By the end of the year, says OCM’s 2024 Market Report, 260 retail locations were operational statewide, stocking more than 500 brands of product. All told, since the launch of the retail market, licensed stores had sold more than $1 billion in legal marijuana.

Including sales so far in 2025, New York’s legal cannabis market is now close to reaching $1.5 billion worth of purchases.

New York last year “witnessed significant sales growth and a substantial increase in tax revenue generated from licensed cannabis sales,” the new report says, “reinforcing the positive impact of a well-regulated cannabis market.”

“This market report reflects the dynamism of New York’s cannabis industry—an industry that is shifting rapidly as the market matures and encounters both opportunities and challenges,” Felicia A.B. Reid, the office’s acting executive director, said in a statement Tuesday. “But, as ever, OCM is deeply committed to ensuring that the industry is reflective of New Yorkers and creating meaningful and forward-looking opportunities for communities historically affected by cannabis prohibition.”

As for the state’s efforts toward building an equitable cannabis industry, the new state report says that social and economic equity (SEE) applicants hold 55 percent of licenses, including 81 percent of retail dispensary licenses and 58 percent of microbusiness licenses.

2024 Market Report, NY Office of Cannabis Management

Meanwhile operators licensed under the Conditional Adult Use Retail Dispensary (CAURD) program, designed to acknowledge disproportionate enforcement of cannabis laws against some communities, “accounted for 70% of open retailers at the end of 2024,” OCM said.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, sales were strongest in densely populated areas, such as Manhattan, Queens and Long Island.

The report is designed to provide regulators at the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) with information necessary to oversee and adjust the state system and promote the “the goals of inclusion, fairness, and sustainability set forth in the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA),” according to an OCM press release.

“The comprehensive data from this report enable us to understand the current state of the market and proactively advance regulatory and policy decisions that enhance the long-term viability of New York’s cannabis sector,” said John Kagia, OCM’s executive deputy director of market policy, innovation and analytics. “With insights on sales trends, product diversification, and consumer behavior, we’re equipping the CCB to support businesses navigating the market’s competitive pressures and evolving demands.”

The market has continued to expand since the end of the year, says OCM’s press release about the new report. As of April of this year, it says, 368 retailers have been licensed statewide, with total sales “nearing $1.5 billion.”

2024 Market Report, NY Office of Cannabis Management

In addition to updates on operational retailers, sales and licensing, the report also touches on market trends such as purchasing behaviors and consumers’ increased use of non-flower products, such as vape products and edibles.

Flower products, including prerolls, accounted for less than half (45 percent) of sales, which the report says reflects “the strong demand for value-added products, including vaporizers, edibles, and concentrates, [which] has grown.”

The findings align in part with a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that found significant decreases in the use of flower, concentrates, oil, tinctures and topicals among U.S. consumers in certain states. That report also found increases in the use of edibles, beverages and vape cartridges.

For those who do by flower in New York, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) buy products in 3.5-gram packages, or an eighth of an ounce.

2024 Market Report, NY Office of Cannabis Management

About 23 percent of flower sales, meanwhile, were of brands owned by state-licensed medical marijuana operators, known in New York as registered organizations (ROs). Prices of flower products from ROs were typically more expensive than those from adult-use brands, especially for larger packages.

As for prerolled joints, most (80 percent) were one gram apiece, with half-gram prerolls (15 percent) making up most of the remainder. Packages with five or more prerolls were most common, making up 60 percent of sales. Single joints made up 33 percent of preroll sales, meanwhile.

2024 Market Report, NY Office of Cannabis Management

The most popular flavors for edibles, meanwhile, were raspberry (7 percent), watermelon lemonade (5 percent), blueberry (5 percent), peach (4 percent) and watermelon (4 percent). Beverages were most popular in cans (78 percent), followed by concentrated drops (9 percent), powder (6 percent), tea bags (5 percent) or shots (2 percent).

Among the recommendations in the new OCM report include continuing to educate consumers about the legal market.

“Most of New York’s legal cannabis demand will come from consumers transitioning from the illicit market to the regulated market, not from new consumers who began using cannabis after it was legalized,” it says. “The legal market is still in its early stages of growth, having captured less than one-fifth of the estimated total addressable demand in the State.”

“Many consumers are unfamiliar with the products and brands they are encountering in the regulated market and rely on their experiences in the illicit market to inform their product purchases,” it continues. “Consumer education can therefore play a critical role in informing customer purchase decisions and enabling consumers to better understand the effects and experiences associated with regulated products.”

Ahead of the 4/20 holiday earlier this month, regulators rolled out a “higher education” campaign meant to provide adults with information about how to “make informed, responsible decisions about cannabis,” including how to locate state-licensed retailers.

The office also advises that “Continued enforcement against the illicit market is critical to building a health regulated market,” pointing to what it describes as successful enforcement efforts in 2024. Last spring, for example, officials in New York City launched Operation Padlock, an enforcement initiative meant to shutter illegal storefronts. Within months, licensed shops that were open before the operation began saw sales climb 105 percent, according to an OCM survey.

OCM also recommends in the new report that all adult-use cultivators—not just ROs and certain others—be permitted to grow marijuana in indoor facilities, though it acknowledged that allowance could increase the industry’s energy footprint.

“Authorizing adult use cultivator licensees to transition to indoor cultivation facilities will address the limited availability of indoor grown flower and increase supply chain stability,” the report says. “This will ensure that all cultivators can grow in the environments best suited for their business models and address the market 61 imbalance created by having only a limited number of growers authorized to grow indoors.”

Big picture, federal policy changes “will shape the next chapter of legal market growth,” officials wrote, though they noted those changes “could still be years away.”

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), for example, “had indicated that it would consider rescheduling in 2025,” the report says, “however the start of the hearings process has been delayed by procedural challenges.”

Earlier this month, a group of doctors who support drug policy reform withdrew its lawsuit against DEA over the rescheduling process, in part to avoid “more delay” in the already-stalled proceedings, the organization said.

With DEA’s rescheduling process stalled indefinitely—tied up in a separate administrative challenge from pro-reform witnesses—plaintiffs said maintaining the lawsuit “could have resulted in more delay.”

Even if rescheduling proceeds, the OCM report says, the administrative process “will likely take years to finalize as the proposed rules navigate the federal review process and the likely legal challenges that will follow.”

“OCM is working to better understand the full potential implications of federal reform, and to prepare the market for changes that may be necessary under a new federal regime,” it adds. “Where appropriate, OCM will also continue to offer federal policymakers New York’s assessment of how current and proposed federal rules impact the operations and outlook of New York’s legal market.”

Earlier this month in New York, meanwhile, state cannabis regulators and labor officials announced the launch of a workforce training program aimed at “providing comprehensive safety education to workers” in the state’s legal marijuana industry.

Separately, OCM’s press secretary recently indicated the office is working on plans to expand permitting and licensing rules that could allow adults to buy and consume marijuana at movie theaters. Authorizing sales of cannabis products at theaters would set New York apart as it continues to build upon the state’s legalization law.

Days before that, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a pair of companion bills into law that are meant to expand New York’s marijuana farmers market program, allowing for more partnerships between licensed cannabis businesses and standalone “pop-up” events.

New York initially authorized cannabis farmers market events in 2023, aiming to expedite consumers access as traditional retailers were being approved and help producers bring their products directly to market. Last December, Hochul separately signed legislation to revive the program after it sunsetted in January 2024.

The farmers market events as originally authorized were largely responsive to the slow roll-out of New York’s adult-use marijuana program, which faced multiple delays in implementation amid litigation. But the state’s industry has gradually expanded, with officials in January touting $1 billion in total sales since the market launched.

State officials also recently launched a grant program that will award up to $30,000 apiece to retail marijuana businesses to help cover startup costs.

Also, earlier this year, a collective of businesses licensed under the CAURD program called on Hochul to forgive tens of millions of dollars in high-cost loans issued under a governor-created social equity loan fund.

Assembly Majority Leader Crystal Peoples-Stokes (D) said in December that there’s a need to extend financial aid to CAURD license holders, many of whom are struggling under the high-cost loans.

Critics—including the NAACP New York State Conference, Black Cannabis Industry Association, Minority Cannabis Business Association, Service Disabled Veterans in Cannabis Association, Drug Policy Alliance, NYC NORML and VOCAL-NY—wrote to the governor earlier that month to express dismay at what they described as marijuana regulators’ “efforts in service of big corporations at the expense of small business and equity outcomes.”

The advocates said at the time that since the departure of the state’s first chief cannabis regulator, Chris Alexander, last may May, state officials had demonstrated a “shift toward corporate interests at the expense of small business, justice-involved entrepreneurs, and Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary (CAURD) licensees who are directly impacted by prior marijuana arrest.”

Last month, regulators also launched a new resource meant to connect licensed marijuana businesses with banks that are willing to work with the industry, even as federal prohibition continues to pose barriers to financial services.

In 2023, the governor signed legislation that aims to make it slightly easier for financial institutions to work with state-licensed cannabis clients.

The law authorized OCM to provide financial institutions with information about marijuana business licensees or applicants, which is meant to ease compliance with reporting requirements. Licensees and applicants would first have to consent to information being shared.

A recent budget proposal from Hochul aims to empower police who claim to smell marijuana to force a driver to take a drug test—a plan that’s drawing pushback not just from reform advocates but also from the state’s Assembly majority leader and the governor-appointed head of OCM.

Meanwhile in New York, the state Senate earlier this month approved a bill to expand housing protections for registered medical marijuana patients, aiming to prevent evictions based solely on their lawful use of cannabis.

Senators this session have also introduced a bill for the 2025 session to broadly decriminalize drug possession.

Several psychedelics bills have also been filed in New York—including one calling for the legalization of certain entheogenic substances such as psilocybin and ibogaine for adults 21 and older.

The governor argued in June, meanwhile, that there’s a direct correlation between stepped-up enforcement and “dramatically” increased legal sales. A report by state officials last year found both “growing pains” and “successful efforts” in New York’s marijuana market launch.

White House Drug Czar Could Endorse Marijuana Legalization Under New Bill To Repeal ‘Ludicrous’ Restriction

The post New York Marijuana Sales Near $1.5 Billion Total As Number Of Stores Nearly Tripled Last Year, State Report Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

An order by Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week granted government lawyers an extension until June 5 to decide whether to appeal a February ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer had previously requested the extension, telling the high court that the government needed more time to consider the case.

“The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case,” said Sauer’s three-page filing. “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.”

The case concerns a defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, who 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.”

Had the Supreme Court not granted the government’s extension, in the case, U.S. v. Baxter, a decision whether to appeal the Eighth Circuit ruling would have been due May 6.

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 last week that the group was “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 at the time. “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.”

Trump-Appointed U.S. Attorney Says His ‘Instinct’ Is Medical Marijuana Dispensary Shouldn’t Be ‘In The Community’ As He Warns Of Federal Prosecution

The post Supreme Court Gives Trump Administration More Time To Consider Challenging Marijuana And Gun Ownership Ruling appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

It warns, for example, that while cannabis-based medications are legal in a growing number of jurisdictions, mere possession of those substances in other areas can lead to travel delays, denial of entry and even arrest and prosecution.

The new guidance, published online last week, appears in the 2026 edition of the CDC Yellow Book, which contains health information for international travel. Two chapters—around substance use and traveling with restricted medications—urge healthcare professionals to “educate international travelers” about “local laws that restrict medications and ensure they have necessary documentation.”

Even traveling within the U.S., notes the chapter on substance use, flying with marijuana products remains illegal, regardless of whether the products are for medical use.

“It is illegal to take marijuana (defined as cannabis products with more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight) on a domestic flight,” the agency says. “However, in the United States as of early 2024, a traveler can take products with less than this amount of THC that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration in a carry-on or checked bag.”

It advises travelers to check ahead of time when it comes to other modes of transport, such as cruise ships, which may or may not allow low-THC products aboard.

“Similarly, reviewing the legal status of marijuana and cannabis products with less than 0.3% delta-9 THC in a destination country is important prior to departure,” the guidance says.

The other Yellow Book chapter, on travel with restricted medications, says that if a traveler’s medicine “is on the Drug Enforcement Administration controlled substances schedule in the United States, a traveler or their healthcare professional should determine whether it is prohibited or restricted at an international destination.”

It adds, however, that “even if a medication is not controlled in the United States, it still may be prohibited in another country.”

That could be the case with CBD, which is no longer a scheduled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) but is still regulated in some jurisdictions.

“Although U.S. and international policies have become more lenient concerning the use of cannabidiol (CBD), a compound found in the cannabis plant, international travelers should be aware of local laws when packing CBD-containing products,” the chapter says, “including but not limited to gummies, lotions, oil, and vape cartridges. Often classified as an herbal supplement, CBD itself is not psychoactive but is still controlled in some countries.”

CDC also points out that CBD products sometimes contain THC—whether intentionally or through contamination—which, even at trace amounts, can make them illegal.

“Even if CBD is legal in a country, a CBD-containing product may be illegal if it also contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), another compound found in the cannabis plant and the main psychoactive component of marijuana,” the advisory says.

It adds that some countries, like the U.S., determine whether a CBD product is legal based on its concentration of THC.

Unfortunately, CDC acknowledges that “No single resource exists where an international traveler or travel medicine specialist can access information to determine whether a medication is prohibited or restricted at a destination.”

It advises travelers and their healthcare providers check multiple sources, including the International Narcotics Control Board website, U.S. Embassy websites in destination countries, a State Department website and others.

“If a traveler’s question is not addressed by the aforementioned websites, the Inter­national Pharmaceutical Federation (fip@fip.org), a Netherlands-based organization with a database of senior pharmacists, can sometimes facilitate communication by forwarding an inquiry from a traveler to the appropriate point of contact in the destination country’s government,” CDC says.

Separately, a CDC report published earlier this month evaluated 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.

A separate CDC report last year found a decline in teen use over the past decade, as dozens of states moved to legalize cannabis.

As of 2023, for example, 17 percent of high-school students reported using marijuana within the past month. In 2013, that figure was 23 percent.

Though youth use rates ticked up and down by a few percentage points from survey to survey over the 10-year timespan covered by that CDC report, the overall trend was that past-month use among high-school students declined since 2013.

Notably, male students showed a more marked drop in marijuana use over the past decade, with rates falling from 25 percent in 2013 to 15 percent in 2023. Among female students over the same time period, rates decreased from 22 percent to 19 percent.

Another 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.

Meanwhile at the international level, an ongoing review by the World Health Organization could eventually lead to the rescheduling of coca leaves, the raw ingredient for cocaine.

And last year a handful of countries—primarily in Europe—began embracing medical and adult-use marijuana programs.

Among them, countries such as Ukraine and Slovenia took steps to expand access to medical marijuana. German and Polish officials, meanwhile, moved toward broader, nonmedical access to cannabis among adults.

Meanwhile, a United Nations (UN) report published in June acknowledged that marijuana legalization in the U.S. and Canada may have helped to shrink the size of illicit markets.

Dozens of United Nations (UN) human rights also last year urged member nations to focus less on punishment and criminalization and more on harm reduction and public health while specifically calling for “decriminalisation of drug use and related activities, and the responsible regulation of all drugs to eliminate profits from illegal trafficking, criminality and violence.”

“The ‘war on drugs’ has resulted in a range of serious human rights violations, as documented by a number of UN human rights experts over the years,” said the statement from UN special rapporteurs, experts and working groups. “We collectively urge Member States and all UN entities to put evidence and communities at the centre of drug policies, by shifting from punishment towards support, and invest in the full array of evidence-based health interventions for people who use drugs, ranging from prevention to harm reduction, treatment and aftercare, emphasizing the need for a voluntary basis and in full respect of human rights norms and standards.”

Former Texas Governor And U.S. Senator Meet With State Lawmakers To Form National Ibogaine Access Plan

The post As International Drug Laws Change, CDC Warns Travelers To Check Legal Status Of Marijuana, CBD And Other Substances appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

But the latest version of the bill, HB 302—approved Friday by a conference committee consisting of members of both legislative chambers—offers a narrower path to medical marijuana for patients with conditions not already listed in the program. For those patients, a recommendation would need to come from their “primary treating medical provider” rather than a provider who specializes in cannabis.

“It is making changes to the medical medical cannabis law by expanding access,” Rep. Gregg Takayama (D) said at the committee hearing, “by allowing treating physicians and nurses to go beyond the specified medical conditions if they feel it’s appropriate.”

After briefly describing the bill, Takayama quipped: “I’ve been waiting all session to say this has been a tremendous joint effort.”

Advocates, however, say the change mandating that only “primary treating medical providers” could recommend marijuana—combined with others made in the conference committee that would establish a new felony charge for unlicensed dispensary operation and give the state Department of Health sweeping authority to review patients’ medical records—has led them to reconsider their stance on the bill.

The group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), for example, now opposes HB 302 after previously submitting testimony in support of earlier versions. Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for MPP, noted that data suggest that only a small subset of Hawaii doctors are currently willing to recommend cannabis.

“About 6% of actively treating physicians are recommending medical cannabis in Hawaii,” she told Marijuana Moment, with fewer than 250 doctors statewide having issued recommendations. “So in practice, the vast majority of patients have to go to a specialist for their medical cannabis recommendation.”

The provision could also complicate the process of obtaining a medical marijuana recommendation for patients without a primary care physician, veterans whose primary care doctors work for the federal Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and others.

MPP likely would have supported the bill despite those changes, O’Keefe said, but the conference committee also made a number of other changes in the revised bill that the group says go too far.

First, the bill authorizes the Department of Health to “inspect a qualifying patient’s medical records held by the physician, advanced practice registered nurse, or hospice provider who issued a written certification for the qualifying patient.”

Providers who don’t comply with a department request for a patient’s records could see their ability to issue medical cannabis revoked.

Another change establishes a new Class C felony for unlicensed operation of a dispensary, adding another major charge on top of the state’s existing laws against illegal distribution of marijuana.

Additionally, the conference committee-revised bill would appropriate $750,000 “or so much thereof that may be necessary” to recruit and hire five investigator positions and one analyst position “to enforce, and mitigate nuisances relating to, illegal cannabis and hemp products.”

Another provision in the bill would allow patients to be recommended medical marijuana through telehealth visits rather than having to establish an in-person relationship with a provider.

The conference committee’s bill now proceeds back to the House and Senate chambers for floor votes on Wednesday. If lawmakers sign off on the revised bill, it would then proceed to the governor’s desk. It’s possible the measure could see further adjustments, but both chambers would need to approve identical amendments in order for them to be adopted.

O’Keefe said that she was disappointed that rather than move toward broader legalization of marijuana—which remains illegal for adults in Hawaii—lawmakers are moving instead toward a more tightly regulated medical program.

Prior to the conference committee’s changes, the state Senate passed the measure on a 24–1 vote earlier this month. That followed unanimous passage by the House in early March. Between those two votes, however, a pair of Senate committees amended the bill, making changes House lawmakers later rejected. The conference committee was formed to iron out the disagreement.

Among the Senate’s changes, one provision amended the bill to effectively allow medical marijuana to be recommended for any condition that a doctor or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) believes it would benefit. Currently providers can recommend marijuana to treat only those maladies on a specific state list.

The provision would have redefined “debilitating medical condition” to mean “any condition determined by the certifying physician or advanced practice registered nurse to be appropriate for the medical use of cannabis.”

That would have opened the door to wider access for patients who might have conditions that stand to benefit from medical marijuana but whose ailments haven’t been specifically recognized by state officials.

Instead, the revised bill keeps the existing list of “debilitating conditions” but also allows a patient’s “primary treating medical provider” to recommend marijuana for other conditions if the provider “is primarily responsible for the treatment and ongoing care of the qualifying patient and has determined that the potential benefits of the medical use of cannabis are likely to outweigh the associated health risks.”

Earlier in the legislative session, the state Department of Health took issue with the medical marijuana expansion bill.

“While the Department supports allowing medical providers to use their professional judgment in diagnosing and treating patients,” it said in previous written testimony, “there is limited scientific evidence supporting the use of cannabis for conditions beyond those currently listed in statute. The Department is particularly concerned about potential risks to patient safety, including adverse drug interactions between cannabis and a patient’s existing treatment plan.”

To remedy those concerns, the department recommended an amendment stating that only a patient’s treating provider be authorized to certify patients for nonspecified conditions—a suggestion lawmakers had declined to take up until the conference committee.

The move to allow healthcare providers to recommend medical cannabis to patients for any condition they see fit is in line with a plan announced last year by Gov. Josh Green (D) to expand access to marijuana in light of the legislature’s failure to pass recreational legalization measures.

“This would make it very available—that’s marijuana—for those who choose it in their lives,” the governor said in an interview, “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.

Meanwhile, a separate bill to create a two-year pilot program to support clinical research into psychedelic-assisted therapies, including substances such as psilocybin and MDMA, is also pending before a conference committee.

Lawmakers also recently sent a bill to the governor that would help speed the expungement process for people hoping to clear their records of past marijuana-related offenses—a proposal Green signed into law earlier this month.

That measure, HB 132, from Rep. David Tarnas (D), is intended to expedite expungements happening through a pilot program signed into law last year by Gov. Josh Green (D). Specifically, it will remove a distinction between marijuana and other Schedule V drugs for the purposes of the expungement program.

The bill’s proponents said the current wording of the law forces state officials to comb through thousands of criminal records manually in order to identify which are eligible for expungement under the pilot program.

Hawaii’s Senate back in February narrowly defeated a separate proposal that would have increased fivefold the amount of cannabis that a person could possess without risk of criminal charges. The body voted 12–11 against the decriminalization measure, SB 319, from Sen. Joy San Buenaventura (D).

Had the measure become law, it would have increased the amount of cannabis decriminalized in Hawaii from the current 3 grams up to 15 grams. Possession of any amount of marijuana up to that 15-gram limit would have been classified as a civil violation, punishable by a fine of $130.

A Senate bill that would have legalized marijuana for adults, meanwhile, ultimately stalled for the session. That measure, SB 1613, failed to make it out of committee by a legislative deadline.

While advocates felt there was sufficient support for the legalization proposal in the Senate, it’s widely believed that House lawmakers would have ultimately scuttled the measure, as they did last month with a legalization companion bill, HB 1246.

Last session, a Senate-passed legalization bill also fizzled out in the House.

This year’s House vote to stall the bill came just days after approval from a pair of committees at a joint hearing. Ahead of that hearing, the panels received nearly 300 pages of testimony, including from state agencies, advocacy organizations and members of the public.

This past fall, regulators solicited proposals to assess the state’s current medical marijuana program—and also sought to estimate demand for recreational sales if the state eventually moves forward with adult-use legalization. Some read the move as a sign the regulatory agency saw a need to prepare to the potential reform.

Hawaii was the first U.S. state to legalize medical marijuana through its legislature, passing a law in 2000.

Former Texas Governor And U.S. Senator Meet With State Lawmakers To Form National Ibogaine Access Plan

The post Advocates In Hawaii Pull Support For Medical Marijuana Expansion Bill Due To Changes By Conference Committee appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

The study, published this month in the Journal of Consumer Research, says the findings reflect so-called “expertise stereotypes” among different groups of respondents.

“Black ownership signals credibility to out-group consumers, but stigma may suppress in-group identification,” the study’s lead author, Chethana Achar, said in a statement about the research. “The findings raise critical questions about whether equity policies alone are enough to ensure market success for Black entrepreneurs in the drugs industry.”

Achar, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, co-authored the paper with a University of Washington business professor and the founder of a California-based marketing consultancy.

The research consisted of four separate sub-studies. Those included surveying Black professionals from the drug industry about their expectations around “Black-owned” labels, measuring peoples’ expertise stereotypes about Black and women entrepreneurs, comparing responses to “Black-owned” labels on cannabis as opposed to candy and testing how “Black-owned” and “Woman-owned” labels affected engagements with psychedelics advertisements.

Among the findings, the team found that “‘Black-owned’ labeling increased Black participants’ intentions to consume candy, but not cannabis,” adding that “the pattern reversed for White participants such that ‘Black-owned’ labeling increased their intentions only for cannabis.”

“Whereas out-group members’ response is consistent with expertise stereotypes,” the report says, “in-group members’ support does not extend to the stigmatized category.”

Results showed that among both Black and white participants, Black entrepreneurs were perceived as “stereotypical experts” on cannabis, according to a preprint of the report provided to Marijuana Moment. For psychedelics, “Black participants indicated no expertise stereotypes for Black entrepreneurs, whereas White participants perceived that Black entrepreneurs were experts.”

Stereotypes, “also do not systematically vary by participants’ gender, support for drug legalization, or political ideology,” it continues. “These findings indicate that consumers perceive domain-specific expertise stereotypes and that such stereotypes are mostly similar across consumers.”

The research also found, in separate investigation around psychedelics advertisements on Facebook, that a “Black-owned” label on advertisements led to a 21 percent increase in clickthrough rates compared to an ad without the label.

Including a “Woman-owned” label, however, reduced clickthrough rates by 15 percent.

“These findings advance the discourse on ownership labeling and provide insight into nuanced consumer responses in this category,” the study says.

Authors wrote in the preprint that a possible concern “with relatively uncommon ad treatments, such as an ‘x-owned’ label, is that responses may be driven by the novelty of ownership labeling.”

“However,” they added, “the negative effect of the Woman-owned label suggests that novelty alone is unlikely to explain the positive effect observed for Black-owned labeling.”

The research team said the stereotypes revealed likely has benefits as well as drawbacks:

“Our view is that recognizing the dual nature of stereotypes—both their problematic aspects and their potential utility in specific contexts—provides a more comprehensive understanding of their impact. While ‘Black-owned’ labeling on drugs can enhance consumer perceptions of product quality by leveraging expertise stereotypes, this phenomenon also carries significant risks. The reinforcement of stereotypes linking Black people to drugs may inadvertently perpetuate harmful associations, further entrenching the stigmatizing views.”

Further study, the report says, should “critically explore these implications by investigating how expertise stereotypes in stigmatized domains can have adverse effects.”

The study also acknowledges that it doesn’t take into account how legalization of drugs “may lead to development of positive associations with drugs over time.”

“Documentation of shifting attitudes towards drugs are beyond the scope of this research; however, it is important to note that change in societal attitudes indeed might change the underlying mechanisms documented here,” it says. “For example, if being associated with cannabis were seen as culture-forward, rather than stigmatizing, a positive effect of ‘Black-owned’ labeling may be expected among Black participants.”

As for other recent findings into consumer behavior, a survey ahead of the 4/20 weekend found that three in four cannabis consumers support non-marijuana companies promoting their brands in a way that aligns with the festivities.

While there are typically deals and marketing stunts within the state-legal cannabis industry around 4/20, a growing number of companies that aren’t directly related to marijuana—from dog toy makers to fast food chains—have also seized the opportunity to play into cannabis culture.

A separate survey, released earlier this month, found that half of U.S. marijuana consumers say they expect to use more cannabis under the Trump administration than they have before.

The findings seem to comport with another recent poll that showed cannabis consumers self-reporting higher levels of stress since Trump was inaugurated compared to the overall population.

Relatedly, another poll from February found that nearly 7 in 10 American marijuana consumers say they plan to spend either more on cannabis or about the same amount in 2025 compared to last year.

NuggMD also recently released a survey that found two out of three marijuana consumers say they’ve had to make the decision to spend less money on cannabis because of broader inflation in the economy.

Meanwhile, another poll from January found that more than half of marijuana consumers say they drink less alcohol, or none at all, after using cannabis.

New York Marijuana Regulators Launch ‘Higher Education’ Campaign Ahead Of 4/20 To Help Adults Make ‘Safer And Informed Decisions’

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

The post ‘Black-Owned’ Label On Marijuana Products Increases Interest Among White Consumers But Not Black Consumers, Study Says appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

If enacted, the four-page bill—H 5630, from Rep. Susan Donovan (D) and nine co-sponsors—would require that certain healthcare facilities allow the use of medical marijuana by people expected to live a year or less with their current condition. Smoking and vaping cannabis products would not be permitted.

Facilities would need to set additional limits on how patients store and use medical marijuana “to ensure the safety of other patients, guests, and employees of the healthcare facility,” according to a legislative description of the measure.

The bill’s description section says its goal is to “support the ability of a terminally ill patient to safely use medicinal cannabis within specified healthcare facilities in compliance with” state law.

Members of the House Committee on Health and Human Services did not take formal action on the measure at Wednesday’s hearing, instead taking testimony and holding it for further study.

Donovan, the bill’s sponsor and chair of the committee, shared the story of a boy named Ryan, who was diagnosed with cancer and initially treated with opioids such as morphine and fentanyl, which made him constantly sleepy.

“He didn’t want to spend his last few weeks sleeping,” Donovan said. “Medicinal cannabis was suggested, but the hospital didn’t allow it. So he was moved to another [where] it was allowed, and the results were amazing. He was awake and alert and without pain and able to have conversations with his family and friends.”

Ryan’s family and others support H 5630, she said, because they “feel that all terminally ill patients should be able to have the same opportunity.”

One member of the panel, Rep. Michelle McGraw (D), asked whether allowing medical marijuana use could cause healthcare facilities to lose federal funding.

Donovan said that similar legislation has already been passed in eight other states, “and that is not an issue.” She said she would look up an explanation of why.

Rep. Marie Hopkins (R) asked why the bill defines terminal illness as having a prognosis of one year or less to live, claiming instead that “the standard medical definition is six months.”

Hopkins said the question was intended “not as a criticism of the bill itself, because I like the bill.”

Donovan said she would look into it and amend the measure’s language if necessary.

A representative of ACLU of Rhode Island said the group supports the proposal.

“We believe that this bill would provide terminally ill patients the care and relief they need, while also easing some of their symptoms,” they said.

—
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.
—

Ellen Lenox Smith, who co-directs the medical cannabis program at the U.S. Pain Foundation, a chronic pain nonprofit, also testified at the hearing.

“Now that [recreational marijuana]’s here,” in Rhode Island, she said, “we can’t get anybody to pay attention to medical patients anymore.”

She told lawmakers that similar legislation had been approved or introduced in more than a dozen other states. “This bill is all over the country,” she she, “and I’m feeling really good that people are very compassionate about this.”

To qualify for the protection, a patient would need to provide a care facility with their identification as well as a copy of either their medical marijuana card or a physician’s written recommendation for cannabis.

Notably, chemical dependency recovery facilities would not fall under the definition of “healthcare facility” for the purposes of the bill.

Donovan also noted at Wednesday’s hearing that the bill “would need to be amended so that places like the VA and the Veterans Home and the Eleanor Slater Hospital in Rhode Island would be exempt, because federal law classifies cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance.”

The bill would also authorize facilities to suspend their allowance of medical marijuana use if the federal government takes certain regulatory or enforcement actions.

Meanwhile in Rhode Island, the three-member Cannabis Control Commission earlier this month approved the first set of rules establishing a framework for the state’s newly legal cannabis market.

Among other things, the rules, which take effect May 1, create new packaging and labeling requirements, outline the business-licensing process and set social equity licensing criteria. The state is eventually set license up to two dozen marijuana retailers, with six licenses reserved for social equity applicants.

State lawmakers in February, meanwhile, held a hearing on a reintroduced bill to exempt psilocybin from the state’s laws against controlled substances, legalizing possession and home cultivation for personal use.

“Psilocybin is effectively a natural compound that’s in a variety of mushrooms. It is non-toxic, non-addictive. It’s a natural compound,” sponsor Rep. Brandon Potter (D) said in opening remarks. “There’s an abundance of especially medical research that shows incredible effects for treating people with complicated PTSD, depression, severe anxiety, addiction—just an absolute abundance of medical research from leading medical research institutions.”

As for other drug policy developments in the state, late last year organizers cut the ribbon on the first state-sanctioned safe consumption site for illegal drugs in the United States. The facility—located in Providence—stems from a 2021 bill creating a pilot program for overdose prevention centers (OPCs) in the state.

While controversial, overdose prevention centers have been lauded by academics and harm reduction advocates as a promising way to reduce drug-related deaths and connect people with social services, including treatment for drug use disorders.

“People with substance abuse disorder are going to use,” Providence Mayor Brett Smiley (D) said at the facility’s ribbon-cutting ceremony. “What’s different here is that they will use in a supervised fashion with medical professionals on staff so that they do not die, and then there will be services wrapped around.”

Researchers at Brown University will be following the developments.

“The goal is to identify how OPCs operate in the United States,” Brown epidemiology professor Brandon D.L. Marshall said in a university post about the project. “If they are working, what makes them particularly helpful for people? In what ways do they connect people to addiction treatment and care? How can they best be integrated into a community that’s been hard hit by the nation’s overdose crisis? Those are some of the things we’d like to tease out.”

Alcohol Industry Lobbies Congress To Regulate Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Products

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

The post Rhode Island Lawmakers Take Up Bill To Require Healthcare Facilities To Allow Medical Marijuana Use By Terminally Ill Patients appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

The new Granite State Poll, from the University of New Hampshire’s States of Opinion Project, surveyed 1,455 state residents on a range of political topics between April 17 and April 21. As for cannabis legalization, it notes that support has climbed since June of last year, when it stood at 65 percent.

“Generally speaking, 70% of Granite Staters strongly (49%) or somewhat (20%) support legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use in New Hampshire,” the poll says, while “9% are neutral or have no opinion, 21% are somewhat (7%) or strongly (15%) opposed, and less than 1% are unsure.”

“Support for legalization has increased slightly since June 2024 (65%) and remains considerably higher than in the mid-2010s,” it continues. “Majorities of Democrats (84%), independents (72%), and Republicans (55%) support legalizing marijuana for personal use.”

The new findings come as the chances for marijuana reform this in New Hampshire hang in the balance. A bill that would legalize simple possession and use—HB 198, from Rep. Jared Sullivan (D)—passed the House in March, but earlier this month the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended the proposal be rejected.

Granite State Poll, University of New Hampshire States of Opinion Project

The full Senate is still set to consider the measure on Thursday and could pass it despite the committee recommendation, but the chamber this session has already scuttled a number of other marijuana bills.

In light of the new poll—and with HB 198 still on the table—Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for the advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said it would be “legislative malpractice for senators to vote down simple legalization with such overwhelming support.”

“There’s a cruel irony in the Live Free State continuing to punish adults for using cannabis while every one of its neighbors has legalized it,” she told Marijuana Moment in an email on Friday. “If the Senate fails to pass the bill, maybe it’s time to change New Hampshire’s motto to ‘the Nanny State.’”

If enacted, HB 198 would legalize noncommercial possession and use of marijuana among adults 21 and older, permitting adults to have up to two ounces of marijuana flower, 10 grams of concentrate and up to 2,000 milligrams of THC in other cannabis products.

The proposal would ban public smoking and vaping of marijuana, and driving under the influence of marijuana would remain illegal.

“My goal here is to stop arresting people,” sponsor Sullivan told the committee. “It is 2025. This is something that has been legalized in nearly half the states in the country.”

Sullivan said the proposal was based largely on a legalization measure lawmakers nearly passed last year but without that bill’s regulated commercial system—a controversial issue that ultimately derailed the earlier effort.

“A lot of the disagreements,” the sponsor said, “are generally on how to sell it. This bill doesn’t touch that.”

Earlier this month, the Senate voted to table a separate cannabis legalization bill—HB 75, from Rep. Kevin Verville (R)—that would have removed state penalties around marijuana-related conduct for adults 21 and older. Unlike legalization measures in other states, however, it would not establish a licensed commercial market or a broader regulatory scheme.

The proposal included no limits on marijuana possession or cultivation, and it would have carved out marijuana from the state’s laws against illicit drug sales—provisions even some reform advocates found too permissive.

The full Senate also tabled bills to allow medical cannabis patients to grow plants at home and permit dispensaries to buy hemp-derived cannabinoids on the commercial market.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee also recently recommended other drug reform bills be scrapped for the session, including proposals to increase medical cannabis possession limits and allow harm reduction organizations to legally use drug testing strips to check substances for contaminants.

The committee also took testimony on three other drug-related bills—including measures that would decriminalize possession of psilocybin, allow greenhouse cultivation by existing medical marijuana businesses and lessen penalties for state-registered patients who illegally sell their marijuana—but did not act on those proposals.

Even if the legislature were to pass a marijuana legalization bill this session, it’s likely the New Hampshire’s governor would stand in the way of the reform. Late last month, Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) reiterated her opposition to legalization in the Granite State.

“I’ve been very clear on this,” she told reporters. “I ran on this issue, and the people of New Hampshire know where I stand on it. I don’t support it.”

A former U.S. senator and state attorney general, Ayotte said repeatedly on the campaign trail last year that she would oppose efforts at adult-use legalization.

Notably, the new poll found that 49 percent of state residents approve of how Ayotte is doing her job in general, while 38 percent disapprove. But support for the governor was split strongly along party lines.

“Nine in ten (89%) Republicans and 49% percent of Independents approve of Ayotte’s performance,” the report says, “but only 11% of Democrats approve.”

About 1 percent of respondents named the Ayotte’s handling of drug policy as their most important reason for disapproval, while zero percent said her handling of drug policy was the main reason for their approval.

Last legislative session, New Hampshire lawmakers nearly passed a bill that would have legalized and regulated marijuana for adults—a proposal that then-Gov. Chris Sununu (R) had indicated he’d support. But infighting over how the market would be set up ultimately scuttled that measure. House Democrats narrowly voted to table it at the last minute, taking issue with the proposal’s state-controlled franchise model, which would have given the state unprecedented sway over retail stores and consumer prices.

A poll from last June found that almost two thirds (65 percent) of New Hampshire residents supported legalizing marijuana. Nearly that same share of residents (61 percent) said at the time that they also supported last session’s failed legalization bill, HB 1633.

Majority Of Pennsylvanians Support Marijuana Legalization, With Opposition Slashed In Half Over Last Decade, Poll Finds

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

The post 7 In 10 New Hampshire Residents Support Marijuana Legalization, Including Majorities Across Party Lines, Poll Shows appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

“Your dispensary appears to be operating in violation of federal law, and the Department of Justice has the authority to enforce federal law even when such activities may be permitted under state or local law,” says a letter from Edward R. Martin Jr, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to the owners and operators of Green Theory, located in the Palisades neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

“Persons and entities owning, operating, or facilitating such dispensaries (as well as premises grow centers),” it adds, “may be subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions under federal law.”

Beyond merely possessing and distributing marijuana, the letter says Green Theory “appears to be operating within 1,000 feet of several schools, including: Our Lady of Victory Catholic School; the River School; St. Patrick’s Episcopal Day School; the Lab School; and Little Ivies preschool.”

It notes that “enhanced federal penalties may apply when a dispensary is operating within 1,000 feet of a school.”

The letter requests a response by May 12 with answers to three questions:

• Are you aware of the federal laws related to marijuana dispensaries and their locations near schools?
• Have you addressed these issues with federal law enforcement officials?
• Can you produce documentation regarding your compliance with federal law?

“I am concerned that you are in violation of federal laws,” Martin wrote, “which are intended to protect children. To that end, the need to address this issue is serious.”

The letter is addressed to Green Theory operators Johnathan Crandall, Robert Martin and Ian Tsang.

Perhaps crucial to the dispute, a federal budget rider is intended to prevent the Department of Justice from using funds to interfere with state medical marijuana programs. The so-called Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, named after the lawmakers who sponsored it, prohibits DOJ from spending money “to prevent [states with legal medical marijuana] from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

Green Theory’s Palisades dispensary has been at the center of neighborhood controversy of late, with residents and child safety advocates protesting its location near five private schools. The letter from Martin, an appointee of President Donald Trump, is the latest salvo in the matter.

It “sounds like an awesome business, just not in a corridor of so many young children,” Jackie Puente, who helped establish the advocacy group 1,000 Feet—which takes its name from the federal law creating drug-free zones around schools—told Axios D.C.

Green Theory was reportedly one of the first in D.C. to transition from being an illicit so-called “gifting shop”—which attempted to use a loophole to sell non-regulated marijuana to adults—to become part of the District’s licensed medical marijuana program.

The dispensary at one point sought to allow onsite marijuana use, with a business plan that envisioned “a vibe similar to the world-famous Amsterdam Coffee Shops.” Since then, however, co-founder Martin said the business no longer intends to allow onsite consumption.

Under D.C.’s own cannabis rules, dispensaries can’t operate within 300 feet of schools, though commercially zoned areas—where schools may be located—are exempt.

In a March 2024 letter, the District’s Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration (ABCA) argued federal law does not interfere with its medical marijuana program, which the agency said had “been subject to congressional review, and has not been disapproved or repealed.”

Regarding the Rohrabacher–Farr budget provision, ABCA wrote in the letter, “It is well established that cannabis is federally illegal, and that persons and entities may be subject to federal controlled substance laws. Nevertheless, Congress has also decided to repeatedly enact a budget rider protecting the District’s and other state’s medical cannabis programs that are currently in effect.”

The Outlaw Report, which covers cannabis news in the Washington, D.C. region, points out that the disagreement over Green Theory’s location issue “does highlight D.C.’s lack of real estate, forcing schools, liquor stores and dispensaries into commercial zones.”

Late last month, meanwhile, the White House called the District’s move to decriminalize marijuana an example of a “failed” policy that “opened the door to disorder.”

In a fact sheet about an executive order that Trump signed on Friday—which is broadly aimed at beautifying the District and making it more safe—the White House listed several local policies in the nation’s capital that it takes issue with, including cannabis reform. That’s despite the president’s previously stated support for a states’ rights approach to marijuana laws.

“D.C.’s failed policies opened the door to disorder—and criminals noticed,” it says, citing “marijuana decriminalization,” as well as the District’s decision to end pre-trial detentions and enforcement practices around rioters, as examples of such policies.

The executive order itself doesn’t mention marijuana specifically. But it says the directive will involve “deploying a more robust Federal law enforcement presence and coordinating with local law enforcement to facilitate the deployment of a more robust local law enforcement presence as appropriate in areas in or about” D.C., and that includes addressing “drug possession, sale, and use.”

Recreational cannabis possession and personal cultivation is legal in D.C. under a voter-approved ballot initiative, though commercial sales of non-medical marijuana remain illegal.

Because of a different congressional rider that’s been renewed annually since that vote, the District hasn’t been able to use its local funds to implement a system of regulated recreational cannabis sales, so officials have taken steps to expand the city’s existing medical marijuana program as a workaround.

During Trump’s first term, he maintained that D.C. rider to keep blocking cannabis sales in his budget requests, as did his successor, former President Joe Biden.

But as advocates and industry stakeholders have waited to see how the Trump administration will navigate cannabis policy issues during this second term—and whether the president will push for reforms such as rescheduling and banking access as he endorsed on the campaign trail—the fact his White House’s first public mention of marijuana in its D.C.-focused fact sheet linked decriminalization to disorder sent a different message.

Now, the new letter from the U.S. attorney raises new questions about the Justice Department’s stance on cannabis under Trump.

Meanwhile this week, an activist who received a pardon for a marijuana-related conviction during Trump’s first term paid a visit to the White House, discussing future clemency options with the recently appointed “pardon czar.”

Separately, a marijuana industry-backed political action committee (PAC) has released a series of ads over recent weeks that have attacked Biden’s cannabis policy record as well as the nation of Canada, promoting sometimes misleading claims about the last administration while making the case that Trump can deliver on reform.

Its latest ad accused Biden and his Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of waging a “deep state war” against medical cannabis patients—but without mentioning that the former president himself initiated the rescheduling process that marijuana companies want to see completed under Trump.

Adding uncertainty to that process, Trump’s pick to lead DEA, Terrance Cole, is on record repeatedly voicing concerns about the dangers of marijuana and linking its use to higher suicide risk among youth.

The current acting administrator, Derek Maltz, has separately made a series of sensational claims about marijuana, calling it a gateway drug that sets children up to use other substances, suggesting marijuana use is linked to school shootings and alleging that the Justice Department “hijacked” the cannabis rescheduling process from DEA.

Earlier this month, DEA notified an agency judge that the marijuana rescheduling process is still on hold—with no future actions currently scheduled as the matter sits before Maltz.

Meanwhile, a recent poll found that a majority of Republicans back a variety of cannabis reforms. And notably, they’re even more supportive of allowing states to legalize marijuana without federal interference compared to the average voter.

The survey showed that majorities of overall voters (70 percent) and GOP voters (67 percent) back rescheduling cannabis.

The survey was first noted by CNN in a report last month that quoted a White House spokesperson saying the administration currently has “no action” planned on marijuana reform proposals, including those like rescheduling and industry banking access that Trump endorsed on the campaign trail last year.

The White House has also said that marijuana rescheduling is not a part of Trump’s drug policy priorities for the first year of his second term—a disappointment for advocates and stakeholders who hoped to see him take speedier action.

Meanwhile, former marijuana prisoners who received clemency from Trump during his first term staged an event outside the White House last week, expressing gratitude for the relief they were given and calling on the new administration to grant the same kind of help to others who are still behind bars for cannabis.

Insurance Companies Are Not Required To Cover Medical Marijuana, Federal Judge Rules

The post Federal Prosecutor Warns Locally Approved Medical Marijuana Dispensary It ‘May Subject To Criminal Prosecution’ appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

Judge Martha Vazquéz of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico wrote in her decision on Wednesday that state law does not require insurance to cover medical marijuana. And if it did, she added, “such a requirement would be preempted by federal law.”

Plaintiffs in the case, New Mexico Top Organics v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico, sought a ruling that medical marijuana “should be fully covered by health insurance, both for individuals with Medicaid insurance and for individuals who have private insurance,” according to Vazquéz’s decision. They argued that the “aggregated effect of New Mexico statutes”—including the state’s medical marijuana law and a state tax law prohibiting insurers from imposing cost-sharing on behavioral health services—created an obligation to cover patients’ medication.

In response to defendants’ arguments that federal law would preempt such coverage, plaintiffs said marijuana was likely to soon be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and noted an existing federal budget rider prohibits the Department of Justice (DOJ) from interfering with state-legal medical marijuana programs.

Vazquéz wrote that her decision is not intended to weigh in on the medical benefits of marijuana. “Even accepting as true for the sake of argument that cannabis does have medical value,” the decision says, “state law still does not compel Defendants to provide coverage for it.”

State law, she pointed out, includes “some behavioral health treatments that are explicitly covered and some that are explicitly not covered.”

“Tellingly, cannabis does not seem to be included in either category,” her ruling continues. “The fact that medical cannabis is not explicitly covered in the state’s Benchmark Plan signifies that state law does not mandate coverage of it.”

Despite legislative sponsors of an earlier New Mexico insurance bill being quoted in a news article saying that the change would include coverage of medical marijuana, Vasquéz wrote, “the language of the statute does not do so. And this Court is bound by the plain meaning of the statute, not an article discussing the statute.”

Even if state law clearly compelled insurers to cover cannabis, the judge continued, “Defendants would not be able to comply with both federal and state law. Under federal law, the possession of cannabis is a criminal offense.”

While the federal judge acknowledged that some state courts in New Mexico have ruled that medical marijuana should be covered under workers’ compensation law, the ruling notes that federal judges in the state have not agreed with that reasoning.

“Like other federal courts,” it says, “this Court is not bound by the decisions of the New Mexico Court of Appeals.”

As for other federal trial court rulings that involve insurance coverage of cannabis, Vasquéz called them “persuasive rather than controlling cases.”

“They illustrate that federal courts are grappling with the conflicting and somewhat uncertain legal landscape of cannabis regulation at the state and federal level,” she wrote.

“This Court finds that New Mexico state law does not compel insurance coverage of medical cannabis,” the decision concludes, “and that, even if it did, such a law or laws would be preempted by federal law, under which cannabis, as a Schedule I drug, is deemed illegal and not medically useful. For these reasons alone, the Court must dismiss the First Amended Complaint and need not consider the remainder of Defendants’ arguments in favor of dismissal.”

Lead plaintiff in the case, New Mexico Top Organics—also known as Ultra Health—sent a letter in February 2022 to insurance companies and state agencies about the new insurance law. In it, the company argued that the law—which eliminated cost-sharing and out-of-pocket costs for behavioral health services and “all medications” associated with the treatment of mental illnesses, substance abuse disorders and trauma spectrum disorders—should be interpreted to include medical cannabis for the nearly 73,000 New Mexicans who are registered patients for related qualifying conditions.

It filed suit in June of that year.

Separately in New Mexico, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) earlier this month signed a bill into law to establish a therapeutic psilocybin program in the state. The Medical Psilocybin Act will allow patients with certain qualifying conditions to access the psychedelic and use it under the guidance of a licensed healthcare provider.

Its stated purpose “is to allow the beneficial use of psilocybin in a regulated system for alleviating qualified medical conditions,” including major treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, substance use disorders and end-of-life care. The state Department of Health would be able to approve additional conditions.

While rule-setting and other initial steps in implementing the program are expected to begin soon, officials have said it could be years before the treatment is available.

Last year, New Mexico lawmakers passed, and the governor endorsed, a resolution requesting that state officials research the therapeutic potential of psilocybin and explore the creation of a regulatory framework to provide access to the psychedelic.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are urging a federal court in New Mexico to dismiss a separate lawsuit from licensed marijuana businesses that claim the agencies have been unconstitutionally seizing state-regulated marijuana products and detaining industry workers at interior checkpoints.

Commissioners of New Mexico’s most populous county also recently approved policy details of a plan to stop testing and punishing most government employees for off-hours marijuana use. Bernalillo County, where Albuquerque is located, appears to be the first public body in the state to implement such a reform following the state’s legalization of cannabis in 2021.

Last month, meanwhile, a House committee passed a bill that would further protect medical marijuana patients in the state from being penalized at work for off-duty use of cannabis. A Senate companion version of the legislation also moved through a panel in that chamber.

Read the judge’s ruling in the medical cannabis insurance coverage case below:

Trump’s Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court For More Time To Weigh Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.

The post Insurance Companies Are Not Required To Cover Medical Marijuana, Federal Judge Rules 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.