By Jacob Owens, Spotlight Delaware

Gov. Matt Meyer (D) nominated attorney and government regulations expert Joshua Sanderlin on Monday to serve as Delaware’s next state marijuana commissioner.

Sanderlin, who doesn’t have any apparent ties to the First State, will inherit a role that was originally filled by Robert Coupe, a former Delaware State Police superintendent.

The selection of Sanderlin could represent a shift in ideology for the Office of the Marijuana Commissioner. Former Gov. John Carney (D), who has been opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana, chose a longtime law enforcement leader to head the office, while Meyer has now selected a proponent for the legal industry.

“Josh Sanderlin will bring deep expertise, steady leadership, and a clear commitment to equity and accountability to the Office of the Marijuana Commissioner,” Meyer said in a statement announcing the pick. “His experience navigating complex regulatory systems and work across the cannabis industry make him uniquely qualified to launch Delaware’s adult-use marijuana market quickly and correctly. With Josh at the helm, we’re ready to build a system that is safe, transparent, and delivers real opportunity for hardworking Delawareans.”

It also fulfills a promise that Meyer made during his first State of the State address, when he said he would name a new commissioner within days. He added in the speech that “This industry has the potential to produce tens of millions of dollars in annual tax revenue, money meant to be invested directly into our schools, libraries, and communities.”

Sanderlin would inherit an office that is deeply mired in issues at the federal and state levels that have ground progress on opening the recreational market to a halt, though.

The governor’s office said that Sanderlin would not be available for an interview before his confirmation hearing before the state Senate.

In a statement posted on his LinkedIn account, Sanderlin wrote, “As I look ahead to the confirmation process, I’m deeply grateful for the opportunity to help shape a safe, equitable, and responsible cannabis industry in Delaware. I look forward to working with public officials, licensees, advocates, and all stakeholders to build an industry that best serves Delawareans.”

Who is Sanderlin?

Sanderlin is an attorney and government affairs specialist with over 15 years of experience advising businesses, investors, and policymakers on regulatory compliance, licensing and public policy. His work has focused heavily on emerging and highly regulated industries, particularly the cannabis sector.

He was particularly involved with Washington, D.C.’s legalization of recreational marijuana, which has had a rocky relationship with Congress since its passage in 2014. He actively commented on that fight through a Twitter account during a three-year period from 2017 to 2020.

Sanderlin was particularly critical of Republicans like U.S. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who has opposed giving the District of Columbia more autonomy over its governance around marijuana. Sanderlin also supported the federal rescheduling of marijuana to allow more research and wider use of the drug.

Sanderlin also advocated for the inclusion of hemp into the 2018 Farm Bill—a decision that has opened a loophole into the marijuana industry by creating derivatives that contain the intoxicating THC compound but don’t legally qualify as marijuana. Those products are now commonly found in liquor stores, gas stations and smoke shops, and could subvert the legal recreational market with untaxed and unregulated competition, which has convinced the marijuana commissioner’s office to investigate whether to crack down on them.

Today, Sanderlin serves as the principal of Sanderlin Strategies PLLC, an advisory and law firm for the complex legal and regulatory landscapes around marijuana. His practice is also involved in drafting compliance protocols, developing standard operating procedures, managing responses to regulatory enforcement actions and engaging directly with policymakers and regulatory bodies to shape state-level cannabis laws.

He is also involved in the business, having co-invested in a Newark, N.J., consumption lounge with famous Wu-Tang Clan rapper Raekwon, according to the New York Post. That business, known as Hashtoria, allows patrons to smoke or consume cannabis on the premises, much like coffeeshops in Amsterdam.

Prior to that, he served two years at Cogent Law Group, a D.C.-based firm where he worked on local marijuana policy and lobbying for the end to marijuana’s federal prohibition. And before that, he served 10 years at Greenberg Traurig, a major national law firm, where he worked on civil litigation, government affairs and campaign finance compliance.

Sanderlin got his law degree from Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, and before that earned degrees from Florida State University and Jacksonville University. He spent time interning in former Florida Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson’s office as well as the Florida State Senate.

Delaware’s market in flux

If confirmed, Sanderlin will lead an office that oversees more than a half dozen medical marijuana dispensaries and a growing and testing industry. It is also responsible for getting the state’s recreational market—approved by the state legislature nearly two years ago—up and running.

Officials had originally targeted the industry to open this month, but it has been significantly hampered by a dispute with FBI over background checks for operators, which would prevent criminal enterprises from taking advantage of a system that is largely cash dependent.

The legislature is now expediting a fix for what the federal law enforcement agency says it needs in order to complete the needed checks, but it was a process that should have concluded this past winter.

Even after that is resolved, operators will still have to deal with a permitting climate in Delaware that has not been friendly to the burgeoning industry. Under the law that made recreational sales legal, municipalities were allowed to prohibit marijuana businesses from their jurisdictions and counties were allowed to dictate where they could locate. Those allowances led to more than a third of Delaware towns and cities to opt out of allowing shops, and Sussex County to place significant restrictions on locations for businesses.

State legislators are now debating whether to rollback those allowances in order for the industry to gain more options.

This story was first published by Spotlight Delaware.

Do Cannabis Companies Really Have To Wait for Rescheduling To Escape The 280E Tax Penalty? (Op-Ed)

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

The post Delaware Governor’s Pick For Next Marijuana Commissioner Has Vocally Supported Federal Rescheduling appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

About a week after Sen. Matt Ball (D) and Rep. Lisa Feret (D) filed the legislation, SB25-297, it cleared the Senate Health & Human Services Committee in a 7–2 vote on Wednesday after members adopted a minor amendment.

If enacted, the measure would authorize Gov. Jared Polis (D) or future governors to grant clemency to people with convictions for low-level possession of substances such as psilocybin, ibogaine and DMT that have since been legalized for adults under state law.

In 2023, Polis called on lawmakers to take steps allowing him to issue mass pardons for people with prior psychedelics convictions as the voter-approved legalization policy was being implemented.

The governor said at the time that he needed the legislature to act to provide him with pardon authority, “so anybody who has something on their criminal record that is now legal can have that expunged and doesn’t hold them back from future employment opportunities.”

Ball said at Wednesday’s hearing on the bill that the retroactive pardons would affect “a very small group of people” in the state, likely fewer than 20. But he noted that clemency language was included in the voter-passed ballot measure, Prop. 122, that legalized the state’s so-called natural medicine program.

“This gives the governor the authority to enact the will of the people as enacted in Proposition 122,” he said.

In addition to granting the governor that authority, the committee-passed measure would also require the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Department of Revenue (DOR) and Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to “collect information and data related to the use of natural medicine and natural medicine products.”

That would include data on law enforcement activities, adverse health events, consumer protection claims and behavioral impacts related to psychedelics.

“Subject to available appropriations, CDPHE shall also collect relevant data and information related to the use of natural medicine from facilitators and healing centers,” the bill says. “CDPHE is required to create and maintain a database of the information collected.”

The legislation would further amend rules around licensing and ownership of psychedelic healing centers. For example, it removes a requirement for fingerprint background checks for owners and employees of licensed facilities, making it so they would only be subject to a name-based criminal background check.

It additionally “requires the state licensing authority to adopt rules related to product labels for regulated natural medicine and regulated natural medicine products and permits the state licensing authority to adopt rules regarding the types of regulated natural medicine products that can be manufactured.”

An amendment from Ball adopted before Wednesday’s committee vote made adjustments to the proposals conflicts of interest section, clarifying that funding for the program—which would be made up of gifts, grants and donations from third parties—not come from parties with a direct financial interest in the natural medicine program or those that can improperly influence data collection.

The proposal overall has support from an array of advocates, including psychedelic medicine proponents as well as groups more skeptical of legalization. Public commenters seemed to agree that the bill’s data collection provisions would help observers both inside and outside Colorado better understand the outcomes around regulated psychedelics.

“Colorado is at the forefront of psychedelic policy. Other states are watching us closely,” said Joshua Kappel, a co-founding partner at the law firm Vicente LLP and one of the drafters of Prop. 122, who read from a letter from five Colorado-based psychiatrists. “If we want to lead with integrity and responsibility, we must demonstrate that a regulated psychedelic program can be not only innovative, but accountable and effective.”

“The data we collect here will shape national conversations, inform legislation, further guide scientific research and treatment protocol development and, most importantly, help save lives,” the letter said.

Rachel O’Bryan, co-founder and strategic projects director at the group One Chance to Grow Up, which aims to protect kids from risks associated with marijuana and THC, told lawmakers the organization’s members and advisory council support the bill.

“One Chance believes best policy is informed by evidence and not opinions or assumptions,” O’Bryan said, “and that requires the collection of data. This bill would improve the collection and dissemination of data regarding the impact of Colorado’s natural medicine code on Colorado citizens and institutions.”

“Colorado is a leader in the data collection for marijuana impacts,” she added, “and this bill would ensure that Colorado is a leader in the data collection for natural medicine impacts.”

Andrea Stojsavljevic, a senior policy coordinator at Children’s Hospital Colorado, also urged lawmakers to support the bill.

“These types of data collection can be critically informative to guide future policymaking,” Stojsavljevic said. If data show increasing youth use, diversion of products or accidental ingestion, for example, “then we can return to the legislature to assess additional protections to avoid potentially serious health risks and children and youth.”

Members of the committee spent minimal time discussing the bill before the vote, though some questions came from Republican Sens. Scott Bright—who ultimately voted in favor of the measure—and Lisa Frizell, who cast her vote against it.

Bright asked for more details about the changes to data collection and also asked for an update on revenue from psychedelics licensing, which he said “a couple years ago” was projected to be “north of $1 million.”

Allison Robinette, director of policy and regulatory affairs at the state Department of Revenue’s marijuana and natural medicines divisions, said officials are “still working through the process” but “believe we’re on track for our projections.”

“I believe we’re on track, but, you know, we’re so early in the process that there’s a lot to play out and to be seen here,” she said.

Frizell’s questions centered on whether the bill would allow publicly funded institutions, such as universities, to make gifts, grants or donations—a move she said would sidestep how funding decisions are supposed to be made.

“It’s not OK to get around our budgetary issues by passing the funding off to publicly funded institutions, whether it is an academic institution or some other organization,” she said after asking a number of related questions to witnesses. “So I think that that’s a problem. And if you can’t explain that, then that’s a bigger problem.”

Sponsor Ball, for his part, acknowledged that his office hadn’t considered public universities as possible funders when drafting the bill.

“Most of the discussions we’ve had have all been around national nonprofits,” he said, listing a handful of organizations. “I know there’s more, but there’s a number of groups who are interested in this type of research, who see an opportunity in Colorado because we have the ability to collect aggregate data due to what we’re rolling out.”

Besides Frizell, the only other no vote on SB25-297 was from Sen. Lisa Cutter (D). The bill next proceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Meanwhile in Colorado, earlier this month the governor signed into law a bill that would allow a form of psilocybin to be prescribed as a medication if the federal government authorizes its use.

While Colorado already legalized psilocybin and several other psychedelics for adults 21 and older through the voter-approved ballot initiative, the newly enacted reform will make it so drugs containing an isolated crystalized version synthesized from psilocybin can become available under physician prescription.

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

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

As of January, meanwhile, Colorado regulars have been authorized to approve licenses for psilocybin service centers where adults can access the psychedelic in controlled settings.

The governor signed a bill to create the regulatory framework for legal psychedelics in 2023.

But lawmakers evidently are interested in setting the state up to allow for a more conventional system of distribution for certain psychedelics. In 2022, Polis also signed a bill to align state statute to legalize MDMA prescriptions if and when the federal government ultimately permits such use.

Whether FDA moves forward with any such approvals in uncertain, and the agency faced criticism last year after rejecting an application to allow MDMA-assisted therapy for people with PTSD.

Meanwhile in Colorado, a bill that would have limited THC in marijuana and outlawed a variety of psilocybin products will no longer move forward this session following the lead sponsor’s move to withdraw the bill.

Maryland Governor Signs Marijuana Bills To Legalize Homemade Concentrates, Set Consumption Lounge Rules And Shield Conviction Records

Photo courtesy of Dick Culbert.

The post Colorado Lawmakers Approve Bill To Let Governor Grant Mass Pardons For Psychedelics-Related Convictions appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

Nearly three years after Austin voters passed the reform initiative at the ballot, the state Fifteenth Court of Appeals sided with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on Thursday in his lawsuit asserting that state law preempts local decriminalization ordinances.

While Travis County District Court Judge Jan Soifer rejected the initial challenge to Austin’s marijuana law last year, the appeals court—comprised of three conservative justices appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R)—has now overruled that decision. The case will now to go trial.

This is one of the latest setbacks for activists who’ve worked to enact local reforms as the state legislature continues to resist marijuana policy changes.

The same appellate court also recently sided with the state in its lawsuit challenging the city of San Marcus over the implementation of its local marijuana decriminalization law approved by voters.

“Consistent with City of San Marcos, we conclude that the ordinance in this case is also preempted by state law,” the court’s latest opinion says. “Accordingly, we hold that Appellees are not immune from the State’s suit. We also hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the State’s request for a temporary injunction enjoining enforcement of the ordinance.”

“The State is not seeking to compel the City’s law enforcement to make more arrests for possession of marijuana misdemeanor offenses. Rather, the State is challenging the validity and adoption of the Ordinance, which prohibits citations and arrests for possession of marijuana misdemeanor offenses, because it is preempted by state law. The State has an intrinsic right to enforce its own laws and, therefore, has standing to bring this suit.”

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Texas Senate approved a bill that would prohibit cities from putting any citizen initiative on local ballots that would decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances.

Despite the ongoing litigation and Senate bill’s advancement, Texas activists have their targets set on yet another city, Kyle, where they hope put an initiative before voters to enact local marijuana reform at the ballot this coming November.

Advocates have also seen several courts rule in their favor amid the legal challenges.

For example, in February, a Texas judge has ruled that a cannabis decriminalization law approved by Dallas voters last year can continue to be implemented—denying a request from the state attorney general that sought to temporarily block the reform as a lawsuit proceeds.

This doesn’t mean the lawsuit from Paxton is dead altogether. But, at least for the time being, the judge has determined that the decriminalization policy can continue as the litigation unfolds.

Dallas Police Department had previously instructed officers to stop arresting or citing people for possession of up to four ounces of marijuana, in accordance with the voter-approved ballot initiative.

The governor 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 last 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.

In 2023, 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 that year was overwhelmingly defeated, but that proposal also included unrelated provisions to prevent enforcement of abortion restrictions.

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

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

Meanwhile, late last month the Texas Senate approved a bill that cannabis advocates and stakeholders said would effectively eradicate the state’s hemp industry, prohibiting consumable products derived from the plant that contain any amount of THC.

That, as well as another measure from Rep. Joe Moody (D) to decriminalize cannabis statewide, is one of the latest of nearly two dozen cannabis-related proposals filed so far in Texas for the current legislative session. Various other measures would legalize adult-use marijuana, remove criminal penalties for cannabis possession and adjust the state’s existing medical marijuana laws, among others.

Moody sponsored a similar marijuana decriminalization bill last legislative session, in 2023. That measure, HB 218, passed the House on an 87–59 vote but later died in a Senate committee.

The House had already passed earlier cannabis decriminalization proposals during the two previous legislative sessions, in 2021 and 2019. But the efforts have consistently stalled in the Senate amid opposition from the lieutenant governor.

Separately, a Texas House committee took testimony on Monday about two bills designed to prepare the state to provide swift access to therapeutic psychedelics in the event of approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Read the appellate court’s ruling in the Austin cannabis decriminalization case below:

Colorado Lawmakers Approve Bill To Let Governor Grant Mass Pardons For Psychedelics-Related Convictions

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

The post Texas Court Blocks Marijuana Decriminalization Law In Austin, Restoring Police Authority To Make Arrests For Simple Possession appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

The report, which was published on Wednesday in JAMA Network Open, looked at data from 1,428 adults aged 18 to 65, who completed assessments roughly every six months between September 2018 and October 2023.

A primary goal of the study, which was partially funded by the federal agency the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, was to examine how consumption patterns changed following the country’s legalization of adult-use marijuana, sales of which began in October 2018. Researchers also wanted to understand whether use patterns changed based on how frequently people used cannabis prior to legalization as well as how users’ product preferences changed.

Frequency of marijuana use overall increased slightly but significantly over the five-year period. Among all participants, the mean proportion of days using cannabis increased by 0.35 percent per year, or 1.75 percent over the five-year study period.

People who used cannabis most frequently before legalization saw the largest declines in use. People who consumed marijuana on a daily basis prior to legalization decreased their use frequency more than those who’d used marijuana on a weekly basis.

Those who used marijuana once a month or less before legalization, meanwhile, reported slight increases in use.

“Cannabis use frequency increased significantly overall while misuse decreased.”

As for misuse, analysis using the so-called Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test – Revised (CUDIT-R) showed a significant decrease in cannabis misuse overall, authors wrote, especially during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from April to October 2020.

People who used marijuana monthly or less than monthly before legalization saw their CUDIT-R scores drop significantly, while those who’d never used marijuana saw a slight increase—suggesting that at least some people did start using after legalization and then develop problematic habits.

Notably, people who were using marijuana weekly prior to legalization saw their average CUDIT-R scores fall “from above to below the validated CUDIT-R cutoff score of 6 indicating problem cannabis misuse,” the study says. That suggests a healthier post-legalization relationship with marijuana among occasional users.

One explanation for that trend could be the age of consumers. “The apparent discrepancy between increasing cannabis use and decreasing cannabis misuse may have been driven by younger cannabis users,” the report says, “who typically transition from problematic to nonproblematic use as they age.”

As for how use patterns changed based on frequency of use prior to legalization, authors wrote that “it is also possible that regression to the mean explains part of the interaction findings.”

“Fundamentally, however, these results do not suggest increased adverse outcomes for adults who were actively using cannabis before legalization,” they said.

Regarding product preferences, the study period overall saw statistically significant decreases in the use of flower, cannabis concentrates, oil, tinctures and topicals. Increases, meanwhile, were observed in the use of edibles, beverages and vape cartridges.

“The most pronounced increase was in use of cannabis oil cartridges or disposable vape pens,” the report says, “with a 3.39% annual increase in prevalence among active cannabis users (from 18.4% prelegalization to 33.0% at 5 years postlegalization).”

Authors wrote that while there’s a need for further study, results suggest both positive and negative consequences of legalization. On the negative side is the observed increase in frequency of use. On the positive side, meanwhile, are lower scores for marijuana misuse as well as an apparent “transition from combustible to noncombustible cannabis products,” which are understood to carry lower health risks.

“From a public health standpoint, these results are mixed,” the report says, “as increased use might be considered harmful, while decreased misuse is a positive outcome.”

Additionally, while the results were statistically significant, the research team noted that “for both outcomes…it is debatable whether these changes were clinically significant.”

That’s especially true in the case of misuse CUDIT-R scores, “which decreased by only 0.4 points on a scale of 32 over 5 years,” the study says.

Governments and public health experts have been working to track consumer behavior as laws around marijuana continue to change. In the U.S., a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report recently broke down federal data on cannabis use among thousands of U.S. adults, finding that while smoking marijuana remains the most common way to consume it, methods such as eating, vaping and dabbing are growing in popularity.

Overall in 2022, 15.3 percent of adults reported current marijuana use, while 7.9 percent reported daily use. Among users, most (79.4 percent) reported smoking, followed by eating (41.6 percent), vaping (30.3 percent) and dabbing (14.6 percent).

About half of all adults who used marijuana (46.7 percent) reported multiple methods of use—most typically smoking and eating or smoking and vaping.

Rates of both vaping and dabbing—as well as cannabis use in general—were higher in young adults than the general adult population.

An earlier analysis from CDC found that rates of current and lifetime cannabis use among high school students have continued to drop amid the legalization movement.

Another recent federal report, published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), found that consumption among minors—defined as people 12 to 20 years of age—had fallen slightly in the past year. Despite methodological changes that make comparisons over time difficult, it also suggests that youth use has fallen significantly in the past decade.

A separate poll recently found that that more Americans smoke marijuana on a daily basis than drink alcohol every day—and that alcohol drinkers are more likely to say they would benefit from limiting their use than cannabis consumers are.

U.S. adults who drink alcohol are nearly three times as likely to say they’d be better off reducing their intake of the drug compared to marijuana consumers who said they’d benefit from using their preferred substance less often, the survey found. Further, it found that while lifetime and monthly alcohol drinking among adults was far more common than cannabis use, daily marijuana consumption was slightly more popular than daily drinking.

An earlier report published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs that found that secondhand harm caused by marijuana use is far less prevalent than that of alcohol, with respondents reporting secondhand harm from drinking at nearly six times the rate they did for cannabis.

Yet another 2022 study from Michigan State University researchers, published in the journal PLOS One, found that “cannabis retail sales might be followed by the increased occurrence of cannabis onsets for older adults” in legal states, “but not for underage persons who cannot buy cannabis products in a retail outlet.”

The trends were observed despite adult use of marijuana and certain psychedelics reaching “historic highs” in 2022, according to separate data.

Marijuana Companies Donated At Least $1 Million To Trump’s Inauguration, New Federal Records Show

The post Legalizing Marijuana Led To An Increase In Use—But A Decrease In Problematic Misuse, American Medical Association Study Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

The new filing, from Solicitor General D. John Sauer, concerns a case in which the defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, was found in possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.

Baxter argued in district court that the prohibition was itself illegal, contending both that “unlawful” use was too vague in the statute to be enforceable and also that the government’s ban on drug users’ possession of firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lower court rejected both arguments—a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

It a February opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the district court’s decision denying Baxter’s vagueness claim but reversed the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the firearms ban. However, judges wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.”

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The federal government currently has until May 6 to decide whether to file a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling. The new filing from Sauer asks for a 30-day extension on that deadline.

“The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case,” says the three-page request. “The additional time sought in this application is needed to continue consultation within the government and to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals’ ruling.”

Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, formally assumed his role as solicitor general earlier this month. He previously helped represented Trump in his landmark case on presidential immunity.

Second Amendment advocates at the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which has tracked a number of the cannabis-related court cases, told Marijuana Moment in an email that the group is “encouraged” by the government filing.

“We are encouraged that the solicitor general is reconsidering the government’s position following President Trump’s ‘Protecting Second Amendment Rights’ Executive Order,” the group said. “As we have explained in various briefs like the one in U.S. v. Daniels, historically, Americans were only ever disarmed for being dangerous, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) should thus be held unconstitutional.”

“This conclusion is supported by thorough original research,” FPC added, “and we hope the government’s litigation position in these cases will properly account for the law’s lack of legal and historical foundation.”

One risk to appealing the ruling is that if the Supreme Court does take the case, justices may in fact rule unfavorably to the government, possibly cementing that § 922(g)(3) is—in at least some cases—unconstitutional.

A number of federal courts in recent months have cast doubt on the legality of § 922(g)(3), finding generally that while the ban on gun ownership among drug users may not be entirely unconstitutional, there’s scant historical precedent for such a broad restriction of Second Amendment rights on an entire a category of people.

Earlier this year, for example, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.

In another recent case, an Eighth Circuit panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In another case earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the firearms ban was unconstitutional as applied to least one defendant. That ruling came on the heels of a string of other judicial decisions casting doubt on the legality of the ban.

A federal judge in El Paso, for instance, ruled late last year that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.

Another panel of judges, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, heard oral arguments in November in the government’s appeal of a district court ruling that deemed the gun ban unconstitutional.

Much of the panel’s discussion at oral argument in that case surrounded whether the underlying dispute was a facial challenge to the gun ban or an as-applied challenge. And, as in other cases, judges zeroed in on whether or not that defendant was actually under the influence of marijuana while in possession of a firearm.

In a separate federal court case, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers recently made arguments that the ongoing firearm restriction for cannabis users is “analogous to laws disarming the intoxicated” and other historical laws “disarming many disparate groups that the government believed presented a danger with firearms.”

That brief was the latest response to a case filed by a Pennsylvania prosecutor who’s suing the federal government over its ban on gun ownership by cannabis users. It came two weeks after lawyers for the official, Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to allow the matter to proceed to trial.

In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Rahimi, that upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.

DOJ has made such arguments, for example, in favor of the firearms ban in a case in a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.

DOJ under President Joe Biden consistently argued that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.”

It remains unclear how the Trump administration will approach the cases. At a NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings. He listed a number of controversial and unproven factors that he said at the time he would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate as possibly causing the ongoing scourge of mass shooting afflicting the country.

“We have to look at whether common psychiatric drugs, as well as genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics, are causing psychotic breaks” that lead to gun violence, he said.

DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

In 2023, 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.

Last year, Biden’s son Hunter was convicted by a federal jury of violating statute by buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.

The situation has caused confusion among medical marijuana patients, state lawmakers and advocacy groups, among others. The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue have “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that have impacted Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“Marijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons,” said the advocacy group, which does not have an official stance on cannabis policy generally. “Many of these individuals are otherwise law-abiding and productive members of their communities and want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.”

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

Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.

As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

The official said that while people who already own firearms aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”

Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.

“I think the right way to deal with that is not just to focus on that issue, but to change the schedule of marijuana,” Beshear said at a press conference. “What we need to change is the overall marijuana policy by the federal government.”

Legalizing Marijuana Led To An Increase In Use—But A Decrease In Problematic Misuse, American Medical Association Study Shows

The post Trump’s Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court For More Time To Weigh Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

The legislation from Sen. Charles Perry (R) is responsive to those local reforms, and it passed the chamber on Wednesday in a 23-8 vote. It now heads to the House of Representatives.

Under the proposal, state law would be amended to say that local entities “may not place an item on a ballot, including a municipal charter or charter amendment, that would provide that the local entity will not fully enforce” state drug laws.

The latest version of the legislation as amended in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee would also specifically bar localities from putting initiatives on the ballot that would contravene the state’s consumable hemp laws.

It would also require the attorney general to create a form for people to report violations of the law. And it’d expedite legal proceedings to challenge any city, mandating that an appellate court “render its final order or judgment with the least possible delay,” a legislative analysis says.

Cities found to be in violation of the law by placing a decriminalization initiative—or any measure that conflicts with state or federal drug laws—would be subject to a $25,000 civil fine for a first offense and a $50,000 fine for any subsequent offense.

“In the last few years several local governments have adopted policies and ordinances that are designed to decriminalize controlled substances or instruct law enforcement or prosecutors not to enforce our state drug laws,” Perry said in a statement of intent.

“In 2024, the attorney general launched lawsuits against multiple cities for adopting non-prosecution policies that violate Texas laws concerning marijuana possession and distribution,” he said. “Although these lawsuits are still pending, this is a growing trend across our state.”

It’s not clear why, if the attorney general’s lawsuits assert that local decriminalization laws are already prohibited under statute, the proposed amendments to the code are necessary. But the legislation does appear to escalate enforcement and penalties.

A House companion version of the bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Leach (R), is scheduled for a hearing in the State Affairs Committee on Friday.

The Senate vote comes about a week after a Texas appellate court sided with the state in its lawsuit challenging the city of San Marcus over the implementation of a local marijuana decriminalization law approved by voters.

That marked a setback for activists who’ve led the charge to enact local marijuana policy changes through the ballot, many of which have been contested by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R).

Meanwhile, despite the ongoing litigation and Senate bill’s advancement, Texas activists have their targets set on yet another city, Kyle, where they hope put an initiative before voters to enact local marijuana reform at the ballot this coming November.

Despite the state’s resistance and the latest development in San Marcos, advocates have seen several courts rule in their favor amid the legal challenges.

For example, in February, a Texas judge has ruled that a cannabis decriminalization law approved by Dallas voters last year can continue to be implemented—denying a request from the state attorney general that sought to temporarily block the reform as a lawsuit proceeds.

This doesn’t mean the lawsuit from Paxton is dead altogether. But, at least for the time being, the judge has determined that the decriminalization policy can continue as the litigation unfolds.

Dallas Police Department had previously instructed officers to stop arresting or citing people for possession of up to four ounces of marijuana, in accordance with the voter-approved ballot initiative.

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 last 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.

In 2023, 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 that year was overwhelmingly defeated, but that proposal also included unrelated provisions to prevent enforcement of abortion restrictions.

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

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

Meanwhile, late last month the Texas Senate approved a bill that cannabis advocates and stakeholders said would effectively eradicate the state’s hemp industry, prohibiting consumable products derived from the plant that contain any amount of THC.

That, as well as another measure from Rep. Joe Moody (D) to decriminalize cannabis statewide, is one of the latest of nearly two dozen cannabis-related proposals filed so far in Texas for the current legislative session. Various other measures would legalize adult-use marijuana, remove criminal penalties for cannabis possession and adjust the state’s existing medical marijuana laws, among others.

Moody sponsored a similar marijuana decriminalization bill last legislative session, in 2023. That measure, HB 218, passed the House on an 87–59 vote but later died in a Senate committee.

The House had already passed earlier cannabis decriminalization proposals during the two previous legislative sessions, in 2021 and 2019. But the efforts have consistently stalled in the Senate amid opposition from the lieutenant governor.

Separately, a Texas House committee took testimony on Monday about two bills designed to prepare the state to provide swift access to therapeutic psychedelics in the event of approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Maryland Governor Signs Marijuana Bills To Legalize Homemade Concentrates, Set Consumption Lounge Rules And Shield Conviction Records

Photo courtesy of Brian Shamblen.

The post Texas Senate Passes Bill To Ban Cities From Putting Marijuana Decriminalization Initiatives On Local Ballots appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

Gov. Wes Moore (D) on Tuesday also gave final approval to a separate bill meant to clear up policies around on-site marijuana consumption businesses, lay out the plan for a second cannabis licensing lottery round and allow business owners to sell their companies to employees ahead of a current five-year waiting period.

And he further signed off on legislation that will allow adults to manufacture marijuana edibles and concentrates for personal use.

“Marylanders who have served their time and turned their lives around are being unfairly blocked from jobs, housing and opportunity—and that doesn’t just hurt them, it hurts all of us,” Moore said ahead of the expungement bill signing.

“I want to be very clear: This is not about letting criminals or repeat offenders off the hook. It’s about common sense,” he said. “The people who will be helped out by this reform are our neighbors and our parents, even people in our congregation. They’re people who just want to move forward but keep hitting a wall made of paperwork.”

Under the legislation, the Maryland Judiciary Case Search can no longer “in any way refer to the existence of records of a charge of possession of cannabis in a case with electronic records if the charge resulted in a conviction that was later pardoned by the governor.”

Last year, Moore granted a mass pardon of more than 175,000 convictions around cannabis and paraphernalia offenses, the records of which will be blocked from public access under the new law. Pardons represent formal forgiveness from the executive, but such relief doesn’t remove the records.

In February, the governor discussed the newly enacted bill, stressing that it will expand opportunities for people to have their criminal records for marijuana expunged by allowing people who violated terms of their parole or probation to petition courts to erase those records.

The legislation will expand the range of offenses eligible for expungement and remove a requirement that people satisfy “parole, probation, or mandatory supervision” before petitioning a court to expunge their criminal records.

Instead, the law will require only that people complete the sentence and wait a certain number of years, depending on the nature of the conviction.

“When someone has a good job and good housing, communities are safer, businesses grow and Maryland gets stronger,” Moore said. “Not every sentence needs to be a life sentence.”

Liz Budnitz, lead counsel with the Last Prisoner Project (LPP), said on Tuesday that the organization “commends Governor Wes Moore for signing SB 432, the Expungement Reform Act of 2025, into law.”

“By creating a more efficient and accessible pathway for individuals to expunge cannabis-related convictions and seek post-conviction relief, this bill is a crucial step in addressing the harms caused by decades of cannabis criminalization in Maryland,” she said. “We are thrilled that more Marylanders will now be able to move forward with their lives, access new opportunities and contribute fully to their communities.”

“At Last Prisoner Project, our mission is to secure freedom and rebuild the lives of those disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs. SB 432 embodies the idea that legalization must come with justice and repair for those who paid the price for misguided drug policies,” Budnitz said. “We are proud to support reforms like this bill and look forward to continuing to advocate for policies that prioritize the full reintegration of justice-impacted individuals.”

Meanwhile, Moore also signed legislation dealing with rules around cannabis consumption lounges.

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

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

The state’s legalization law had already contemplated social consumption sites where people could use marijuana, but regulators asked lawmakers to pass a measure with a series of amendments to clarify the rules.

The legislation includes definitions and various mentions for what constitutes a “cannabinoid beverage” that can be offered at consumption lounges. Such drinks cannot contain more than 5mg of THC in a single serving.

The measure also stipulates that on-site cannabis consumption lounges can operate as food service facilities, meaning they’d be able to offer non-infused food products in addition to the approved single-serve marijuana items.

It will also make it so that, before the state holds a second business licensing lottery round, a disparity study needs to be completed to determine whether or not there’s a “strong basis in evidence of business discrimination against firms owned by minorities and women in the Maryland cannabis market.”

If agencies find that such a disparity exists, the lottery will need to be facilitated with “remedial measures” in place to address the issue. If the study doesn’t demonstrate that there’s a disparity, all applicants will qualify for the lottery.

In both cases, the second lottery round will authorize the approval of up to 25 grower, 25 processor and 120 dispensary standard licenses. MCA could also issue up to additional 70 grower and 70 processor microbusiness licenses. And regulators could also approve 10 incubator space and 15 on-site consumption lounge licenses.

While the legislation maintains a current policy stipulating that marijuana business licenses generally cannot be sold for at least five years after they were issued, there will be a carve-out permitting the license transfer to employees through an employee stock ownership plan.

The measure will further allow medical cannabis dispensaries to continue delivering marijuana products to patients until July 1, 2026. Current law sunsets the delivery option in July of this year.

The other cannabis measure the governor signed on Tuesday will let adults make their own edibles and concentrates.

While the state’s cannabis law already allows adults to cultivate their own plants, the legislation expands their options to account for non-flower marijuana products that can be made at home.

The law will continue to prohibit the use of volatile solvents to create cannabis concentrates.

Under the legislation, possession, cultivation and distribution of high-volume cannabis in excess of 50 pounds will also no longer be considered a felony punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. Instead, it will be a misdemeanor carrying a maximum 10 year sentence and/or a $50,000 fine.

It will additionally empower people who are currently facing prison terms that involve a mandatory minimum over cannabis-related convictions to petition the courts for a sentence modification.

The bill also deals with non-marijuana issues, including enhancing penalties for crimes related to firearms violations.

Meanwhile, the Maryland Senate also recently passed a measure to protect for fire and rescue workers from being penalized for off-duty use of medical marijuana, though it did not advance through the House.

Employers could not “discipline, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against the fire and rescue public safety employee with respect to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” based solely on a positive screening for THC metabolites under the legislation.

In January, officials in Maryland’s most populous county separately said they were moving to loosen marijuana policies for would-be police officers in an effort to boost recruitment amid a staffing shortage.

Texas Lawmakers Take Up Bills To Expedite Access To Psychedelic Therapy

Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.

The post Maryland Governor Signs Marijuana Bills To Legalize Homemade Concentrates, Set Consumption Lounge Rules And Shield Conviction Records appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

By Brianna Hill, Spotlight Delaware

Wilmington and New Castle County want to tax marijuana sales as part of Delaware’s incoming recreational cannabis industry.

The jurisdictions are each considering resolutions to ask state legislators to allow them to collect an additional local sales tax on marijuana products.

Those taxes, if approved, could make marijuana sales in Wilmington among the most expensive in the region.

Currently, Wilmington is proposing a tax of up to 3 percent on marijuana sales, while New Castle County is considering a proposal to tax the sales at up to 5 percent. Those would add to a 15 percent state sales tax on marijuana.

In addition, Wilmington City Council will take a final vote next week on a proposal to allow some recreational marijuana businesses to operate largely in the city’s industrial zones and Riverfront area.

Local cannabis tax proposals

According to state regulators, recreational marijuana establishments were originally set to open this April. However, due to regulatory delays, the market’s launch date has been paused until further notice.

Sticking to the original timeline, local governments have already begun setting restrictions on where marijuana shops can operate, since the state’s marijuana laws allow counties and municipalities to limit where cannabis businesses are allowed, while municipalities also have the authority to ban the industry outright from their town limits.

About a third of the state’s municipalities have already banned marijuana shops outright, but other areas like Wilmington struggled to come to a compromise on how to regulate the local industry.

Last year, city residents and elected officials debated the issue, with one common complaint being that the local government would not receive any direct revenue from the industry.

When Delaware legalized recreational marijuana in 2023, the state established a 15 percent sales tax on marijuana products. And of that, 7 percent will go toward a Justice Reinvestment Fund, which will support grants, contracts, and services aimed at addressing the lasting impacts of marijuana prohibition.

Although those funds would trickle down to municipalities that would also benefit from the creation of new businesses, more local leaders throughout the state have argued that local governments should receive direct funds from the industry.

This month, City Councilman Chris Johnson (D) proposed a resolution asking the General Assembly to let Wilmington collect up to a 3 percent sales tax on marijuana products sold in city retail stores, which he says would boost local revenue.

“This is a billion-dollar industry, and Wilmington, we should be getting our share,” he said.

Johnson proposed a similar resolution last year, but said the proposal was never picked up by any lawmaker down in Dover.

The new resolution will go to the full council on May 1 for a final vote to be adopted, and Johnson said he would like to see it be approved by state lawmakers by the end of the current legislative session.

New Castle County followed suit this week with its own resolution, asking the state to allow the county to tax up to 5 percent on the retail sale of marijuana products.

County Councilwoman Janet Kilpatrick (R), who is sponsoring the proposal with Councilman Kevin Caneco (D), said the tax will help to offset the “burden” that some offices in the county will have to bear as a result of the incoming industry.

“From the very beginning, the Land Use Department, along with Council, had to prepare the criteria for a logical zoning category as well as criteria that are presumed to help the public.  Beyond that, we anticipate that there will be public safety interaction (police, mental health assistance and ambulance, to name a few),” Kilpatrick wrote in a statement to Spotlight Delaware.

The resolution will be introduced and discussed during Tuesday’s Finance Committee meeting.

If lawmakers in Dover approve Wilmington and New Castle County’s requests to impose the local tax, retail marijuana stores operating in the most populated areas of Delaware can expect to be taxed between 18 percent and 23 percent.

Out of the 59 marijuana business operators who selected to operate in New Castle, the tax would only affect the 14 operators who were awarded retail licenses to open in the county.

Some advocates say that the hefty tax would push customers to surrounding states and would only further the illicit market of unregulated cannabis products being sold, which they claim the state has not done anything about.

“It’s gonna destroy the dispensaries in the north,” said Emily Wilkins, vice president of First State Compassion, which currently operates a medical marijuana retail store in New Castle County.

Wilkins and James Brobyn, president of the Delaware Cannabis Industry Association, believe that the tax is penalizing marijuana operators who still have yet to open their stores, while existing liquor stores, smoke shops and unregulated cannabis products are not being taxed at all.

“These politicians just come after us because we’re the easiest targets,” Brobyn said.

Wilmington’s zoning ordinance

In addition to the upcoming sales tax proposals, Wilmington’s recent zoning ordinance on marijuana establishments will soon come to a final vote.

The legislation, developed in collaboration with Mayor John Carney’s (D) office and introduced earlier this month, would require marijuana shops to stay at least 300 feet away from residential areas and schools. Shops would also be limited to specific commercial, manufacturing, and waterfront zones.

Without setting zoning restrictions on the shops, city officials say marijuana businesses would be able to set up throughout the city, including some residential areas, without buffers to sensitive areas.

Under the current proposal, no cannabis businesses would be allowed in any residential districts or commercial districts except for C-5. Testing, retail, manufacturing and cultivation shops would also be allowed in the M-1, M-2, W-1, W-2 and W-3 districts. Retail and testing establishments would also be allowed in W-4 with special permission from the zoning board.

These restrictions would push businesses to the east side of downtown Wilmington—to areas like Riverside, Riverfront East and largely industrial areas near Interstate 495—to develop businesses with the fewest procedural headaches. The Riverfront will likely be a prime location for a retail shop, but would require approval from city council.

All marijuana business operators would also have to obtain a business license from the city in order to operate.

During the April 16 Community Development & Urban Planning Committee meeting, Johnson, who sponsored the bill, emphasized that the current proposal is a happy medium between stakeholders.

“This is through negotiations and, frankly, listening to the public—both me and my colleagues going to civic association meetings, pitching the ideas, and taking feedback, and really working to find a map that works,” he said.

Other city council members agreed, including the city’s lone Republican council member, James Spadola, who was opposed to last year’s proposal that included a 100-foot buffer between stores and sensitive areas.

Johnson said he’d prefer more “expansive” zoning for marijuana operators, but hopes that once shops open and establish themselves in the city, some of the myths around cannabis will fade, eventually allowing for restrictions to be loosened.

Both the ordinance setting zoning restrictions for marijuana shops and the city’s sales tax resolution are scheduled for a final vote at the full council meeting on May 1.

This story was first published by Spotlight Delaware.

Trucking Industry Says Positive Marijuana Tests And ‘Sometimes Outdated’ Federal Regulations Are Contributing To National Driver Shortage

Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.

The post Local Governments In Delaware Seek To Impose Additional Sales Tax On Legal Marijuana Purchases appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner

The District Court of Hall County decided Tuesday to allow criminal charges against a notary public for “official misconduct” to proceed, overturning a lower court decision.

District Judge Andrew Butler, in a 10-page opinion, reversed a previous motion to quash against 24 counts of “official misconduct”—a Class II misdemeanor—against Jacy Todd of York, who was a notary for the successful ballot measures to legalize and regulate medical cannabis last year. Todd is believed to be the first notary criminally charged in this way.

Todd is accused of allegedly notarizing petition pages outside the presence of a petition circulator, Michael Egbert of Grand Island, on 24 different dates, each leading to a separate criminal charge. Todd has repeatedly denied all allegations.

Egbert admitted to using a phone book to illegally add voters to petition pages. He accepted a plea deal, reducing a Class IV felony charge to a Class I misdemeanor and $250 fine. Egbert said during a Lancaster County trial against the ballot measures that he has a mental condition that affects his memory.

Butler said he had to view the appeal from Hall County Attorney Marty Klein, who is working with the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office in the case, “in the light most favorable” to the State of Nebraska because Todd and his attorney have motioned to end the case.

More facts are needed, Butler argued, and the “extreme outcome” of a motion to quash should be “rare.”

“Granting the motion to quash was not appropriate at that time when considering the facts most favorable to the nonmoving party,” Butler wrote. “Further, and most importantly to the court, a notary public is a public servant that is subject to civil penalties and criminal penalties if warranted.”

‘Integrity of our elections’

In a statement, the AG’s Office expressed gratitude for Butler’s decision.

“Notaries are public officials who play an important role in our election process to ensure that the integrity of our elections are secured,” spokesperson Suzanne Gage said in a statement.

As the AG’s Office considered an appeal late last year, attorney Mark Porto representing Todd said that “a series of politically orchestrated (and false) Class II misdemeanors are among the least scary and intimidating things” that Todd, a veteran, had ever seen.

Porto did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

Public servant or public duties?

Hall County Judge Alfred Corey in November ruled that notary publics were not public officials and agreed with the “motion to quash” from Todd and his attorney, Mark Porto.

Corey said that while important, notarial duties “hardly implicate responsibilities that go to the heart of representative government” and were “essentially clerical and ministerial.”

Butler said he did not see a distinction between different definitions of “public servant” across state laws and that notaries are “officers” who are appointed by the Nebraska Secretary of State’s Office to hold office.

“This language clearly shows that a notary public is a public servant as an officer,” Butler wrote.

‘Voice of its residents’

Butler questioned the extent of resources being used to pursue such criminal charges and the number of such charges “when looking at the current climate of the state and voice of its residents.”

Nearly 71 percent of voters voted to legalize medical cannabis, and about 67 percent to regulate it.

“However, those decisions are left to another entity,” Butler wrote. “The court simply is tasked with applying the laws as written and, in this matter, the motion to quash should have been denied and the matter considered by a finder[s] of fact.”

The case returns to Hall County Court, unless appealed up to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.

This story was first published by Nebraska Examiner.

Pennsylvania Governor Will Put Marijuana Legalization In His Budget, But Top GOP Senator Remains Skeptical

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

The post Nebraska Judge Allows Criminal Charges To Go Forward Against Notary Public For Voter-Passed Medical Marijuana Initiatives appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

About two months after Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR) filed the suit with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the non-profit organization notified the court last week that it would no longer be pursuing the case—at least for now.

Days after submitting the motion to dismiss the case, the court granted it without prejudice, which D4DPR said enables it to take up the legal challenge again in the future if DEA ultimately declines to move forward with the proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

In the interim, D4DPR is touting the disclosure of “previously withheld DEA communications” with certain witnesses selected to participate in administrative hearings related to the rescheduling process.

The group said in a press release on Monday that the documents that were disclosed as part of the court proceedings “provided transparency into the selection process and revealed that DEA engaged in communications with several applicants before formal selections were made.”

“This disclosure was a major win for transparency and accountability,” Bryon Adinoff, president of D4DPR, said. “The cannabis advocacy community has long questioned the DEA’s objectivity, and these documents confirm those concerns. Our goal was to expose the agency’s improper conduct—and we succeeded.”

But with DEA’s rescheduling process stalled indefinitely as it’s tied up in a separate administrative challenge from pro-reform witnesses, the group said maintaining its lawsuit “could have resulted in more delay.” So having met its “core objective” of forcing transparency, it moved to dismiss the petition.

“We remain committed to advocating for evidence-based drug policy,” Adinoff said. “This legal effort exposed fundamental flaws in the DEA’s process and reinforced the need for a more transparent, science-driven approach to drug scheduling.”

At issue in the now-withdrawn legal challenge was the fact that then-DEA Administrator Anne Milgram selected just 25 of more than 160 applicants that sought to provide input on the rescheduling proposal that happened under the Biden administration.

According to attorneys represented by D4DPR, which was among the groups denied designated participant status for the hearings, there was substantial evidence that DEA’s ex parte communications with prohibitionist witnesses were “motivated by the impermissible goal of creating an evidentiary record that would allow it to reject the proposed rule to reschedule marijuana.”

DEA is meant to serve as the proponent of the rescheduling rule, but the agency has faced repeated questions over its actual stance on the proposal. Part of that comes down to the fact that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, and not Milgram, signed the notice of proposed rulemaking—breaking with administrative precedent in drug rescheduling decisions.

Prior to DEA Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney’s ruling that delayed the rescheduling hearings, D4DPR separately filed a request with the federal appeals court seeking a stay of the proceedings. And another organization that was also denied participation, Veterans Action Council (VAC), similarly filed a petition with the same court in December to request a review of the agency’s decision to exclude it from the proceedings.

Meanwhile, DEA notified Mulrooney earlier this month that the marijuana rescheduling process is still on hold—with no future actions currently scheduled as the matter sits before the acting administrator, who has called cannabis a “gateway drug” and linked its use to psychosis.

What this means for the fate of rescheduling isn’t clear. But if the decision-making is left up to DEA Acting Administrator Derek Maltz, it likely wouldn’t bode especially well for supporters of rescheduling.

Among other things, Maltz subscribes to the “gateway drug” theory for marijuana and believes most people living in states that have legalized cannabis will continue to obtain it from illicit sources such as cartels due to high taxes in regulated markets.

Originally, hearings were set to commence on January 21, but those were cancelled when Mulrooney granted the appeal motion.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department told a federal court in January that it should pause a lawsuit challenging DEA’s marijuana rescheduling process after the agency judge canceled the hearings.

Also in January, Mulrooney condemned DEA over its “unprecedented and astonishing” defiance of a key directive related to evidence it is seeking to use in the marijuana rescheduling proposal.

At issue was DEA’s insistence on digitally submitting tens of thousands of public comments it received in response to the proposed rule to move cannabis to Schedule III.

Mulrooney hasn’t been shy about calling out DEA over various procedural missteps throughout this rescheduling process.

For example, in December he criticized the agency for making a critical “blunder” in its effort to issue subpoenas to force Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials to testify in hearings—but he allowed the agency to fix the error and ultimately granted the request.

The rescheduling proceedings have generated significant public interest. While moving marijuana to Schedule III wouldn’t federally legalize it, the reform would free up licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers.

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

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

Meanwhile, two GOP senators introduced a bill in February that would continue to block marijuana businesses from taking federal tax deductions under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code 280E—even if it’s ultimately rescheduled.

Beyond the hearing delays, another complicating factor is the change in leadership at DEA under the Trump administration.

Trump’s nominee to serve as DEA administrator, Terrance Cole, has previously voiced concerns about the dangers of marijuana and linked its use to higher suicide risk among youth.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was previously vocal about his support for legalizing cannabis, as well as psychedelics therapy. But during his Senate confirmation process in February, he said that he would defer to DEA on marijuana rescheduling in his new role.

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)—Trump’s first pick for U.S. attorney general this term before he withdrew from consideration—said recently that “meaningful” marijuana reform is “on the horizon” under the current administration, praising the president’s “leadership” in supporting rescheduling.

After Gaetz withdrew from consideration to lead DOJ, Trump then picked former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) to run the department, and the Senate confirmed that choice. During her confirmation hearings, Bondi declined to say how she planned to navigate key marijuana policy issues. And as state attorney general, she opposed efforts to legalize medical cannabis.

Former officials with DEA and HHS said this week that, without proactive advocacy for marijuana rescheduling from Trump personally, the process could stall indefinitely.

Supporters of rescheduling got an unwelcome update this month, however, as the White House Office of Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) released a report that outlined the administration’s top drug policy priorities for Trump’s first year of his second term—and it notably did not mention rescheduling or other cannabis reforms.

A marijuana industry-funded political action committee (PAC) recently attacked Biden’s cannabis policy record as well as the nation of Canada, with ads promoting sometimes misleading claims about the last administration while making the case that Trump can deliver on reform.

Read the latest legal filings in the D4DPR lawsuit against DEA below: 

Pennsylvania Governor Will Put Marijuana Legalization In His Budget, But Top GOP Senator Remains Skeptical

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

The post Doctors Drop Marijuana Rescheduling Lawsuit That Alleged DEA Misconduct In Rescheduling Process, In Part To Avoid ‘More Delay’ appeared first on Marijuana Moment.