Tag: legalized marijuana

Pennsylvania Lawmakers File Bill To Help Small Farmers Enter Marijuana Industry If The State Enacts Legalization

Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow farmers and other small agriculture operators to sell marijuana they cultivate to existing growers and and processors if the state moves to legalize adult-use cannabis.

As the legislature once again takes up the issue of marijuana legalization, Rep, Melissa Shusterman (D) and five colleagues filed the legislation on Thursday in a bid to ensure that the industry is inclusive to small farmers, creating a permitting process so they’re able to make inroads with larger operators.

“As more and more states legalize adult-use cannabis, it is only a matter of time before Pennsylvania does the same,” Shusterman said in a cosponsorship memo. “When adult-use cannabis is finally legalized in Pennsylvania, it is my belief that everyone should have accessible and equitable entry into the adult-use cannabis industry, including farmers and small enterprises.”

“Enabling local cultivation would allow Pennsylvania farmers and their communities to benefit from the legalization of adult-use cannabis. Moreover, this legislation would protect participation in the industry by farmers in the Commonwealth,” she said. “The legalization process must ensure PA’s farmers have fair access to this new market so that sales revenue and profits remain in PA.”

Whether the Pennsylvania legislature does legalize marijuana this session remains to be seen, with mixed opinions among Democratic and Republican leadership about the prospects of reform. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) also included the policy change in his latest budget request.

But if prohibition is ended, the new bill would take a number of steps to provide for equitable access to industry participation.

Keep reading

New Delaware Marijuana Bill Addresses Dispute With FBI That Has Threatened To Delay State’s Recreational Market

Delaware lawmakers have filed legislation meant to fix an issue with the state’s marijuana legalization law that led FBI to reject its request to create a fingerprint background check system for would-be cannabis industry workers.

Rep. Ed Osienski (D) and Sen. Trey Paradee (D), who championed the legalization bills that were enacted into law in 2023, said on Thursday that FBI’s decision to deny the state’s request for a background check service code is a “disappointing setback,” but they’re hopeful that their new proposal will address the problem.

While state regulators have been planning to license the first recreational cannabis businesses in April, the enacted statute requires the background checks to be in place first. Without a legislative fix, the market launch will likely be delayed.

“I know this is a disappointing setback, especially for the entrepreneurs who have invested so much and the consumers who have been anxiously waiting for legal access,” Osienski said in a press release. “But I’m optimistic that this bill will provide the necessary fix to get Delaware’s adult-use cannabis market back on track.”

Keep reading

Indiana Lawmakers Weigh Widespread Ban On All Marijuana Advertising, Not Just On Billboards

Indiana lawmakers could ban all marijuana advertising within state lines under an amendment adopted Monday in a transportation-focused committee. It goes beyond the billboard-specific prohibition taken in a Senate panel last week.

Rep. Jim Pressel (R-Rolling Prairie) said his community is “inundated” with billboards advertising illegal marijuana. The district is near Michigan, which has legalized it.

But that’s not all.

“My constituents, myself included, receive up to two—what would look like political mailers—a week advertising an illegal substance” at dispensaries in nearby New Buffalo, per Pressel. He chairs the House Roads and Transportation Committee.

He commandeered Senate Bill 73, dealing with utility trailer sales, for an amendment outlawing the advertising of marijuana and other drugs on Indiana’s list of Schedule I controlled substances. Indiana’s attorney general could sue for injunctions, civil penalties of up to $15,000 and “reasonable costs” incurred throughout the investigation and lawsuit.

“I’ve heard about [how] the First Amendment, I’m trampling on it. I don’t believe that to be true,” Pressel told the committee. He cited a federal appeals court decision that, “basically, if it’s a criminal activity, you have no First Amendment right to advertise. That’s my understanding.”

The ban would take effect upon the bill’s passage. Advertising from contracts entered into or renewed before the approval date would be exempt.

The committee accepted the edits by consent.

Keep reading

New York Movie Theaters Could Sell Marijuana And Allow Consumption During Films Under Forthcoming Licenses, Official Says

A New York official says there are plans in the works to expand permitting and licensing rules that could allow adults to buy and consume marijuana at movie theaters.

While many theaters across the country currently let moviegoers purchase and drink alcohol, that’s not the case for cannabis—even in states where marijuana has been legalized.

“At this time, cannabis can only be sold at legal, licensed adult-use dispensaries or legal, licensed adult-use microbusinesses,” New York Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) Press Secretary Taylor Randi Lee told Variety.

“For theaters to serve recreational marijuana at their establishments, they would need either an events permit or consumption lounge license,” she was quoted as saying in a story the trade publication ran about ways that theaters can appeal to audiences to buy tickets. “New York State does not have either yet but plans to in the future.”

The idea of potentially expanding permitting to authorize sales of cannabis products at movie theaters would set New York apart as it continues to build upon the state’s legalization law.

OCM’s comments come days after Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a pair of companion bills into law that are meant to expand New York’s marijuana farmers market program, allowing for more partnerships between licensed cannabis businesses and standalone “pop-up” events.

Keep reading

Delaware Bill Aims To Relax Buffer Zones Between Marijuana Businesses

A new state bill is being proposed that would give marijuana operators more options to place their shops throughout Delaware but may also inflame opponents who have sought restrictions.

The bill comes as local municipalities and counties continue to debate where marijuana shops should be allowed, following the legalization of the recreational marijuana market in 2023, which is set to launch soon.

The restrictions have led to about a third of Delaware’s municipalities deciding to ban marijuana shops outright from their town limits.

Under the current state law, municipalities are allowed to ban marijuana businesses, but counties are only allowed to set restrictions on where they can operate.

The new bill, Senate Bill 75, sponsored by State Sen. Trey Paradee (D-Dover) and filed late last week, will force the state’s three counties to decrease the buffers they created between marijuana shops and sensitive areas like schools, treatment facilities and libraries down to no more than 500 feet.

Paradee said the bill is aimed at addressing concerns that marijuana shop licensees are facing in Sussex County, as more than half of its towns have opted out of having marijuana shops in their jurisdictions and the county has set the widest buffers between shops and sensitive areas at 3,000 feet.

“They effectively made marijuana illegal in Sussex County, and that’s not what the voters of the state want, and that is not what the General Assembly voted for,” Paradee said.

He said the bill will also address the frustrations of business license holders in New Castle County, where some licensees told Paradee they also cannot find eligible space to operate. The northernmost county currently has a buffer set at 1,000 feet.

Keep reading

Federal Official Downplays Criticism That Saliva-Based Marijuana Testing As Urine Alternative Would Spur Use By Truckers

Amid ongoing discussions about how to ensure drivers aren’t impaired by marijuana, a federal official recently pushed back on criticism that proposed implementation of saliva-based drug testing could incentivize more cannabis use by commercial truckers.

In comments to the publication Transit Topics, an unidentified official from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) responded to assertions from the CEO of a drug-testing company that oral fluid testing “means truckers who use cannabis will be able to do so with near impunity, as long as they avoid a drug test for a couple of days.”

The contention of the CEO—Ken Fichtler, of Gaize—was that the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) “shift to oral fluid testing will have serious consequences for the trucking industry” because saliva testing has a shorter detection window than typical urine-based testing. He said the tests detect use within the past “24 to 48 hours,” which is far shorter than the period of weeks when marijuana metabolites can be detected in urine.

DOT finalized the new testing policies in 2023 to allow oral saliva drug testing as an alternative to urine-based tests.

The SAMHSA official, granted anonymity by Transit Topics, disputed Fichtler’s claims—both on the test’s detection window itself and the implications of DOT’s revised testing policies for truckers’ marijuana use.

“In referenced journal articles, cannabis use can be detected via oral fluid testing for up to 72 hours,” the official said. “When a donor receives a request for collection, the donor will not know if the test will be an oral fluid or urine collection until they arrive at the collection facility for a federal agency.”

Not knowing whether to expect a saliva or urine test, in other words, would prevent the situation described by Fichtler of drivers simply stopping marijuana use a few days before a saliva-based test.

Keep reading

Feds Say Marijuana Can Be ‘Summarily’ Seized From State-Legal Businesses—But Not If It’s Rescheduled

Federal agencies tasked with border security are contesting a lawsuit from New Mexico marijuana businesses that have had their state-legal products and other assets seized—arguing that, because cannabis is a Schedule I drug under federal law, it can be “summarily” taken.

But that might not be the case if marijuana was moved to Schedule III, the the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) suggested in a new federal court filing.

As a proposal to federally reschedule cannabis sits in limbo—with administrative hearings on the Biden administration-initiated reform effort delayed at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)—the agencies indicated that the potential policy change could impact their own forfeiture authorities.

In a memorandum submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on Friday, DHS and CBP expanded on several previously voiced arguments on why the judge should support their motion to have the underlying lawsuit dismissed, challenging the idea that the marijuana-related seizures from state-licensed cannabis businesses is unconstitutional.

As they previously emphasized, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), and so seizing the property at border checkpoints within New Mexico is consistent with federal law, regardless of the state’s decision to legalize cannabis.

“It is beyond dispute that the Controlled Substances Act is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, it says.

It acknowledged that DEA is currently considering rescheduling. However, since “no reclassification has occurred to date, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance.”

Notably, the memorandum suggested that the forfeiture process would be different if cannabis was classified as a Schedule III drug or lower.

Keep reading

California Supreme Court Rules Federal Prohibition Doesn’t Block Marijuana Businesses From Transporting Products

California’s Supreme Court delivered a victory for the state’s marijuana program, rescinding a lower court ruling in a case that suggested federal prohibition could be used locally to undermine the cannabis market.

The case in question concerns a lawsuit filed by a company in Santa Barbara County that objected to the use of an easement, which is a right to use another person’s property, for the transportation of state-legal cannabis products. A state appellate court sided with the company, ruling in January that federal law preempted the state’s and that the easement could not be utilized for marijuana transport.

But the highest court in the state has now reversed that decision, rescinding the ruling.

“We are pleased the Court agreed to address that Court of Appeal decision at the Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) request, supporting California law and its legal cannabis industry,” DCC Director Nicole Elliott said in a press release on Thursday.

While the case—JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara—was specific to the company and county, DCC said that the appeals court’s original decision “suggested more broadly that California’s cannabis regulations were unlawful because cannabis is federally illegal.”

Without an intervening decision from the state Supreme Court to rescind the opinion, that could have opened the state up to litigation challenging other parts of its marijuana laws.

Keep reading

Minnesota Judge Rules That Native American Man Can Be Prosecuted Over Marijuana Possession On Reservation Despite State Legalization

A Minnesota district court judge ruled that the state may prosecute Native Americans on most reservations for possessing large amounts of marijuana, allowing a felony case against a White Earth man to proceed.

The ruling is the first—though likely not the last—to address state law enforcement’s jurisdiction over marijuana in Indian Country since Minnesota legalized its recreational use in 2023.

Todd Thompson, a White Earth citizen, faces a felony possession charge with a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine for selling marijuana without a license from his tobacco store in Mahnomen on the White Earth reservation.

Mahnomen County sheriff’s deputies and White Earth tribal police raided his store on August 2, 2023, a day after recreational cannabis became legal in Minnesota, and seized about 7.5 pounds of cannabis, 433 grams of marijuana wax and $2,748 in cash along with Thompson’s cell phone and surveillance system.

Thompson asked Mahnomen County District Judge Seamus Duffy to dismiss the charge, arguing that the state doesn’t have the legal jurisdiction to prosecute him.

Under what’s called Public Law 280, Minnesota has the power to prosecute tribal members on certain reservations including White Earth’s for criminal acts but not civil or regulatory violations of state law. Thompson and his attorney, Claire Glenn, argued that after cannabis was legalized in Minnesota, possessing and selling the drug became a regulatory matter, not a criminal one.

The judge, in a ruling issued earlier this month, disagreed. He wrote that the possession of “non-personal, non-recreational amounts of marijuana in public is generally prohibited,” and that just because the state may issue licenses to businesses to sell marijuana, doesn’t mean it’s only a regulatory matter. He pointed to a case in which a White Earth man was convicted of possessing a pistol without a permit on tribal land.

Keep reading