis industry,” Joyce, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said. “To benefit patients nationwide and maintain America’s leadership in global medical research, we must eliminate outdated federal policies that hinder legitimate medical research. This bipartisan bill does just that by streamlining the lawful study of cannabis, supporting safer communities across the country.”



Morgan Fox, political director of NORML, said that “allowing researchers to more easily study the effects of cannabis products that human beings are actually using is absolutely vital to developing good public policy.”


“By giving institutions of higher learning the ability to establish research programs that can access products available in legal state markets with minimal red tape, Congress can provide policymakers with the information and tools they need to make laws and regulations that effectively promote individual and public health,” he said. “NORML is proud to support this legislation again and we urge members of Congress to expedite its passage without delay.”



Read the full text of the cannabis research bill below:

 

[Oregonism]

Thanks for keeping all this up....as a child of the 90's and Barry McAffrey's bullshit, I would never trust a politician on cannabis. None. Lots of good people went down from "both sides" over the last few decades, its a shame. If every seedmaker threw fistfuls out the car window once a week, overgrow might actually be a thing. I got nuthin eles, but hope and lobbing seed out the window.

 

[pipeline]

Marijuana Companies Appeal Case Challenging Federal Prohibition Following District Court Dismissal

Major marijuana companies are officially appealing a federal court’s recent ruling dismissing a case where they sought to block the government from enforcing prohibition against their in-state activities. Just two days after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western...

www.marijuanamoment.net

So glad to see this. We need MORE lawsuits like this. Use the courts since they refuse to listen to public comments. The court rulings have teeth and have to weigh all the facts.

These guys have a case because it shows how harmful prohibition is.

Been thinking about how this is going to play out in the future and it doesn't look pretty in my opinion. It may go well, but seeing how things have gone in the past shows how things will likely be in the future.

The way I see this situation ending up is a real predicament. After re-scheduling to Schedule 3, pharmaceutical companies and other large growers will take over the legal market. The "rider" which prevents the Federal Justice Department from using funds to prosecute state legal cannabis activity will eventually be done away with, forcing everyone into the legal medical system to obtain legal cannabis.

Will make everyday regular people, criminals for the medicine they choose.

Federal legalization is a pipedream, in my opinion. Won't be for another several years. What type of research are they doing? What are they going to do when they find out the pre-determined conclusions they want, which makes a fraudulent case against cannabis legalization.

There is no talk about personal liberty, no talk about consequences of prohibition, this is going to go on and on. All they are concerned with is making it look like they are keeping kids safe from making it illegal, while they continue to cause much more substantial harm to society through continuing prohibition. Parents are the ones who should be responsible for what their children are doing. Adults have the right to use the medicine they choose which helps them, and they also have the right to use cannabis to relax.

This madness has got to end. It seems like a big distraction to DE-RAIL freedom-lovers from looking into the real messes of the federal government. Hey look over here, talk about cannabis freedom, not the money supply, corrupt politicians, and foreign policy.

Happy Independence Day!

 

[pipeline]

​

Marijuana Companies Appeal Case Challenging Federal Prohibition Following District Court Dismissal

Major marijuana companies are officially appealing a federal court’s recent ruling dismissing a case where they sought to block the government from enforcing prohibition against their in-state activities. Just two days after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western...

www.marijuanamoment.net

Politics​

Marijuana Companies Appeal Case Challenging Federal Prohibition Following District Court Dismissal​

Published

on
July 4, 2024
By
Kyle Jaeger


Major marijuana companies are officially appealing a federal court’s recent ruling dismissing a case where they sought to block the government from enforcing prohibition against their in-state activities.
Just two days after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western Division dismissed the case against the federal government, plaintiffs gave notice that they are appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
This development doesn’t come as a particular surprise, as plaintiffs had generally indicated that they expected the case to move up to higher courts. With the district court’s rejection of the suit, those wheels are now in motion.

Even the district court judge had conceded that there are “persuasive reasons for a reexamination” of the current scheduling of cannabis, while asserting that his hands were effectively tied by past U.S. Supreme Court precedent dictating the federal government’s authority to regulate controlled substances even within state borders.
To that end, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, an Obama appointee, granted the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case earlier this week.

The actions come over a month after the district court held oral arguments in the case. Ahead of the hearing, the judge had granted the marijuana firms’ request to make the proceedings accessible to the public and press.
The suit against the federal government—Canna Provisions v. Garland—was led by multi-state operator Verano Holdings Corp. and the Massachusetts-based cannabis businesses Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm, along with Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers. Plaintiffs were represented by the law firms Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP and Lesser, Newman, Aleo and Nasser LLP.
Litigator David Boies—whose list of prior clients includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and plaintiffs in the case that led to the invalidation of California’s ban on same-sex marriage—led the suit.

In the latest filing, the plaintiffs said simply that they “hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was entered in this action on July 1, 2024.”
At issue in the case is the degree to which in-state cannabis activity affects interstate commerce, with the government arguing that cannabis legalization attracts out-of-state tourists.
DOJ argued in a filing in April that “it is rational to conclude that the regulated marijuana industry in Massachusetts fuels a different kind of marijuana-related interstate commerce: marijuana tourism.”
“As the Supreme Court held decades ago, Congress has the authority to regulate businesses that cater to tourists from out of state, even if the businesses’ transactions occur wholly in-state,” DOJ said in the brief.

Plaintiffs, meanwhile, contend the Constitution’s Commerce Clause should preclude DOJ from interfering in state-legal activity because it is regulated within a state’s borders.
Even while dismissing the case, the court did rule that the plaintiffs have standing to bring it.
“Plaintiffs have alleged they variously engage in the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana, wholly within Massachusetts and the CSA makes such activity a federal crime,” Monday’s order said. “In the absence of any dispute regarding redressability, the court finds Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have standing under Article III to challenge the portions of the CSA applicable to intrastate activities related to marijuana.”

“The court also finds Plaintiffs have shown there is a causal connection between their economic injuries and the CSA,” the judge said. “When credited, Plaintiffs’ detailed allegations about their financial injuries meet that burden. Though individual decisions by specific third parties are the final link in the causal chain, the economic injury actually flows from the multitude of similar decisions made by many third parties, all responding to the CSA.”
Nonetheless, the court sided with the government in its motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim for relief.
“Given the scale of Plaintiffs’ operations, the court cannot find Congress lacks a rational basis for concluding Plaintiffs’ activities substantially affect interstate commerce without ignoring the Supreme Court’s broadly-worded holding” in Gonzales v. Raich, the court said. In that case, justices held that state marijuana laws do not protect people from federal prosecution because of Congress’s interest in preventing illegal marijuana from entering interstate commerce.

Josh Schiller, a lawyer on the case, called Monday’s decision “thoughtful” and said that “on appeal we will continue to press our case that the federal government lacks any rational basis for banning state-regulated marijuana.”
At the same time that the marijuana industry stakeholders are experiencing the current legal setback, the Biden campaign has stepped up its push to draw a contrast between the president’s marijuana policies at those of former President Donald Trump, stressing that cannabis is “not as dangerous as we once believed” on a new campaign page and buying ads promoting his clemency actions.

The Biden campaign has repeatedly pointed to that action as an example of the marijuana policy disconnect between the two administrations.
Read the latest court filing in the marijuana case against DOJ below:

 

[pipeline]

NORML Stands for Cannabis Freedom Today and Every Day

We won’t rest until we have liberated cannabis consumers nationwide

norml.org

NORML Stands for Cannabis Freedom Today and Every Day​

• by NORML
• Posted on July 4, 2024

NORML stands for freedom – not just on special occasions like today, but every day. That’s why we won’t rest until we have liberated cannabis consumers nationwide.
Thanks to supporters like you, we are closer than ever to achieving this goal. Seven in ten Americans agree that the use of cannabis should no longer be a crime, and even the President acknowledges, “No one should be jailed for using or possessing marijuana.” Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have stopped arresting adults for marijuana possession, and voters in several additional states – including Florida – will decide on legalization ballot measures this November. This progress gives us hope for a future where cannabis freedom is a reality for all.

Yet, as the American poet Maya Angelou once said, “No one of us can be free until everybody is free.”
That’s why we are asking you now – before you head to today’s barbecue or parade – to take a moment to stand with us in our fight for cannabis freedom.
We rely on grassroots supporters like you to fund our important work. While many of you can now use cannabis legally this July 4th holiday, many others still can’t. Every year, police continue to arrest a quarter of a million of our fellow Americans for activities that are now legal and celebrated in two dozen states. It’s time we liberate the rest.
Freedom isn’t free. That is why we need your support now more than ever. Please give to NORML today, on the day we as a nation celebrate our most fundamental liberties, so that we can free all Americans from the harms of cannabis prohibition.