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

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran

Senate Democrats’ Proposed Changes To Federal Hemp Laws Could ‘Eliminate A Whole Range Of Products,’ Industry Advocate Says​



3b71d81faa493372a683c777756df1f4




Published

on
November 18, 2024


By
Kyle Jaeger






Hemp-Fields-UK-American-Hemp.jpg








Senate Democrats have released the long-awaited text of an agriculture bill that contains several proposed changes to federal hemp laws—including provisions to amend how the legal limit of THC is measured and reducing regulatory barriers for farmers who grow the crop for grain or fiber. But certain stakeholders are concerned that part of the intent of the legislation is to “eliminate a whole range of products” that are now sold in the market.
About six months after publishing an initial summary of the legislation, the Democratic majority on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee shared the full text of its 2024 Farm Bill on Monday.
One key component of the legislation concerns the definition of hemp. As currently enacted, a crop is considered federally legal hemp if it contains no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC by dry weight. That would be revised under the new bill, making it so hemp would have to be tested for “total THC” content, including cannabinoids such as delta-8 THC and THC-A, and not just delta-9.

That could theoretically lead to a significant upheaval of the hemp industry as it has evolved since the crop was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, restricting not only the varieties of plants that could be cultivated but also the products that would be permitted in the marketplace. Lawmakers have been increasingly targeting intoxicating cannabinoid products that have proliferated in recent years.
The new draft bill would also create a specific definition for “industrial hemp,” which includes fiber, stalks, grain, oil, seeds and other components of the plant that “will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.”

People applying for licenses to produce industrial hemp would not be subject to background checks under the proposed legislation. And farmers who are producing industrial hemp could see “relaxed regulatory requirements” such as allowing visual inspections or performance-based sampling methods.
While the Senate committee said in its summary that the draft bill would remove an existing ban “on persons who were previously convicted of a felony relating to a controlled substance from participating in the program or producing hemp,” it’s not immediately clear if that policy made it into the 1,397-page legislation.

Marijuana Moment reached out to the Senate committee for clarification, but a representative was not immediately available.
Another feature of the measure that wasn’t noted in the earlier summary relates to a “certified seed pilot program” that would be established, allowing the secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to authorize up to five states or tribal governments to “certify genetic purity and identity” of hemp seed varieties if they’ve been specifically bred to produce plants with no more than 0.3 percent total THC content.
Farmers who use those certified seeds could then apply for an exemption to testing requirements. Those exemptions would expire after three years, but they could reapply. Any states or tribes that are selected to participate in the pilot program would need to develop a regulatory plan for vendors of the certified seeds.

If an industrial hemp producer is found to have grown crops “inconsistent with that license,” with “a culpable mental state greater than negligence,” they would become ineligible to obtain licensure for five years from the date of the violation.
Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment that stakeholders are “trying to figure all this out,” with questions remaining about the scope of the restrictions that are being proposed.
“We’re obviously opposed to it, but we don’t know how strongly we’re opposed,” he said. “It’s certainly intended to eliminate a whole range of products, but it could eliminate the whole hemp extract industry.”

That said, Miller noted that it’s widely understood on Capitol Hill that this bill is unlikely to advance to enactment in the remainder of the session, so there will be additional opportunity to amend the legislation.
In May, GOP House leaders released their own draft version of the agriculture legislation, which could also reduce regulatory barriers for certain hemp farmers and scale-back a ban on industry participation by people with prior drug felony convictions.
But under an amendment adopted by the House Agriculture Committee, it would also remove cannabinoids that are “synthesized or manufactured outside of the plant” from the federal definition of legal hemp. The change is backed by prohibitionists as well as some marijuana companies, who’ve described the restriction as a fix to a “loophole” in the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in a report in June that hemp provisions included in that spending bill could also “create confusion” for the industry due to a lack of clarity around the type of allowable products.


Anti-drug groups, law enforcement and some health organizations have called on Congress to embrace the ban, arguing that “trying to regulate semi-synthetic cannabinoids will not work.”



In addition to Miller’s amendment in the farm bill, the House Appropriations Committee in July approved a separate spending bill that contains a similar provision to prohibit cannabinoid products such as delta-8 THC and CBD containing any “quantifiable” amount of THC.


Hemp-derived cannabinoids also came up in a recent federal appeals court decision in which judges ruled that cannabinoids derived from hemp, such as THC-O-acetate, indeed qualify as hemp and are legal under the 2018 Farm Bill. In making that ruling, the court rejected the Drug Enforcement Administration’s more restrictive interpretation of the law.



How to address hemp-derived cannabinoids has caused some fractures within the cannabis community, and in some cases marijuana businesses have found themselves on the same side as prohibitionists in pushing a derivatives ban.


Lawmakers and stakeholders have also been eyeing a number of other proposals that could be incorporated into the Farm Bill—and which could come up as proposed amendments as the proposal moves through the legislative process—including measures to free up hemp businesses to legally market products like CBD as dietary supplements or in the food supply.


Also, in September, a Democratic senator introduced a bill that would create a federal regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoids, allowing states to set their own rules for products such as CBD while also empowering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that certain safety standards are met in the marketplace—including making sure that products aren’t marketed to children.



Recent USDA data showed a slight rebound in the hemp economy in 2023—the result of a survey that the department mailed to thousands of farmers across the U.S. in January. The first version of the department’s hemp report was released in early 2022, setting a “benchmark” to compare to as the industry matures.


Meanwhile, USDA announced this month that it is once again delaying enforcement of a rule requiring hemp growers to test their crops exclusively at labs registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), citing “setbacks” at the agency that have led to “inadequate” access to such facilities.
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Whats the deal with the USA? Why has there not been a federal legalization bill since the MORE Act of 2022?

They have no problem bringing forth legislation to the table that creates cannabis regulation reforms, so why not discuss medical cannabis? Unless they plan to NOT talk about it. Thats whats happening. They plan to put it off and leave us in the danger zone until forced to by federal agencies who they consider to be authorities . Lawmakers refuse to bring the issue to the table in subversion to their duty to represent the people.

 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran



Politics


GOP Senator Says Marijuana Banking And Rescheduling Are ‘Half-Assed’ Measures, Arguing Cannabis Should Be Legally Regulated Like Alcohol And Tobacco​



3b71d81faa493372a683c777756df1f4




Published

on
November 19, 2024


By
Kyle Jaeger



A GOP senator says marijuana rescheduling and industry banking legislation are “half-assed measures,” and lawmakers should instead focus on legalizing cannabis under a federal regulatory framework similar to alcohol and tobacco. He also argued that hemp-derived products that are available in states across the country are “more harmful” than marijuana itself.


That position distinguishes Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) from the vast majority of other members of the Republican caucus who oppose cannabis legalization.


But in an interview with AskAPol that was published on Tuesday, Tillis said “I think we’re reaching a point to where we’ve got to take a look” at comprehensive reform.



The Biden administration’s effort sot reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—as well as a bipartisan marijuana banking bill that moved through a committee he sits on last year—”are all half-measures—we could even argue half-assed measures,” he said.


“We probably need to look at a federal comprehensive framework to deal with the banking issues and scheduling issues,” Tillis said. “But I think, in my opinion, we need a federal regimen that’s not unlike what we have for tobacco and alcohol, where you authenticate the crops on the front end, you mandate flavorings and delivery methods through the FDA and you allow banking.”



Without creating “one consistent framework” for marijuana, “we’re dancing around the issue,” he said.


Tillis added that he’s doesn’t necessarily mean cannabis needs to be federally legalized, but the federal government should at least play a role in regulating state marijuana markets. And he said he’s “really worried” that if incremental reforms such as rescheduling and banking go forward, “it’s going to be at the expense of people truly understanding the dangers out there” with hemp-derived products such as CBD, which he said “are more harmful than marijuana flower.”



Asked whether he’s support the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act if it came to a vote now, the senator said “no,” arguing that that enacting the modest banking reform would move Congress “further away from a comprehensive framework.”


“I think all that stuff has its place in a framework that also ensures that you don’t have the cartels making money by getting caught into the supply chain—and they are—and then you’ve got the off-the-books people,” he said.


Tillis voted against a cannabis banking bill in the Senate Banking Committee last year.


In the new AskAPol interview, the senator claimed that California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has been “kind of silent on this, because he happens to have a lot of people that are making a lot of money off the books and getting it into the system.”



“It all needs to be regulated, and my focus is on capturing the revenue that we should probably capture through an excise tax and dealing with all the negative consequences,” Tillis said.


The senator first discussed his support for creating a federal regulatory scheme for marijuana in an interview with Green Market Report in July, affirming that there should be a framework that “treats marijuana just like tobacco.”


Despite his position, in April Tillis joined Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) in asking federal, state and local officials what steps they were taking to enforce marijuana prohibition as an Indian tribe prepared to launch recreational cannabis sales on its lands within North Carolina.



Meanwhile, back in 2017, Tillis also teamed up with bipartisan colleagues on a bill that was meant to ease researchers’ access to marijuana for studies on its medical benefits and require the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to develop recommendations for good manufacturing practices for growing and producing cannabis for research.


Making the senator’s comments all the more significant is the fact that his state of North Carolina is among the minority that does not even have a comprehensive medical marijuana program in place.
 
Last edited:

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran

DEA Should Be Removed From Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing After Illegally Conspiring With Prohibitionists, Legal Filing Says​



3b71d81faa493372a683c777756df1f4




Published

on
November 19, 2024


By
Kyle Jaeger






A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge is being asked to remove the agency from its role in an upcoming hearing on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal, with a new legal filing citing alleged statutory violations that include “unlawful” communication with a prohibitionist group.
When the Department of Justice formally proposed moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—consistent with a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—one aspect stood out: The DEA administrator didn’t sign the notice of proposed rulemaking, breaking with historical precedent on federal scheduling proceedings. Instead, it was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
That was one of several factors that led to a motion being filed with DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney on Monday, seeking corrective action. It was submitted on behalf of Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International, which were both invited to participate in the rescheduling hearing that’s set to begin next month.

The issue isn’t just that DEA Administrator Anne Milgram declined to sign the proposed rule. Throughout that notice, the agency said it needed additional data on a variety of issues—namely cannabis-related health issues and law enforcement concerns—in order to make a complete assessment. The motion argues that the backwards approach to the rulemaking violates federal statute.
“By waiting until the publication of the [proposed rule]—and thus after DOJ had initiated proceedings under [the CSA]—to flag categories of supposedly ‘necessary data,’ DEA ensured that HHS would not get to respond to that data in its recommendation and evaluation,” the motion says. “Even worse, DEA effectively turned the [proposed rule] into a blueprint for the Prohibitionists it apparently was communicating with behind the scenes.”

Another issue that’s arisen concerns DEA’s selection of witnesses to participate in the December hearing, which was scheduled following a public comment period that saw tens of thousands of submissions—a majority of which favored rescheduling or otherwise pushed for bolder reform such as removing marijuana from the CSA altogether.
Mulrooney, the DEA ALJ appointed to handle the case, recently advised that the agency provided insufficient information about the 25 witnesses who were selected. He ordered the designated participants to fill in the blanks—for example, by making clear where they stand on the question of rescheduling. In doing so, he also pushed back the timeline for the hearing. A preliminary meeting is still set for next month, but it won’t be until early 2025 at least until they get to the merits of the case.

In the new motion filed with Mulrooney’s office, attorneys for the petitioners said DEA’s “lack of transparency” in creating the witness list is “alarming, undemocratic, and betrays notions of good governance.” In some cases, seemingly qualified candidates who requested to participate in the hearing did not receive formal denials. And the list submitted to the ALJ didn’t itemize the requesters or provide information about why they were approved or denied.
“Without knowing who DEA excluded and why, there is no way to assess whether and to what extent the Agency’s decisions are arbitrary and capricious, the subject of bias, or otherwise unlawful,” the filing says. “If, for example, DEA included parties with expertise on a particular topic but only if they opposed the Proposed Rule while also excluding parties with even more expertise on that same topic if they supported the Proposed Rule, then there would be a powerful case to be made that the Agency’s decisions were arbitrary and capricious.”

The filing also argues that by even selecting witnesses in the first place, DEA “usurped” the ALJ’s role as the presiding officer of the hearing.
Among the 25 witnesses that DEA chose to join the hearing was Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the nation’s leading prohibitionist group. The filing includes screenshots of social media posts where the group’s president, Kevin Sabet, indicated he had private conversations with DEA officials about the rescheduling effort as SAM rallied opposition to the reform and urged the agency to keep marijuana in Schedule I.

One week prior to DOJ’s publication of the proposed rule, Sabet posted on X that he could confirm Milgram wouldn’t sign the notice, citing “two confidential sources inside DEA and another outside DEA with intimate knowledge.”
That and other public disclosures added fuel to this latest motion.
“In light of this evidence of improper ex parte communications between DEA and private parties, this Tribunal must take all steps necessary to ensure that all such communications are discovered and included in the administrative record,” it says. In the relief section of the filing, it also calls on the DEA judge to mandate that records of such communication be preserved.
“Unless and until that happens, there will effectively be two records of these proceedings: one that is public and incomplete and another that is secret, complete, and available only to those in the know. Or as Dr. Sabet put it, those with ‘friends in low places,'” it says.

The motion also cites comments given by SAM Executive Vice President Luke Niforatos, who said during a webinar in June that DEA’s approach to the rescheduling notice offered prohibitionists a “roadmap for how to rebut their own Proposed Rule.”
Niforatos said in a statement to Marijuana Moment on Tuesday that the filing is “whacky” and amounts to “pure legal theater and no substance.”
“While it is an entertaining read, we are certain the filing will be rejected,” he said. “If anything, they have perhaps strengthened the argument for our participation.”

In any case, the latest motion implores the DEA tribunal to “use every tool at its disposal to uncover each instance of improper contact between DEA and prohibitionists and determine whether those contacts influenced the Designated Participants list created by the Administrator.”
“Requiring disclosure of the ex parte contacts is what the law demands, and because sunlight is the best disinfectant, it will restore confidence in these proceedings,” it says.
Ultimately, one of the critical requests attorneys for the cannabis companies behind the motion are making is for DEA to lose its status as the “proponent” of the proposed rule. Because the agency allegedly did not follow statutory rules and improperly selected witnesses, including SAM and other anti-drug groups tied to it, “DEA is the opponent” and “cannot bear the burden of proof in these proceedings.”

It’s unclear whether DEA ALJ Mulrooney has authority to remove the agency itself as the proponent in the hearing. But the motion advises that the judge should instead have DOJ—or alternatively Hemp for Victory—serve as the proponent.
Shane Pennington, a partner at Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP who authored the new brief said that “it is our belief that the DEA cannot lawfully act as the proponent of the Proposed Rule and that its actions throughout the administrative process demonstrate that it opposes the proposed transfer of marijuana to Schedule III and is therefore compromised.”

“Treating the DEA as the proponent of the Proposed Rule would violate [the Administrative Procedures Act] and DEA regulations and render these proceedings a sham,” he said. “Lawyers from the Department of Justice, not the Drug Enforcement Administration, must therefore defend this rule.”
Meanwhile, a marijuana and psychedelics researcher is asking the DEA ALJ to postpone its rescheduling hearing due to the agency’s alleged “improper blocking” of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until President-elect Donald Trump’s administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.
About a week after Panacea Plant Sciences founder and CEO David Heldreth filed a lawsuit in federal court, requesting an order halting the cannabis rescheduling proceedings, he submitted a motion to the DEA judge on Monday seeking a stay of the upcoming December hearing.

Mulrooney separately rejected a veterans group’s petition to participate in the upcoming rescheduling hearing, which the organization called a “travesty of justice” that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change.
For what it’s worth, Vice President Kamala Harris said recently that part of the reason for the delay in the administration’s marijuana rescheduling effort is federal bureaucracy that “slows things down,” including at DEA.
In March, Harris also expressed some frustration with the bureaucratic process of rescheduling marijuana, prior to DOJ’s formal recommendation, calling on DEA to expediently finish the job.
While the Biden–Harris administration facilitated the review that led to the DOJ rescheduling proposal, Trump has also voiced support for the reform.
In Congress, numerous lawmakers have shared their own perspectives on the proposed reform with DEA and DOJ since the Schedule III announcement was made.
In August, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) raised concerns about the Biden administration’s justification for recommending marijuana rescheduling, demanding answers to questions from federal agencies about how they arrived at that decision in what he described as a rushed and unconventional administrative process.

A week earlier, top Democratic senators—including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—sent a separate letter to DOJ’s Garland and DEA’s Milgram urging the agencies to ”promptly finalize” the rule to reschedule marijuana.
While rescheduling would remove certain research barriers and free up state-licensed cannabis business to take federal tax deductions under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E, it would not federally legalize marijuana, as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has made known in multiple recent reports.
Meanwhile, two additional congressional lawmakers have joined the ranks of GOP members who are challenging what they say is the “unusual” process that led the Biden administration to propose rescheduling marijuana, expressing concern about how the review was carried out and demanding answers.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) condemned the Biden administration’s push to reclassify marijuana, as well as legislative efforts to enact bipartisan cannabis banking reform, because he says the policy changes would “prop up this immoral industry” and give a “green light to the evil that comes from drug use.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also blasted the Biden administration over what he described as repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.

Similarly, 25 GOP congressional lawmakers sent a public comment letter in July opposing the administration’s planned rescheduling of marijuana, specifically alleging the government’s recommendation was based on politics rather than science.
Read the motion submitted to the DEA judge on the marijuana rescheduling case below:
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran



Politics


DEA Judge Gives Agency One Week To Address Allegations Of Illegal Talks With Marijuana Opponents Amid Rescheduling Process​



3b71d81faa493372a683c777756df1f4




Published

on
November 20, 2024


By
Kyle Jaeger







A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge is giving the agency less than a week to respond to recent allegations that it illegally communicated with the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) during the Biden administration’s rescheduling review process.
Just two days after a motion was filed with DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney, challenging the agency’s role as a “proponent” of the proposed rescheduling rule, the official responded with a filing that expressed mixed opinions about the underlying arguments.
The brief order emphasized that the case was unprecedented, with attorneys for two cannabis organizations asking the DEA tribunal to “unilaterally remove the DEA, its counsels, and its Administrator” from the rescheduling process ahead of an initial hearing on December 2.

That request from Hemp for Victory and Village Farms was largely based on an allegation that DEA officials “engaged in ex parte communications regarding the merits of the proposed rescheduling” in violation of federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) statute. The petitioners have asked that DEA be replaced by the Justice Department or Hemp for Victory as the “proponent” of the rule.
In a historic first, it was Attorney General Merrick Garland—and not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram—who signed the proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The motion said that, as well as DEA’s apparent indecision on the proposed rule, warranted a change in the hearing structure.

The judge, in turn, said that the prospect of removing an agency head from rulemaking that it is responsible for overseeing would likely, “and correctly,” be deemed beyond the ALJ office’s jurisdiction.
“That said, this tribunal does retain sufficient authority and independence to tender recommendations to the Administrator, no matter what discomfiture those recommendations may inflict upon the Agency or its Leadership,” it said.
“While deciding nothing at this juncture, that aspect of the Motion’s request that one of the Movants supplant the Agency as the proponent of [proposed rule] may arguably be vulnerable to a characterization of being unserious. The Motion propounds no hint of authority for such an unprecedented action, what control could or should be exercised over that Movant who replaces the Government, or (probably more importantly) what would happen next if this unique request was actually granted.”

Mulrooney added that, even if the DEA “may not (yet?) be convinced about the correctness of the proposed rescheduling action pending a review of the recommended decision,” the “efficacy” of swapping the DEA head for a proponent who is “absolutely firmly entrenched in the one side of the issue” is “not altogether clear from the Motion.”
“But again, nothing is decided here,” he said.
Regardless of the potential efficacy of the procedural request, the DEA judge did say that, “on the other side of the coin, the allegations regarding alleged improper ex parte communications are serious, and the concomitant obligations to memorialize and report such communications set forth in the APA and the regulations are by no means couched in permissive language.”

That’s a reference to the motion’s allegations that DEA may have violated certain laws while conducting the rescheduling review, including “unlawful” communication with the prohibitionist organization SAM.
The filing included screenshots of social media posts where the group’s president, Kevin Sabet, indicated he had private conversations with DEA officials about the rescheduling effort as SAM rallied opposition to the reform and urged the agency to keep marijuana in Schedule I.
One week prior to DOJ’s publication of the proposed rule, Sabet posted on X that he could confirm Milgram wouldn’t sign the notice, citing “two confidential sources inside DEA and another outside DEA with intimate knowledge.”

The DEA judge said that the government is invited, but not obligated, to respond to the motion’s allegations by November 25.
Shane Pennington, one of the attorneys who filed the underlying motion regarding DEA’s role in the hearing, told Marijuana Moment that while he disagreed with certain aspects of the judge’s new order, he was encouraged that it appears Mulrooney is taking the matter seriously—evidenced in part by that fact that the motion wasn’t summarily dismissed.
In the meantime, the initial rescheduling hearing is still moving forward, with an initial preliminary meeting set for December 2. Mulrooney on Tuesday officially ruled on which of the agency’s 25 selected witnesses for the hearing will be able to participate, while laying out the procedure for the administrative process—including how pro- and anti-reform speakers will be able to cross-examine one another.

In a footnote of that order, the judge said he wasn’t convinced that the underlying argument about DEA’s role in the hearing merited consideration with respect to standing to participate. But he said the substance of the motion would still be considered separate from the witness selection order.
“The balance of this requestor’s arguments in favor of standing are wholly unpersuasive. To argue, at this procedural juncture, that the DEA is an improper advocate or sponsor of its own [proposed rule] adds nothing to the standing equation and (at least on the present record) presents little more than an ad hominem distraction from the important advocacy and adjudicative work to be accomplished in these proceedings,” Mulrooney’s order said.

But while the judge asserted that DEA issued the rule and is thus properly appointed as its sponsor, the agency did not in fact sign off on the rescheduling notice and raised a series of questions that signaled to many that it wasn’t on board.
Meanwhile, a marijuana and psychedelics researcher is asking the DEA ALJ to postpone its rescheduling hearing due to the agency’s alleged “improper blocking” of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until President-elect Donald Trump’s administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.
About a week after Panacea Plant Sciences founder and CEO David Heldreth filed a lawsuit in federal court, requesting an order halting the cannabis rescheduling proceedings, he submitted a motion to the DEA judge on Monday seeking a stay of the upcoming December hearing.

Mulrooney separately rejected a veterans group’s petition to participate in the upcoming rescheduling hearing, which the organization called a “travesty of justice” that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change.
For what it’s worth, Vice President Kamala Harris said recently that part of the reason for the delay in the administration’s marijuana rescheduling effort is federal bureaucracy that “slows things down,” including at DEA.
In March, Harris also expressed some frustration with the bureaucratic process of rescheduling marijuana, prior to DOJ’s formal recommendation, calling on DEA to expediently finish the job.
While the Biden–Harris administration facilitated the review that led to the DOJ rescheduling proposal, Trump has also voiced support for the reform.
In Congress, numerous lawmakers have shared their own perspectives on the proposed reform with DEA and DOJ since the Schedule III announcement was made.
In August, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) raised concerns about the Biden administration’s justification for recommending marijuana rescheduling, demanding answers to questions from federal agencies about how they arrived at that decision in what he described as a rushed and unconventional administrative process.
A week earlier, top Democratic senators—including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—sent a separate letter to DOJ’s Garland and DEA’s Milgram urging the agencies to ”promptly finalize” the rule to reschedule marijuana.

While rescheduling would remove certain research barriers and free up state-licensed cannabis business to take federal tax deductions under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E, it would not federally legalize marijuana, as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has made known in multiple recent reports.
Meanwhile, two additional congressional lawmakers have joined the ranks of GOP members who are challenging what they say is the “unusual” process that led the Biden administration to propose rescheduling marijuana, expressing concern about how the review was carried out and demanding answers.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) condemned the Biden administration’s push to reclassify marijuana, as well as legislative efforts to enact bipartisan cannabis banking reform, because he says the policy changes would “prop up this immoral industry” and give a “green light to the evil that comes from drug use.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also blasted the Biden administration over what he described as repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.
Similarly, 25 GOP congressional lawmakers sent a public comment letter in July opposing the administration’s planned rescheduling of marijuana, specifically alleging the government’s recommendation was based on politics rather than science.
Read the DEA judge’s order on the request to remove DEA from the marijuana rescheduling hearing below:
 
Last edited:

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Republicans seem to be on board with medical cannabis, its just the conflict with federal law they have a problem with. Thing is the politicians shouldn't have the authority to allow access to medical cannabis for only certain medical issues. People should be able to make that decision for themself. Should be over the counter for adult-use without prescription. I think that would about fix it, or it would be a start.

Cant wait for the day we can go down to the coffee shop to smoke and play chess all winter. I like the dutch model. :smoke:
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Yeah, don't make someone go through a doctor. Its been determined to be relatively safe and states have already adopted this policy, so they need to loosen up. I think its going to be some blowback though if done too quickly because they maintained a poor policy for so long. Maybe that is part of what is holding back comprehensive reforms which repeal prohibition. .
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran

The Origin of the Word ‘Marijuana’​

Anna WilcoxPublished on March 6, 2014 · Last updated July 28, 2020


Cannabis 101

The Origin of the Word ‘Marijuana’​

Anna WilcoxPublished on March 6, 2014 · Last updated July 28, 2020

The word “marijuana” plays a controversial role in cannabis culture. Many well-known organizations such as Oakland’s Harborside Heath Center have publicly denounced “the M word” in favor of our favorite plant’s Latinate name, cannabis. Even Salon Magazine, a major press outlet outside of the cannabis industry, published an article titled “Is the word ‘Marijuana’ racist?” last year.

As mainstream culture becomes a little more herb-friendly, the terminology used by the industry is coming to center stage. But, why exactly does the term “marijuana” cause so much debate? Even worse, why has the word gained publicity as a racist term?
To save you from reading those lengthy history books or some boring academic articles, we’ve created this brief timeline to give you the low-down on “marijuana”’s rise to popularity in the United States. Here’s what you need to know:

The Mexican Revolution​

1840-1900:
Prior to 1910, “marijuana” didn’t exist as a word in American culture. Rather, “cannabis” was used, most often in reference to medicines and remedies for common household ailments. In the early 1900s, what have now become pharmaceutical giants—Bristol-Meyer’s Squib and Eli Lilly—used to include cannabis and cannabis extracts in their medicines.

During this time, Americans (particularly elite Americans) were going through a hashish trend. Glamorized by literary celebrities such as Alexander Dumas, experimenting with cannabis products became a fad among those wealthy enough to afford imported goods.
1910:
Between the years of 1910 and 1920, over 890,000 Mexicans legally immigrated into the United States seeking refuge from the wreckage of civil war. Though cannabis had been a part of U.S. history since the country’s beginnings, the idea of smoking the plant recreationally was not as common as other forms of consumption. The idea of smoking cannabis entered mainstream American consciousness after the arrival of immigrants who brought the smoking habit with them.
1913:
The first bill criminalizing the cultivation of “locoweed” was passed in California. The bill was a major push from the Board of Pharmacy as a way to regulate opiates and psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and seemingly did not stem from the “reefer madness” or racialized understanding of “marijuana” that paved the way to full-on prohibition in the 1930s.

The Aftermath​

1930s:

The Great Depression had just hit the United States, and Americans were searching for someone to blame. Due to the influx of immigrants (particularly in the South) and the rise of suggestive jazz music, many white Americans began to treat cannabis (and, arguably, the black people and Mexican immigrants who consumed it) as a foreign substance used to corrupt the minds and bodies of low-class individuals.

In the time just before the federal criminalization of the plant, 29 states independently banned the herb that came to be known as “marijuana.”

Harry Anslinger:

It would not be an overstatement to say that Harry Anslinger was one of the primary individuals responsible for creating the stigma surrounding cannabis. Hired as the first director of the recently created Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, Anslinger launched a vigilant campaign against cannabis that would hold steady for the three decades he remained in office.


A very outspoken man, Anslinger used the recent development of the movie theater to spread messages that racialized the plant for white audiences. In one documented incident, Anslinger testified before Congress, explaining:

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind… Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage.”
In another statement, Anslinger articulated: “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

In retrospect, Anslinger’s efforts with the Bureau of Narcotics were the reason “marijuana” became a word known by Americans all over the country. When making public appearances and crafting propaganda films such as Reefer Madness, Anslinger specifically used the term “marijuana” when campaigning against the plant, adding to the development of the herb’s new “foreign” identity.

Cannabis was no longer the plant substance found in medicines and consumed unanimously by American’s all over the country.

1937:

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was the culmination of Anslinger’s work and the first step to all-out prohibition. The bill federally criminalized the cannabis plant in every U.S. state. In order to discourage the production of cannabis use, the Tax Act of 1937 placed a one dollar tax on anyone who sold or cultivated the cannabis plant.

On top of the tax itself, the bill mandated that all individuals comply with certain enforcement provisions. Violation of the provisions would result in imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $2,000.

Though the word “marijuana” is the most common name for cannabis in the United States today, its history is deeply steeped in race, politics, and a complicated cultural revolution. Some argue that using the word ignores a history of oppression against Mexican immigrants and African Americans, while others insist that the term has now lost its prejudiced bite. Regardless of whether or not you decide to use the word yourself, it’s impossible to deny the magnitude and racial implications of its introduction to the American lexicon.
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran



Politics


Texas GOP Attorney General Sues To Overturn Voter-Approved Marijuana Decriminalization Law In Dallas​



3b71d81faa493372a683c777756df1f4




Published

on
November 21, 2024


By
Kyle Jaeger








The Republican attorney general of Texas has already filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a local marijuana decriminalization ordinance in Dallas that voters passed at the ballot earlier this month.
While 67 percent of Dallas voters approved the reform measure, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is continuing his so far unsuccessful campaign to reverse local decriminalization policies, filing suit against the state’s third most populous city on Wednesday.
Numerous Texas cities have enacted local decriminalization laws in recent years, and, in January, Paxton similarly sought to block the reform in Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Elgin and Denton.

State district judges dismissed two of the lawsuits—which argue that state law prohibiting marijuana preempts the local policies—in Austin and San Marcos. The city of Elgin reached a settlement, with the local government pointing out that decriminalization was never implemented there despite voter approval of the initiative.
“Cities cannot pick and choose which State laws they follow,” the attorney general said in a press release on Thursday. “The City of Dallas has no authority to override Texas drug laws or prohibit the police from enforcing them. This is a backdoor attempt to violate the Texas Constitution, and any city that tries to constrain police in this fashion will be met swiftly with a lawsuit by my office.”

Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues the City of Dallas for Ballot Measure Prohibiting Police from Enforcing Marijuana-Related Offenses: https://t.co/BVNsb5kF3j
— Texas Attorney General (@TXAG) November 21, 2024

The filing against Dallas comes after the City Council rejected a motion to delay enactment of the marijuana decriminalization law.
Ground Game Texas, the nonprofit that’s spearheaded many of the local reform efforts, said on Tuesday that, while “this is not the first time that our marijuana decriminalization propositions have been described as in conflict with state law, it is important to clarify that this is not true—we drafted these propositions carefully in order to comply with current state law.”

“Decriminalization is not legalization, but instead a change to enforcement policy,” the group said.
Dallas lawmakers formally put the marijuana decriminalization initiative on the ballot in August after activists turned in sufficient petitions for the reform. Now that voters have approved the proposal, possession of up to four ounces of marijuana is decriminalized in the city.
Cannabis icon and music legend Willie Nelson had urged Dallas voters to pass the marijuana measure.
Prior to the August vote on ballot placement, some members of the Dallas City Council had expressed interest in streamlining the process of decriminalizing cannabis by acting legislatively, but plans to introduce the proposal at a hearing in June did not materialize, leaving the matter to voters.

Here’s what the initiative accomplishes:
  • The measure prevents police from making arrests or issuing citations for Class A or B misdemeanor cannabis possession offenses, unless it’s part of a high priority felony investigation for narcotics or violent crime.
  • Further, it says “Dallas police shall not consider the odor of marijuana or hemp to constitute probable cause for any search or seizure.”
  • The city manager and chief of police is required to prepare quarterly reports on the implementation of the policy change, with information about any marijuana possession arrests or citations that must be submitted to the Dallas City Council.

Also at the ballot this month, voters in the Texas cities of Lockhart and Bastrop similarly elected to pass local decriminalization ordinances.
Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has lashed out against the municipal cannabis reform efforts.
“Local communities such as towns, cities and counties, they don’t have the authority to override state law,” the governor said in May “If they want to see a different law passed, they need to work with their legislators. Let’s legislate to work to make sure that the state, as a state, will pass some of the law.”
He said it would lead to “chaos” and create an “unworkable system” for voters in individual cities to be “picking and choosing” the laws they want abide by under state statute.

Abbott has previously said that he doesn’t believe people should be in jail over marijuana possession—although he mistakenly suggested at the time that Texas had already enacted a decriminalization policy to that end.
Paxton had used more inflammatory rhetoric when his office announced that it was suing the five cities over their local laws decriminalizing marijuana, vowing to overrule the “anarchy” of “pro-crime extremists” who advocated for the reform.
Last year, Ground Game released a report that looked at the impacts of the marijuana reform laws. It found that the measures will keep hundreds of people out of jail, even as they have led to blowback from law enforcement in some cities. The initiatives have also driven voter turnout by being on the ballot, the report said.
Another cannabis decriminalization measure that went before voters in San Antonio last year was overwhelmingly defeated, but that proposal also included unrelated provisions to prevent enforcement of abortion restrictions.
 

pipeline

Cannabotanist
ICMag Donor
Veteran
SAM, a prohibitionist group, testified in committee hearings in Indiana legislature. They had a message based on propaganda and were manipulative in their speaking.



DEA Judge Invites Prohibitionist Group To Explain Allegedly ‘Unlawful’ Talks With Agency Amid Marijuana Rescheduling Review​



3b71d81faa493372a683c777756df1f4




Published

on
November 21, 2024


By
Kyle Jaeger

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge is inviting the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) to explain recent allegations that it was involved in “unlawful” communications with the agency as it considered the Biden administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal.


Separately, the judge has denied a request from a cannabis and psychedelics researcher to postpone an upcoming hearing on the rescheduling issue.


On Thursday, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney filed a supplemental brief in the marijuana case that concerns allegations from two cannabis organizations that certain DEA officials were unlawfully involved in ex parte communications with SAM, which has strongly opposed the government’s plan to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).



The ALJ on Wednesday notified DEA that it was welcome to respond to the “serious” allegations. And on Thursday, it extended that invitation to SAM itself, requesting any voluntary responses from both parties by November 25.


The initial motion from Hemp for Victory and Village Farms “alleges, inter alia, that there have been improper ex parte communications between [SAM], a Designated Participant, and officials at the Drug Enforcement Administration,” the latest order says. “In light of these allegations and any potential impact on participation eligibility, SAM is likewise authorized to respond to the Motion.”



“As such, it is herein ORDERED, that in addition to the Government, should Smart Approaches to Marijuana (and by this order only that Designated Participant) elect to respond to the Motion it may do so no later than 2:00 P.M. Eastern Time on November 25, 2024.”


Marijuana Moment reached out to SAM, but a representative declined to comment.


Meanwhile, in response to the underlying motion that challenges DEA’s role as a “proponent” of the proposed rescheduling rule, the official separately responded with a filing directed at the agency that expressed mixed opinions about the arguments.



The order emphasized that the case was unprecedented, with attorneys for the two cannabis organizations asking the DEA tribunal to “unilaterally remove the DEA, its counsels, and its Administrator” from the rescheduling process ahead of an initial hearing on December 2.


The petitioners have asked that DEA be replaced by the Justice Department or Hemp for Victory as the “proponent” of the rule.


In a historic first, it was Attorney General Merrick Garland—and not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram—who signed the proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The motion said that, as well as DEA’s apparent indecision on the proposed rule, warranted a change in the hearing structure.



The judge, in turn, said that the prospect of removing an agency head from rulemaking that it is responsible for overseeing would likely, “and correctly,” be deemed beyond the ALJ office’s jurisdiction.


“That said, this tribunal does retain sufficient authority and independence to tender recommendations to the Administrator, no matter what discomfiture those recommendations may inflict upon the Agency or its Leadership,” it said.


Mulrooney added that, even if the DEA “may not (yet?) be convinced about the correctness of the proposed rescheduling action pending a review of the recommended decision,” the “efficacy” of swapping the DEA head for a proponent who is “absolutely firmly entrenched in the one side of the issue” is “not altogether clear from the Motion.”



“But again, nothing is decided here,” he said.


Regardless of the potential efficacy of the procedural request, the DEA judge did say that, “on the other side of the coin, the allegations regarding alleged improper ex parte communications are serious, and the concomitant obligations to memorialize and report such communications set forth in the APA and the regulations are by no means couched in permissive language.”


That’s a reference to the motion’s allegations that DEA may have violated certain laws while conducting the rescheduling review, including “unlawful” communication with the prohibitionist organization SAM.


The filing included screenshots of social media posts where the group’s president, Kevin Sabet, indicated he had private conversations with DEA officials about the rescheduling effort as SAM rallied opposition to the reform and urged the agency to keep marijuana in Schedule I.



One week prior to DOJ’s publication of the proposed rule, Sabet posted on X that he could confirm Milgram wouldn’t sign the notice, citing “two confidential sources inside DEA and another outside DEA with intimate knowledge.”


In the meantime, the initial rescheduling hearing is still moving forward, with an initial preliminary meeting set for December 2. Mulrooney on Tuesday officially ruled on which of the agency’s 25 selected witnesses for the hearing will be able to participate, while laying out the procedure for the administrative process—including how pro- and anti-reform speakers will be able to cross-examine one another.



In a footnote of that order, the judge said he wasn’t convinced that the underlying argument about DEA’s role in the hearing merited consideration with respect to standing to participate. But he said the substance of the motion would still be considered separate from the witness selection order.


“The balance of this requestor’s arguments in favor of standing are wholly unpersuasive. To argue, at this procedural juncture, that the DEA is an improper advocate or sponsor of its own [proposed rule] adds nothing to the standing equation and (at least on the present record) presents little more than an ad hominem distraction from the important advocacy and adjudicative work to be accomplished in these proceedings,” Mulrooney’s order said.


But while the judge asserted that DEA issued the rule and is thus properly appointed as its sponsor, the agency did not in fact sign off on the rescheduling notice and raised a series of questions that signaled to many that it wasn’t on board.



Meanwhile, the DEA ALJ rejected a separate motion seeking to postpone the marijuana rescheduling hearing over the agency’s alleged “improper blocking” of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until President-elect Donald Trump’s administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.


About a week after Panacea Plant Sciences founder and CEO David Heldreth filed a lawsuit in federal court, requesting an order halting the cannabis rescheduling proceedings, he submitted a motion to the DEA judge on Monday seeking a stay of the upcoming December hearing.


Mulrooney said that the “propounded basis for the requested stay is founded primarily on this absence from the [designated participant] roster, but is alternatively based upon his aspirational view that the impending change in presidential administrations might yield a more successful decisional structure.”


“Inasmuch as the Petitioner was not included in the Administrator’s Designated Participant list, and has not been admitted to the proceedings in some other manner, no action can or will be taken on his Motion to Stay,” the judge said.



Mulrooney separately rejected a veterans group’s petition to participate in the upcoming rescheduling hearing, which the organization called a “travesty of justice” that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change.


For what it’s worth, Vice President Kamala Harris said recently that part of the reason for the delay in the administration’s marijuana rescheduling effort is federal bureaucracy that “slows things down,” including at DEA.



In March, Harris also expressed some frustration with the bureaucratic process of rescheduling marijuana, prior to DOJ’s formal recommendation, calling on DEA to expediently finish the job.


While the Biden–Harris administration facilitated the review that led to the DOJ rescheduling proposal, Trump has also voiced support for the reform.


In Congress, numerous lawmakers have shared their own perspectives on the proposed reform with DEA and DOJ since the Schedule III announcement was made.


In August, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) raised concerns about the Biden administration’s justification for recommending marijuana rescheduling, demanding answers to questions from federal agencies about how they arrived at that decision in what he described as a rushed and unconventional administrative process.


A week earlier, top Democratic senators—including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—sent a separate letter to DOJ’s Garland and DEA’s Milgram urging the agencies to ”promptly finalize” the rule to reschedule marijuana.


While rescheduling would remove certain research barriers and free up state-licensed cannabis business to take federal tax deductions under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E, it would not federally legalize marijuana, as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has made known in multiple recent reports.



Meanwhile, two additional congressional lawmakers have joined the ranks of GOP members who are challenging what they say is the “unusual” process that led the Biden administration to propose rescheduling marijuana, expressing concern about how the review was carried out and demanding answers.


Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) condemned the Biden administration’s push to reclassify marijuana, as well as legislative efforts to enact bipartisan cannabis banking reform, because he says the policy changes would “prop up this immoral industry” and give a “green light to the evil that comes from drug use.”


Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also blasted the Biden administration over what he described as repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.


Similarly, 25 GOP congressional lawmakers sent a public comment letter in July opposing the administration’s planned rescheduling of marijuana, specifically alleging the government’s recommendation was based on politics rather than science.



Read the DEA judge’s latest orders in the marijuana rescheduling case below:
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top