Tag: legalized marijuana

Ohio Senate Expected To Vote On Bill Recriminalizing Some Marijuana Activity That Voters Legalized

A new law that’s likely to pass at the Statehouse next week would establish a series of minor criminal penalties for people who improperly transport or possess marijuana in Ohio, while rolling back legal protections for users in venues like child custody or professional licensing disputes.

For that reason, NORML, the oldest marijuana advocacy organization in the U.S., is leading a quixotic effort to ask the Ohio Senate to reject Senate Bill 56 before a final vote next week.

With the Senate’s approval, the bill would go to Gov. Mike DeWine (R) for a signature or veto.

The marijuana changes come within a larger package that also imposes a comprehensive, new regulatory system on intoxicating hemp, a product that’s functionally similar to legal marijuana but sold without the age restrictions, taxes or quality controls. DeWine, a Republican who opposed relaxing Ohio’s marijuana laws, has made a public cause of the intoxicating hemp issue for more than a year now.

But perhaps out of a political compromise, marijuana users have found themselves caught in the crosshairs within the hemp crackdown, according to Morgan Fox, NORML’s political director.

“A lot of these things are completely nonsensical,” he said in an interview. “This is recriminalizing a lot of behavior that is relatively innocuous and has been legal for some time.”

House and Senate lawmakers negotiated a final version of the legislation in a conference committee, which means the bill can no longer be changed. The House passed it last month, with a late-night 52-34 vote, where a handful of Republicans joined Democrats in opposition.

Committee members described the final version as a compromise between a list of scrambled voting blocs: Democrats who don’t want new criminal penalties for run-of-the-mill users, libertarian-minded Republicans protective of the right to grow one’s own marijuana, religious conservatives who disapprove expanding the legal use of intoxicants, local governments who want their tax money, a governor seeking a crackdown on the gas station hemp retailers, and both the hemp and marijuana industries seeking market advantage. (All told, 153 lobbyists registered to work on the bill as of August, state records show.)

In 2023, Ohio voters passed Issue 2 by a 57 percent to 43 percent vote, allowing for adults to lawfully use, buy, sell and possess cannabis. Those rights remain broadly intact under the bill.

However, SB 56 imposes legal penalties for things like possessing marijuana in anything but its original container or buying legal marijuana in Michigan where it tends to be much cheaper.

What follows is a closer look at some of those rules.

Keep reading

Amid fraud claims, campaign to end Mass. adult-use cannabis claims win

The controversial bid to end Massachusetts’ $1.6 billion annual adult-use marijuana industry claimed yet another significant early victory.

Amid widening accusations of voter fraud, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts “is confident it has submitted enough signatures to put the question on the ballot” ahead of a Nov. 19 deadline, a campaign spokesperson told The Cannabis Business Times.

Ballot questions filed over the summer by lead sponsor Caroline Cunningham, a member of the state Republican Committee, seek to repeal Chapters 94G and 64N of the state’s General Laws.

If the “Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy” qualifies for the 2026 ballot and is approved by voters, adult-use cannabis retail sales would be outlawed in Massachusetts- though medical marijuana sales, home cultivation, and “gifting” between adults 21 and over would still be allowed.

Will Massachusetts vote to stop adult-use cannabis sales?

The campaign successfully collected a minimum of 74,574 signatures by Nov. 19 in order to qualify for a local vetting process ahead of another filing deadline Dec. 3, campaign spokesperson Wendy Wakeman told the Business Times.

Organizers have vowed to collect as many as 100,000 signatures.

And that’s despite mounting claims that signature-gatherers are using deceptive tactics to convince voters to sign the petition.

As MJBizDaily reported earlier this month, there are several accounts of campaign workers approaching voters while claiming the petition does something else, such as combat fentanyl or create housing.

Wakeman claimed in an MJBizDaily interview to have no knowledge or involvement with the alleged deceptive tactics. Campaign workers engaging in such behavior are volunteers and not paid signature gatherers, she said.

Cannabis industry advocates aren’t convinced.

Bid to stop Massachusetts adult-use marijuana sales accused of fraud

Such acts constitute voter fraud, according to the Massachusetts Cannabis Business Association, a statewide trade group.

It remains unclear what recourse cannabis advocates could pursue if the repeal campaign does indeed advance.

Using false claims to woo voters to sign is a protected free-speech activity under Massachusetts state law.

However, voters could petition local authorities to have their signatures removed and the petition disqualified if they feel they signed under false pretenses, elections observers have said.

Keep reading

Federal Appeals Court Deems Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers Unconstitutional, Dismissing Conviction

A federal court has tossed a firearms conviction against a man because it determined that the underlying alleged crime—possession of a gun while being a user of marijuana—is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District on Friday said the crux of the case is “whether the Second Amendment protects a habitual marijuana user from being permanently dispossessed of a firearm based on our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The ruling comes as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of the federal ban on gun ownership by people who use marijuana and other drugs. Numerous federal courts have issued rulings on the issue in recent years, but the legal challenge has yet to be settled.

The case of Kevin LaMarcus Mitchell is somewhat unique, in that the appeals court made an assessment about the cannabis and firearms question in the context of a ruling to invalidate a conviction for general unlawful gun possession.

What the court ultimately determined is that the federal statute § 922(g)(3) doesn’t meet the standards of Supreme Court precedent in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which held that gun laws restricting the Second Amendment must be set in a way that’s consistent with the country’s founding.

The appeals court found that there was no “sufficient evidence of present intoxication” when Mitchell was prosecuted, and so “admission of being a habitual marijuana user is not enough to justify § 922(g)(1)’s permanent ban on his firearm possession.”

“The implication of a ruling to the contrary would be that Michell was always intoxicated from age nineteen onward based on his admission, and our historical laws could be applied to him at any point during that period,” the majority ruling said.

“Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Mitchell’s motion to dismiss and VACATE the judgment of conviction and sentence,” it said. “The government’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED as moot.”

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently granted a request from the Trump administration to extend the deadline to submit briefs in a case concerning the constitutionality of the federal gun ban on gun ownership for cannabis users.

After justices agreed to take the case, U.S. v. Hemani, last month, DOJ told the court there was mutual agreement between its attorneys and those representing the respondent in the case that the initial deadline for briefs and reply briefs should be revised because of the “press of other cases.”

Relatedly, a coalition of gun rights organizations recently urged the Supreme Court to expand its examination of the constitutionality of the federal firearm ban for cannabis consumers—telling justices that a recent case on the issue it accepted would not properly settle the question of the current law’s constitutionality.

With respect to Hemani, in a separate August filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In seeking the court’s grant of cert, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him the FBI’s radar.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up Hemani, if justices declare 922(g)(3) constitutional, such a ruling could could mean government wins in the remaining cases. The high court last month denied a petition for cert in U.S. v. Cooper, while leaving pending decisions on U.S. v. Daniels and U.S. v. Sam.

The court also recently denied a petition for cert in another gun and marijuana case, U.S. v. Baxter, but that wasn’t especially surprising as both DOJ and the defendants advised against further pursing the matter after a lower court reinstated his conviction for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.

Keep reading

Rand Paul Slams Alcohol And Marijuana Interests Over Federal Hemp Ban, Announcing He’ll File A Bill To Reverse It Next Week

A GOP senator says he’ll be filing a bill next week to protect the hemp industry from an impending federal ban on most cannabinoid products. He’s also calling out alcohol and marijuana interests for allegedly “join[ing] forces” to lobby in favor of the prohibitionist policy change, which will restrict access to a plant and its derivatives that are often used therapeutically—including by members of his Senate colleagues’ families.

In an interview on “The Chris Cuomo Project” podcast that was posted on Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) previewed his plan to push back against the hemp ban that was included in major spending legislation President Donald Trump signed into law last week.

Paul has been sounding the alarm for weeks about the potential consequences of the hemp recriminalization provisions, which he says would cause mass job losses and a $25 billion industry to be “wiped out.”

As he previewed during a separate webinar organized by the Kentucky Hemp Association on Wednesday, the senator told Cuomo that he intends to introduce legislation next week that would make it so state policy regulating hemp cannabinoid products—with basic safeguards in place to prevent youth access, for example—”supersedes the federal law.”

Keep reading

There’s No Reason To Increase The Legal Age For Marijuana Use To 25, New Scientific Paper Concludes

The theory that marijuana use can negatively—and potentially permanently—rewire the brain up until a person reaches the age of 25 is based on misleading science that neglects to account for key factors in cognitive maturity, according to a new research paper.

The study, published on Monday in the American Journal on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, examined the scientific literature around neurodevelopment. While most U.S. states prevent people under 21 to access adult-use cannabis products, some public health advocates are pushing to the legal age limit to 25.

But the researchers, who are affiliated with the advocacy group Doctors for Drug Policy Reform, concluded that those proposals would not meaningfully prevent adverse mental health outcomes for consumers.

“Invoking age 25 as a bright line for brain maturity is not supported by neuroscience,” they wrote. “Cannabis policy should reflect evidence and fairness, not mythology.”

The paper states that there’s “no empirically defined neurodevelopmental endpoint at age 25,” as brain maturation “is a nonlinear process, region-specific, influenced by sex and specific physiological processes.”

“Importantly, existing evidence does not demonstrate greater long-term cognitive or neurophysiological harm attributable to cannabis use in individuals aged 18-25 years compared to those older than 25,” it says.

The researchers reviewed data on the macrostructural and microstructural development of the brain, which shows that such maturation is “mostly complete by the end of adolescence, around age 18.”

“Other, more subtle developmental changes continue throughout the third decade of life. The often-cited claim that brain development ‘ends’ at 25 is not clearly supported by primary neuroscientific literature,” it says.

Keep reading

Nebraska Tribe Punches Back After State Officials Hint At Prosecuting People For Buying Marijuana On Its Reservation

A Native American tribe in Nebraska, as well as cannabis reform activists, are punching back against the governor and state attorney general over recent comments suggesting that people would be prosecuted if they buy marijuana from businesses on its reservation.

Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) both made controversial remarks about the tribe’s cannabis program this week amid negotiations over a compact on tax revenue from tobacco sales.

Hilgers said that people who buy marijuana under the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska’s planned legal market on its reservation within the state do so “at their own peril,” implying enforcement action against citizens for purchasing what he described as a “poison” if they take it beyond the territory’s borders.

In response, the tribe’s attorney general, John Cartier, put out a statement condemning the top state officials, emphasizing that the state “cannot dictate our internal licensing” and that “retaliation and misinformation do not serve patients or taxpayers.”

“We continue to act in good faith and are ready to work with the Governor to find agreement that benefits both parties, but we caution him: if he is relying solely on the Attorney General’s flawed interpretation of the law, personal crusades are clouding his legal judgment as they have before,” he said. “If the State continues to retaliate or attempts to block our lawful enterprise, we will defend our sovereignty through all available means.”

Cartier said the notion that the tribe can’t sell marijuana under its regulatory model to non-tribal members is “wrong.”

“Nebraskans overwhelmingly approved medical cannabis last November, yet the administration has pursued litigation and commission actions that frustrate voter intent and depart from Nebraska law and the sponsors’ stated purpose,” the statement says. “None of this alters the jurisdictional line that preserves the Tribe’s authority on tribal lands. The Tribe has moved forward, as is our right, with regulations that align with statute. The State’s reaction misstates the law and distracts from patient-focused solutions.”

The tribe’s attorney general said its members are willing to compromise on the tobacco tax issue and accept a compact deal previously offered by the administration. But if that compromise plan is also being withdrawn, he said that would “demonstrate direct retaliation against the Tribe, and we will respond accordingly.”

“We prefer to work directly with the Governor on a tobacco tax compact that benefits both parties and respects sovereignty. Any attempt to leverage an unrelated, lawful medical cannabis program against compact discussions is improper. We look forward to the administration’s written position and we will respond through the proper channels.”

The tribe’s attorney general previously claimed that the state is using its efforts to legalize marijuana as an excuse to suspend negotiations on the tobacco tax deal.

Keep reading

Nebraska Attorney General Calls Marijuana A ‘Poison’ And Says People Who Buy It From A Tribe Within The State Do So ‘At Their Own Peril’

The attorney general of Nebraska says people who buy marijuana under a Native American tribe’s planned legal market on its reservation within the state do so “at their own peril,” implying enforcement action against citizens for purchasing what he described as a “poison” if they take it beyond the territory’s borders.

During a press conference focused on an unrelated executive order, Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) were asked about ongoing negotiations with the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska over a tobacco tax compact and the tribe’s move to legalize cannabis within the prohibitionist state.

“I think that my position is crystal clear. I’m totally opposed in recreational marijuana,” the governor said. “If the Omaha tribe progresses to that extent, my view is really simple: There’s not going to be Nebraskans going into the Omaha buying recreational marijuana. We’ll take whatever steps it is to keep our state values and keep that from happening.”

Hilgers, the state attorney general, also spoke about the tribe’s cannabis program alongside the governor, as well as during a separate press briefing on Wednesday.

While compacts between the state and tribal governments can be “good” for both parties, he said what the Omaha tribe has proposed is both a usurpation of tax revenue from tobacco sales and a willful defiance of state laws around marijuana.

Keep reading

Ohio Lawmakers Approve Marijuana Bill That Creates A Process To Expunge Past Convictions

Some of the tens of thousands of Ohioans dogged by dated marijuana possession offenses could clear their names under new legislation passed by the State House on Wednesday.

The bill would allow expungement, a legal process that erases prior convictions from one’s record, which can impair housing and job applications even years later. It only applies for crimes of possessing less than 2.5 ounces of marijuana, which voters legalized in 2023.

The expungement provision passed within larger legislation on a bipartisan 87-8 vote that sets new rules on the sale of recreational marijuana and so-called “intoxicating hemp” marijuana knockoffs.

More than 16,000 possession arrests per year in Ohio

For most of the 21st century, an average of 16,000 Ohioans would be arrested each year (not necessarily convicted), according to FBI data. The numbers began to fall in 2019, when Ohio first allowed for the medicinal use of marijuana, followed by recreational use in 2023.

While President Joe Biden in 2022 issued a blanket pardon for federal marijuana offenses, state level convictions have festered since then. The House-passed bill paves the way to expungement for many of those with convictions lingering on their records.

“If you smoked a joint when you were 18, in 2002, in your 40s, you should not have barriers to housing, or employment, or public services, because you got in trouble when you were 18 for something that is completely legal,” said Rep. Dani Isaacsohn, the ranking House Democrat, in a floor speech Wednesday.

How to apply for expungement under the bill

Expungements didn’t go as far as some Democratic lawmakers and the ACLU wanted. Rep. Desiree Tims, a Dayton Democrat, said in committee the bill should have an automatic expungement mechanism, or at least a system to notify affected people that the new option is available. Plus, the application comes with a $50 fee that some can’t afford, she said.

Rep. Josh Williams, a Toledo Republican and attorney who regularly champions expungement policy, said a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision effectively tied lawmakers hands on the issue and requires them to leave judges some discretion. However, he said SB56 gives defendants every advantage possible while still likely passing court muster.

Keep reading

Michigan Lawmakers Consider Bills To Change Legal Marijuana Possession Limits And Alter Industry Disciplinary Rules

Four marijuana-related bills were up for consideration before a House panel on Thursday, with one aiming to upend rules on the legal amount of regulated marijuana a person is allowed to possess, both in plant and concentrate form.

Members of the House Regulatory Reform Committee discussed but did not amend or advance House Bill House 5104, Bill 5105, House Bill 5106 and House Bill 5107.

Derek Sova, a policy and legislative assistant for the Cannabis Regulatory Agency, told the committee previously that Michigan’s legal marijuana industry faced several challenges, and that two of those big hurdles were large illicit grow operations and the agency’s inability to go after bad actors because their licenses had expired.

The series of bills before the committee would address those concerns.

House Bill 5105 and House Bill 5107 are sponsored by state Reps. Pauline Wendzel (R-Watervliet) and Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), respectively. The bills would in tandem create new penalties for cultivating, delivering and processing black market marijuana, but also change the amount of marijuana a person is legally allowed to possess in plant and concentrate form.

The bills are tie-barred together, meaning both would have to jointly clear the Legislature and be signed by the governor to become law.

Under Wendzel’s bill, a person would be guilty of a misdemeanor if they possess between 10 and 25 kilograms, or between 50 and 100 plants, or between one and 2.5 kilograms of marijuana concentrate. The penalty would change to up to one year in jail or a $20,000 fine, or both.

Keeping between 25 and 125 kilograms, or between 100 and 500 plants, or between 2.5 and 12.5 kilograms of marijuana concentrate would become a felony punishable by two years in prison or a $500,000 fine, or both.

It would also be a felony offense to:

  • Keep between 125 and 250 kilograms, or between 500 and 1,000 plants, or between 12.5 and 25 kilograms. That could net a person four years in prison or a $2 million fine or both; and
  • Keep 250 kilograms or more, or 1,000 plants or more, or 25 kilograms or more of marijuana concentrate. The punishment there would be up to 10 years in prison or a $10 million fine, or both.

Sponsored by state Rep. Kristian Grant (D-Grand Rapids), House Bill 5104 would allow the Cannabis Regulatory Agency to sanction a person even if they are no longer a licensee or if they are no longer operating a marijuana facility.

Keep reading

Ohio House Passes Bill To Remove Voter-Approved Marijuana Legalization Protections And Restrict Hemp Market

The Ohio House of Representatives has passed a bill that would make significant changes to the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law by removing several protections for consumers while also adding a series of new restrictions on hemp products that are intended to align the two sectors of the cannabis industry.

After moving through several House committees this week, with substantive amendments, the full chamber approved the legislation from Sen. Stephen Huffman (R) in a 87-8 vote on Wednesday.

While the measure previously passed the Senate in earlier form it will need to return to that chamber for concurrence, or go to a bicameral conference committee, before potentially heading to the governor’s desk.

Certain controversial provisions of the bill as passed by the Senate were scaled back by the House, but advocates are concerned that it would still make major changes to the marijuana law voters approved in 2023.

Rep. Brian Stewart (R), who has shepherded the legislation through the House, argued ahead of the floor vote that the legislation effectively reaches a “carefully crafted compromise” between lawmakers with differing perspectives on cannabis issues.

“This bill has been very difficult to wrangle, but most of our substantive bills usually are. Rather than being some kind of mushy muddle of weak sauce tie-breakers, this bill does what we all claim that we wanted to come to Columbus to do,” he said. “It tackles the issue head-on. It makes tough decisions. It respects and implements the feedback from residents and advocates across the affected industries. This bill wisely balances between Ohioans’ individual liberties, their safety, the financial wellbeing of our local communities and the need to protect the health and safety of Ohio’s children.”

Rep. Jamie Callender (R), who sponsored marijuana legalization legislation ahead of voters’ approval of the reform at the ballot, said the bill is “not perfect” but argued that lawmakers “have to act” to address intoxicating hemp and other pending issues.

“This is the revised code we’re writing,” he said. “I anticipate there will be numerous other bills on these topics in the near- and long-term future, as there should be… I’ll keep working with everyone to make it better.”

While its supporters have described it as a less heavy-handed approach compared to the original Senate bill, the measure would make substantive changes to the existing legalization law—with several provisions that advocates say directly contradict the will of voters and represent overreach on the part of lawmakers.

For example, the proposal would eliminate language in current statute providing anti-discrimination protections for people who lawfully use cannabis. That includes protections meant to prevent adverse actions in the context of child custody rights, the ability to qualify for organ transplants and professional licensing.

It would also recriminalize possessing marijuana from any source that isn’t a state-licensed dispensary in Ohio or from a legal homegrow. As such, people could be charged with a crime for carrying cannabis they bought at a legal retailer in neighboring Michigan.

Additionally, it would ban smoking cannabis at outdoor public locations such as bar patios—and it would allow landlords to prohibit vaping marijuana at rented homes. Violating that latter policy, even if it involves vaping in a person’s own backyard at a rental home, would constitute a misdemeanor offense.

Karen O’Keefe, director of states policies at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), said in a letter to House lawmakers on Wednesday that SB 56 as currently drafted “eliminates essential protections from the voter-enacted law and recriminalizes innocuous conduct that voters legalized.”

“Please reject this erosion of freedoms enacted by voters,” she said.

Keep reading