#Federal Cannabis Prohibition

[cannabisbusinessexecutive]

Cannabis Litigation Alert: Commerce Clause Back on Blast

By Hilary Bricken Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration that cannabis be rescheduled on the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) from a I to a III. At the same time, the SAFER Banking Act is winding its way through the Senate. And as of October 26, the cannabis industry will try to end prohibition through the courts. Cannabis…

View On WordPress

#Commerce Clause #David Boies #Federal Cannabis Prohibition #Gonzalez v. Raich #intrastate commerce #Merrick Garland #U.S. Attorney General

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

A completed draft Texas Republican Party platform refers to homosexuality as “an abnormal lifestyle choice,” gender-affirming care as “child abuse,” and Drag Queen Story Hour as “predatory sexual behavior.” The platform has been voted on by state party delegates and will be formally adopted on Wednesday after a final vote count. The list of state party priorities calls for an end to legal same-sex marriages, same-sex parenting, all LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws, all transgender rights — including gender-affirming care for children and adults — a ban on LGBTQ+ content in schools and libraries, the defunding of all diversity-equity-inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and legal protections for anyone who discriminates against queer people based on “religious or moral beliefs.”

Furthermore, the Texas GOP platform calls for a complete end to all of the following: pornography, federal welfare programs, minimum wage laws, mandatory sick or family leave policies, net neutrality, removal of Confederate monuments, pro-immigrant sanctuary cities, public education of undocumented children, no-fault divorce, non-abstinence sex education, abortion, birthright citizenship, professorial tenure in colleges and universities, cannabis legalization, anti-climate change legislation, contact tracing for the tracking of communicable diseases, federal regulations ensuring safe farm food production, and U.S. participation in the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The platform also calls for fertilized human egg cells to be legally recognized as people, the passage of a “state electoral college-style” law that would make it nearly impossible for Democrats to win statewide office, a ballot measure for Texas to secede from the United States, the invalidation of all federal laws not approved of by county sheriffs, and for Christianity to be inserted into public schools and government buildings.

[...] “Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice,” it continues. “No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification…. We are opposed to same-sex parenting, intentionally subjecting a child to the loss of their biological father or mother, and other non-traditional definitions of family.” “We oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity,” it adds. “There shall be no attempt to engage in so-called ‘gender affirming’ medical or mental health intervention for persons between the ages of 18 and 26,” including the use of names and pronouns associated with trans people’s genders. The platform would require health insurance companies covering gender-affirming care to also fully fund de-transitional procedures. The platform says that any professionals who aid a minor’s gender transition in any way should face professional, civil, and criminal penalties, as well as lawsuits from anyone affected by their behavior. Furthermore, it calls for all gender-segregated facilities in prisons, schools, and government buildings to only be accessible to people based on their biological sex assigned at birth.

[...] It also calls for laws prohibiting the exposure of minors to “social transitioning” (that is, exploration of a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth), “predatory sexual behaviors” like Drag Queen Story Hour, and “the desensitization of children to sexual topics.”

The Texas GOP's platform reaffirms and expands its war on LGBTQ+ Texans, such as including anti-LGBTQ+, anti-trans, and anti-drag planks like baselessly calling Drag Queen Story Hours "predatory sexual behaviors" and gender-affirming care "child abuse".

This is in addition to calling homosexuality "an abnormal lifestyle choice" (a bigoted dogwhistle term used against recognizing LGBTQ+ identity) and opposing trans identity.

#Texas GOP #Texas #Anti LGBTQ+ Extremism #Anti Trans Extremism #Anti Drag Show Extremism #Dragphobia #Transphobia #Homophobia #LGBTQ+ #Drag #Transgender #Gender Affirming Healthcare #Drag Queen Story Hour #Social Transition #Transgender Erasure #Detransition

[brightlotusmoon]

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has made a historic decision—agreeing with the top federal health agency and moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The decision comes more than 50 years after cannabis was first listed as a strictly prohibited drug, on par with heroin and defined as a substance with no known medical value and a significant abuse potential.

#congratulations to drugs for winning the war on drugs #yay weed

[follow-up-news]

The Biden administration will take a historic step toward easing federal restrictions on cannabis, with plans to announce an interim rule soon reclassifying the drug for the first time since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted more than 50 years ago, four sources with knowledge of the decision tell NBC News. The Drug Enforcement Administration is expected to approve an opinion by the Department of Health and Human Services that marijuana should be reclassified from the most strict Schedule I to the less stringent Schedule III, marking the first time that the U.S. government would acknowledge its potential medical benefits and begin studying them in earnest. The Justice Department "continues to work on this rule," a Biden administration official said. "We have no further comment at this time." Since 1971, marijuana has been in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines and LSD. Each substance under the Schedule I classification is defined as a drug with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule III substances include Tylenol with codeine, steroids and testosterone. By rescheduling cannabis, the drug would now be studied and researched to identify concrete medical benefits, opening the door for pharmaceutical companies to get involved with the sale and distribution of medical marijuana in states where it is legal.  For the $34 billion cannabis industry, the move would also eliminate significant tax burdens for businesses in states where the drug is legal, notably getting rid of the Internal Revenue Services code Section 280E which currently prohibits legal cannabis companies from deducting what would otherwise be ordinary business expenses. The Department of Justice’s rescheduling decision could also help shrink the black market which has thrived despite legalization in states like New York and California and has undercut legal markets that are fiercely regulated and highly taxed.

#marijuana #biden administration

[stupittmoran]

This is Ross Ulbricht. 10 years ago today, Ross was arrested for creating a website.

If the government gets their way, he'll die in prison.

Ross is serving a double life sentence plus 40 years for, again, creating a website.

If that sounds ridiculous and infuriating to you, keep reading. It gets worse.

Ross created a website called Silk Road, which he designed to be a free market, secure, anonymous marketplace. It used Bicoin for payment, and utilized a system called Tor which allowed buyers and sellers to access it anonymously and without any trace.

An avid libertarian, Ross prohibited anything being sold on Silk Road that violated the Non-Aggression Principle.

This included stolen items, counterfeit/fraudulent items, child p**n, assassinations, etc.

A devout believer in nonviolence, Ross also prohibited the sale of weapons.

Many items that were sold on Silk Road were legal, and a third-party study of the site inventory by Carnegie-Mellon University concluded that the drugs most commonly sold were small amounts of cannabis.

Most importantly, Ross was not convicted for selling, buying, or being in proximity to any of the items that were sold on Silk Road, legal or illegal.

He was convicted for what others did on the site.

Imagine if Elon, or Zuck, or any of the other owners of web platforms were charged for what other people did on them.

On October of 2013, Ross was arrested by the FBI and charged with money laundering conspiracy, computer hacking conspiracy, fake ID trafficking conspiracy and narcotics trafficking. (Ross did not actually launder money, hack computers or sell illegal items himself. These charges were based on what users listed on the site.)

After his arrest, the prosecution fraudulently alleged that Ross attempted to have several people killed, but never charged him for this at trial, and his supposed "victim", Curtis Green, publicly stated that those allegations were false. He is a fervent supporter of Ross.

Despite the fact that these false, unproven allegations were never prosecuted, the federal government used them in the media to paint Ross as some kind of violent criminal kingpin, despite the fact that he was nonviolent and lived a very meager life, living with 3 other roommates in an apartment.

The FBI also seized over 144,000 Bitcoin that they found in a shared wallet on Ross's computer, which today is worth over $3.8 billion.

During Ross's trial:

Evidence and testimony showing that multiple people ran the website was banned from being discussed at trial.

Ross's defense team was not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses or present their own witnesses

Key exonerating evidence was blocked by the judge

The prosecution was permitted to allege to the jury that Ross had hired hits on people despite never charging him with this or allowing him the opportunity to defend himself against the allegation

The jury found Ross guilty on all charges, and the judge sentenced this first-time, nonviolent person to double life plus 40 years without parole.

After Ross's trial, two of the key investigating federal agents were convicted on corruption charges related to Ross's case. Their existence was hidden from the jury during trial.

Despite all of this, Ross’s conviction was lost on appeal, and the Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

There is no other way to say it: Ross was railroaded by a corrupt federal government that wanted to make an example of him and steal his Bitcoin.

During his 10 years in prison, Ross has continued to be a model citizen, teaching classes and tutoring his fellow inmates and helping them to earn their GEDs. He has also completed several educational programs himself and has never received a single disciplinary sanction.

Ross Ulbricht is a peaceful, nonviolent man who has never harmed anyone and whose only "crime" was to create a website that other people used to sell drugs that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

And for this, he's already spent a decade in prison.

If he is not pardoned, or his sentence commuted, he will die there.

That is unacceptable, and it is long past time for Ross to be set free.

Obama could have set Ross free with the stroke of a pen, but he wouldn't.

Neither would Trump.

Neither has Biden.

Let's replace them with someone who will.

Ross, I am sorry for what you're going through, and I will not stop fighting for your freedom until you're back home where you belong.

Free Ross Ulbricht.

Spike Cohen on Twitter/X

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A top House Democrat has reintroduced a bill to federally legalize, tax and regulate marijuana, with provisions to expunge prior cannabis convictions.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, refiled the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act on Wednesday. There are 33 initial cosponsors—all Democrats.

The comprehensive legalization legislation has passed the House twice in recent sessions—but this marks the first time it’s being introduced with Republicans in control of the chamber, raising serious questions about whether it will move. The Judiciary Committee, which is the primary panel of jurisdiction, is chaired by anti-cannabis Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).

Even the prospects of a modest marijuana banking bill that’s set for committee action in the Senate next week are uncertain in the House under the GOP majority. That said, a GOP-led House panel did advance legislation on Wednesday to prevent the denial of federal employment or security clearances based on a candidate’s past cannabis use.

In any case, advocates have long touted the MORE Act as an example of the type of wide-ranging cannabis reform legislation that would not only end prohibition but take steps to right the wrongs of prohibition and promote social equity.

Here are details about the key provisions of the MORE Act:

“Nadler’s MORE Act would deschedule marijuana by removing it from the list of federally banned drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, it would not require states to legalize cannabis and would maintain a level of regulatory discretion up to states.

Marijuana products would be subject to a federal excise tax, starting at 5% for the first two years after enactment and rising to 8% by the fifth year of implementation.

Nobody could be denied federal public benefits based solely on the use or possession of marijuana or past juvenile conviction for a cannabis offense. Federal agencies couldn’t use 'past or present cannabis or marijuana use as criteria for granting, denying, or rescinding a security clearance.'

People could not be penalized under federal immigration laws for any cannabis related activity or conviction, whether it occurred before or after the enactment of the legalization legislation.

The bill creates a process for expungements of non-violent federal marijuana convictions.

Tax revenue from cannabis sales would be placed in a new 'Opportunity Trust Fund.' Half of those tax dollars would support a 'Community Reinvestment Grant Program' under the Justice Department, 10% would support substance misuse treatment programs, 40% would go to the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) to support implementation and a newly created equitable licensing grant program.

The Community Reinvestment Grant Program would 'fund eligible non-profit community organizations to provide a variety of services for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs…to include job training, reentry services, legal aid for civil and criminal cases (including for expungement of cannabis convictions), among others.'

The program would further support funding for substance misuse treatment for people from communities disproportionately impacted by drug criminalization. Those funds would be available for programs offering services to people with substance misuse disorders for any drug, not just cannabis.

While the bill wouldn’t force states to adopt legalization, it would create incentives to promote equity. For example, SBA would facilitate a program to providing licensing grants to states and localities that have moved to expunge records for people with prior marijuana convictions or 'taken steps to eliminate violations or other penalties for persons still under State or local criminal supervision for a cannabis-related offense or violation for conduct now lawful under State or local law.'

The bill’s proposed Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program would provide funds 'for loans to assist small business concerns that are owned and controlled by individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs in eligible States and localities.'

The comptroller general, in consultation with the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), would be required to carry out a study on the demographics of people who have faced federal marijuana convictions, 'including information about the age, race, ethnicity, sex, and gender identity.'

The Departments of Treasury, Justice and the SBA would need to 'issue or amend any rules, standard operating procedures, and other legal or policy guidance necessary to carry out implementation of the MORE Act' within one year of its enactment.

Marijuana producers and importers would also need to obtain a federal permit. And they would be subject to a $1,000 per year federal tax as well for each premise they operate.

The bill would impose certain packaging and labeling requirements.

It also prescribes penalties for unlawful conduct such as illegal, unlicensed production or importation of cannabis products.

The Treasury Secretary would be required to carry out a study 'on the characteristics of the cannabis industry, with recommendations to improve the regulation of the industry and related taxes.'

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) would be required to 'regularly compile, maintain, and make public data on the demographics' of marijuana business owners and workers.

Workers in 'safety sensitive' positions, such as those regulated by the Department of Transportation, could continue to be drug tested for THC and face penalties for unauthorized use. Federal workers would also continue to be subject to existing drug testing policies.

References to 'marijuana' or 'marihuana' under federal statute would be changed to 'cannabis.' It’s unclear if that would also apply to the title of the bill itself.”

Some advocates say that the MORE Act’s time has passed, however, and that it doesn’t realistically grapple with the need to enact truly justice-focused legalization through a fair and equitable market.

“The MORE Act was never meant to be a bill to address the real needs of federal regulations,” Shaleen Title, founder and director, Parabola Center for Law and Policy, told Marijuana Moment. “It was a historic bill when it was first introduced to address systemic racial disparities and demonstrate that social justice must be addressed in federal reform, but has never fully addressed the economic justice side of the equation.”

“We’re in a period of rapid corporate consolidation, with a real possibility that big pharmaceutical corporations will be entering the industry in the near future,” she said. “Outdated legalization bills like this would quickly allow for monopolization, putting small farmers and mom-and-pop shops out of business and undermining the public health and racial equity goals of most state cannabis programs. They should all be updated with an intentional regulatory structure and a thoughtful plan to transition to a national market.”

#us politics #news #marijuana moment #2023 #us house of representatives #Rep. Jerry Nadler #Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act #more act #House Judiciary Committee #Rep. Jim Jordan #cannabis #marijuana #legalize it #controlled substances act #expungement of past convictions #non-violent federal marijuana convictions #Small Business Administration #Community Reinvestment Grant Program #war on drugs #Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program #Department of Health and Human Services #department of Treasury #department of justice #Bureau of Labor Statistics #department of transportation #Shaleen Title #Parabola Center for Law and Policy

[inkandguns]

Fuck off, ATF.

I saw about a half dozen cops on some SERIOUS drugs when I worked medical. Addicted to opioids and benzos and fucked up out of their minds on the job, nobody batted an eye. They’ve been trying to use that stupid anti-cannabis rule for guns to ruin the cannabis industry. Nice try fuckers but you can’t strip human rights no matter how bad democrats want to.

[detroitammoco]

ATF: Until recreational cannabis is federally legalized, pot users cannot own guns.

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on Tuesday released clarification for gun owners and potential gun owners with Minnesota's recreational cannabis bill officially signed into law.

According to the ATF's St. Paul Field Division, the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits anyone who is an unlawful user of any controlled substance - as defined by the later Controlled Substances Act of 1970 - from "shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition."

"Until marijuana is legalized federally, firearms owners and possessors should be mindful that it remains federally illegal to mix marijuana with firearms and ammunition," said ATF's Acting Special Agent in Charge Jeff Reed, of the St. Paul Field Division. "As regulators of the firearms industry and enforcers of firearms laws, we felt it was important to remind Minnesotans of this distinction as the marijuana laws adjust here in the State of Minnesota."

#suppressor #rifle #rifles #guyswhoshoot #girlsthatshoot #silencer #girlswhoshoot #guns #pistols #girlswithguns #cannabis

[news-wtf]

Up until two years ago, Jersey City police were arresting people caught smoking marijuana -- but now, cops are fighting for the chance to legally consume the drug while off duty.

The problem is federal law bars officers from possessing firearms and ammunition if they use cannabis, but officers say the law goes too far and they have filed a lawsuit.

The city has been supportive of the state's marijuana laws passed two years ago, but they are now calling for a federal judge to make it clear that police officers are not allowed to use pot, even when off duty.

The city fired five police officers who tested positive for using pot. Officials made that decision because police officers are required to carry guns.

Federal law prohibits anyone from carrying a gun if they use marijuana, which is still listed as a schedule one drug.

The fired officers have sued, claiming state law allows them to use marijuana, which has created a contradiction.

[beleafmebc]

"What You Need to Know About Washington, DC's Growing Number of Cannabis Dispensaries" in 500 words

Due to the city's evolving attitude toward marijuana legalization, Washington, DC has experienced a considerable increase in the number of cannabis shops in recent years. What you need to know about this changing scenario is provided here.

First off, Initiative 71, which was enacted in 2015, is largely responsible for the increase of cannabis stores. This initiative made it lawful for adults 21 and older to possess, grow, and give away up to two ounces of marijuana, but it did not make it legal for them to sell it. Despite the ban on sales, a special "gifting" system developed whereby buying another item or making a donation to a certain cause would frequently result in a "gift" of cannabis.

Legislators have now taken steps to control and tax marijuana transactions, converting these gifting economies into respectable companies. Cannabis dispensaries have opened up more frequently in the city as a result of this effort, which has been fueled by the prospect of new economic prospects and a soaring consumer market.

It's important to keep in mind that not all dispensaries are made equal as this sector grows. Product quality, cost, and customer service at dispensaries vary. Many dispensaries provide a variety of edibles and strains of cannabis that are specifically formulated to treat medical problems like chronic pain, anxiety, and sleeplessness. Others concentrate on the recreational aspect of things, providing a variety of strains intended for unwinding, inspiration, or social interaction.

Research is recommended before visiting a dispensary. For customer feedback, look through social media accounts and internet reviews. Verify that the dispensary has a license and abides by all local and state laws.

Additionally, bear in mind that despite marijuana being legal in DC, it is still categorized as a Schedule I substance under federal law. This indicates that it is prohibited to use or possess marijuana on federal property. This is a crucial disclaimer for locals and visitors alike given that a sizable chunk of DC is federal property.

Social equality initiatives are made possible by the cannabis industry's ongoing evolution in Washington, DC. To assist minority ownership in the cannabis sector, which has historically been monopolized by larger, frequently non-minority entities, some initiatives have been put in place. These social equity programs seek to assist persons affected by the War on Drugs by providing license priority, cost reductions, and business training.

In addition to signaling a change in the public's attitude toward marijuana, the increase of cannabis dispensaries in Washington, DC, also suggests a huge economic opportunity. Many municipal authorities are intrigued by the possibility that the tax proceeds from the legal sale of cannabis could contribute significantly to funding for various public services and infrastructure.

Finally, while the growing cannabis sector in Washington, DC is a fascinating phenomenon, it is also a complicated one with important ramifications for public policy, social equity, and public health. Both locals and visitors will need to stay knowledgeable to navigate this expanding market safely and ethically as more dispensaries open their doors and as the legal landscape continues to change.

About US

At Beleaf, we believe that cannabis can help you tap into your inner creativity and unlock your full potential. Our products are carefully curated to provide a range of experiences that can inspire you to be more creative, artistic, and innovative. Whether you're looking for a strain that will help you focus on a particular task or something that will allow your mind to wander, we have something for you.

1815 Wisconsin Ave nw Washington DC 20007

Monday - Sunday: 9am - 11pm

[email protected]

[phone]

#marijuana dispensary #cannabis #weed strains #weed stuff #flowers

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Julie Tsirkin and Monica Alba at NBC News:

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration will take a historic step toward easing federal restrictions on cannabis, with plans to announce an interim rule soon reclassifying the drug for the first time since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted more than 50 years ago, four sources with knowledge of the decision tell NBC News. The Drug Enforcement Administration is expected to approve an opinion by the Department of Health and Human Services that marijuana should be reclassified from the most strict Schedule I to the less stringent Schedule III, marking the first time that the U.S. government would acknowledge its potential medical benefits and begin studying them in earnest. Attorney General Merrick Garland will submit the rescheduling proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget as early as Tuesday afternoon, a source familiar with the timeline told NBC News. The Justice Department "continues to work on this rule," a Biden administration official said. "We have no further comment at this time."

What rescheduling means

Since 1971, marijuana has been in the same category as heroin, methamphetamines and LSD. Each substance under the Schedule I classification is defined as a drug with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule III substances include Tylenol with codeine, steroids and testosterone. By rescheduling cannabis, the drug would now be studied and researched to identify concrete medical benefits, opening the door for pharmaceutical companies to get involved with the sale and distribution of medical marijuana in states where it is legal.  For the $34 billion cannabis industry, the move would also eliminate significant tax burdens for businesses in states where the drug is legal, notably getting rid of the Internal Revenue Services code Section 280E which currently prohibits legal cannabis companies from deducting what would otherwise be ordinary business expenses. The Department of Justice’s rescheduling decision could also help shrink the black market which has thrived despite legalization in states like New York and California and has undercut legal markets that are fiercely regulated and highly taxed.

The Biden Administration announces its plans to reclassify marijuana from the stringent Schedule I to the much more lenient Schedule III, following recommendations from the HHS and the DEA.

#Marijuana #Marijuana Legalization #DEA #Biden Administration #HHS #Schedule I #Schedule III

[brightlotusmoon]

Top Federal Health Agency Says Marijuana Should Be Moved To Schedule III In Historic Recommendation To DEA - Marijuana Moment

As a Schedule III drug, cannabis would still remain federally prohibited. However, the rescheduling would have major implications for researchers who’ve long criticized the Schedule I classification that creates significant barriers to access for studies.

“Following the data and science, HHS has expeditiously responded to President Biden’s directive to HHS Secretary Becerra and provided its scheduling recommendation for marijuana to the DEA on August 29, 2023,” an HHS spokesperson said in a statement to Marijuana Moment on Wednesday. “This administrative process was completed in less than 11 months, reflecting this department’s collaboration and leadership to ensure that a comprehensive scientific evaluation be completed and shared expeditiously.”

Moving cannabis to Schedule III would also unlock marijuana industry tax opportunities that are currently unavailable.

[naturalrights-retard]

President Joe Biden thinks it is unfair that people convicted of simple marijuana possession face lingering consequences for doing something that he says should not be treated as a crime. Biden cited those burdens last October, when he announced a mass pardon of low-level federal marijuana offenders, which he said would help "thousands of people who were previously convicted of simple possession" and "who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result." Yet the Biden administration, which recently began accepting applications for pardon certificates aimed at ameliorating those consequences after dragging its feet for five months, is actively defending another blatantly unjust disability associated with cannabis consumption: the loss of Second Amendment rights.

Under federal law, it is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for an "unlawful user" of a "controlled substance" to possess firearms. The ban applies to all cannabis consumers, even if they live in one of the 37 states that have legalized medical or recreational use. That disability, a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled last month, is not "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Justice Department recently filed a notice indicating that it intends to appeal the decision against the gun ban for marijuana users.

The Biden administration's defense of the ban relies on empirically and historically dubious assertions about the sort of people who deserve to exercise the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Among other things, the Justice Department argues that "the people" covered by the Second Amendment do not include Americans who break the law, no matter how trivial the offense. It also argues that marijuana users are ipso facto untrustworthy and unvirtuous, which it says makes them ineligible for gun rights.

According to the Biden administration, the original understanding of the right to arms included exceptions broad enough to encompass people who consume any intoxicant that legislators might one day decide to prohibit. It says the law criminalizing gun possession by cannabis consumers is analogous to laws targeting "intoxicated" people who carry guns in public places.

Judge Allen Winsor, whom Donald Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in 2019, accepted that last argument in November. Winsor dismissed a lawsuit in which Nikki Fried, a Democrat who was then Florida's commissioner of agriculture and consumer affairs, argued that medical marijuana patients have a constitutional right to own guns. Winsor agreed with the Biden administration that they do not.

By way of historical precedent, Winsor noted colonial and state laws enacted in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that prohibited people from either carrying or firing guns "while intoxicated." The analogy was strained, since those laws, which applied only when people were under the influence, did not apply in private settings and did not categorically prohibit drinkers from owning guns. Although Fried's Republican successor declined to appeal Winsor's decision, the patients who joined the lawsuit are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to review their case.

Another Trump appointee, Judge Patrick Wyrick of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, disagreed with Winsor in response to a challenge brought by a dispensary employee who was charged with violating the federal ban on gun possession by marijuana users. In a February 3 ruling, Wyrick said the government had failed to meet the Bruen test.

In trying to do so, Wyrick noted, the Justice Department had cited "ignominious historical restrictions" that disarmed slaves, Catholics, loyalists, and Native Americans. He rejected the government's argument that such precedents showed it was constitutional to withhold Second Amendment rights from any group that legislators deem "untrustworthy."

Wyrick was similarly unimpressed by the Biden administration's claim that the Second Amendment includes a "vague 'virtue' requirement.'" That theory, he said, is "belied by the historical record" and "inconsistent" with District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the amendment guarantees an individual right to keep firearms for self-defense.

Although simple marijuana possession is a misdemeanor, the Justice Department argued that illegal drug use frequently entails felonious conduct even when a drug user has not been convicted of a felony. Wyrick was dismayed by the government's claim that any violation of the law that legislators classify as a felony is enough to justify the nullification of someone's Second Amendment rights.

"History and tradition support disarming persons who have demonstrated their dangerousness through past violent, forceful, or threatening conduct," Wyrick wrote. "There is no historical tradition of disarming a person solely based on that person having engaged in felonious conduct."

Such a policy, Wyrick warned, would be an open-ended license to deprive people of their Second Amendment rights. "A legislature could circumvent the Second Amendment by deeming every crime, no matter how minor, a felony, so as to deprive as many of its citizens of their right to possess a firearm as possible," he wrote. "Imagine a world where the State of New York, to end-run the adverse judgment it received in Bruen, could make mowing one's lawn a felony so that it could then strip all its newly deemed 'felons' of their right to possess a firearm."

Wyrick posed that very hypothetical to the government's lawyers. "Remarkably," he said, "when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said 'yes.' So, in the federal government's view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm."

Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, also rejects the Biden administration's position. "The governor stands for protecting Floridians' constitutional rights—including 2nd Amendment rights," his office said after Fried filed her lawsuit. "Floridians should not be deprived of a constitutional right for using a medication lawfully."

The National Rifle Association (NRA), which for years declined to challenge the rule that Fried argued was unconstitutional, now goes even further than DeSantis. Amy Hunter, the NRA's director of media relations, recently told me "it would be unjust for the federal government to punish or deprive a person of a constitutional right for using a substance their state government has, as a matter of public policy, legalized."

This controversy is part of a broader debate about the constitutionality of criminalizing gun possession by broad categories of "prohibited persons." In addition to "unlawful" drug users, those categories include anyone who was ever subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment, whether or not he was deemed a threat to others and regardless of his current mental health, and anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, whether or not it involved violence and no matter how long ago it occurred.

Critics of the latter rule, including Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, argue that it is broader than the Second Amendment allows. The relevant history indicates that "legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns," Barrett wrote in a 2019 dissent as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. "But that power extends only to people who are dangerous."

The ongoing litigation over the gun ban for cannabis consumers means that two appeals courts, the 11th Circuit and the 10th Circuit, will have a chance to weigh in on the question.* Appeals courts, including the 7th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, previously have deferred to the congressional assertion of a drug exception to the Second Amendment based on hand-waving references to an association between drug use and violence. But those decisions were issued before Bruen established a more demanding constitutional test for gun control laws. That historical test explicitly rules out "any judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry' that 'asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.'"

Whatever the appeals courts ultimately decide, it is more than a little odd that the Biden administration says marijuana use is not serious enough to justify criminal penalties or the practical difficulties that a conviction entails yet somehow is serious enough to nullify a constitutional guarantee. That contradiction is a measure of how committed Biden is to a vision of Second Amendment rights that makes them contingent on legislative whims.

[neuropsyche]

Senate Democrats Introduce Bill To Lift Federal Ban On Weed | HuffPost Latest News

Fucking vote for fucking sake! Make this bill pass!

[axvoter]

Blatantly Partisan Party Review XIII (NSW 2023): Legalise Cannabis Party

Prior reviews (most as the Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party): federal 2013, federal 2016, federal 2019, federal 2022, VIC 2022

What I said before: “They want cannabis to be regulated no differently to alcohol and tobacco. In the last couple of years, they have clearly matured in their approach and become more organised. But, being the party that they are, they promote legalising cannabis for a whole host of reasons, some of which are quite sensible such as medicinal use, industry regulation, public revenue, and reducing expenditure on law enforcement, while some of the larger claims about economic and environmental transformation are, um, optimistic.”

What I think this year: What I said above. Blaze it, but don’t blaze it too much.

This is a single-issue party and their policy platform does not come close to providing a framework for addressing the bulk of parliamentary business. They’ve won representation in WA and Victoria, and in WA one of their two MLCs was suspended from parliament after spouting anti-vax nonsense. It’s a good lesson on why you should be cautious with single-issue parties, but my main concern remains with ideology rather than personality: no single-issue party can possibly present a platform that gives voters an adequate idea of how a prospective parliamentarian will vote on most legislation. Get an ideology or go home.

Recommendation: Give the Legalise Cannabis Party a decent preference.

Website:https://legalisecannabis.org.au/

#auspol #NSWvotes #NSWvotes2023 #NSW #Election 2023 #NSW election #Legalise Cannabis Party #Legalise Cannabis #Legalise Cannabis NSW #Help End Marijuana Prohibition #legalise it #decent preference

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Marijuana was the big topic at the Capitol on Thursday, with a hearing on two bills that would legalize recreational use and sales in Nebraska.

LB 22, by Sen. Justin Wayne of Omaha, would decriminalize use and possession of the drug.

LB 634, by Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha would allow for the sale of cannabis to anyone over 21.

“The federal government continues to cling on, as it does today, to a policy that has origins in racism, xenophobia, and whose principal effect has been to ruin the lives of many generations of people,” McKinney said.

LB 634 would also focus on helping people of color and low-income individuals, who McKinney said are disproportionately targeted for possession of marijuana by law enforcement.

Some testifiers said Nebraskans have wanted these bills for years.

“The polls show consistently, the people of the state want cannabis legal in some form,” said Spike Eickholt with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska. “You may not like the forms of these bills, but ultimately, what might happen is that the voters are just going to approve something you really don’t like, and then you’re going to be stuck with it.”

One concern brought up by the opposition was how the black market contributes to marijuana sales.

“The black market is alive and well in states that have legal marijuana and in states that have illegal marijuana,” said Col. John Bolduc, the superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol. “I believe one of the testifiers suggested that it’s easy to access and it’s affordable. That’s true.”

Bolduc said if the bills are passed, the black market would undercut legitimate businesses.

Lorelle Mueting of Heartland Family Service said legalization would put the safety of everyone in the state at risk.

“When people use it more, we will inevitably see more impairment problems that affect more than just the person using,” Mueting said. “Marijuana is a psychoactive substance, which means it causes a high, and when under the influence of THC, a person does not have the ability to make good decisions.”

Under the legislation, the drug would be taxed, which supporters said could bring millions in revenue to the state.

“Prohibitionists must understand that prohibition isn’t working, hasn’t worked and never will work,” Jerry Moler said.

The Judiciary Committee only heard testimony on the bills, but it could vote on them as early as next week.

#us politics #news #Nebraska #2023 #legalize cannabis #legalize marijuana #legalize drugs #war on drugs #black market #Justin Wayne #Terrell McKinney #LB 22 #LB 634 #American Civil Liberties Union #Spike Eickholt #Nebraska Senate Judiciary Committee #Nebraska legislature