“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

Mexico’s Supreme Court has pushed the boundaries of legal adult-use cannabis a little further. This time, the issue was not cultivation, possession or transport. It was cooking.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, or SCJN, ruled that authorizations for recreational cannabis self-consumption may also cover the use of cannabis or THC in prepared or semi-prepared foods, as long as those foods are made strictly for the permit holder’s personal use.

The September 10 decision hinges on a distinction that sounds simple but carries real legal weight: making cannabis-infused food for yourself at home is not the same thing as manufacturing a regulated product for sale or distribution.

In other words, Mexico did not just legalize a commercial market for THC brownies, cookies or gummies. What the Court did recognize is that putting cannabis into certain foods can fall within the broader right to personal cannabis use that Mexican courts have been building out for more than a decade.

Cooking With Cannabis Can Count as “Preparation”

The case grew out of an authorization request filed with Mexico’s Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risks, better known as Cofepris.

The health regulator ultimately granted permission for activities tied to personal cannabis use, but it imposed several restrictions. One of them barred the permit holder from using cannabis in prepared or semi-prepared foods.

The dispute eventually made its way back to the Supreme Court.

In a 7-2 ruling, the full Court found that adding cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, to food intended solely for personal consumption amounts to an ordinary culinary activity. On its own, the Court said, that does not make the food a specially regulated health product.

As a result, the SCJN ordered Cofepris to issue an authorization that also allows for that kind of preparation.

That distinction matters because “preparing” was already among the activities that could be authorized for recreational self-consumption, alongside sowing, cultivating, harvesting, possessing and transporting cannabis. 

The unanswered question was how far that idea of preparation could go.

The Court has now drawn the line a little more clearly: cooking cannabis-infused food for yourself can fall within it.

No, Mexico Did Not Just Legalize Edibles

The ruling comes with very clear limits. Cannabis-infused foods made under this framework cannot be sold, distributed, given away, supplied to other people or offered to the public. The authorization applies only to the personal use of the person who holds it.

The ruling also does not erase existing health regulations for other cannabis-related products.

The Court upheld Cofepris’ restrictions on using cannabis in products subject to specific regulatory controls, including medicines, herbal remedies, medical devices, dietary supplements, cosmetics, vapes and similar products.

So the takeaway is not that anything containing cannabis is now fair game.

The ruling is much narrower: preparing cannabis-infused food at home for strictly personal consumption can be part of legally authorized recreational cannabis use.

Mexico’s Cannabis Rules Are Still Being Built in Court

The decision is the latest chapter in Mexico’s unusually court-driven cannabis policy.

In 2015, the SCJN ruled for the first time that the country’s absolute prohibition on recreational cannabis self-consumption was unconstitutional. After reaffirming that position in subsequent cases, the full Court in June 2021 invalidated, with general effect, provisions that prevented the Health Ministry from authorizing activities related to the recreational self-consumption of cannabis and THC. At the time, the Court made clear that adults could seek authorization for activities including sowing, cultivating, harvesting, preparing, possessing and transporting cannabis.

But it also set a limit that remains firmly in place five years later: those authorizations do not permit commercialization, supply or distribution.

Congress, meanwhile, has still not completed a comprehensive legal framework for adult-use cannabis.

That has left Mexico in a strange middle ground. The constitutional right to personal cannabis use has already been recognized, but the rules governing what that right actually looks like in practice are still being filled in piece by piece.

And for now, one of those pieces extends all the way to the kitchen.

Photo by Margo Amala en Unsplash

Source link

Turkey’s proposed tobacco legislation represents one of the most draconian anti-nicotine frameworks to date. By proposing a complete ban on tobacco products, including their production, sale, and consumption by 2040, Ankara is putting the finishing touches on its prohibitionist endgame. The proposal is critical in that it does not draw a distinction between combustible cigarettes and reduced-risk alternatives. Instead, it broadens the concept of “tobacco products,” including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco as well as all systems that contain nicotine.

Ignoring different risk levels

A wide body of toxicological and epidemiological literature has long shown that the carcinogenic properties of smoking derive from combustion byproducts—tar, carbon monoxide, and thousands of toxicants produced when tobacco is burned. While nicotine, although addictive, is not classified as a carcinogen by major authorities and is of minor importance in cancer causation.

But frameworks such as the one proposed in Turkey’s draft law obliterate these distinctions, building regulatory environments in which less harmful products are regulated with the same strictness as the most dangerous ones. This could sabotage one of the biggest levers to help reduce smoking-related disease: substitution.

An unfortunate global pattern — from Seoul to Hawaii

A fork in the road for Bangladesh?

By contrast, Bangladesh is now reviewing its planned 2025 ban on vaping and other new nicotine products. Advocacy groups such as the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA), say this review is an opportunity to adopt a more pragmatic, risk-proportionate framework. Their stance reflects a commonly held view among harm reduction experts: it is possible to engage in effective tobacco control without forcing a choice between protecting youth and reducing harm for adults. Both can be accomplished through targeted regulation — strict age limits, product standards, and enforcement against illicit sales — while keeping access to safer alternatives for smokers.

The proliferation of such approaches was flagged by groups such as Prohibition Does Not Work (PDNW) and the Observatory for Harm Reduction in Medicine, which decried them as unscientific and inconsistent with reality. Demand doesn’t disappear; it moves, based on data from jurisdictions that have enacted restrictive policies. In the Netherlands, for instance, where flavour restrictions were introduced a few years earlier, a large proportion of users continue to consume outlawed products through the black market or cross-border access following these laws.

So what actually reduces smoking in the real world?

These results reinforce an important lesson: when smokers are given the opportunity to transition to attractive, lower-risk alternatives, many will do so. By contrast, when such alternatives are limited or stigmatized, smoking reductions slow and even reverse.

Turkey’s proposed law reflects a wider dilemma worldwide. Policymakers can choose effective nicotine elimination strategies that penalize all products uniformly, or proceed with risk-proportional measures informed by available science.

Source link