Rahul Gupta, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), discussed the rescheduling efforts during an interview with the Mo News Podcast that was posted on Tuesday.

“We’ve had, when it comes to marijuana, failed policies for more than half a century, because of which way too many lives have been upended,” he said. “We have had a failed approach where we have so many people incarcerated because of it and so many people, their lives have been basically destroyed.”

Gupta aligned himself with President Joe Biden’s position that nobody should be jailed over marijuana possession or use, pointing out that such a conviction can impact housing and job opportunities.

Moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as the administration is proposing, would not legalize cannabis, however. So people could still face those collateral consequences, even for simple possession, if it is merely reclassified. However, as Gupta pointed out, the reform will remove certain research barriers that could potentially streamline drug development.

“A New Approach on Marijuana & The Fight Against Fentanyl – A Conversation With the US Drug Czar”

Listen to @DrGupta46 discuss the Biden-Harris Administration’s latest efforts to address the nation’s overdose epidemic and save lives https://t.co/NMi9xA2TnN

— ONDCP (@ONDCP) May 28, 2024

“We’ve got to make sure that we are following science and analyzing substances for potential benefit, especially with the data that exists,” he said, adding that with a Schedule III designation, “there will be drugs that will be developed that will have to go through [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] approval process and all of that.”

“But it does allow the recognition of the medical uses,” he said. “More importantly, it also allows the opening of research. It’s critical because the research for over half a century has been lacking significantly in this field to see the current and more benefits in the future—more product developments. We may have new products that may be able to help with or cure diseases.”

“It also will help people with chronic conditions like cancer or chronic pain or others as well,” he said, adding that under Schedule I, it’s a “catch-22 situation” where people are seeking more research to demonstrate the medical utility of cannabis but face obstacles to conducting such research.

[embedded content]

“There will be systems in the future that will be developed that will probably be less expensive and more legal, you can say, in that sense, because it will be through a Schedule III regime that will be there,” he said.

Of course, the idea that companies will prioritize cannabis-derived drug development with a Schedule III reclassification is only a theoretical possibility. FDA has already approved synthetic THC and CBD-based medications for certain conditions, and it’s possible that the reduced research barriers could lead to additional approvals down the line. But it is unlikely that FDA would approve marijuana in botanical form as a prescription drug, so the products available in commercial markets would continue to be illegal and unapproved for interstate commerce.

A report published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) earlier this month also clarified that further action from FDA would be needed before marijuana products become available by prescription.

Gupta oversimplified the idea of marijuana’s potential availability as a prescription drug in another recent interview. And he’s also mistakenly suggested that rescheduling would address the “racial disparity” in cannabis enforcement.

One of the more confusing parts of Gupta’s latest interview came when he was asked whether Congress should follow the lead of states and federally legalize marijuana. The ONDCP director didn’t directly answer the question but said part of Biden’s reasoning for orchestrating the administrative scheduling review was because “he did wait on Congress, and movement did not happen.”

Tune in to hear my conversation with @Mosheh on recent actions our Administration has taken to strengthen public health and crack down on illicit drug trafficking across the nation. https://t.co/1RxzRkRJa7

— Rahul Gupta (@DrGupta46) May 28, 2024

As the White House has repeatedly clarified, Biden does not support federal marijuana legalization, even if he backs the right of states to set their own cannabis policies. He hasn’t publicly said that the scheduling review directive was a response to congressional inaction; rather, he’s characterized it as an example of fulfilling a campaign promise.

“Of course, Congress has the ability to move forward in any way it wants to,” Gupta said. “But at the same time, we just can’t stay still because too many lives are at stake, both from the criminal justice system and also from the benefits of it.”

“It’s important that, as an administration, we’re doing what can be possible from administration standpoint,” he said. “It’s both evidence-guided, as well as guided by law that currently exists to take this process on and ensure that we’re doing everything possible when it comes to, again, this policy that has been in place for decades and decades and has not helped the American people.”

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

A former drug czar who served under President Barack Obama recently took a sharply different position on marijuana rescheduling than Gupta. Former ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske recently said that cannabis is “not medicine” and that rescheduling was “all Big Cannabis.”

“This isn’t people my age that are just old hippies that want to open up a pot shop somewhere” Kerlikowske said on the podcast of former U.S. Rep. Mary Bono (R). “This is a huge business like Big Tobacco. Absolutely.”

Meanwhile, the proposed rule to federally reschedule marijuana was officially posted last week, kicking off a public comment period that’s expected to elicit a major response from supporters and opponents of cannabis reform.

Marijuana reform advocates and stakeholders have made clear that they intend to leverage the opportunity, with some planning to support the reclassification while others intend to call for descheduling cannabis altogether. Prohibitionists are expected to oppose the incremental policy change and seek to keep marijuana in Schedule I, and there’s also a looming threat of litigation.

While DOJ will take all public comments submitted by July 22 into consideration as it weighs the reform, it said in the notice that one of the topics its especially interested in hearing about is the “unique economic impacts” of the rescheduling proposal given that state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.

On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues have reintroduced legislation to federally legalize cannabis and impose certain regulations. The bill’s prospects are dubious in the current divided Congress, however.

Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the U.S. House said that the Biden administration’s move to reschedule marijuana is a “step in the right direction,” but it should be followed up with congressional action such as passing the legalization bill Schumer filed.

In a recent interview with Fox News, former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said it “absolutely looks like” the agency will follow through with moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA.

Biden has separately issued two rounds of mass pardons for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses. Again, a Schedule III reclassification would not legalize cannabis or free people still incarcerated over cannabis.

During his run for the presidency, Biden pledged to move cannabis to Schedule II—a stricter category compared to what’s been proposed by his administration.

Biden Finally Acknowledges His Marijuana Pardons Did Not Expunge Records After Repeatedly Claiming They Did

By Colin Young, State House News Service Via CommonWealth Beacon

Turmoil reared its head again at the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) last week, when one commissioner suggested that another had done something that “created intense upheaval, discord and instability” at the agency and then torpedoed an effort to divide up the agency’s acting executive director’s duties.

The CCC has been in disarray for much of the last year. The agency has been without a dedicated chairperson since Shannon O’Brien was suspended by Treasurer Deborah Goldberg in September and without an executive director for nearly as long.

Shawn Collins, the only administrative head in the CCC’s history, went out on parental leave in September and resigned before returning in December. Chief People Officer Debra Hilton-Creek has been serving as acting executive director in the meantime, and the agency’s search for a new executive director appears months behind its originally envisioned schedule.

“We’re mindful and we’re preparing for the next ED, for the next leader and administrative leader, of the agency. So it’s important that we essentially just get our ducks in a row and prepare ourselves for that transition during this transition period,” Acting Chair Ava Callender Concepcion said last week.

Tensions were obvious Thursday when the CCC took up an an item referred to on the meeting agenda as “CCC 2024 Key Priorities and Operational Changes.” Concepcion then presented two motions: one to direct the CCC’s top lawyer to move ahead with the promulgation process for regulatory changes the commission has already agreed to (which passed) and a second to delegate many of the acting executive director responsibilities from Hilton-Creek to various other CCC department heads, a proposal which led to a messy exchange.

Commissioner Kimberly Roy was recognized at the start of the discussion and read a short statement.

“As you know, I’m one of five appointed members of the CCC. All five of us are co-equal voting members of this body. As members of the commission, we are required to operate under certain rules, regulations and statutes in which we operate. I have questions and concerns about certain activities that may have occurred in the last 48 hours or so that not only myself as a commissioner, CCC staff and the public at large need answers to,” said Roy, a Gov. Charlie Baker (R) appointee. “It is further important to note these actions have created intense upheaval, discord and instability within our staff, as I’ve heard from many of them, as well as a device of distraction to our agency.”

Roy, who served as acting chairwoman for the first meeting following O’Brien’s suspension before Concepcion was voted into that temporary position, then asked Concepcion to recognize her “throughout the course of this discussion and that no parliamentary procedures such as moving the question or the motion are deployed to stifle debate.”

“The public will recognize this as censorship, and the press watching today,” Roy said.

Roy then turned her attention to Commissioner Bruce Stebbins. “Commissioner Stebbins, over the last 48 hours have you been involved in a process to replace acting Executive Director Hilton-Creek? Did you make employment offers…” Roy said before Concepcion shut her down by talking over her.

Concepcion said that Roy was “entering statements and information that is not a part of today’s discussion or vote” and asked that the CCC’s general counsel provide “any legal guidance at this time.”

General Counsel Kristina Gasson said she “would just caution commissioners from adding anything that…involves like a personnel action that might be considered to be held confidential on privacy implications, implications under the public records law, and just making sure that we preserve privacy in those cases.”

Roy did not specify which job or jobs were supposedly offered to whom, and no additional details about the alleged offers was shared during the meeting last Thursday.

Roy complained she’s “not briefed on any of these things” and said that Concepcion has “not provided me any context.” She again alluded to employment offers having been extended, saying, “there were actions over the last 48 hours that, offers were made to employees…” before Concepcion again stopped the conversation.

“Commissioner Roy, please. I will not get into a conversation about personnel matters during an open meeting. We’ve already gotten into a place where it’s gotten really complicated from past actions. I am not going to entertain that,” Concepcion said, perhaps alluding to the firestorm O’Brien caused last summer when she aired commission personnel matters publicly. “And I don’t think it is something that should be allowed during this conversation. So I want us to continue with the conversation at hand…anything else is not for this space. And I feel a little bit conflicted with the fact that I need to say that now to a commissioner in public, but we will not engage in that conversation.”

Hilton-Creek weighed in, calling the exchange “a little bit unfortunate” and suggesting “that we, to your point, not have this conversation here.”

“I would really appreciate it,” she said. “Can we table that for maybe another forum?”

Concepcion reiterated the request for Roy to put a lid on her comments during the public meeting and then tried to refocus the meeting onto the motion she had made to delegate many of Hilton-Creek’s acting executive director responsibilities to others.

But Roy had a question for Gasson: Is it correct that the CCC’s enabling law requires “an affirmative vote of three commissioners for any action taken by the commission?”

Gasson confirmed that three “yes” votes are required for a motion to pass the CCC.

With O’Brien suspended and Commissioner Nurys Camargo not participating in Thursday’s meeting, that meant that the motion to delegate acting executive director duties needed to pass unanimously among Concepcion, Stebbins and Roy.

“If we vote, due to the lack of time with this motion language, I will have to vote no. Or if we table it, then I will have time to be able to absorb and digest this motion language,” Roy said, referring to a lengthy and multi-part motion that Concepcion read aloud and shared in a private CCC chat during the meeting.

Concepcion asked if Roy had a preference between taking the vote or tabling the motion, and Roy said, “Sure, let’s vote.”

The motion failed on a 2–1 vote, with Concepcion and Stebbins in support and Roy dissenting.

Roy and Stebbins were not available on Tuesday to talk about Thursday’s meeting, the CCC said. Stebbins fielded one question about Roy’s assertions during a post-meeting press conference last week, but he did not directly answer the question, according to audio provided by the CCC.

The idea of carving up Hilton-Creek’s acting executive director duties was meant, Concepcion said, to allow her to focus more on her job as chief people officer to “really make sure that the executive director search moves along, moves along in a timely manner, and that she’s able to have more time for that, while also recognizing and empowering the other chiefs of the CCC.”

Stebbins said during the meeting that he thought realigning the executive duties would be helpful “for us to give some direction to our acting ED and chief people officer as to where we hope she can focus her time.”

“And it’s not just the ED’s role. It’s we have a number of people who are in acting capacities, and those searches have started up, and this is really about building and solidifying our team going forward, especially with all the work that’s on our plate,” he said.

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Lawmakers Push To Let VA Doctors Recommend Medical Marijuana And End THC Testing For Federal Job Applicants

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

Across Hawaii, state-legal cannabis use was the leading cause of gun permits being denied (40.7 percent), with mental health issues responsible for about a quarter of rejections and domestic violence disqualifying about 7 percent.

That said, a relatively small portion of firearm registrations were rejected by law enforcement last year. Of 23,528 applications processed during 2023, only 519—about 2.2 percent—were denied.

Of the rejected applications, 211 resulted from medical marijuana. Those denials included not only patients currently enrolled in the state program but also former patients. As the AG report notes, “police departments allow former patients to apply for firearms no less than one year after the expiration of their medical marijuana card.”

Under federal law, being an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, including marijuana, means a person cannot legally buy or possess a gun.

Notably, the report showed that rejection rates varied significantly by region. In Kauai County, for instance, just 0.2 percent of applications were denied in 2023, compared to about 6.9 percent in Hawaii County, which comprises the Big Island.

Of 332 denials in Hawaii County last year, 191—about 57.5 percent—were due primarily to medical marijuana.

Hawaii County Police Chief Benjamin Moszkowicz said he was initially surprised by the disparity.

“I got this report the same day that it was released out to the general public, and I immediately had kind of some of those same questions, like why are we denying so much more than the other counties?” he told Hawai’i Public Radio (HPR). “So in this particular set of circumstances, most of our application denials center around medical marijuana applicants.”

Hawaii County was unique in the state, Moszkowicz explained, because other counties didn’t consider a medical marijuana permit disqualifying if it’s been expired for a year or more. Hawaii County, by contrast, had considered a past permit an automatic disqualifier.

As of Monday, Hawaii County has reportedly stopped automatically denying firearm applications from people whose medical marijuana enrollment lapsed more than a year ago.

Moszkowicz also said that three quarters of applicants who were initially denied over past medical marijuana enrollments were eventually approved “after returning with documentation from a doctor or counselor saying they were no longer adversely affected,” according to HPR.

“I don’t think we were doing anything wrong by denying people’s applications under that section and asking them to, you know, basically redeem that right by providing what the statute suggests. But at the same time, because such a large percentage of those people were able to get that documentation so quickly, actually, we changed our policy,” Moszkowicz told the outlet. “So in the last day or two, we’ve changed our policy and our practice to align with the other counties. And that’s a direct result of this report.”

Overall, gun registrations are significantly up in Hawaii in recent decades.

“Firearm registration activity increased dramatically over the course of the 24 years for which these data have been systematically complied and reported,” the AG’s office said in a press release. “From 2000 through 2023, the number of statewide permit applications processed annually increased by 262.6%, the number of firearms annually registered leapt by 280.5%, and the number of firearms annually imported climbed 263.4%.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to hear a government appeal of a circuit court ruling that found the federal firearm restriction violates the Second Amendment.

That ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which examined the federal statute known as Section 922(g)(3) that prevents someone who is an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug from buying or possessing firearms. The circuit court found the policy unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced a conviction after admitting to having used cannabis while in possession of a gun.

Some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Last month, for example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado organizers are also working to qualify a prospective state ballot measure that would remove a barrier around the issuance of concealed handgun permits, specifying that whether someone is an “unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana” should be determined “only as provided in state law and regulations.”

At the federal level, enforcement of the rule against gun purchases or ownership by marijuana users has been inconsistent. Attorneys for President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, for example, who’s been charged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) with illegally owning a firearm while a user of illegal drugs, have argued that millions of marijuana users in legal states already own guns.

The younger Biden’s legal team has alleged that even the prosecutor on the case has acknowledged that “an ordinary citizen would not be prosecuted for this offense,” which they argued “is borne out by DOJ’s policy and statistical evidence.”

While people who use cannabis are barred from owning firearms under the law, a little-notice FBI memo from 2019 that recently surfaced shows that the federal government generally does not consider it a violation of the law for medical cannabis caregivers and growers to have guns.

The statute behind the prohibition has been challenged in a number of federal courts in recent years, with more than one judicial body determining that the restriction is unconstitutional. DOJ has steadfastly defended the ban, however, contending that medical marijuana patients and everyday consumers pose unique dangers to society that justify withholding Second Amendment rights.

Last year, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

The federal government has repeatedly claimed that those analogues provide clear support for limiting gun rights for cannabis users. But several federal courts have separately deemed the marijuana-related ban unconstitutional, leading DOJ to appeal in several ongoing cases.

The Justice Department asserted similar points during oral arguments in a separate but related case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in October. That case focuses on the Second Amendment rights of medical cannabis patients in Florida.

Attorneys in both cases have also touched on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling from August, Daniels v. United States, that found the ban preventing people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, even if they consume cannabis for non-medical reasons.

DOJ had already advised the Eleventh Circuit court that it felt the ruling was “incorrectly decided,” and the department’s attorney reiterated that it’s the government’s belief that “there are some reasons to be uncertain about the foundations” of the appeals court decision.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma also ruled in February that the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, with the judge stating that the federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning.”

In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled in April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional—and it said the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns.

In August, meanwhile, ATF sent a letter to Arkansas officials saying that the state’s recently enacted law permitting medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses “creates an unacceptable risk,” and could jeopardize the state’s federally approved alternative firearm licensing policy.

Shortly after Minnesota’s governor signed a legalization bill into law in May, the agency issued a reminder emphasizing that people who use cannabis are barred from possessing and purchases guns and ammunition “until” federal prohibition ends.

In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.

Attorneys for Hunter Biden, who has been indicted on a charge of buying a gun in 2018 at a time when he’s disclosed that he was an active user of crack cocaine, have previously cited the court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the federal ban, arguing that it applies to their client’s case as well.

Republican congressional lawmakers have also filed bills that focus on gun and marijuana policy.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, filed legislation last May to protect the Second Amendment rights of people who use marijuana in legal states, allowing them to purchase and possess firearms that they’re currently prohibited from having under federal law.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) committed to attaching that legislation to a bipartisan marijuana banking bill.

Meanwhile, Mast also cosponsored a separate bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) that would more narrowly allow medical cannabis patients to purchase and possess firearms.

One place where the matter is particularly relevant is Jersey City, New Jersey, where Mayor Steven M. Fulop (D) is suing over a state policy that allows police officers to use marijuana while off duty.

That challenge, however, has sparked pushback from two police officers, who’ve since sued Jersey City over what they say is a politically motivated move by Fulop in service of a future gubernatorial campaign. A police union has also asked the judge in the city’s case to throw out the lawsuit, calling it “pure hogwash.”

Back in Hawaii, following the failure of a Hawaii bill to legalize cannabis for adults earlier this year, Gov. Josh Green (D) said last month that he has “a possible solution” to the issue: vastly expanding the state’s existing medical marijuana system to allow people to register based on any health concern rather than needing to have one of a specific list of conditions.

“This would make it very available—that’s marijuana—for those who choose it in their lives,” the governor said in an interview with Hawaii News Now, “and it would still keep kids safe, which has been everyone’s priority.”

At the same time, Green reiterated his support for full recreational legalization.

“I think for adults who can responsibly use marijuana, it should be legal,” he said.

The governor’s comments came immediately following House lawmakers’ decision to kill a Senate-passed cannabis legalization bill in April. That same month week, the Senate also voted to scuttle a separate measure that would have expanded the state’s existing marijuana decriminalization law.

In April 2023, meanwhile, Hawaii’s legislature approved a resolution calling on the governor to create a clemency program for people with prior marijuana convictions on their records.

Biden Drug Czar Says Marijuana Rescheduling Will Have ‘Historic Impact,’ But Overstates Effects On ‘Racial Disparity’ In Criminalization

By Bhaamati Borkhetaria, CommonWealth Beacon

The Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) for the first time is raising concerns about intoxicating hemp products showing up in stores, restaurants and gas stations across Massachusetts, with commissioner Kimberly Roy calling them a “public menace.”

At a meeting of the commission last week, Roy and other commissioners said the largely unregulated products are putting more heavily regulated cannabis products at a disadvantage.

“I’ve heard from many of our licensees that [unregulated hemp is] impacting them greatly. It’s a phenomenon known as gas station weed,” said Roy. “These are hemp products that are unregulated, that aren’t tested, that our children can buy. It keeps me up at night, the concerns around this gas station weed.”

Intoxicating hemp products contain the same active ingredient as cannabis products but are regulated very differently. They are on shelves in the Commonwealth because of a 2018 federal law that removed hemp from the definition of marijuana. An entire industry has popped up around the country selling intoxicating hemp products.

Adam Terry, the CEO of Cantrip, a Boston beverage maker, said in a CommonWealth Beacon commentary last month that many of the hemp-based products are manufactured in Minnesota, which regulates them just as rigorously as marijuana products.

Previously, the Cannabis Control Commission had not taken a stance on the hemp products because the agency believes the product falls outside of its jurisdiction. But the agency, which regulates cannabis and hemp products that are sold inside cannabis dispensaries, is now preparing to testify before a joint legislative hearing on the hemp products before the cannabis policy and agricultural committees on July 11.

Roy offered to serve as the commission’s representative at the legislative hearing. She stressed that the unregulated hemp products are not tested or age restricted in the same way that cannabis products are.

“[Unregulated hemp products are] having a serious negative impact on our licensees who are bound by the law and bound by our regulations,” said Roy. “Then you have all these other convenience stores or smoke shops or gas stations who are not.”

Roy and Commissioner Bruce Stebbins said many cannabis operators had reached out to them to share negative impacts that the hemp products are having on their businesses.

“We’re all hearing the same concern about gas-station weed,” said Stebbins. “We are hearing from the folks that we regulate and license about their concerns about products being on the market.”

The commissioners said they wanted to make sure that lawmakers are clear on the distinction between unregulated hemp products and much more regulated products that are allowed in dispensaries.

In 2020, there was a legislative change which allowed cannabis businesses to use hemp products. However, these hemp products are heavily regulated by the CCC. They are tested by laboratories licensed by the commission and sales are strictly age restricted.

The commission’s interim chair, Ava Callender Concepcion, raised the issue of who should regulate the new hemp products. “I don’t want to weigh in on that, but I do want to talk about the limited resources that we do have and the work that goes into the regulated products that are on the market,” she said.

The fourth commissioner, Nurys Camargo, was absent from the meeting.

The commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources said in February that her agency was working with the Department of Public Health to put out new guidance on the hemp products. The agriculture agency is responsible for regulating hemp in the state and the Department of Public Health regulates food manufacturing.

So far, the agricultural agency has updated its hemp processor policy, which says that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over hemp food products and that there are limitations on products containing delta-9 THC, the most common type of intoxicating compound in cannabis which has popped up in hemp products.

According to the state Department of Agricultural Resources, local boards of health are responsible for enforcing the FDA guidelines, but local boards of health are often under resourced and up to now have taken very little action against hemp products.

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

DEA Says ‘THCA Does Not Meet The Definition’ Of Legal Hemp As Congress Weighs Cannabinoid Recriminalization In Farm Bill

The House on Thursday voted 261–108 to send the legislation to a conference committee following an earlier vote to reject sweeping Senate-made changes to the bill.

Several representatives who back legalization urged colleagues not to sign off on the new Senate provisions just to get the broad reform enacted.

“Instead of rushing to pass a bill that we all know is flawed, let’s reject this amendment and insist on making better policies for our constituents,” Rep. Heath Howard (D) said before the House floor vote. “We will only get one chance to create a well regulated market for adult-use cannabis, and it’s important we get it right.”

“I know the vast majority of my constituents want legalized cannabis,” added Republican Kevin Verville (R). “They want it in New Hampshire and they want it sooner than later. But this is not the right approach for us.”

The House last month passed an earlier version of the bill, HB 1633, which the Senate later made sweeping changes to via major amendments from Sen. Daryl Abbas (R) and Senate President Jeb Bradley (R), among others. Bradley, who himself opposes legalization, repeatedly said that if the legislation had the votes to pass, he intended to tailor it more to his and the governor’s liking.

[embedded content]

Some House lawmakers urged colleagues to grit their teeth and sign off on the Senate version of the bill, warning that supporters of legalization are missing an opportunity to skip a conference committee and send the proposal immediately to Gov. Chris Sununu (R).

Rep. Andrew Prout (R), for example, said he was confident the system that would be created by the Senate-amended legislation “will either work, and be better than driving to any of our neighbors” or that “there will be the political will to fix it in a future term.”

All of the states bordering New Hampshire have already legalized marijuana.

Sununu has indicated he’d support the bill with the Senate changes but would oppose the measure as passed by the House. He said this week that if the House passed the bill with the Senate’s changes, he’d sign it.

“I think the Senate version is OK,” Sununu told NH Journal. “They put some other stuff in there that I wasn’t necessarily looking for, but they’re not deal breakers.”

But if House lawmakers “want to make significant changes,” the governor added, “then it’s not going to pass. It’s that easy.”

One factor worrying some advocates is that the Republican candidates likely to replace Sununu when his gubernatorial term expires early next year have signaled that they’d oppose the reform. That means a failure to legalize marijuana this session could delay the policy change indefinitely.

Because the House and Senate have now passed different versions of the legislation, it next proceeds to a conference committee consisting of lawmakers from both chambers.

While finding compromise is panel’s the ostensible goal, reform advocates expect the bicameral committee will be set up to kill the bill, at least on the Senate side. Bradley, the Senate president, will not only pick the members of the committee from that chamber, but he also indicated this week that he might appoint himself to the panel.

Abbas told Marijuana Moment earlier this week that he’s “not optimistic” the bill “would survive a committee of conference.”

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Sununu, for his part, has said that while he personally opposes legalization, he believes the policy change is “inevitable.”

Polls indicate that upward of 70 percent of New Hampshire voters support legalizing and regulating marijuana.

While HB 1633 was initially introduced by Rep. Erica Layon (R), the Senate changes shifted its core regulatory approach to one discussed late last year by a state commission on legalization chaired by Abbas. Though that body ultimately failed at its charge of crafting legislation to enact the reform, Abbas and others in the Senate incorporated a number of provisions that were raised during discussions last year.

Layon previously said she would speak out on the floor against the Senate changes, but she did not participate at all in Thursday’s debate.

In comments to Marijuana Moment after the floor vote, she said she was surprised by how overwhelming the chamber’s 252–117 vote against concurrence was.

“I am shocked,” Layon said. “I thought it was going to be a lot closer, with a possibility of concurring, but the fact that it was defeated by such a large margin just really surprised me.”

As for what to expect in the conference committee, she said: “I’m gonna go into it optimistic, but I don’t really expect much to come from it.”

Layon noted that the Senate still needs to approve forming the bicameral committee, and then members need to actually meet. “It’s possible they may not even show up to a conference,” she said. “Then there needs to be unanimous agreement on the result of the conference committee.”

If the committee does undertake its work in earnest, its job will be to reconcile two complex bills that differ significantly on regulatory structure, criminal justice, licensing, personal possession and THC limits, tax rates, medical marijuana and sundry other issues.

As passed by the Senate, the bill would allow 15 franchise stores to open statewide. Purchases would incur a 15 percent “franchise fee”—effectively a tax—that would apply to both adult-use and medical marijuana purchases. Though stores would be privately run, the government would control their look, feel and operations. The Liquor Commission would have the authority, for example, to set final prices on cannabis products.

Marijuana possession wouldn’t become legal until 2026, once the state’s licensed market is up and running.

The proposal would limit each municipality to only a single cannabis retail establishment unless it’s home to more than 50,000 people, though only two cities in the state, Manchester and Nashua, meet that threshold. Local voters would also need to pre-approve the industry in order for businesses to open in that jurisdiction.

Adults could possess up to two ounces of marijuana under the Senate plan. Home cultivation of cannabis for personal use would remain illegal, and the state’s Cannabis Control Commission would have the authority to enforce that provision.

Smoking or vaping marijuana in public would be a violation on the first offense and an misdemeanor for second or subsequent offenses within five years, a charge that could carry jail time. Consuming cannabis in other forms in public—for example, drinking an THC-infused beverage—would carry no punishment, unlike open container rules around alcohol.

The bill would also outlaw consumption of cannabis by any means, including edibles, by any driver or passenger of a vehicle being driven in any way. That would also be an unclassified misdemeanor with the potential for jail time.

The version of the bill passed by the House in April, by contrast, would legalize through a so-called “agency store” model proposed by Layon, in which the state would oversee a system of privately run stores, with strict limits on marketing and advertising. That version also includes a higher personal possession limit of four ounces and a lower, 12 percent fee on purchases. Further, medical marijuana would be been exempt from the state surcharge, and personal possession would become legal immediately.

The House bill, like the Senate version, would not allow home cultivation of cannabis.

The Senate changes led supporters of the reform to disagree on how the House should proceed. Advocates with the state ACLU chapter and the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), who poured hours into lobbying lawmakers on the bill, said the revised proposal represented an imperfect but nevertheless important reform in New Hampshire, urging House lawmakers to accept the Senate changes and move the legislation along.

Other advocates, however, including the New Hampshire Cannabis Association (NHCann) and the bill’s lead sponsor, Layon, argued the House shouldn’t sign off on the amendments, even if that meant derailing the bill.

New Hampshire lawmakers worked extensively on marijuana reform issues last session and attempted to reach a compromise to enact legalization through a multi-tiered system that would include state-controlled shops, dual licensing for existing medical cannabis dispensaries and businesses privately licensed to individuals by state agencies. The legislature ultimately hit an impasse on the complex legislation.

Bicameral lawmakers also convened the state commission tasked with studying legalization and proposing a path forward last year, though the group ultimately failed to arrive at a consensus or propose final legislation.

The Senate defeated a more conventional House-passed legalization bill last year, HB 639, despite bipartisan support.

Last May, the House defeated marijuana legalization language that was included in a Medicaid expansion bill. The Senate also moved to table another piece of legislation that month that would have allowed patients and designated caregivers to cultivate up to three mature plants, three immature plants and 12 seedlings for personal therapeutic use.

After the Senate rejected the reform bills in 2022, the House included legalization language as an amendment to separate criminal justice-related legislation—but that was also struck down in the opposite chamber.

This story has been updated.

Lawmakers Push To Let VA Doctors Recommend Medical Marijuana And End THC Testing For Federal Job Applicants

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

At a campaign event in Philadelphia on Wednesday, where Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris made their pitch to Black voters ahead of the November election, the president said, “I’m keeping my promises that no one should be in jail merely for using or possessing marijuana.”

“I pardoned thousands of people incarcerated for the mere possession of marijuana—thousands. A promise made and a promise kept,” he said. “And their records should be expunged as well, I might add.”

Biden has repeatedly touted the mass cannabis pardons he granted, signaling the campaign’s understanding of the popularity of marijuana reform. But in the past, he’s falsely suggested that the pardons did expunge records—making the claim during his State of the Union address this year, for example—when that’s not the case.

[embedded content]

As the Office of the Pardon Attorney explained, an expungement is a “judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President.”

And as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained in a November 2022 report, “the pardon may not remove all legal consequences of marijuana possession, because it does not expunge convictions.”

“Moreover, some collateral consequences of marijuana-related activities do not depend on a person being charged with or convicted of a [Controlled Substances Act] violation,” it said.

A pardon, meanwhile, simply represents formal forgiveness. While it doesn’t seal records, the Justice Department has been distributing certificates to eligible people who apply for the largely symbolic document.

Biden might have adjusted his rhetoric to reflect the realities of the clemency action, but he hasn’t indicated that he’s willing to offer relief for offenses beyond simple possession. In fact, he’s specifically said that growing or distributing cannabis is “a different deal.”

To that end, there are still people in federal prison over non-violent marijuana offenses. And advocates have pushed the Biden administration to do more, including keeping his key cannabis campaign pledge to decriminalize marijuana.

While he didn’t mention it in his speech on Wednesday, Biden has also taken credit for directing an administrative review into marijuana scheduling that recently resulted in DOJ formally proposing to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

That wouldn’t decriminalize or legalize marijuana, but it would recognize the plant’s medical utility and relatively low abuse potential for the first time in over 50 years. It would also let state-licensed marijuana businesses take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers.

The proposed rule to federally reschedule marijuana was officially posted last week, kicking off a public comment period that’s expected to elicit a major response from supporters and opponents of cannabis reform.

While DOJ will take all public comments submitted by July 22 into consideration as it weighs the reform, it said in the notice that one of the topics its especially interested in hearing about is the “unique economic impacts” of the rescheduling proposal given that state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.

The White House drug czar, Rahul Gupta, has also discussed the rescheduling move multiple times in the past couple weeks, framing it as a “historic” reform that could open the door to cannabis-based drug development. However, he’s also inflated the impact of a Schedule III reclassification, at one point suggesting it would address racial disparities in marijuana enforcement.

The Biden-Harris campaign has also drawn a contrast between the marijuana policy actions of their administration and that of former President Donald Trump, pointing out that DOJ under his administration rescinded federal cannabis enforcement guidance that generally laid out a policy of non-interference with legal marijuana states.

New Hampshire Marijuana Legalization Bill Headed To Conference Committee After House Rejects Senate Amendments