“The program’s already live, even though it’s still Schedule I in Alabama.”

By Anna Barrett, Alabama Reflector

Alabama’s public health officials on Thursday withdrew their objection to the federal rescheduling of marijuana, a move officials characterized as procedural, following a July public hearing.

The governing body of the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) in May voted to delay the rescheduling so that officials could have more time to determine how to implement it, but noted that they “fully intended” to reschedule the drug.

State Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris said Thursday morning that he did not see any issues with the change, and the public comments did not reflect the impact of rescheduling but rather marijuana itself.

“I would say there are a lot of really passionate people that had a lot of really strong feelings about it, and I don’t want to minimize that or oversimplify that,” Harris said. “The comments were people who really support medical marijuana or who really don’t support medical marijuana. The comments weren’t really about what we were trying to get at, which [was] ‘what are the consequences of rescheduling.’”

Conservative activists at the public hearing said the rescheduling would “harm children” and “worsen Alabama’s mental health crisis.” The only proponent of rescheduling at the public hearing said not doing so would instill distrust between patients and doctors.

Harris said ADPH’s legal team resolved all of the department’s concerns, like the impact to pharmacies and those seeking the medication.

In April, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moved marijuana from Schedule I—the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of drugs with the greatest potential for abuse and least legitimate use—to Schedule III, with drugs considered to have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The order followed an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in December instructing the DOJ to move towards rescheduling.

Former President Joe Biden instructed DOJ to reschedule the drug in 2024, but hearings on the move were canceled in early 2025.

The federal order applies to state-licensed medical marijuana products in the states that allow medicinal use of the drug. The move means those businesses can deduct business expenses from their federal taxes and researchers have access to state-legal products. As a Schedule I drug, only cannabis grown in a federally approved facility could be studied, severely limiting the supply available to researchers.

Alabama’s medical cannabis program was created by the Legislature in 2021. Three dispensaries are open in the state, with seven more to open within the next few months. At the program’s full capacity, there will be nearly 40 dispensaries.

Harris said the rescheduling would not impact the state’s medical cannabis program.

“The program’s already live, even though it’s still Schedule I in Alabama. The reason is, the statute was written essentially to decriminalize it for people who are authorized to have it,” he said.

The committee unanimously withdrew its objection.

This story was first published by Alabama Reflector.

Source link

Bipartisan congressional lawmakers have filed a bill to provide a safe harbor to insurance companies that work with state-legal marijuana businesses.

The Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana (CLAIM) Act was filed by Reps. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) on Wednesday.

The legislation would protect insurers, brokers and agents from being penalized by federal regulators for providing insurance services to state-licensed marijuana companies.

“Because of the conflict between federal and state law, insurers are still hesitant to write policies for cannabis businesses,” Velázquez said in a press release. “That means thousands of legal small businesses are operating without a safety net. One fire or one storm could wipe out everything an owner has built, with no way to recover. The CLAIM Act fixes this by giving these entrepreneurs access to the same basic insurance protections every other legal business takes for granted.”

Davidson said that “businesses operating legally under state law should be free to purchase insurance, and insurers should be free to serve them.”

“The federal government should not use regulation to interfere with lawful commerce or override decisions made by the states,” he said. “The CLAIM Act removes that federal interference and protects the freedom of insurers and their customers to do business.”

Earlier this year, Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) filed similar legislation in the Senate.

This is the fourth Congress in a row that the cannabis business insurance measure has been introduced, and the text of the current bill, H.R.10471, remains largely the same as prior versions.

Earlier this year, bipartisan House and Senate lawmakers filed related legislation to provide safeguards for banks that work with the cannabis industry.

As it stands, cannabis firms are limited in their ability to gain property, casualty and title insurance coverage. The CLAIM Act would prohibit federal agencies from penalizing insurance providers for simply covering those businesses, and it would bar insurers from terminating or limiting policies for marijuana companies or ancillary businesses due to the nature of their enterprise.

The legislation also includes a requirement that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study and issue a report on “barriers to marketplace entry, including in the licensing process, and the access to financial services for potential and existing minority-owned and women-owned cannabis-related legitimate businesses.”

It additionally provides protections for employees of insurers, affirming that they could not be held liable just because they work with a cannabis company.

Supporters of the legislation have argued that providing insurance access to these businesses would mitigate safety risks and prevent the companies from being denied bank financing, which can occur when the businesses lack insurance coverage.

—
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, the Trump administration is moving forward with the process of rescheduling marijuana under federal law.

Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III.

Under a separate order the attorney general signed, a hearing is considering more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III.

Source link

A Michigan cannabis grower proved its case. A jury found that the buyer breached its supply agreement and awarded the grower $31.8 million in damages. But the grower still walked away without an enforceable verdict.

In Hello Farms Licensing MI, LLC v. GR Vending MI, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment because the contract required the parties to engage in conduct prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The court held that a federal court could not enforce the agreement, despite Michigan law authorized the underlying cannabis activity.

The September 10, 2026, decision is not binding on California state courts or federal courts in the Ninth Circuit. Nevertheless, it offers an important warning for cannabis operators nationwide: A contract that is valid under state law may still be unenforceable in federal court.

The contract and breach

Hello Farms is a licensed Michigan cannabis cultivator. In November 2020, it entered into an output contract with GR Vending MI, LLC and CURA MI, LLC, both subsidiaries of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. GR Vending agreed to purchase all cannabis grown by Hello Farms during its 2020 and 2021 harvests, while CURA MI guaranteed GR Vending’s obligations.

When the parties signed the agreement, Hello Farms held licenses to grow medical cannabis. GR Vending held both medical and adult-use retailer licenses.

The parties expected Hello Farms’ 2020 harvest to yield between 12,000 and 15,000 pounds of cannabis. GR Vending also agreed to pay a $2.2 million deposit, subject to refund under specified circumstances.

The agreement contained detailed testing requirements. Hello Farms had to test each 50-pound batch for THC potency and contaminants such as pesticides and heavy metals. Importantly, the contract required the marijuana to satisfy state and local recreational cannabis testing requirements.

Hello Farms ultimately produced approximately 16,300 pounds in 2020. The cannabis passed the required testing, and GR Vending accepted an initial shipment of roughly 2,000 pounds.

Then market prices fell.

GR Vending refused to accept additional deliveries. Hello Farms sold the remaining 2020 harvest to another buyer at lower prices. It also expanded its cultivation operation for 2021, obtained adult-use cultivation licenses, and sold that year’s production to the same alternative buyer.

From state court to federal court

Hello Farms sued for breach of contract in Michigan state court in February 2021. The defendants were able to move the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan based on diversity jurisdiction.

That procedural move would become critical.

The defendants asserted that the agreement was illegal under federal law and therefore unenforceable. The district court rejected that defense at summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial.

The jury found that the defendants breached the contract and awarded Hello Farms $31.8 million. The defendants renewed their request for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court again rejected the federal-illegality defense.

The district court reasoned that the agreement concerned medical cannabis and that the Rohrabacher-Farr appropriations rider reflected a federal policy of tolerating state-compliant medical cannabis activity. The defendants appealed.

Why the verdict became unenforceable

The Sixth Circuit reversed.

As the court explained, federal courts generally apply state substantive law when exercising diversity jurisdiction. But the effect of illegality under a federal statute is a question of federal law. A federal court must therefore determine whether enforcing an agreement would enforce the precise conduct that Congress made unlawful.

That principle proved fatal to Hello Farms.

In the Court’s view, the agreement required Hello Farms to possess cannabis with the intent to distribute that cannabis to GR Vending and enable GR Vending to possess it for further distribution or sale. Each step implicated conduct prohibited by the CSA unless federally authorized.

The court distinguished between a lawful economic transaction that contains an incidental illegal provision and a contract whose central performance is itself federally prohibited. Hello Farms’ agreement fell into the second category because the purchase and distribution of cannabis were the core of the bargain.

The court consequently refused to enforce the defendants’ promise to pay for that performance. It reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law, eliminating the prior verdict and Hello Farms’ recovery.

Money damages were no solution

Hello Farms argued that it was not asking the court to order anyone to grow, deliver, or purchase cannabis. The company sought money damages for a transaction that should have occurred years earlier.

The Sixth Circuit found that distinction unpersuasive.

Hello Farms’ lost profits arose from, and were measured by, the defendants’ promise to purchase cannabis. Awarding damages would therefore give Hello Farms the economic benefit it expected from the federally prohibited transaction.

According to the court, federal illegality is not limited to cases seeking specific performance. A court also may refuse to award expectation damages when the plaintiff’s claimed recovery depends on enforcement of the unlawful bargain itself.

This is one of the decision’s most significant lessons. Simply drafting a monetary remedy does not necessarily insulate a cannabis agreement from federal illegality. If the damages represent the profits expected from cannabis cultivation or sales, a federal court may conclude that awarding those damages would indirectly enforce the prohibited performance.

The opinion does not, however, resolve every potential claim involving a cannabis business. It does not hold that federal courts must reject every dispute involving consulting services, intellectual property, real estate, equipment, loans, restitution, or other obligations connected to the industry. The closer the claim is to direct cultivation, possession, purchase, or distribution, the greater the apparent risk under the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning.

Marijuana rescheduling didn’t save the contract

The fact the federal government moved state-legal medical marijuana to Schedule III earlier this year also failed to rescue Hello Farms’ verdict.

The Sixth Circuit explained that the federal change occurred years after the parties entered the contract. Nothing in the rescheduling rule made the change retroactive or transformed the parties’ 2020 agreement into a federally lawful transaction.

The court also noted that Schedule III does not eliminate federal regulatory requirements. State-licensed medical-cannabis businesses may still need DEA registration and applicable FDA approval to cultivate, distribute, or introduce cannabis products into interstate commerce lawfully.

Rescheduling therefore does not mean that every state-licensed cannabis transaction is now federally legal. Whether a particular agreement is enforceable may still depend on when it was executed, the products and markets it covers, the parties’ registrations, and the federal rules applicable to performance.

What California operators should do

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion is not controlling precedent in California or the Ninth Circuit. California courts may analyze contract illegality and public policy differently, and the enforceability of any agreement will depend on its terms, claims, remedy, and forum.

Still, the decision relies heavily on U.S. Supreme Court authority governing the power of federal courts to enforce federally prohibited agreements. California operators should not assume the risk stops at the Sixth Circuit’s boundaries.

The takeaway

Hello Farms convinced a jury that the defendants breached their agreement. It proved substantial damages and obtained a $31.8 million verdict. None of that was enough once the federal appellate court concluded that enforcing the verdict would enforce a federally illegal bargain.

The case does not establish that every cannabis-related agreement is unenforceable. But it does reinforce a basic reality that cannabis contracts must be drafted not only for commercial performance and state regulatory compliance, but also for the court or tribunal that may eventually be asked to enforce them.

In cannabis contracting, a strong damages provision matters, but only if the chosen forum is willing and legally able to enforce the underlying bargain.

_____________

For more updates on recent marijuana legislation, including rescheduling and the DEA rulemaking process, please check out these recent posts:

Source link

Source link

The federal ban on intoxicating hemp products would shut down about 68.1% of U.S. hemp-related businesses, according to a Whitney Economics report outlined by The Denver Gazette. The ban, which was set to take effect in November was delayed one month in August, via an amendment to a federal funding bill. 

The Whitney Economics analysis found that, in addition to the closures, 15.5% of hemp businesses would need to lay off employees, 6.9% would remain in business but would see less revenue, and 3.2% would relocate, presumably outside of the U.S. 

The report also suggests that states would lose between $1.2 billion and $1.5 billion in tax revenue and between $46.6 billion and $59.6 billion in potential retail losses.  

“Given the high levels of potential business failures and relocations, the economic impact of the current hemp laws, if enacted is rather profound, a reduction of total industry wide revenues by $35.1-$41.3 billion, 29,523-36,744 fewer employers and 188,961-225,861 displaced workers, earning between $7.5-$8.9 billion in wages.” — Whitney Economics, “2026 U.S. Hemp Cannabinoid Report,” via the Gazette 

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has suggested that between 90% and 95% of current hemp products sold in the U.S. would be eliminated from the market under the ban, according to the Gazette. 

Whitney Economics surveyed 496 hemp businesses across 35 states to compile the report.  

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

“If they make a change in the drinks, then this is something we will have to look at in January…putting a framework around specifically the drinks.”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

When Joshua Grigaitis founded the Mighty Kind Company in St. Louis in 2019, his team started by producing flavored sparkling water infused with CBD, a non-intoxicating compound found in cannabis.

The company has since become a major player in the market for intoxicating hemp-THC beverages. But with a federal ban looming, Grigaitis said he is prepared to return to the company’s roots.

The ban is now set to take effect December 11, after President Donald Trump signed a bill last week delaying its implementation by one month.

“Big picture is we’re gonna sell a variety of products, and we’re gonna stay diversified,” Grigaitis said. “We were originally a CBD company. We’ve never had the thought: we’re not going to have anything to do if we can’t sell THC drinks. We’ll just do something else.”

Hemp companies across Missouri and the nation are rethinking their business plans in anticipation of the ban. While Grigaitis is confident Mighty Kind can adapt through new products, companies built around low-dose, full-spectrum cannabis products—those created specifically for people seeking relief from chronic pain or health ailments—could face a far more difficult path forward.

Dr. Ethan Russo, a neurologist in Washington and founder of the medical cannabis research and drug development company Credo Science, said the medical side of the industry is in “chaos.”

“There are just many, many companies going out of business, some of whom have produced very good products that have been helpful to people with medical conditions that haven’t had relief otherwise,” Russo said. “It’s a very bad time for the industry.”

Russo said these products focus on the therapeutic compounds found in cannabis, such as CBD and CGB, and the small amount of THC, such as 3 mg or less, in them activates those non-intoxicating compounds and makes them more effective.

While Congress may end up allowing and regulating these products, particularly considering Trump’s support for them, there is no wiggle room in the legislation Missouri lawmakers passed this spring.

When Missouri’s law goes into effect on November 12, intoxicating hemp products will be “put under the purview of the department’s existing regulations for cannabis products,” said Lisa Cox, spokeswoman for the Missouri Department Health and Senior Services, which oversees the state’s cannabis program.

On November 12, everything that comes from cannabis and is intoxicating—or has more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container—will be considered marijuana and can only be sold in licensed dispensaries. The cannabis also has to be grown and manufactured in licensed Missouri facilities.

For now, beverages will stay on store shelves until December 11, and there will be no other regulation of these items except that people now must be 21 to buy them until then.

Missourians won’t be able to purchase hemp-derived THC products online after November 12, even though it’d be federally still legal. There are currently a few low-dose full-spectrum products available in dispensaries.

Dr. Patricia Hurford, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in Chesterfield, said she anticipates she’ll hear more concern from her patients when their full-spectrum products are no longer available in November. Like Russo, Hurford commends Missouri’s legislation for protecting children and regulating the quality of cannabis products, but she worries about access to medicinal products.

“Patients require protection,” Hurford said, “and sometimes protecting those patients means we have to take dangerous products off the shelf. Sometimes it just means we’re offering and preserving access to safer and lower-dose alternatives.”

Hemp vs marijuana

This wave of complicated, confusing policymaking around cannabis is pushing a necessary conversation about having two different laws for hemp and marijuana, Russo said.

That conversation should be, “legalize it and regulate it. That’s the only way that this can work,” he said.

Hemp and marijuana are essentially terms the government uses to distinguish between the part of the cannabis plant that has high amounts of THC.

Hemp has previously been defined as any part of the plant containing 0.3 percent or less delta-9 THC by dry weight.

Last November, a provision in the federal spending bill amended the definition of hemp, changing the limit to a total THC concentration of less than .3 percent on a dry weight basis, rather than only delta-9 THC. It also prohibits products from containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container.

Missouri’s law was aimed at getting unregulated intoxicating cannabis products, particularly those that are attractive to children, off the shelves.

Republican state Rep. Dave Hinman of O’Fallon, who sponsored the ban, believes the state will send out communication directly to retailers to make sure they understand the nuisance of the law.

Hinman anticipates Missouri’s upcoming legislative session to be filled with much more work to be done on this issue, and he said he’s been asked by state leaders to continue taking the lead on cannabis-related legislation.

If Congress allows full-spectrum products, Missouri will have to approve that use through a bill. And if there is further delay of the federal ban, then lawmakers will have to pass regulations on beverages.

“If they make a change in the drinks, then this is something we will have to look at in January…putting a framework around specifically the drinks,” Hinman said. “If we need to make changes and adjustments, I will absolutely be involved in this.”

Panic for patients

Hurford said the marijuana industry was born out of creating medicinal, therapeutic products. However, now dispensaries are often more focused on recreational products, she said, and offer an environment that might be intimidating for patients to enter and find what they need.

“Let’s get back to promoting the medicinal aspects in those products,” she said.

Healer is an example of a company that has helped her patients, and she believes its co-founder, Dr. Dustin Sulak, is a “well-respected, knowledgeable clinician.” But its products will be banned in November, and company owners say they won’t pursue trying to work within the marijuana regulations.

Healer’s co-founder and CEO, Brad Feuer, said marijuana cultivation facilities nationwide focus on growing cannabis with high THC and low CBD content, which doesn’t work with their formula. And secondly, it wouldn’t be cost effective for the company or patients.

Katherine Golden is a nurse who seven years ago founded an independent cannabinoid health hotline called Leaf411. She said while more medicinal products with only one or two milligrams of THC were available in dispensaries when her hotline first started, many of them have been pulled off the shelves.

“That to me is the heartbreak of what’s happening with our legislation because you’re taking access away from a product that is not being abused,” Golden said. “The hemp market—those who are the responsible players—are providing this product that the retailers aren’t carrying because it doesn’t sell enough for them.”

Part of the reason is because these customers need it delivered to their homes, particularly those caring for people with dementia or those struggling with ailments, she said. Her hotline has already gotten a taste of the panic patients may feel in November after California’s ban was put in place in July.

“I can only guess when we see another state like Missouri ban on Nov. 12, we’re going to hear from Missourians calling us saying, ‘What do I do? I just found this out,’” she said. “Because a lot of patients are so involved in what they’re doing in their lives, they’re not following what’s happening.”

Andrew Mullins, executive director of the Missouri Cannabis Trade Association that represents the state’s marijuana businesses, said for patients to be protected, their medical products must be “tested, taxed, age-gated and responsibly packaged, which simply isn’t happening with intoxicating hemp.”

“Many dispensaries already carry low-dose THC products,” Mullins said, “and we expect there will be more emphasis on medicinal uses of their products and development of additional products to meet patient demand, as online and unregulated channels diminish.”

Adrian Holguin, a California-based cannabis consultant under his business CannaShark, said Missouri’s regulatory framework ties the hands and potential profits of businesses working in intoxicating hemp and low-dose, full-spectrum. Like Healer, most of these businesses will choose to not to find a place in Missouri’s market.

“They have to take their operations and either leave the state and find the last remaining states,” he said, “or they have to be ready to pivot in a direction that’s going to make sense and that follows the legislation that’s coming.”

Business owners could try to work with a licensed Missouri marijuana manufacturer or cultivator to make their products under the new law. However, even for marijuana companies, Missouri is “a tough state to crack,” he said, partly due to the consolidation of facility licenses. Other states are going to be more accommodating.

“When you decide on business,” he said, “where to play is one of the main questions you ask yourself.”

Grigaitis believes this moment is going to produce challenges, but it’s also going to push innovation. Mighty Kind is looking to launch a new seltzer with Lion’s Mane mushroom concentration, he said, which promotes relaxation, focus and brain support.

“I see it as all very positive,” Grigaitis said, “you know, evolution of moving from alcohol to something less harmful for everybody and plant magic of all kinds.”

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.

Source link

“We are not in any way convinced that we are definitely moving to be a marijuana-legal state. It could happen, but it may not.”

By Clayton Henkel, NC Newsline

When members of the North Carolina House and Senate reconvene in November, they will be faced with having to decide how to regulate intoxicating hemp products. The two chambers were at odds in July over House Bill 328, which would ban hemp with more than 0.4 milligrams of THC and prohibit the sale of any hemp consumables, including CBD, to anyone under 21.

House members opted to wait until after November’s midterm elections, not wanting to upset a $4 billion industry that employs 16,000 people in North Carolina.

In Washington, the hemp industry received a one-month reprieve this week from a national ban on intoxicating hemp products as part of a short-term funding bill. The U.S. House voted to delay the ban from taking effect until December 11, as the White House pushes to delay or somehow fix the national ban. At the same time, the Trump administration has called on the U.S. Department of Justice to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, the same class as Tylenol with codeine.

While the outlook is hazy, the end of the year could bring big changes for both the hemp and cannabis industries.

Hemp consumables are largely unrestricted in our state, but North Carolina is in the unique minority of states in which marijuana is fully illegal for both recreational and medicinal purposes.

State lawmakers are trying to navigate how to best protect minors from hemp-derived cannabinoids, while also preparing for a future that could include some form of legal cannabis.

39 states, 39 approaches

The North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis, appointed in June 2025 by Gov. Josh Stein (D), has been meeting for months to develop a comprehensive approach to regulate cannabis sales and create a safe, legal market for adults that protects kids.

Nearly 40 states have already enacted cannabis regulations, but no two are the same.

Yasha Kahn, co-founder of MCR Labs, has been involved in cannabis testing for more than a decade. Kahn was invited to offer his expertise to the advisory council last week, as that group explores a framework for legalization.

North Carolina policymakers will have to decide on an endless number of variables in regulating cannabis, including who should handle testing and at what point in the process the product should be tested.

Kahn said each state has unique testing requirements with no real consensus. And each state may have its own approach to testing batch sizes, packaging, total THC definitions, and regulatory audits.

“Instead of looking at this as a huge mess, it really is 39 individual experiments on policy with much of the data available that we can analyze,” said Kahn. “We can see which policies have worked, which ones haven’t.”

Kahn said cannabis has the potential to be a multi-billion-dollar industry for North Carolina.

Balancing testing and oversight

The advisory committee will also have to decide whether to use private labs or state labs to test the purity and potency of cannabis if it should become legal. Either way, Kahn recommended the state should require all lab results be made public and shared with state agencies.

“How long would it take to have a testing lab to be up and running and producing results?” asked council member Pat Oglesby.

Kahn said there are hemp labs that would likely be willing to take on the testing for a slice of a booming industry, but establishing an accredited lab from scratch would take time.

“A lot of instruments have months of delays just to be delivered. You have to have capital and good talent,” said Kahn. “I’ve heard of labs opening within maybe nine months. In my experience, it’s closer to a year and a half.”

Privatizing testing, however, comes with risk, Kahn said, as consumer fraud has been documented in multiple states.

A store owner, for example, may find a low THC product is not selling well and urge the cultivator to produce a stronger product. The cultivator may then call the lab and suggest they provide higher THC results, or they will find a new lab to deliver those results.

“This happens in every market that has more than one lab,” Kahn cautioned.

Kahn said this deception becomes easier to trace when the labs are required to share data with the state and those results are made public.

In Colorado, THC potency inflation and the failure to identify mold and other contaminants has legislators considering shifting their cannabis testing to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Lawmakers there are also considering having state regulators collect the samples to be tested from dispensaries, rather than samples being provided by the producer or cultivators.

Will the industry bloom in North Carolina?

Dr. Larry Greenblatt, state health director and co-chair of the advisory council, said while it may appear that North Carolina is marching toward some form of cannabis legalization, it’s by no means a foregone conclusion.

“We are not in any way convinced that we are definitely moving to be a marijuana-legal state,” said Greenblatt. “It could happen, but it may not.”

The advisory group’s final recommendations, including a detailed look at lab testing, will be included in a report to the governor at the end of this year. It would then be up to the legislature to decide if they want to use the information as the foundation or guidance for a cannabis market in North Carolina.

Stein has said he supports legalization for adults, but Republican lawmakers are divided. Recent attempts to legalize medical marijuana have died in the state House, despite the backing of Senate leaders. And neither chamber has ever voted to legalize the drug for recreational use.

Meantime, other states are moving ahead. In neighboring Virginia, regulators will begin accepting applications for regulated recreational cannabis dispensaries in February, with a retail launch set for July 1, 2027.

This story was first published by NC Newsline.

Photo courtesy of Brian Shamblen.

Source link

President Donald Trump has granted clemency to two people who are serving time for federal marijuana convictions as his administration advances the process of rescheduling cannabis.

The president on Thursday commuted the sentences of Jerry Haymon IV and Kevin Harden, effectively ending their sentences and putting them on the path to being free.

Haymon was given a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence in federal prison for his participation in a marijuana distribution conspiracy, and has been living in home confinement for the past year.

Until now, he has had about a year left to go and has experienced difficulty getting approval for jobs. For example, the private company overseeing his home confinement blocked his ability to handle social media for a cannabis company and to do research at a policy organization that touched on the issue of marijuana even though neither job would have involved him touching the plant.

“Today is an amazing day that I will never forget,” Haymon told Marijuana Moment on Friday after receiving the news of his commutation, saying it feels like he has been “reborn again.”

“I got my life back,” he said. “There are no words that can fully express what this act of clemency means to me and the people I love. I am deeply grateful to everyone who advocated for me, supported me and helped give me this second chance.”

Thirty-six members of Congress sent a letter to then-President Joe Biden in support of Haymon’s request for clemency.

“Jerry was a two-way football star in high school who went on to play defensive back in college, where he was majoring in economics (and even made the Dean’s List one semester),” the lawmakers wrote. “Prior to his arrest in 2017, Jerry was looking to try out for professional football. At sentencing, the trial judge regretfully noted that his hands were tied by federal mandatory minimum prison terms for marijuana.”

While Biden issued mass pardons to people who committed federal marijuana possession offenses, he did not heed calls to free people serving time in federal prison for involvement in selling cannabis.

Harden, the other person that Trump granted clemency to on Thursday, has been serving a 30-year sentence after being convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

His co-defendant in the cannabis case, James Romans, was granted clemency by Trump in 2021 on the final day of his first term in office.

While incarcerated, Harden has experienced several severe medical issues, including multiple open-heart surgeries, a seizure disorder and blood-clotting.

The clemency applications from Haymon and Harden were both accompanied by a letter that boxer Mike Tyson wrote to Trump in which he praised the president for making moves to federally reschedule marijuana.

“There are Americans still sitting in federal prison for the very conduct your order addresses, waiting to see if your historic words will extend to them,” he wrote. “With two-thirds of Americans in support of marijuana legalization, not more punishment, the politics align with common sense policy. Yet individuals remain behind bars under outdated federal laws for conduct that today would not result in prison in much of the country.”

“Granting clemency to non-violent marijuana offenders would reunite families, restore lost opportunity, and write the final chapter of the federal war on marijuana—a chapter that only you have the power to close,” Tyson said. “It would be a legacy moment: bold, decisive, and right. I respectfully urge you to act.”

The two cannabis commutations are part of a broader package of clemency grants the the president issued this week.

Trump’s move to free a handful of cannabis prisoners comes as his administration of moving forward with the process of federally rescheduling marijuana.

Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III.

Under a separate order he signed, the DEA hearing was held to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III. An agency judge is currently considering a recommendation on the issue, and then the DEA administrator will issue a final determination.

During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal highlighted testimony on marijuana’s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids.

That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids.

Weldon Angelos, founder of the criminal justice non-profit The Weldon Project who received a cannabis-related presidential pardon during Trump’s first term, said that “today is an extraordinary day for two deserving men and their families.”

“These grants of clemency are about mercy, redemption, second chances and recognizing the humanity in people who have already paid an enormous price for their mistakes,” he said.

“President Trump has granted clemency to two individuals serving prison time for cannabis, Jerry Haymon and Kevin Harden. Jerry, a former college football standout, has worked incredibly hard to demonstrate that a person’s worst moment should never define the rest of their life. Kevin has endured serious and debilitating medical conditions that have made his continued incarceration both extraordinarily difficult and increasingly dangerous.”

“I am deeply grateful to President Trump and Alice Johnson for continuing to give deserving people a pathway home,” Angelos said, referring to Trump’s White House pardon czar who herself received clemency from Trump in 2018.

“For Jerry and Kevin, and especially for the families who have waited and prayed for this day, this is life-changing,” he said. “We are also encouraged by the administration’s continued commitment to clemency and expect to see more deserving individuals receive relief in the future. This is exactly why we do this work.”

Haymon said he is “eternally grateful to President Donald J. Trump and Alice Johnson for granting me a full commutation for my marijuana offense and giving me the opportunity to move forward with my life without this conviction hanging over me.”

“I also want to thank Weldon Angelos and the entire Mission Green and Weldon Project team for believing in me, fighting for me, and never giving up on my case,” he said. “They stood beside me and my family throughout this process and worked tirelessly to make this moment possible.”

Erik Luna, who represented Haymon on behalf of the Mission Green Initiative and serves as director of research and legal policy at the Weldon Project, said his client “received a ten-year federal sentence for conduct that is now legal in both states where the offense occurred.”

“Jerry served years in prison for a first-time, nonviolent marijuana offense, while today multi-billion-dollar cannabis companies operate openly under state law—often with armed security—engaging in the very conduct for which Jerry was convicted and sentenced,” he said. “That is the definition of injustice.”

Earlier this year, Trump pardoned a former NFL star who was convicted of trafficking 175 pounds of marijuana.

At the start of his second term, the president fulfilled a campaign promise by commuting the life sentence of Ross Ulbricht, a man who was convicted of running a dark web illicit drug market.

Source link

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted 370-48 to approve a bipartisan funding bill that contains language delaying the federal ban on most hemp cannabinoid products until December 11, The Hill reports.

The proposal was already approved by the Senate last month and is now heading to the president’s desk for his signature.

Hemp products that contain cannabinoids “not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant” are not affected by the one-month delay and will become prohibited starting November 12.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), who originally introduced the legislation alongside Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), cheered the bipartisan approval as “good news for Minnesota’s farmers, brewers, small businesses, and customers.”

“The President should sign this bipartisan bill into law immediately. This delay will give Minnesota hemp’s producers, retailers, and customers certainty, and give Congress more time to get to a long-term fix.” — Klobuchar, in a statement

“This extension gives us one additional month, and we intend to make every day count,” the U.S. Hemp Roundtable said in a press release. “We will continue working with lawmakers and stakeholders to advance a comprehensive federal framework that protects consumers, prevents youth access to intoxicating products, provides certainty for farmers and businesses, and preserves access to lawful hemp products.”

Ganjapreneur: Offering daily insights since 2014, the leading digital business journal for cannabis industry professionals. Subscribe to the newsletter to join our community of over 40,000 ganjapreneurs.

Source link

Plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the result is “a single product is simultaneously legal ‘hemp’ and illegal ‘marijuana.’”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

A federal judge is being asked to decide whether Missouri’s new law banning intoxicating hemp products is clear enough to enforce in November or so contradictory that a constitutional challenge to it should move forward.

At the center of the dispute is the question of whether Missouri calls a product legal “hemp” in one part of state law and illegal “marijuana” in another.

The plaintiffs, led by the Missouri Hemp Trade Association, said in a filing this week that the state has created overlapping definitions, leaving businesses unsure what they can legally sell when the law goes into effect on November 12. They argue the case over House Bill 2641 deserves to be heard in court.

“Most judges would read [House Bill 2641] and go, ‘What is going on here?’” said Chuck Hatfield, attorney for the plaintiffs. “‘This seems like something we need to at least dig into and figure out.’ And that’s what our clients want is a day in court.”

The state says there’s no contradiction because the law specifically outlines which category controls: if it meets the definition of a hemp-derived cannabinoid product, it’s treated as marijuana. The state asked Judge M. Douglas Harpool of the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri to dismiss the lawsuit earlier this month.

The state argues the case is part of a growing nationwide effort by the hemp industry to overturn similar state laws.

“The industry’s playbook is well established,” the motion to dismiss states, citing other federal cases where the challenges against other state legislation regulating intoxicating hemp have failed.

Plaintiffs hit back in their response this week, saying that Missouri’s law is different from the other states cited. These products will be considered marijuana in Missouri under the new law, they argue, and that’s where the legislation gets “unconstitutionally vague.”

The federal law distinguishing marijuana and hemp has brought intense debate both in the legislature and courts nationwide since Congress legalized hemp in 2018.

For Missouri, the lawsuit is the latest episode in a long saga to regulate intoxicating hemp products that, in previous years, has ended with lawmakers throwing their hands up in frustration.

When Congress legalized hemp in 2018, it opened a door for intoxicating products like hemp-derived THC beverages that are now found in grocery stores and bars throughout the state.

Congress closed that loophole in November by passing a federal ban that’s set to go into effect November 12. Missouri lawmakers said they intended to mirror that language by a law passed this spring.

However, plaintiffs argue in the lawsuit that the result is “a single product is simultaneously legal ‘hemp’ and illegal ‘marijuana.’”

The state argues in its motion to dismiss that it prevented this scenario because it “enacted provisions to guard against confusion.”

“In other words, to the extent that a hemp-derived cannabinoid meets the statute’s definition of ‘hemp’ and is not included in any of the statute’s exclusions from ‘hemp,’ then the product is not a ‘hemp-derived cannabinoid product’ for purposes of HB 2641’s central mandate,” according to the state’s motion. “It is that simple.”

The bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Dave Hinman of O’Fallon, will prohibit hemp products from containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, which is among the limits included in a provision in the federal spending bill Congress approved last year.

Even if Congress reverses course and decides to allow the sale of these products, Hinman’s bill would only permit them to be sold in Missouri’s licensed marijuana dispensaries. And if Congress chooses to delay the ban, Missouri would still ban all products, except for intoxicating beverages.

However, plaintiffs argue beverages are not specifically stated as being exempt.

The law lists types of products that would go into effect if there was a delay, which includes “any solid candy, gummy, chewable product, tablet, capsule, oil, baked good, or other solid edible.” It also includes products “that can be smokable or vapeable in the form of raw plant material, flower, or bud material and that contain any amount of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid.”

Beverages are thought to be allowed because they aren’t on the list of things that would go into effect. However, critics have said other products might be unintentionally exempt because they are not listed here, not just beverages, and the law just creates another loophole. Plaintiffs point to the carve-out clause as further reason the law is “difficult to parse.”

This list has become a bigger focus because Congress is currently considering delaying the federal ban.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate approved a measure to fund federal agencies until December 11, and it includes delaying the federal ban on intoxicating hemp THC products until that date.

It now goes back to the U.S. House for final approval before heading to the president’s desk.

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.

Source link