Source link

“If licensed adult-use retailers disappear, consumers will continue to seek cannabis through other channels… None of the alternatives will produce the safe and regulatory tested products, jobs and tax revenue the current legal market generates.”

By Steve Reilly, Insa

If you are a Massachusetts voter who has not been following the debate over cannabis policy, Question 8 on this November’s ballot deserves your attention.

The measure asks voters whether Massachusetts should repeal the laws that allow and regulate adult-use cannabis sales. The implications go well beyond whether a dispensary remains open. The question reaches the system of licensed businesses, product testing, taxation and regulatory oversight that Massachusetts has built over the past decade—seeking to eliminate 27,000 jobs and $300,000,000 in tax revenue that will need to be made up somewhere else.

Understanding what is actually being proposed and what would replace the current system is essential before casting a ballot.

Massachusetts voters approved adult-use marijuana legalization in 2016. Since then, the commonwealth has developed a regulated market overseen by the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), with licensed cultivators, manufacturers, retailers and testing laboratories operating under regulated state rules. Although there have been documented issues with regulatory oversight, the legislature recently took action to make improvements, and the ballot question could ultimately undermine that progress rather than build on it.

Question 8—formally titled “An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy”—would repeal the state laws governing the possession, distribution, cultivation and taxation of adult-use marijuana. While the medical market would remain legal and adults 21 and older would still be permitted to possess up to one ounce without civil or criminal penalties, possession of more than one ounce and up to two ounces would carry a civil penalty.

The effect would be to penalize possession over an ounce, while keeping lesser amounts fully legal but eliminating the commercial dispensaries where product can be purchased. The practical effect will be to sow confusion and chaos with regards to what cannabis you can possess and where you can obtain it, likely pushing consumers into the illicit market. This is intentional by those brining the initiative who hope to diminish public support.

A “yes” vote is not simply a vote to change cannabis regulations or impose new restrictions on dispensaries. It would eliminate the existing adult-use retail system.

So what does that mean for consumers?

Today, an adult-use consumer can enter a licensed Massachusetts cannabis retailer and purchase products that are subject to state requirements for testing, labeling, packaging, security and business oversight. The regulated system also establishes rules around who can sell cannabis and where it can be sold.

If Question 8 passes, that licensed adult-use retail structure would go away, giving way to an unregulated market where these products continue to be legal to possess and use. The practical question for consumers is not whether cannabis possession remains legal, rather it is whether Massachusetts will continue providing a commercially regulated, licensed place for adults to purchase cannabis products.

That raises important public-safety questions.

There is also an economic consequence. Since legalization, Massachusetts’s adult-use cannabis market has generated more than $10 billion in cumulative sales, including approximately $1.65 billion in 2025 alone. In 2025, the cannabis industry generated approximately $308 million in state revenue and another $51 million in local-option tax revenue for municipalities that supports cultivation and manufacturing employees, laboratory workers, security companies, construction and real estate businesses, technology providers, professional services and other vendors.

Eliminating the adult-use licensing and taxation framework would fundamentally alter the businesses and public revenues that have developed around it.

One of the central arguments for legalization was that a regulated marketplace could provide adults with an alternative to an illicit market. But if licensed adult-use retailers disappear, consumers will continue to seek cannabis through other channels. Whether that means medical dispensaries, personal cultivation, transfers between adults or illicit sellers will depend on how the market responds.

None of the alternatives will produce the safe and regulatory tested products, jobs and tax revenue the current legal market generates.

As a registered voter, the choice on Question 8 is consequential. Question 8 represents a decision between maintaining a regulated adult-use marketplace that has existed for nearly a decade and moving Massachusetts toward a different model in which marijuana remains legal but unregulated.

As voters consider the question, they should look beyond campaign slogans and understand exactly what the initiative would change, what protections would remain, what would disappear and how those changes could affect consumers, communities, employees and businesses.

Cannabis policy should ultimately be about public safety, responsible access, accountability and informed consumer choice, not an unregulated free-for-all market. Whatever position a voter takes on Question 8, that decision should begin with a clear understanding of what is actually on the ballot. More information is available at at stoptherepealma.com.

Steve Reilly is head of government relations for Insa, a cannabis company that operates in Massachusetts and other states.

Source link

Cannabis arrests in Northwest Indiana counties that border Michigan and Illinois – both of which have legalized cannabis for adult use – fell between 2021 and 2025, NWI Times reports. In Lake, Porter, and La Porte counties, arrests for misdemeanor and felony cannabis charges totaled 1,272 in the first quarter of 2021 but were 734 by the fourth quarter of 2025. 

Cannabis arrests in the counties spiked to 1,742 during the second quarter of 2022 – the highest recorded during the time period – but dropped below 1,000 the following quarter, the analysis found. Arrests increased the following two quarters again, before falling below 1,000 again in the subsequent two quarters. In the fourth quarter of 2023, arrests fell to 666, but rose to 742 in the first quarter of 2024, before falling to 670 in the following quarter. 

The third quarter of 2024 saw the lowest levels of cannabis arrests across the three counties during the analysis period, at 468. The following three quarters saw three straight increases – to 734, 826, and 1,192, before decreasing again to 842 and then again to 734.   

Illinois permitted the sale of adult-use cannabis starting January 1, 2020, while Michigan launched its program in 2018. 

Local police departments accounted for the majority of the arrests, with 12,162. County Sheriff’s Departments arrested 7,736 people during the analysis period, while State Police recorded 1,466 arrests.   

Most of those arrested (11,872) were Indiana residents, while 3,690 of those arrested were from Illinois, and 4,582 were from other states. 

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

“Because marijuana use remains illegal under federal law, standard supervision conditions may prohibit consumption.”

By Sephria Reynolds-Tanner, Reason Foundation

Medical marijuana is legal in 47 states, the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories. Yet for millions of Americans on probation or parole suffering from qualifying conditions like chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, that legalization is worth very little in practice. In many states, people on probation and parole are forbidden to use medical marijuana, even when legally recommended by a physician.

It’s an oversight that state lawmakers need to address.

Nearly four million adults in the United States are on probation or parole, almost double the number of people held in jails and prisons combined. Because marijuana use remains illegal under federal law, standard supervision conditions may prohibit consumption. A positive drug test can trigger a violation of probation or parole and result in jail or prison time.

In 2023, states collectively spent an estimated $3 billion re-incarcerating people for “technical violations,” such as missing a check-in appointment or failing a drug test. The exact share attributable to marijuana-related test failures is unknown because agencies do not collect substance-specific violation data. But, because marijuana is the most commonly used controlled substance and remains detectable in urine for up to 30 days, that share is likely substantial.

This problem for patients is rooted in marijuana’s Schedule I designation under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which deems it to have “no currently accepted medical use.”

But even the federal government is changing its position. Last year, President Donald Trump ordered the attorney general to expedite rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III. In April, then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a final order moving Food and Drug Administration-approved and state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III, while setting an expedited hearing on broader rescheduling that ran through July 15, with a formal recommendation still pending.

Federal rescheduling at least removes the primary legal justification agencies and courts have used to strip those under community supervision of legal access to medical marijuana. Yet, federal rescheduling will not fix the problem for people under state supervision who need medical marijuana. Most states independently schedule marijuana in their own drug laws, and supervision conditions that prohibit marijuana specifically need to be revised.

Courts in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan have already struck down state bans on people under supervision using medical cannabis, with judges ruling that the immunity granted by state medical marijuana legalization does not simply disappear because someone is placed on probation.

Legislatures in Connecticut, New York, Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado have also taken steps to harmonize their supervision systems with medical marijuana legalization, enacting laws to allow those under supervision to participate in medical marijuana programs.

Corrections agencies in Washington, Florida and Minnesota have implemented administrative policies to do the same, creating a system to verify registration with medical marijuana programs and maintain oversight without categorical prohibition.

But for those under supervised release in many other states, re-incarceration is still a risk if they use doctor-recommended cannabis.

Probation and parole officers do not prohibit people under supervision from taking prescribed controlled substances like Adderall, Xanax or OxyContin. Standard probation conditions include carve-outs that permit the use of prescribed drugs, managing risks through documentation, monitoring and clinical intervention when problems arise.

States should extend the same framework to medical marijuana: Verify the recommendation, document it in the case files and treat it like any other prescribed medication rather than an automatic violation that can lead to reincarceration.

The states that have legalized medical marijuana have already made the policy decision that patients with qualifying conditions deserve access to physician-recommended treatment without criminal penalty. Supervision systems in those same states should reflect the intent of medical marijuana laws and protect patients.

Sephria Reynolds-Tanner is a criminal justice and drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a former probation and community corrections officer in Washington state. She is the author of Medical Cannabis Access Under Probation and Parole: Removing Barriers to Doctor-Recommended Treatment.

Source link

Source link

Supporters of a proposed medical cannabis ballot initiative in Idaho said they have gathered more than 100,000 signatures and are making a final push in hopes of qualifying the proposal for November’s general election ballot by the April 30 deadline.

A group called the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho is hoping to legalize medical cannabis as a treatment option for Idahoans with debilitating medical conditions like cancer, post traumatic stress disorder, AIDS, epilepsy, Crohn’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease.

Under Idaho law, cannabis means the same thing as marijuana, and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Currently, all forms of cannabis are illegal in Idaho but recreational marijuana or medical cannabis are available in all of Idaho’s bordering states other than Wyoming.

Supporters said they want to legalize medical cannabis to give people with serious medical conditions and chronic pain an alternative to opioid medications.

“We’ve had hundreds of people email us about how they’re suffering with PTSD or they’re suffering with epilepsy and they’re driving across the border and illegally buying gummies because they would like some dignity in their care, in their state, but they can’t get it, and they’re still accessing these things because they’re right there and available,” said Amanda Watson, a Boise-based spokeswoman for the initiative. “This framework would allow for really strong regulation, restricted access and it’s a medical program.”

Opposition is being led by the Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature, which is pushing a competing marijuana measure on November’s ballot and is calling for voters to reject the medical cannabis ballot initiative.

“The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act lacks safeguards to such an extent that it would effectively legalize widespread recreational use of marijuana,” Idaho legislators warned in a resolution adopted earlier this month.

Who is behind the Idaho medical cannabis ballot initiative?

Rob Cronin, a Sun Valley businessman who has opened several restaurants in Idaho and across the country, serves as the chairperson and treasurer for the Natural Medicine Alliance PAC.

In an interview last week, Cronin said his experience as a cancer survivor and his friendship with the late Dr. Dori Tunney, a physician and philanthropist, inspired him to help push the medical cannabis ballot initiative.

Tunnery was diagnosed with glioblastoma and treated her pain with opioids that brought on severe side effects, curbed her appetite and led to a severe physical decline, Cronin and Watson said.

During treatment in California, where cannabis is legal, Tunney tried a medical cannabis gummy and Cronin and Watson said her appetite and sleep returned to normal and her pain decreased.

Cronin and Watson said Tunney began advocating for legalizing medical cannabis in Idaho in 2022, a push that continued until her death in 2024.

Cronin said he also had severe side effects when he used opioid medications after surgery from his cancer treatment. Cronin said he weighs 175 pounds today, but his weight dropped to 119 pounds due to nausea, loss of appetite and loss of sleep caused by opioids.

“The pain was just outrageous and I was hammering Vicodin like it was going out of style,” Cronin said. “I can tell you firsthand that I would have chosen a cannabis alternative to opioids all day long, because the opioid puts you on that funky roller coaster of, ‘Oh, I feel better. Oh, I’m depressed, and my life sucks. Oww, now I’m in pain. another opioid. Oh, I’m depressed again and my life sucks.’ It really messes with your head.”

Cronin and Watson said they met each other while volunteering with Tunney to support cancer patients in Idaho. Cronin and Watson said they are supporting the measure in order to try to finish the job for Tunney before the Idaho Legislature can attempt to further restrict voters’ ability to legalize medical cannabis in Idaho.

Watson said most of the funding for the initiative comes from an investment from Double Springs Ranch, which Tunney and her husband owned. The ranch is located in central Idaho and produces hemp and hemp fiber and raises Black Angus cattle.

What is a ballot initiative and what will it take to get medical cannabis on the November ballot?

In Idaho, a ballot initiative is a form of direct democracy where the voters of Idaho—not the Idaho Legislature—vote on whether to pass a proposed law.

Organizers say they are bringing the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act to voters as a ballot initiative because the Idaho Legislature has not taken action to legalize medical cannabis.

All of Idaho’s neighboring states other than Wyoming offer either medical cannabis, like Utah, or recreational marijuana, like Washington, Oregon, Montana and Nevada.

In order to qualify for the November general election, organizers need to collect signatures from 6 percent of registered voters statewide, which is 70,725 valid signatures. On top of that raw total, organizers also need to collect signatures from 6 percent of registered voters in at least 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts.

The deadline to submit signatures to the state for verification is April 30.

“I would say we are cautiously optimistic,” Watson said Friday. “We are collecting thousands of signatures a day at this point to make sure that we get over that threshold in each legislative district. There’s some rural parts of Idaho that we’re working really hard to hit that 6 percent in. Right now, we’ve collected over 100,000 raw signatures.”

The Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho is using paid signature-gatherers in an effort to meet the requirements to qualify the initiative for the election. The alliance pays $25 per hour plus incentives, Watson said.

If the initiative qualifies for November’s general election, it would take a simple majority of votes to approve it.

Why does the Idaho Legislature oppose cannabis?

If the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act qualifies for the ballot, there would be competing marijuana-related questions on the November ballot.

The Idaho Legislature has already come out in opposition to medical cannabis and placed a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution known as House Joint Resolution 4 on the November ballot. If approved by a majority of voters, House Joint Resolution 4 would make it so that only the Idaho Legislature, not voters, could legalize marijuana or other narcotics.

“Too many legislatures across this nation have sat back and just waited as initiative after initiative would come after them, until they finally overwhelm it and overwhelm the legislature,” state Sen. Scott Grow, R-Eagle, said last year. “We are acting because that’s our responsibility.”

During the 2025 legislative session, the Idaho Legislature and Gov. Brad Little (R) passed a law that creates a mandatory minimum fine of $300 for anyone convicted of simple marijuana possession, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.

This year, the Idaho Legislature also adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 127, which encourages Idaho voters to reject the medical cannabis ballot initiative.

In the resolution, legislators warn that legalization of marijuana and medical cannabis has created problems for other states and would increase the budget and costs for the Idaho Department of Health Welfare at a time when state revenues are uncertain.

Idaho legislators also allege that the requirements to obtain a medical cannabis card would be so loose that almost anyone would be able to get one.

“The 18 medical conditions that qualify one to obtain a medical cannabis card, including insomnia, anxiety, and acute pain, are so broad that almost anyone could qualify,” Idaho legislators wrote.

On Thursday, officials with the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office said 10,232 signatures have been submitted so far, and the office has marked 4,698 of those signatures as valid.

How would the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act work?

Here are the basics of how the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act would work if it qualifies for the November election and a majority of Idaho voters pass the act.

• Idahoans would be able to apply for a renewable medical cannabis card by presenting medical records showing a substantial or terminal health condition, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s, MS, post traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain.
• Meanwhile, the state would initially issue three medical cannabis production licenses across the state that would allow a licensee to grow, produce, distribute and sell medical cannabis to individuals with a valid Idaho medical cannabis card. When Idaho’s population increases by 650,000, additional production licenses could be issued – up to a total of six in the state. The application process for a production license requires a valid Idaho hemp license in good standing, submission of an operational plan, background checks and the use of a pharmacist for oversight.
• The act would allow each license holder to operate up to six retail locations, two facility locations, fulfillment centers, warehouses and distribution centers.
• For individuals with an Idaho medical cannabis card, online ordering, delivery and pickup at distribution centers would be allowed.
• Using medical cannabis in public and sharing medical cannabis with someone who does not have an Idaho medical cannabis card would be prohibited in Idaho under the act. It would also be illegal to drive, operate a boat, operate aircraft, operate heavy machinery or drive a train under the influence of medical cannabis.

Source link

Legalization made room for brands, tax revenue, and respectability. For Frank Rogers, still serving time on a federal marijuana conspiracy case, it still hasn’t made room for freedom.

The cannabis industry has transformed faster than almost anyone predicted. What once operated as an underground economy defined by secrecy, risk, and survival has evolved into a multibillion-dollar global market. Legal cannabis companies now employ tens of thousands of workers, operate technologically advanced cultivation facilities, and generate billions in annual tax revenue for state governments. Cannabis conferences fill massive convention halls across the country while investors debate expansion strategies and entrepreneurs launch brands with marketing budgets that dwarf the resources of the illicit markets that once dominated the plant’s economy.

Yet beneath the excitement surrounding legalization and industry growth lies a reality that is far less comfortable to discuss. While licensed dispensaries open their doors across North America and governments collect billions in cannabis taxes, there are still people sitting in prison cells for nonviolent cannabis offenses committed during the height of the War on Drugs. Their lives were interrupted by policies that modern society increasingly recognizes as excessive and misguided, and many remain incarcerated for conduct that would today be considered a legitimate business activity in multiple states.

Frank Rogers is one of those people. A federal prisoner who has already spent more than a decade behind bars, Rogers represents a reality that the modern cannabis movement often struggles to confront. Advocacy groups estimate that roughly 32,000 people remain imprisoned nationwide for cannabis-related crimes, including people in federal custody and many more in state prison systems.

Frank Rogers’ story is not simply about one man serving time for cannabis. It reflects the enduring legacy of prohibition and the long shadow cast by decades of drug war policies that continue to shape the lives of people long after the political climate surrounding cannabis has changed.

For individuals like Rogers, the path to freedom is not straightforward. The legal mechanisms that put them behind bars remain firmly in place, and for many federal cannabis prisoners the only realistic avenue for release is through the constitutional power of presidential clemency.

The War on Drugs and the Rise of Mass Incarceration

Understanding why people like Frank Rogers remain incarcerated requires revisiting the policies that fueled America’s dramatic expansion of its prison population during the late twentieth century. The War on Drugs, formally declared in the 1970s and intensified throughout the 1980s and 1990s, fundamentally reshaped the American criminal justice system. What began as a political campaign aimed at combating narcotics quickly evolved into one of the most aggressive law enforcement strategies in modern history.

Lawmakers enacted sweeping sentencing laws designed to impose severe penalties for drug offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing provisions removed much of the discretion previously available to federal judges, ensuring that certain drug crimes automatically triggered lengthy prison terms regardless of individual circumstances. Prosecutors gained additional leverage through expansive conspiracy statutes that allowed multiple individuals to be charged together as participants in a single criminal enterprise. These statutes meant that defendants could be held responsible for the total quantity of drugs associated with a case rather than only the amount directly linked to their own conduct.

The consequences of these policies were dramatic. In the early 1980s, approximately 40,000 individuals in the United States were incarcerated for drug offenses. Within a few decades, that number had increased more than tenfold. By the early twenty-first century, nearly half a million people were serving time for drug-related crimes across the country.

Cannabis played a significant role in this surge of enforcement. Although many Americans viewed marijuana as less harmful than other controlled substances, federal law classified cannabis as a Schedule I drug, placing it in the same legal category as heroin and other substances considered to have no accepted medical use. This classification provided federal prosecutors with broad authority to pursue marijuana cases aggressively and seek severe penalties under the same sentencing frameworks used for far more dangerous narcotics.

According to publicly reported arrest data, at the peak of enforcement in 2016, law enforcement agencies in the United States made more than 1.5 million drug arrests in a single year. More than 640,000 of those arrests involved marijuana violations, the vast majority for simple possession.

The War on Drugs succeeded in filling prisons, but it did little to eliminate drug use or the markets that supplied it. Instead, it created a system of mass incarceration whose effects are still being felt today.

The Human Cost of Cannabis Prohibition

Statistics about arrests and incarceration often obscure the human stories behind them. Each number represents a life that was disrupted by the criminal justice system and a family forced to navigate the consequences of that disruption. For individuals convicted under federal drug laws, the punishment frequently extended far beyond the sentence imposed in court.

Families lost parents, children grew up without fathers or mothers, and communities absorbed the social and economic costs of large numbers of people being removed from their neighborhoods for years at a time. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws often prevented judges from considering the individual circumstances of defendants, leaving little room to adjust punishments even when the facts of a case suggested a more measured approach might be appropriate.

Cannabis defendants were frequently caught in this system despite the absence of violence in their cases. Individuals whose involvement with marijuana might have consisted of distribution within informal networks were suddenly facing penalties comparable to those imposed for far more serious offenses.

The irony of these sentences has become increasingly apparent as public attitudes toward cannabis have evolved. Over the past two decades, voters and lawmakers across the United States have dramatically reconsidered the role of marijuana in society. Medical cannabis programs now operate in the majority of states, and adult-use legalization continues to expand.

Today, licensed businesses cultivate cannabis openly in large-scale facilities, process it into a wide range of consumer products, and sell it through regulated retail markets. The industry has generated billions of dollars in revenue and created thousands of jobs.

Yet many of the people who were prosecuted for participating in that same marketplace years earlier remain incarcerated.

Frank Rogers and the Legacy of Prohibition

Frank Rogers’ case illustrates the contradictions created by this shift in policy. Rogers pleaded guilty in federal court to a marijuana conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and received a sentence of 220 months in prison, followed by eight years of supervised release. The case involved nonviolent cannabis activity prosecuted under federal conspiracy statutes, which often allow defendants to be sentenced based on the overall scope of a case rather than solely on their individual actions.

Like many defendants caught in federal drug prosecutions, Rogers faced sentencing guidelines and statutory thresholds that resulted in a punishment far longer than he anticipated. At sentencing, the court adopted a guideline range of 210 to 262 months and imposed a 220-month sentence. Defense counsel argued that, but for the career offender designation, Rogers would have faced a range of 100 to 125 months. Such sentences were common during the height of the War on Drugs, when policymakers believed that severe penalties were necessary to deter drug trafficking.

For Rogers and his family, the consequences have been profound. Years of birthdays, holidays, and ordinary family milestones have passed while he remained incarcerated. The emotional toll of long prison sentences often extends far beyond the individual serving the time, affecting spouses, parents, and children who must rebuild their lives around the absence of a loved one.

In a recent appeal for clemency, Rogers wrote, “I would like to give a special thanks to my best friend, Kristin/HOPE, for never giving up on fighting for me, plus my mother, Rose Rogers, who never stops fighting for me. I love you momma bear and to the Beard Brothers who made this possible, thanks, God bless. I respectfully ask Alice Johnson, President Donald Trump, and the Office of the Pardon Attorney to please grant me clemency so I may finally return home to my loved ones.”

Organizations that support cannabis prisoners maintain contact with hundreds of incarcerated individuals across the country whose stories mirror Rogers’ experience. Their cases highlight the reality that the criminal justice system’s response to cannabis has not always kept pace with changing public attitudes toward the plant.

The Illusion of Cannabis Justice

The announcement in 2022 that thousands of federal marijuana possession convictions would be pardoned was widely celebrated as a milestone for cannabis reform. Headlines across the country declared that thousands of people had received relief from past marijuana offenses, and the move was hailed as a sign that the federal government was beginning to reconsider its approach to cannabis.

Yet the practical impact of those pardons was far more limited than many observers initially believed. The individuals covered by the policy were people who had been convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law, and most had already completed their sentences. In fact, at the time of the announcement, no one was serving a federal prison sentence solely for simple possession of marijuana.

The reality is that most people incarcerated for cannabis in federal prisons were convicted of distribution or conspiracy charges rather than simple possession. As a result, the pardons did little to address the situation faced by individuals serving long sentences for cannabis offenses.

Advocacy groups estimate that thousands of people remain incarcerated at the federal level for cannabis-related crimes despite the shift in public opinion surrounding marijuana.

Why Presidential Clemency Matters

The structure of the federal criminal justice system leaves individuals serving long sentences with limited options once their appeals have been exhausted. Courts are generally reluctant to revisit cases simply because public attitudes or policy priorities have changed. Even when lawmakers pass reforms designed to address overly harsh sentencing laws, those changes rarely apply retroactively to individuals who were sentenced under earlier statutes.

This legal reality leaves presidential clemency as one of the few tools capable of addressing the lingering consequences of the War on Drugs. Under the Constitution, the President has the authority to grant pardons and commutations for federal offenses. This power allows the executive branch to intervene when the justice system produces outcomes that no longer align with contemporary standards of fairness.

Presidents from both political parties have used clemency to address harsh drug sentences. During his administration, President Barack Obama granted clemency to nearly 2,000 individuals, many of whom had been convicted under the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that defined the War on Drugs.

More recently, President Biden issued pardons for thousands of individuals convicted of federal marijuana possession offenses. While those actions represented an important symbolic shift, they did not address the larger population of individuals serving lengthy sentences for cannabis distribution or conspiracy charges.

For prisoners like Frank Rogers, presidential clemency remains the most realistic path to freedom.

Legalization and the Industry’s Moral Dilemma

The modern cannabis industry now occupies a unique position in American society. What was once criminalized behavior has become a legitimate economic activity celebrated by investors, policymakers, and consumers alike. Cannabis companies advertise openly, operate sophisticated cultivation facilities, and expand into new markets with the support of regulators and financial institutions.

Yet the industry’s growth has also exposed a moral contradiction. Many of the pioneers who helped sustain cannabis culture during the years of prohibition did so under constant threat of arrest and imprisonment. Some of those individuals remain behind bars even as legal cannabis businesses flourish.

The contrast between a thriving legal market and the continued incarceration of cannabis offenders has become one of the most challenging ethical questions facing the industry. Legalization created new economic opportunities, but it did not automatically deliver justice for the people who were punished under earlier policies.

A Movement Still in Progress

The movement for cannabis reform has achieved remarkable progress over the past several decades, but its work is not yet complete. Addressing the legacy of prohibition requires more than legal markets and regulatory frameworks. It requires confronting the human consequences of decades of aggressive drug enforcement.

For individuals like Frank Rogers, the outcome of that conversation will determine whether they remain prisoners of a policy that society has largely abandoned.

Presidential clemency offers one pathway toward correcting those injustices. By commuting the sentences of cannabis offenders, the federal government can begin to reconcile the past with the present and acknowledge that many of the punishments imposed during the War on Drugs no longer reflect the country’s evolving understanding of cannabis.

For Frank Rogers, clemency would not represent a political victory or a policy milestone. It would mean something far simpler and far more important.

It would mean going home.

Freedom Grow exists for the exact reason Frank Rogers’ story should hit a nerve. It’s a grassroots, all-volunteer nonprofit created to support cannabis prisoners and their families right now through commissary help, books, family assistance, and real re-entry support. While the political system drags its feet and the legal market cashes checks, Freedom Grow keeps people alive, connected, and supported. This isn’t charity for optics. It’s community taking care of the community, with donations going directly to prisoner support and re-entry needs.

I’m not saying this from the sidelines. I’m Bill Levers, CEO of Freedom Grow, and my brother Jeff Levers serves as COO. We stepped into these roles because legalization without liberation is a lie, and we’re not interested in letting the industry move on while people are still stuck inside for cannabis charges. If you believe this plant should never have cost anyone their life or freedom, you can learn more or support the work at freedomgrow.org/donate.

Case details referenced in this essay are drawn from federal court records, including the complaint, judgment, and sentencing transcript.

This article is an opinion piece from an external, unpaid contributor. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of High Times. The article has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Bill Levers is CEO of Freedom Grow, a nonprofit that supports cannabis prisoners and their families, and co-founder of Beard Bros Pharms.

Source link

From early reform efforts to modern legalization fights, these Black leaders helped reshape cannabis law and justice.

Written by Parabola Center for Law and Policy

Today, support for cannabis legalization is widespread. A majority of Black Americans favor reform, politicians now campaign on outdated drug laws, and celebrities speak openly about racial disparities while building careers in the legal cannabis industry. That visibility, however, is the result of decades of work by Black leaders who challenged prohibition at moments when public opinion, policy, and personal risk were far less predictable.

In earlier decades, speaking publicly in favor of legalization carried far greater personal and professional risk. Before public support began to increase, advocates could jeopardize their careers and reputations. Consumers faced criminal prosecution and incarceration. These risks were not borne equally: because the War on Drugs disproportionately targeted Black communities, Black advocates and consumers faced significantly higher legal and social consequences.

Since the 1990s, High Times has celebrated both unsung heroes and well-known activists for bravely standing up for what they believe in. This Black History Month, we continue that tradition by recognizing some of the Black leaders whose early courage and truthfulness were critical to the legalization movement. Without their courage, we might never have secured the rights we often take for granted today.

Parabola Center for Law and Policy, a POC-led cannabis nonprofit that puts people over profits, curated this list to honor the individuals who have done just that–fought for people’s rights without regard for personal risk or gain. From the thousands whose hard work and dedication have led to better marijuana laws, we selected 10 Black champions to honor for their contributions to legalization. 

1. Professor Michelle Alexander

In 2010, Michelle Alexander changed the conversation with her bestselling book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. While reshaping the national dialogue in favor of criminal justice reform, she also made a major impact on cannabis policy.

In a memorable address to the International Drug Policy Reform Conference, she criticized the hypocrisy of white men profiting from newly legal cannabis while thousands of Black and brown people remained locked up for the same activity. 

In 2015, she inspired a new generation of cannabis leaders when she declined to endorse Ohio’s legalization effort, writing, “Granting an oligopoly for ten wealthy investors is not justice.” The measure failed 65-35. 

2. Dr. Joycelyn Elders

An outspoken advocate for public health, Dr. Joycelyn Elders is best known for her steadfast support for comprehensive sex education in public schools. In 1993, she became the first Black person to serve as Surgeon General, nominated by Bill Clinton, and she achieved extraordinary results for underserved communities. Although widely recognized for her moral clarity and candor on many public health issues, it is less well known that she was also an early supporter of marijuana legalization. 

In 2010, she supported California’s Prop 19, telling the New York Times, “I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol. I feel they cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the prohibition on marijuana.”

3. Major Neill Franklin

After 34 years in law enforcement, Major Neill Franklin began reexamining his role in prohibition and in repairing the harm it had caused. In 2010, well before legalization entered the mainstream, he joined the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and testified in support of marijuana legalization across the country. Over the next decade, using his professional credibility and reputation, he helped broaden the movement by making the case that regulated cannabis was better for public safety. 

His groundbreaking leadership didn’t stop at legal cannabis; he also joined United Nations advocacy efforts to end the prohibition of all drugs globally. Dubbed “the cop who broke with the drug war,” Major Franklin was recognized as a High Times Freedom Fighter last year.

4. Dr. Carl Hart

Dr. Carl Hart is a neuroscientist and psychologist at Columbia University who has spent decades challenging myths about drug use through both his research and his acclaimed books. When trace amounts of cannabis in Trayvon Martin’s blood were cited to justify his killing, Dr. Hart publicly dismantled the claim, comparing it to the alarmist narratives of  Reefer Madness. 

He has also served as an expert witness in family court to protect mothers from having their children removed based solely on a positive cannabis test during pregnancy. By consistently confronting fear-based policymaking and advancing evidence-based research, he has reshaped the legalization debate.

5. Linda Jackson, LVN

A cannabis nurse who was evaluating patients for cannabis approvals as early as 2003, Linda Jackson has been described as “way ahead of the curve.” While nurses’ contributions in the early era of medical cannabis in California received less attention than those of physicians, they were equally essential. In aninterview with the cannabis journal O’Shaughnessy’s, she detailed the process she used for patient intake. 

Because medical cannabis regulations had not yet been clearly defined, she and her team developed a framework from scratch to interview patients, assess their history, and obtain their consent–all using telemedicine. Through this approach, she estimated that between 300 and 400 patients received approval to medicate with cannabis.

6. Dr. Renee Johnson

A scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Dr. Renee Johnson would not describe herself as an “advocate.” But as a researcher who looks at substance use in marginalized groups including people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ youth, her work to discover and publicize the true impacts of legalization has been vitally important. 

When many of her counterparts were quick to declare that medical cannabis laws increased use, she led astudy showing the opposite: three years after medical marijuana was first approved, rates of use declined. At the same time, she warned that use could rise or fall depending on context, emphasizing that public education would be key. Her commitment to truth over rhetoric has had a meaningful, positive impact on the legalization debate.

7. Professor Beverly Moran, Esq.

The first Black woman to serve on the national board of NORML, Professor Beverly Moran has a wealth of credibility as a professor of law and sociology. A longtime academic affiliated with institutions such as Vanderbilt Law School, she consistently focused on protecting consumers within emerging legal markets. 

In aninterview, she explained the distinction that drives her work: “We have to understand that there’s a difference between consumers and the industry. . . [T]obacco consumers do not want tobacco to be more addictive, and yet tobacco companies worked for decades to make it more addictive. Alcohol producers and casinos would be more than happy if everyone was addicted to their products. These are the issues we deal with. . . how to keep it safe, how to keep it legal, how to keep research going, how to keep people out of jail.”

8. Dorsey Nunn

With a three-word question – “What about Pookie?” – Dorsey Nunn challenged the national legalization movement to call for the transition of those in the legacy market into the legal market. Sentenced to life in prison at age 19, he began advocating for the rights of incarcerated people while still behind bars. After his release, he co-founded All of Us or None and became executive director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, helping build a nationwide movement to restore the civil rights of formerly incarcerated people. 

Featured in 13th by Ava DuVernay, Dorsey Nunn has changed the conversation by insisting that those most affected by the War on Drugs lead the fight to end it.

9. Deborah Peterson Small

The academic article The War on Drugs is a War on Racial Justice was written by attorney, community organizer, and Harvard Law School graduate Deborah Peterson Small in 2001. When she wrote How We Can Reap Reparations from Marijuana Reform in The Root in 2016, she had been inspiring organizations and activists for over 15 years with her organization Break the Chains, and it was still far ahead of the curve. 

As one of the first people to argue that marijuana legalization should serve as a way to compensate the Black communities that the War on Drugs had harmed, Deborah Small has had a profound impact on the way that legalization laws were written and implemented.

10. Clifford W. Thornton, Jr.

Clifford Thornton retired in 1997 to work on drug policy issues. By 2001, he had spoken to over 60,000 people about drug policy reform, focusing on race relations, economics, and public health. In his talks, he shared his own tragic story of drug criminalization, when his mother died from a heroin overdose. 

In 2006, he became the first African-American candidate to appear on the general election ballot for Governor of Connecticut. Over the following decades, he continued to appear in the media hundreds of times, serving on the NORML board and helping to remove the DARE program from various districts. Almost 25 years after Clifford began full-time advocacy, his home state of Connecticut finally legalized cannabis.

Honorable Mention: Representative Barbara Lee

No list of this kind would be complete without mentioning Congresswoman Barbara Lee, an iconic marijuana law reform advocate whose outspoken support for change dates back to the 1970s. Rather than holding a static position or claiming vindication as public opinion shifted, Rep. Lee kept innovating and introducing more bills, culminating with the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act. 

When the MORE Act passed the U.S. House in 2020, it marked a symbolic but significant milestone: the first federal legalization bill approved by a chamber of Congress explicitly centered on racial justice. Without her decades of strategic and pioneering leadership, cannabis legalization in the US might look very different today.

Authors’ Note: To prevent any conflicts of interest, Parabola Center staff, board members, and advisors were not considered for this list.

All images courtesy of Parabola Center.

This article is from an external, unpaid contributor. It does not represent High Times’ reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy.

Source link

After multiple arrests, Florida officials are ramping up a criminal investigation of a marijuana multistate operator-funded adult-use cannabis legalization campaign even further – just days ahead of a key deadline to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

The criminal probe into the Smart & Safe Florida campaign, funded by Tallahassee-based Trulieve Cannabis Corp., shows the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis, a sworn enemy of cannabis reform, is “using every means necessary to stifle the voices of over a million Florida voters,” a campaign spokesperson told MJBizDaily.

Florida is the largest medical-only cannabis market in the U.S. and represents a massive opportunity for the legal industry.

But DeSantis’ administration has opposed adult-use marijuana legalization every step of the way.

Marijuana MSO Trulieve’s $200 million spending on marijuana legalization

Trulieve spent more than $150 million on a 2024 legalization effort that came up short despite an endorsement from Donald Trump, then the Republican nominee for president.

In this cycle, DeSantis’ administration has deployed both lawsuits as well as what Politico called an “elections police,” created under a law passed last year, to thwart a second effort.

Campaign finance records show Trulieve has contributed $52.5 million to an effort to gather at least 880,000 signatures from registered voters by a Feb. 1 deadline.

Florida deploys ‘elections police’ to halt marijuana legalization

On Jan. 20, state Attorney General James Uthmeier, DeSantis’ former chief of staff, said that almost a dozen canvassers had been arrested on suspicion of fraud, with more to follow.

On Thursday, days before the Feb. 1 deadline, Uthmeier expanded the fraud probe to every Florida county, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

In a social media post, Uthmeier claimed that “Smart & Safe Florida’s petition fraud touches nearly all of Florida’s 67 counties, and we’ve expanded our investigation statewide.”

As of Friday, Smart & Safe had collected 760,000 signatures, 120,000 short of the required number, according to the state elections website.

Florida officials ‘will stop at nothing’ to thwart cannabis reform

In a statement to MJBizDaily, a Smart & Safe spokesperson said that the campaign followed the law.

“Consistent with Florida law, each and every time we found any sort of discrepancy from state-certified petition gatherers, we reported our suspicions to the Secretary of State,” the statement read.

“In short, it appears the Attorney General is taking issue with the fact that we explicitly follow the law.

“From the months-long delay in sending the ballot language to the court to the after-the-fact nullifying of valid petitions, it seems there is nothing that will stop the administration from preventing these voters from having their say.”

Source link