“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

Legalizing marijuana is a “no-brainer” move to help ward off a “fiscal time bomb” in Iowa that could otherwise lead to cuts in funding for education and public safety in the state, the Democratic candidate for governor says.

“I think we should treat it the way we treat alcohol. That seems like a no-brainer to me, right?” Rob Sand, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, said at a town hall event in Dallas County on Wednesday in response to a question from a voter who said Iowa is “losing money” to other states that have legalized cannabis.

“Alcohol is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it. Also, we’re not going to throw you in prison for having a beer,” Sand said. “Why is it any different for marijuana? It is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it. We shouldn’t be throwing people in prison just for using it.”

The Democratic candidate said that “when I say treat it like alcohol, I literally mean treat it like alcohol.”

He then went through a list of common objections to cannabis legalization and explained how he would respond to them.

“So when I hear people say, ‘Well, I don’t want to smell it.’ Same. You shouldn’t be allowed to smoke it in public. Simple rule: you can’t drink alcohol in public, right?

People say, ‘Well, I’m worried about kids. I’ve heard cases in Colorado where they got colorful gummies, and the kids find them, and then the kids get sick.’ I agree. You shouldn’t be able to market it to children. You shouldn’t be able to use colorful designs on your packages. And if you’re doing gummies, they can look like an eraser, right? They don’t need to be red and blue and green and look like gummy bears.

People say, ‘Well, I don’t know, Rob. It’s a lot stronger than the stuff that I was smoking in the 70s.’ To which I say, ‘I wasn’t there. Whatever you say, I believe you.’ I don’t have a basis for comparison then or now. I actually haven’t used it. But how do we handle that with alcohol? When you buy a beer, you can see what the alcohol content is on the beer, right? We treat hard liquor differently, but you can see when you buy hard liquor what the content is on that, and that way you know what you’re getting into. We can do that with marijuana as well.”

Sand, who is currently Iowa’s state auditor, said the state currently has a budget surplus, but that annual spending is overtaking revenue.

“I call this a fiscal time bomb. Our budget is nine and a half billion,” he said. “Imagine the cuts to public education and to public safety if we don’t take action to fix this.”

“So we need to do something now,” he said, arguing that legalizing marijuana is “one of the things that we should do.”

“We would have hundreds of millions of dollars every single year if we just treat marijuana the way we treat alcohol,” Sand said, adding that the thinks the state should also put an income limit on school vouchers and make data centers pay fair taxes.

“All three of those would save us hundreds of millions of dollars a year alone,” he said. “So if we do all three of them, we do them right away, all of a sudden, our time horizon on how long that surplus is going to last gets a lot longer, and we can think about other ways to help address that and get back to having a balanced budget.”

Sand also spoke about his support for legalizing marijuana at an earlier event last month, saying that he thinks cannabis should be legalized and treated like alcohol, even if he thinks it’s “dangerous.”

“Marijuana is a dangerous drug,” he said at the time. “You shouldn’t abuse it, but we also shouldn’t throw people in prison just for using it. We should treat it the way we treat alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it, but we don’t throw you in prison just for having a beer when you get home.”

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate said that Iowa is “spending perfectly good tax dollars to lock people up” for marijuana while people who want to use it are driving across the border to purchase it in other states.

“They’re spending their money in Illinois, or they’re spending it in Missouri. And then they’re driving back without their money,” Sand said. “The money stays there, and the tax dollars stay there.”

Republican gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn reportedly opposes legalizing cannabis but doesn’t appear to have spoken extensively about the issue.

Josh Turek, the Democratic nominee in a U.S. Senate race, said this month that cannabis’s longtime restrictive Schedule I status is “ridiculous.” Marijuana “should be legalized and regulated, and let’s tax it,” he said.

Meanwhile, Iowa regulators are circulating proposed rules changes to remove the residency requirement for patients in the state’s medical cannabis program while also ensuring that military veterans qualify for reduced registration fees.

The residency-focused part of the regulatory change from the state Department of Health and Human Services is meant to comply with provisions of a bill that Reynolds signed into law in June.

In addition to allowing out-of-state residents to register in the medical cannabis program if they have a certification from an Iowa healthcare provider legislation, that legislation also doubles the number of medical cannabis dispensaries that are allowed to operate in the state.

Regulators said in the new rule filing that removing the residency requirement is expected to “primarily impact qualified Nebraska residents since Nebraska is the only bordering state that does not currently have an operational medical or adult-use cannabis program.”

“Although Nebraska has taken steps to establish a medical cannabidiol program, implementation has experienced significant delays and setbacks,” the regulatory explanation says.

Beyond the residency change that is part of the bill the governor signed this year, the new rule change also restores regulatory language that was “inadvertently removed during the 2023 Red Tape Review process” that allowed proof of military veteran status to be used to qualify for a reduced patient application fee of $25 instead of the standard $100.

Under prior law, Iowa’s limited medical marijuana program allowed only five dispensaries. That has doubled to 10 under HF 990, which the governor signed.

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

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

The Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board, which oversees the state’s medical marijuana program, recommended in a 2023 report that the state allow more licenses “in an effort to provide Iowans with greater geographical access to medical cannabis products.”

Under the program, patients with certain conditions can obtain cannabis products containing no more than at 4.5 grams of THC every 90 days. Flower and smoking are not allowed. Healthcare practitioners can allow greater amounts of THC for patients who are terminally ill or who have experience with the program and for whom the provider believes 4.5 grams is not enough.

Separately this session, Iowa lawmakers considered a bill to create a state-regulated therapeutic psilocybin program for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Last year, the governor vetoed earlier legislation that would have allowed doctors in the state to immediately prescribe a synthetic form of psilocybin in the event of federal approval of the psychedelic substance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), arguing that it “surrenders state authority to make an informed determination about classification to federal officials.”

Source link

Using medical marijuana helps people who suffer from lower pain significantly reduce their opioid use as well as experience lower pain intensity and functional disability, according to a new study that involved hundreds of patients.

Researchers with Tel Aviv University, Rabin Medical Center and Clalit Health Services in Israel enrolled 1,000 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who had previously never used cannabis and tracked their pain, disability status and medication usage annually for a period of 10 years at a specialized orthopedic pain clinic.

After a decade, opioid use, measured in morphine milligram equivalents, “decreased substantially” by 90 percent.

“Opioid reduction was rapid in the first year and remained stable through Year 10,” the researchers wrote.

Pain intensity also dropped by 84 percent, and functional disability was reduced by 30 percent.

The study, published in the European Spine Journal, also looked at how many patients achieved significant pre-specified thresholds for the outcome measures.

For reduced opioid use, 91 percent of patients met the target of at least 50 percent reduction in opioid use.

The goal of 30 percent of greater reduction on a pain intensity scale was achieved by 62 percent of participants. Sixty-two percent of patients reached the targeted decrease in functional disability scores of 10 points or more on a standardized scale.

“Medical cannabis therapy was associated with reductions in opioid use, pain intensity, and functional disability over 10 years, accompanied by polypharmacy reduction and acceptable tolerability.”

There was also a “substantial” reduction in use of other non-opioid medications among patients who completed the study.

“Tramadol/tapentadol use decreased from 89.7% to 5.6% (−84.0% points), benzodiazepines from 78.8% to 5.3% (−73.5 pp), SSRIs from 77.7% to 5.8% (−71.9 pp), and gabapentinoids from 31.3% to 0.6% (−30.7 pp),” the study said. “These reductions were clinically driven rather than protocol-mandated, reflecting individual physician-patient decisions based on symptom response. The pattern of polypharmacy reduction paralleled opioid reduction, occurring primarily in the first 2 years.”

The reduction in use of several different kinds of medications suggests that “medical cannabis may address multiple symptom domains simultaneously,” the researchers wrote.

“Chronic pain patients frequently require polypharmacy to manage pain, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression, each of which carries risks of adverse effects and drug interactions,” the said.

Participants in the study used marijuana products that included dried flower for vaporization and cannabis oils for oral/sublingual administration. There was some patient drop off as the study went on, and 638 of the 1,000 who enrolled ended up completing the final follow-up observation.

The researchers cautioned that the single-arm observational nature of the study means that causality cannot be inferred. They also noted that the size of the reductions in the outcome measures in the study “substantially exceeded” those from previously published randomized controlled trials, suggesting that “observational biases contribute to these findings.”

Nonetheless, they said their study is the “longest follow-up of medical cannabis therapy specifically in CLBP patients and demonstrates sustained, clinically meaningful improvements exceeding pre-specified [minimal clinically important difference] thresholds for opioid reduction, pain relief, and functional disability.”

“In this 10-year single-arm observational study, medical cannabis therapy was associated with reductions in opioid use (−89.8%), pain intensity (−84.2%), and functional disability (−30.4%), with high proportions of patients achieving pre-specified MCID thresholds,” the study concluded. “Substantial polypharmacy reductions and acceptable tolerability were observed.”

This is far from the only study supporting the efficacy of marijuana in the treatment of pain—nor is it the first to suggest cannabis can serve as a substitute for conventional therapies such as opioids.

A study published earlier this year found that medical cannabis use by people with chronic lower back pain leads to “large, sustained, and statistically robust improvements.”

In April, a study found that using medical marijuana appears to help people reduce the use of other medications, including opioids, sleeping aids and antidepressants. They also experience far fewer negative side effects after switching to cannabis from prescription drugs, the study involving more than 3,500 patients determined. 

About one in three Americans who use CBD say they take it as an alternative or supplement to at least one medication—particularly painkillers—according to a federally funded study published in February.

Similarly, another recent federally funded study, published by the American Medical Association (AMA), added more evidence that marijuana can serve as an effective substitute for opioids in chronic pain treatment.

Other AMA-published research has found that legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational purposes is “significantly associated with reduced opioid use among patients diagnosed with cancer.”

A separate paper published last year similarly found that medical marijuana legalization is “associated with significant reductions in opioid prescribing.”

In August, meanwhile, Australian researchers published a study showing that marijuana can serve as an effective substitute for opioids in pain management treatment.

Another study published last year in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review found that, among drug users who experience chronic pain, daily cannabis use was linked to a higher likelihood of quitting the use of opioids—especially among men.

Other research also found that legalizing medical cannabis appeared to significantly reduce monetary payments from opioid manufacturers to doctors who specialize in pain, with authors finding “evidence that this decrease is due to medical marijuana becoming available as a substitute” for prescription painkillers.

Further research also showed a decline in fatal opioid overdoses in jurisdictions where marijuana was legalized for adults. That study found a “consistent negative relationship” between legalization and fatal overdoses, with more significant effects in states that legalized cannabis earlier in the opioid crisis. Authors estimated that recreational marijuana legalization “is associated with a decrease of approximately 3.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.”

“Our findings suggest that broadening recreational marijuana access could help address the opioid epidemic,” that report said. “Previous research largely indicates that marijuana (primarily for medical use) can reduce opioid prescriptions, and we find it may also successfully reduce overdose deaths.”

Another recently published report into prescription opioid use in Utah following the state’s legalization of medical marijuana found that the availability of legal cannabis both reduced opioid use by patients with chronic pain and helped drive down prescription overdose deaths statewide. Overall, results of the study indicated that “cannabis has a substantial role to play in pain management and the reduction of opioid use,” it said.

Source link

North Carolinians strongly support legalizing medical marijuana, and a majority wants to go even further by legalizing cannabis for recreational use, according to a new poll.

The survey published on Thursday by Elon University also found that North Carolina adults support keeping THC-infused hemp products like seltzers and gummies legal in the state, although with age limits.

Medical cannabis legalization is supported by 75 percent of respondents, with only 11 percent in opposition.

While there is bipartisan support for the patient-focused reform, Democrats are much more likely to support it, at 89 percent, as compared to Republicans, only 57 percent of whom are on board.

Broader recreational marijuana legalization comes in at 55 percent in support overall and 30 percent opposed. While 74 percent of Democrats favor the reform, just 33 percent of Republicans do.

Meanwhile, as North Carolina lawmakers continue to debate how to handle the issue of hemp-derived THC products, the poll shows that most state residents want to keep them legal.

When asked whether North Carolina should “allow or prohibit the sale of hemp-derived products like seltzers and gummies with THC levels that can cause intoxication or a ‘high,’” 53 percent said they back keeping them legal, while 28 percent said they should be banned.

As with broader cannabis legalization, a majority of Democrats (62 percent) were on board with legal hemp THC products, and only a minority (35 percent) of Republicans were.

In a separate question, 82 percent of all respondents said they back banning sales of hemp-derived consumable products to people under the age of 21, including majorities across party lines.

Jason Husser, director of the Elon University Poll and professor of political science and public policy, noted that support for marijuana legalization has remained stable in the state in recent years.

“We found a significant increase in support for legalization between 2017 and 2021 as North Carolinians saw legalization occurring in other states,” he said in a press release. “Over the last five years, support for legalization has largely been stable with a large majority supporting medical legalization and a small majority favoring recreational legalization.”

“In turn, support for allowing hemp-based THC has similar levels of support and high correlation with support for recreational marijuana,” he said. “However, North Carolinians are largely unified in wanting hemp consumables restricted to those 21 or older.”

The poll involved interviews with 1,121 North Carolina adults between August 21-31 and has a margin of error of +/-5.09 percentage points.

The results come as Gov. Josh Stein (D) is continuing to pressure the GOP-controlled legislature for marijuana reform.

Last month, the governor called on lawmakers to legalize and regulate cannabis in a way that “protects kids” while lawmakers this week are considering a bill to restrict hemp THC products.

In a social media post he noted that lawmakers are considering legislation that “aims to eliminate the Wild West that is North Carolina’s THC market.”

The governor has repeatedly called on lawmakers to broadly legalize and regulate cannabis, though GOP legislative leaders have been more interested in focusing on the narrower hemp issue.

A bill to restrict hemp and kratom products that was recently approved by the Senate now awaits potential action in the House.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in North Carolina have been considering legislation to legalize medical cannabis for the last several sessions—with the Senate approving several proposals and the House refusing to follow suit.

North Carolina’s Senate president pro tempore recently said that lawmakers will take a more serious look at legalizing medical marijuana following the Trump administration’s move to reschedule cannabis at the federal level.

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

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

The governor-appointed cannabis commission in North Carolina issued a report in April recommending that the state move away from a criminalization-based approach to the plant and toward a system of “robust” regulations that provide for adults’ legal access to THC products.

The North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis, which Stein convened last year, says in the new document approved in April that the current “absence of regulation for North Carolina’s intoxicating cannabis market raises numerous concerns,” noting that hemp products are readily available yet largely unregulated and that marijuana remains prohibited altogether in the state, even for medical use.

“Compared to regulated marijuana frameworks in other states, this environment presents identifiable risks,” the interim report says. “While some operators voluntarily implement consumer protection protocols, these safeguards are not required under state law.”

Stein, for his part, thanked the group for its “expertise, hard work, and thoughtful deliberation” in a press release and reiterated his support for legalizing marijuana.

Members are tasked with developing and submitting initial recommendations on a “comprehensive cannabis policy, including any proposed legislation,” with a final report due by December 31 of this year.

During his time as the state’s attorney general, Stein led a separate task force under then-Gov. Roy Cooper (D) that examined racial injustice issues and ultimately recommended decriminalizing marijuana and studying broader legalization in response to racially disparate enforcement trends.

A tribe in North Carolina, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, launched the state’s first marijuana dispensary in 2024—despite the protests of certain Republican congressional lawmakers.

Democratic lawmakers recently filed legislation to allow voters to decide whether to legalize marijuana for personal or medical use at the ballot box this November—though Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R) said the bill is unlikely to advance.

Meanwhile, bipartisan North Carolina lawmakers have been stepping up the push for psychedelics reform legislation.

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

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

Only about a third of Americans think marijuana is dangerous, and less than half still believe the “gateway theory” that using cannabis makes people significantly more likely to try more dangerous drugs, according to a new poll.

The survey, released by Rasmussen Reports on Tuesday, asked U.S. adults how dangerous they think cannabis is.

Just over one out of three indicated they think marijuana is either somewhat (24 percent) or very dangerous (13 percent).

In contrast, a majority of respondents said cannabis is either not dangerous at all (27 percent) or not very dangerous (28 percent).

When asked how likely they believe it is that “marijuana use leads to the use of more dangerous drugs,” just 18 percent said it is very likely and 27 percent believe it is somewhat likely. Nineteen percent said it is not at all likely and 27 percent think it is not very likely, while 9 percent said they aren’t sure.

When broken down by party, Republicans are more likely to believe that marijuana is either somewhat or very dangerous (50 percent) than Democrats are (33 percent).

GOP voters are also more likely to buy the gateway theory about marijuana being very or somewhat likely to be true (60 percent) than Democrats are (42 percent).

The poll involved interviews with 1,234 American adults between September 8-10 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

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

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

The results comport with other recent surveys showing that American attitudes and behaviors around cannabis are shifting.

A Gallup poll released last month, for example, found that a record-high number of U.S. adults now smoke marijuana, while cigarette smoking is at an all-time low.

Similarly, an analysis of federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) data published last year showed that more Americans now use marijuana than smoke cigarettes amid shifting perceptions of harm of the two substances.

A study released last month found that people who consume cannabis-infused THC beverages end up drinking less alcohol.

Last year, a separate Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans remain in favor of legalizing marijuana but that support saw a slight dip from 2024—a trend that’s been “driven by Republicans” who are turning against the reform.

Source link

“Kuehn did not have either taxpayer standing or standing for a matter of great public concern to challenge the constitutionality of the acts.”

By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner

The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday decided a longtime medical cannabis opponent will not have another day in court to try to overturn the state’s voter-approved medical cannabis laws, at least for now.

Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, in a unanimous 29-page ruling, agreed with a lower court judge’s decision that former state Sen. John Kuehn of Heartwell did not have standing to challenge Nebraska’s medical cannabis laws.

Kuehn argues that such state laws, including Nebraska’s voter-enacted legalization of medical cannabis, are “preempted” by federal law under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause defining marijuana as a more dangerous drug that states are precluded from regulating.

“We conclude that Kuehn did not have either taxpayer standing or standing for a matter of great public concern to challenge the constitutionality of the acts,” Funke wrote. “We therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing Kuehn’s operative complaint without prejudice.”

“Without prejudice” means Kuehn could bring a similar case in the future if circumstances change. For instance, since June 2025, the Nebraska Legislature has appropriated more funds to the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission and passed new legislation around cannabis.

What is ‘standing’?

For a case to proceed, a litigant must prove they’ve suffered an “injury in fact” by the time a case is filed or later amended. Kuehn filed his case in December 2024 and last amended it June 2025. Kuehn conceded he had not yet suffered the direct injury but sought to use exceptions.

“Standing refers to whether a party had, at the commencement of the litigation, a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation that would warrant a court’s exercise of its subject matter jurisdiction and remedial powers on that party’s behalf,” Funke explained in the opinion.

Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong dismissed Kuehn’s case on June 26, 2025. She also presided over and ruled against a preelection challenge from Kuehn, filed in September 2024.

The Supreme Court last week affirmed Strong’s ruling on the validity of Nebraska’s medical cannabis laws, also in a unanimous ruling from Funke.

Shifting federal guidance

During oral arguments in April in Kuehn’s preemption appeal, no attorneys or justices asked about shifting federal guidelines on marijuana. U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche federally downgraded state-licensed medical cannabis to a Schedule III drug in April, down from a Schedule I drug.

Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, LSD, ecstasy and peyote, are drugs the federal government has classified as having a high likelihood of abuse and no currently accepted medical value. Schedule III drugs are defined as those with moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence, such as Tylenol with codeine, ketamine and testosterone.

Nebraska’s Medical Cannabis Commission is working toward implementing a state-licensed program and has licensed four cultivators. Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) signed off on a first set of regulations for the commission this summer.

The commission is rewriting its regulations to add fees before moving to license product manufacturers or dispensaries. The Legislature authorized the commission to do so this year.

Access to legally purchase medicine in Nebraska is still months, if not at least a year, away.

Standing exceptions

Kuehn tried to use two “narrow” exceptions to the standing rule: that he should be able to sue to try to prevent an “illegal expenditure” of public funds (taxpayer standing) or because the laws constitute a “matter of great public concern” (“great public concern standing”).

“It is not enough to wait for the United States government to one day come to Nebraska and challenge these acts,” Kuehn’s attorney Eddie Greim of Missouri had told the justices. “Instead, Nebraska’s courts should be open to Nebraskans who want to hold their Nebraska state government to its constitutional limitations.”

Funke wrote that other jurisdictions might find Kuehn had taxpayer standing, such as in other states, but Funke said doing so for Nebraska would be “inconsistent with our jurisprudence.” Funke also wrote that Kuehn’s claims did not present the “rare” circumstances to justify an exception for great public concern.

Unlike in other taxpayer standing cases that try to block public spending alone, Kuehn sought to go further and declare the Nebraska medical cannabis laws unconstitutional.

Had the case proceeded and later returned to the Supreme Court, it would take five justices to declare the laws unconstitutional. For standing, Kuehn needed a simple majority, or four judges.

AG’s Office: Others could sue

Zachary Pohlman, the state deputy solicitor general defending five state officials from Kuehn’s lawsuit, had argued that at least five parties would be better suited to sue than Kuehn, such as the federal government, Hilgers, a property owner, a prospective medical cannabis user or a criminal defendant charged with illegally possessing cannabis asserting the laws as a defense.

The Supreme Court ruled that its finding whether Kuehn lacked standing was not related to whether others could sue in Kuehn’s place.

Pillen was named in the suit, as were Secretary of State Bob Evnen, Department of Health and Human Services CEO Steve Corsi, former State Treasurer Tom Briese and Tax Commissioner Jim Kamm.

Kuehn had also sued the 2024 ballot sponsors behind the voter-approved laws and current and former members of the Medical Cannabis Commission.

The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office had threatened to sue the state Medical Cannabis Commission if it issued licenses. But no such challenge materialized when the commission licensed the first cultivators in October 2025. No other state lawsuits have been filed at this time.

Hilgers’s office has joined a federal lawsuit seeking to challenge the DOJ’s rescheduling of marijuana, which President Donald Trump is calling for.

In an unsigned statement Friday, Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana said another “desperate lawsuit, designed to erase the will of Nebraska voters and destroy medical cannabis, has failed.”

“For nearly two years, people with powerful political connections and deep pockets have thrown everything they can at us,” the statement said. “Lawsuits, accusations, obstruction and delay, because they refuse to accept what 71 percent of Nebraskans overwhelmingly decided.”

The group, which led the 2024 effort to legalize and regulate medical cannabis, said no matter the money, influence or political power behind the “next attack,” it won’t erase that vote.

The next Medical Cannabis Commission meeting is Monday.

This story was first published by Nebraska Examiner.

Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.

Source link

“2028 sounds far away. But artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.”

By Adrian A. Holguin, CannaShark Consulting

Last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 2249, a bill that puts a much clearer line around what cannabis packaging, labels and ads can look like. The short version: no child-oriented dragons, unicorns or wizards; nobody who looks under 21; no imagery of candy, cereal, sweets or desserts primarily marketed to children; no child-style bubble or balloon lettering; and no packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to kids.

The new definition takes effect on January 1, 2028.

Most of the coverage stopped there, and I get it. “Rules take effect in sixteen months” doesn’t make anyone spill their coffee. But operators tend to call me after a rule costs more than they expected, so here’s why 2028 is not the date that matters.

First, the basics.

California has banned cannabis packaging that is “attractive to children” since legal sales began, and cartoons on labels are already prohibited. The problem was that the line remained subjective and was applied inconsistently. A 2025 state audit found that Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) rules were not specific enough and that reasonable reviewers sometimes reached different conclusions about similar packaging.

AB 2249 draws a clearer line. It defines “attractive to children” as designed or likely to appeal to anyone under 21, then identifies cartoons; depictions of people under 21; celebrities, influencers, characters and mascots primarily associated with contemporary children’s media or products; fantasy characters such as unicorns, wizards and dragons; imagery of candy, cereal, sweets and desserts primarily marketed to children; child-oriented bubble or balloon lettering; and packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to children.

Cartoon or overly stylized fruit on an edible or vape label is out. A realistic depiction of fruit that accurately reflects an ingredient or production region is allowed.

The bill also authorizes DCC to adopt additional rules for design elements or product characteristics that pose a heightened risk to children, and it requires the department to develop self-assessment resources.

DCC launched its AI-based Cannabis Product Image Analyzer in June. Use it as a screening tool, not a safe harbor: an automated result is advisory, not a final DCC determination.

AB 2249 sets no deadline for additional rulemaking or for the required resources, so operators are still designing against a target that could move.

Now here’s the part that got underplayed.

Packaging isn’t bought like office supplies. Many brands buy it in runs representing six months to a year of inventory because that is how they protect unit economics. Artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.

So play it forward. A brand placing a normal-sized packaging order in early 2027 may be buying stock it expects to use well into 2028. AB 2249 contains no express sell-through safe harbor for old packaging.

Unless DCC issues contrary guidance, the prudent plan is to assume that product offered for sale on January 1, 2028 must comply with the new definition. That may put the artwork deadline in late 2026. In other words, somebody has to decide now whether the mascot stays.

The California Cannabis Industry Association opposed the bill on cost, and that concern is real. A redesign can mean compliance review, new plates, minimum order quantities, retailer notifications and eventually paying someone to destroy old packaging. But the final Senate vote was 38-0, and the Assembly concurred 69-1.

The cost is now a scheduling problem, and scheduling problems are only cheap if you start early.

Handled on the front end, this is a calendar and a manageable cost. Handled on the back end, it becomes destroyed inventory, retailer disruption, potential enforcement and a bill with more zeros. The difference is almost never information. Operators knew the rule was coming. The problem is that “2028” sounds far away.

If you hold a California license, this quarter looks like this: pull every SKU and flag anything with a character, creature, candy cue, child-oriented lettering or stylized fruit. If you have to argue about whether the gummy bear is a cartoon, it probably is.

Get your printer’s real lead times in writing and work backward from January 1, 2028. Start the redesign conservatively, have the final art reviewed, and run it through DCC’s tool as a screen before the plates are cut. Then size your last old-look order to sell through before 2028.

Nobody should build a compliance plan around the hope that the state will be generous with a pallet of dragon gummies.

The state gave you sixteen months. Your printer gave you about six. Plan around the printer.

Adrian A. Holguin, J.D., M.B.A., is founder and president of CannaShark Consulting. He advises cannabis operators and businesses in other highly regulated industries on licensing, compliance, finance and operations, and also serves as an expert witness.

Photo courtesy of Max Pixel.

Source link

Using marijuana appears to have a “positive outcome” on people struggling with some eating disorders, according to a new study.

“Cannabis is widely used by people with eating disorders and is widely perceived as beneficial in restrictive and food-averse, but not binge, eating disorder subtypes,” the paper, published in the Journal of Eating Disorders, found.

Researchers at the University of Sydney in Australia surveyed more than 7,500 people with a diagnosed or self-reported eating disorder (ED), with more than 3,o00 of whom that used cannabis within the past year. Respondents represented 76 countries, with most residing in Australia (29.7 percent), the United Kingdom (21.7 percent) and the United States (17.6 percent).

“Cannabis received the highest mean ratings of any drug for improving ED symptoms” among people avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, anorexia nervosa and other specified feeding and eating disorder, the study found. People with unspecified feeding or eating disorder “also reported a favorable rating.”

For people with anorexia nervosa specifically, “cannabis use drove reductions in food-related anxiety and guilt, which, together with appetite stimulation, helped normalise their eating,” the study found. “The gastroprotective and antinausea properties of cannabis appear to provide additional therapeutic benefits over and above those provided by appetite stimulation and anxiety reduction.”

For people with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), which involves a lack of desire to eat and aversions to food based on sensory factors such as texture, taste and smell, there is a “transformational effect of cannabis” related to “increased appetite and enhanced ability to recognise hunger cues,” the researchers wrote.

“The higher frequency of daily cannabis use amongst those with ARFID may well reflect self-medication for these therapeutic benefits,” they said. “Indeed, daily use of cannabis flower was generally associated with higher ED symptom improvement scores relative to intermittent use, suggesting that symptom improvement may drive frequency of use.”

In contrast, people with binge eating disorder and bulimia nervosa, “provided lower ratings” for marijuana’s efficacy—perhaps because “the appetite-stimulating properties of THC may exacerbate binge/purge symptomatology,” the paper said.

When participants were prompted with open-ended questions, “general mental health was self-reported as improved by cannabis in most respondents regardless of diagnosis,” the researchers wrote. Participants also said cannabis helps with improved ability to eat, improved awareness of hunger cues, reduced guilt related to their eating disorder, less nausea and diminished food-related anxiety.

“Our findings suggest that cannabis is widely used by individuals with an ED or disordered eating and that naturalistic use of cannabis is self-reported as having a positive outcome on ED symptoms.”

That said, “a substantial number described mixed experiences of both improvement and exacerbation of ED symptoms,” the study found.

The research is a follow-up to an earlier paper that some of the same authors published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that marijuana and psychedelics were “the highest rated” drugs in effectively addressing eating disorder symptoms.

“Our top-level analysis indicated that cannabis was commonly used among respondents and was one of the few drugs rated positively for ED symptom improvement. In [anorexia nervosa], [avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder,], and [other specified deeding and eating disorder], this positive rating was superior to all prescription drugs.”

While daily use of marijuana flower specifically was more associated with improved eating disorder scores than intermittent use in the new study, symptom improvement didn’t vary overall based on cannabis product type or cannabinoid composition.

The researchers noted that the self-report and naturalistic nature of the study means that no strong causal conclusions can be drawn, saying that “future clinical trials of cannabis products are warranted in eating disorders.”

They also flagged concerns about cannabis dependence and “other adverse effects” of frequent use that some participants reported.

Source link

Josh Turek, the Democratic nominee in a U.S. Senate race in Iowa this year, says it’s time to federally legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.

The candidate, currently a state representative, told voters at an Iowa State University football tailgate that he thinks cannabis’s longtime restrictive Schedule I status is “ridiculous.”

Turek told one man that he liked a cannabis leaf hat he was wearing. That prompted a woman to tell the Senate candidate that he should “fix” federal marijuana laws, adding that she has “so much pain” and “would like to be able to take gummies at night.”

Turek, who was born with spina bifida and is in a wheelchair, said he has “dealt with so many individuals with disabilities” and that cannabis is “one of the few ways that they see relief from their spasms.”

He suggested that marijuana isn’t harmful enough to be prohibited “in the grand scheme of things, when you’re looking at the health implications from tobacco or from alcohol.”

“Or opioids,” the woman voter chimed in. “I do not want to take opioids.”

“Absolutely,” Turek replied. Policymakers will “always reach out for Big Pharma,” he said, but not for “anything natural.”

“I would love to be able to address that federal level,” the candidate said. “I think it should be legalized and regulated, and let’s tax it. You’ve seen it with other states.”

In 2023, Turek cosponsored a bill in the Iowa House of Representatives to legalize adult-use marijuana and expand the state’s current medical cannabis program by allowing doctors to recommend it for any medical condition they see fit.

Turek’s opponent for the Senate seat, U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson (R), voted against a bill to federally legalize marijuana on the House floor in 2022. She did, however, support separate legislation in 2021 to ease the cannabis industry’s access to banking services.

Meanwhile in Iowa, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand recently explained why he thinks marijuana should be legalized and treated like alcohol, even if he thinks it’s “dangerous.”

“Marijuana is a dangerous drug,” he said. “You shouldn’t abuse it, but we also shouldn’t throw people in prison just for using it. We should treat it the way we treat alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug. You shouldn’t abuse it, but we don’t throw you in prison just for having a beer when you get home.”

Separately, Iowa regulators are circulating proposed rules changes to remove the residency requirement for patients in the state’s medical cannabis program while also ensuring that military veterans qualify for reduced registration fees.

The residency-focused part of the regulatory change from the state Department of Health and Human Services is meant to comply with provisions of a bill that Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed into law in June.

In addition to allowing out-of-state residents to register in the medical cannabis program if they have a certification from an Iowa healthcare provider legislation, that legislation also doubles the number of medical cannabis dispensaries that are allowed to operate in the state.

Also this session, Iowa lawmakers considered a bill to create a state-regulated therapeutic psilocybin program for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Last year, the governor vetoed earlier legislation that would have allowed doctors in the state to immediately prescribe a synthetic form of psilocybin in the event of federal approval of the psychedelic substance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), arguing that it “surrenders state authority to make an informed determination about classification to federal officials.”

Source link