Tag: the war on (some) drugs

DOJ Says Allowing A Pennsylvania Prosecutor Who Uses Medical Marijuana To Possess A Gun Would Be ‘Dangerous’

In a new court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, attorneys for the federal government argue that the nationwide ban on marijuana consumers owning firearms is constitutional and should remain in place, arguing it aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill or intoxicated people.

The brief, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is the latest in a case filed earlier this year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, a registered medical marijuana patient in the state. Greene teamed up with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to file suit in January against the government, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the heads of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI.

The original suit says that while Greene “intends to lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms and ammunition so that he may exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes,” he’s forbidden from doing so because of his status as a state-certified medical cannabis patient.

In DOJ’s latest filing, the government says that’s by design. Its motion asks the court to dismiss Greene’s case.

“Marijuana’s physical and mental effects make it dangerous for a person to handle firearms,” it says, “and also impair a person’s judgment, including judgement about whether to use firearms.”

It also notes that possession of even state-legal medical marijuana remains a federal crime. The government, however, has not prioritized enforcement of prohibition against state-regulated medical cannabis programs, and a federal budget rider prevents the use of funds to interfere with the state-legal programs.

Keep reading

Arizona Court Says Marijuana Users Must Actually Be Impaired To Be Punished For DUI

The state can’t suspend someone’s driver’s license because they have THC in their bloodstream unless they are actually impaired while behind the wheel, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled, upholding a provision in a marijuana legalization law that voters passed in 2020.

Aaron Kirsten was pulled over for speeding in Sedona in October 2022, and the police officer saw that he had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and was unsteady on his feet. Kirsten refused a field sobriety test, but when he did a breathalyzer test, he blew a 0.083, slightly above the legal limit, and he was arrested.

While in custody, Kirsten consented to a blood draw, but the Department of Public Safety’s analysis showed his blood alcohol content was just 0.063, less than the 0.08 maximum BAC allowed under state law.

But DPS also tested Kirsten’s blood for drugs and found he had tetrahydrocannabinol metabolites. As a result, the Arizona Department of Transportation suspended his license for 90 days, citing a state law that bars driving if THC metabolites are present.

At an administrative appeal, Kirsten testified that he hadn’t consumed THC in the 24 hours prior to his arrest, and any effects from the THC he had consumed had long ago passed. A family member who is a nurse and chiropractor also testified on Kirsten’s behalf, telling the administrative law judge that THC metabolites—the compounds that form as the body breaks down a substance—can stay in the blood for weeks after consumption.

But the administrative law judge said it was “irrelevant” whether Kirsten had smoked marijuana within 24 hours of his arrest and sided with ADOT, ruling that the agency didn’t need to prove he was impaired by THC to suspend his license for using it previously.

Kirsten appealed the ruling to the Maricopa County Superior Court, which upheld the administrative judge’s reasoning.

But the appellate court said both got it wrong and effectively ignored voter-created laws that bars the state from punishing drivers who have legally used marijuana products but are not impaired while driving.

Keep reading

8 Years After Legalizing Pot, California Will Finally Allow Cannabis Cafés

When he endorsed marijuana legalization in Florida last August, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump emphasized the importance of regulations to protect bystanders from exposure to pot smoke. “We need the State Legislature to responsibly create laws that prohibit the use of [cannabis] in public spaces,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, “so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go, like we do in many of the Democrat run Cities.” Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio), has expressed similar concerns, saying “we haven’t quite figured out how this new regime coexists with not polluting our public spaces.”

Expanding the legal options for cannabis consumption outside the home, as California is finally doing eight years after legalizing recreational use, is one promising way to address such complaints. On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom, who last year vetoed a bill that would have authorized Amsterdam-style cannabis cafés in California, signed a revised version into law. Assembly Bill 1775 allows dispensaries, with local permission, to sell hot food and nonalcoholic beverages along with marijuana products. Such businesses will also be allowed to host “live musical or other performances,” as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol routinely do.

State law previously allowed on-site consumption at specially licensed pot shops, but their culinary options were limited to prepackaged snacks and drinks. California marijuana merchants hope the new dispensation will help them compete against unlicensed pot dealers who do not have to collect taxes or comply with burdensome state and local regulations. “Cannabis cafés are going to be a huge part of the future of cannabis in our state and help to beat back the illegal drug market,” said Assemblymember Matt Haney (D–San Francisco), the bill’s sponsor.

California’s new flexibility is an important step toward solving a puzzle that was typically overlooked in the early days of legalization: Once people could legally buy marijuana, where could they legally consume it? The main answer was at home, which was not practical for visitors from other states, might not be allowed in rentals, and precluded consumption in many social settings. That gap inspired creative solutions, such as members-only clubs and cannabis-friendly bus tours, that in turn inspired crackdowns by disapproving local authorities.

Since then, early legalizers such as Colorado and Alaska have been gradually coming around, amending their rules to allow cannabis consumption outside of private residences. Some states that legalized marijuana later, such as Massachusetts and Illinois, at least notionally allowed on-site consumption from the beginning. But regulatory approval of specific businesses has been slow, and the options in most places remain few and far between.

Keep reading

Marijuana Enhances Enjoyment Of Music, New Study Finds, Confirming What Every Stoner Already Knows

Underscoring an anecdotal observation common among cannabis consumers, a group of researchers in Canada have released a new study indicating that marijuana can make music more enjoyable, concluding that “the impact of cannabis on the auditory experience may be overall enhanced” compared to sober listening.

Authors, from Toronto Metropolitan University, wrote in a preprint that the research “highlights the profound yet idiosyncratic effects of cannabis on auditory experiences among experienced recreational cannabis users.”

“This study provides a framework to understand the complex interactions between cannabis, hearing, and musical experience,” the report says.

Participants were recruited through the university as well via flyers at 38 marijuana retailers in and around Toronto. A total of 104 people completed an online questionnaire, 15 of which were interviewed further on hourlong individual Zoom calls.

According to their self-reported experiences, participants showed “significantly higher levels of state music absorption while high…compared to sober.”

Keep reading

Ohio Recreational Marijuana Sales Top $76 Million Within First Two Months Of Market Launch

Ohio recreational marijuana sales have surpassed $76.2 million in less than two months.

The state’s total recreational marijuana sales was $76,280,490 as of September 21, according to the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Cannabis Control. Ohio has a 10 percent tax at the point of sales for every non-medical marijuana transaction.

Recreational marijuana sales started in Ohio on August 6 and sales topped $11.5 million in less than a week. Fifty-seven percent of Ohioans voted to legalize marijuana last November through the passage of Issue 2, which also legalized home grow for Ohioans 21 and older with a cap of six plants per person and 12 plants per residence.

There have been 8,813 pounds of plant materials sold and 1,187,395 units of manufactured products, according to the DCC.

There are 124 dual-use marijuana dispensaries in Ohio, meaning they can sell both medical and non-medical marijuana, according to the division. Columbus has 13 dual-use marijuana dispensaries, Cincinnati has 10, Dayton has six and Cleveland has five.

Ohio has more than 107 local moratoriums prohibiting adult-use cannabis business as of Monday, according to Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.

Keep reading

California Governor Vetoes Bill To Let Marijuana Growers Sell Directly To Consumers At State-Run Farmers Markets

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has vetoed a bill to allow small marijuana growers to sell their products directly to consumers at state-organized farmers markets.

Ahead of a Monday deadline to act on legislation, the governor blocked final approval of the measure from Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D), saying that while he appreciates “the author’s intent to support small and equity cannabis cultivators,” he is “concerned that the bill’s broad eligibility, which extends to the vast majority of licensed cultivators, would undermine the existing retail licensing framework and place significant strain on the Department of Cannabis Control’s ability to regulate and enforce compliance.”

“I remain open to considering a more flexible and narrowly focused version of this bill next year that can better respond to market dynamics, without imposing a rigid monitoring and compliance framework,” Newsom wrote in a veto message. “Such policies must be considered within the broader context of efforts that are necessary to address the fundamental issues straining the legal cannabis market, such as competition from unregulated sources and improving access to regulated products.

“It is essential that we prioritize solutions that strengthen, rather than further burden, the existing regulated market,” he said.

While the governor supports cannabis legalization, he’s been notably reserved about various drug policy proposals in recent years, for example vetoing legislation to legalize psychedelics and allow safe consumption sites for illegal drugs.

Newsom has yet to act on a separate bill to legalize cannabis cafes from Assemblymember Matt Haney (D).

Newsom vetoed a prior version of Haney’s cannabis cafe bill, saying that while he appreciated that the intent was to “provide cannabis retailers with increased business opportunities and an avenue to attract new customers,” he felt “concerned this bill could undermine California’s long-standing smoke-free workplace protections.”

To that end, the measure as passed by the legislature contains changes to create separation between public consumption spaces and back rooms of businesses where food is prepared or stored in order to better protection the health of workers in line with the governor’s concerns.

Keep reading

LAPD raid goes from bad to farce after gun allegedly sucked onto MRI machine

An officer with the Los Angeles Police Department found out the hard way that you can’t take metal near an MRI machine after their rifle flew out of their hands and became attached to the machine during a pot raid gone bad, according to a federal lawsuit filed last week.

The incident’s details were described in a lawsuit filed by the owners of a Los Angeles medical imaging center, who allege that their business was wrongly targeted by LAPD during a raid in October 2023 The lawsuit was first reported on by Law360.com.

The owners of NoHo Diagnostic Center are suing the LAPD, the city of Los Angeles and multiple police officers, alleging they violated the business owners’ constitutional rights and demanding an unspecified amount in damages. Officers allegedly raided the diagnostic center, located in the Van Nuys neighborhood of Los Angeles, thinking it was a front for an illegal cannabis cultivation facility, pointing to higher-than-usual energy use and the “distinct odor” of cannabis plants, according to the lawsuit. 

Officers raided the facility on Oct. 18, 2023, and detained the lone female employee while they searched the business, the lawsuit said. However, they didn’t find a single cannabis plant and only saw a typical medical facility with rooms used for conducting x-rays, ultrasounds, CT scans and MRIs, the owners said. 

The officers then released the employee and told her to call a manager, the lawsuit said, while they continued to wander around various rooms of the facility. The plaintiffs say the officers’ behavior was “nothing short of a disorganized circus, with no apparent rules, procedures, or even a hint of coordination.”

At one point, an officer walked into an MRI room, past a sign warning that metal was prohibited inside, with his rifle “dangling… in his right hand, with an unsecured strap,” the lawsuit said. The MRI machine’s magnetic force then allegedly sucked his rifle across the room, pinning it against the machine. MRI machines are tube-shaped scanners that use incredibly strong magnetic fields to create images of the brain, bones, joints and other internal organs.

Keep reading

DEA Calls To Increase Production of Psychedelics For Clinical Research

This week, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposed increases to the production quotas of psilocybin, psilocin, and ibogaine for use by researchers investigating therapies with psychedelic compounds. The DEA oversees the regulated synthesis and cultivation of restricted psychoactive materials for scientific investigations.

A revised production agenda for 2024 calls for psilocybin and psilocin production to be increased by 50% – from 20,000 to 30,000 grams for psilocybin, and 24,000 to 36,000 grams for psilocin. These are the gram amounts planned for 2025 as well.

The DEA’s plans for 2025, posted as a notice in the Federal Register, includes the increased manufacturing of ibogaine from 150 to 210 grams. There is no change to the manufacturing level of other psychedelics such as MDMA or 5-MeO-DMT.

“This opens the door to more research, more clinical trials, and a better understanding of how we can apply emerging therapies,” says Representative Morgan Luttrell (R-TX). Luttrell is a former Navy SEAL whose therapeutic experiences with ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT inform his advocacy for the government to fund psychedelic research, including allocations made in the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Expanding Research

The Controlled Substances Act, signed into law in 1970 by Richard Nixon, created five schedules under which to list drugs and allowed governmental regulation of how much of each drug could be produced for any purpose. Many psychedelics were placed under Schedule 1, the most limited schedule.

Researchers studying psychedelics in subsequent years faced scarce supplies of these substances, but their availability in recent years has grown significantly. In 2020 the DEA planned the production of just 30 grams of psilocybin; by 2024, the DEA increased the production to 20,000 grams.

The re-emergence of psychedelics as medicines is supported by expanding interest by researchers to study these compounds for their potential for effective treatments for mental health issues including depression, PTSD, and substance use disorder. Substances like psilocybin, psilocin and ibogaine are still listed in Schedule 1, which declares that they have no currently-accepted medical use. Researchers are investigating new treatments for mental health disorders through a variety of proposed mechanisms – such as by re-opening critical periods of learning or by collapsing default mode network activity in the brain. 

Despite promising areas of research to find new mental health treatments, DEA scheduling has been a major impediment into research on psychedelics, says Dalibor Sames, a professor of chemistry at Columbia University who studies iboga alkaloids. “While we have the DEA license, it is highly inefficient and cumbersome to share scheduled substances with collaborators,” he says. “Research in these days is highly collaborative and thus sharing compounds and other research items is an essential part of doing science and drug discovery today.”

By increasing their production quotas, DEA appears to be signaling their intent to support psychedelic research, stating in the revised 2024 notice: “These proposed increases demonstrate DEA’s support for research with schedule I controlled substances,” writes the agency. “The proposed increases reflect research and development needs as part of the process for seeking the FDA approval of new drug products.”

For researchers like Sames, who uses small amounts of iboga alkaloids in the study of psychedelic chemistry, the new quota has no immediate impact. But the increased availability of these three drugs could influence their availability for use in clinical trials with human subjects. 

Keep reading

1970 Hearing Reveals ADHD as Government-Funded Drug Experiment on Children

In 1970 a lawmaker wanted to know if the federal government had a hand in drugging school-age children that largely has today remained an unspoken, well-funded, uncontrolled clinical drug trial.

September 29, 1970, New Jersey Congressman Cornelis E. Gallagher held a hearing into the federal government’s role in promoting the use of amphetamines and Ritalin as behavior modification of grammar school children.

Fifty-four years later, AbleChild applauds Representative Gallagher for presiding over the House Special Studies Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations investigation as it was one of the first hearings to draw attention to the government’s funding of experimental drug research using school-age children.

Gallagher wanted to know from the experts how it was okay to drug children with amphetamines and Ritalin to modify behavior in school, while at the same time pushing an active national campaign against drug abuse stating that “speed kills.”

The Congressman was concerned about whether the drug therapy being used by the child would become a permanent part of the child’s school record, thus years later negatively impacting the child’s life.

And, finally, the Congressman raised concerns “about the mislabeling of the child and packaging an ill-conceived program as an answer to our ills in the education of our children.”

At the time of the 1970 hearing, researchers were then labeling hyperactive children with Minimal Brain Dysfunction (MDA), then renaming it as Hyperkinetic disorder (HKD) or Hyperkinesis and finally settling on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

At the time of the hearing, none of the experts testifying could provide any scientific data proving the alleged brain abnormality existed.

Still, fifty-four years later, there is no science to prove the alleged brain abnormality ADHD exists.

Ironically, one of the experts that testified at 1970 hearing warned that the drug therapy would “zoom” from its then usage in approximately 200 to 300 thousand American children.

The prophecy was fulfilled. In 2020 alone, 9,585,203 Americans were taking some form of psychiatric mind-altering drug as “treatment” for the alleged ADHD.

Almost four and a half million Americans between the ages of 0 and 24 alone were prescribed ADHD drugs in 2020.

The “experts” testifying before Gallagher’s subcommittee were as clueless then as the “experts” are today when it comes to any understanding of how the drugs worked as “treatment.”

Keep reading

Former Houston Drug Cop Convicted of Murder After His Lies Resulted in Two Deaths

A jury on Wednesday convicted former Houston narcotics officer Gerald Goines of two murder charges for instigating a January 2019 drug raid that killed a middle-aged couple, Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas, he falsely accused of selling heroin. Goines admitted that he lied in the affidavit supporting the no-knock search warrant that authorized him and his colleagues to break into the couple’s home, describing a heroin purchase that never happened.

The prosecution argued that Goines’ lies made him criminally responsible for the deaths of Tuttle and Nicholas, who were killed after Goines and several other officers broke down the front door and immediately shot the couple’s dog. Tuttle, who according to prosecutors was napping in a bedroom at the time, reacted to the tumult and gunfire by grabbing a revolver and shooting at the intruders, injuring four of them, including Goines. The cops responded with a hail of at least 40 bullets, killing Tuttle and Nicholas, who was unarmed but allegedly looked like she was about to grab a gun from an injured officer.

The two murder charges against Goines were based on a statute that applies when someone “commits or attempts to commit a felony” and “in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt…commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.” That charge was inappropriate in this case, the defense argued, because Goines’ underlying felony—producing the fraudulent search warrant affidavit—did not cause the deaths of Tuttle and Nicholas, which they brought on themselves.

“This case is overcharged,” defense attorney Mac Secrest told the jury during closing arguments on Tuesday. “It should never have been charged [as] felony murder,” he said while pointing at the prosecutors. “It got amped up to it because of the politics in their office, because of the media outcry, the pressure.”

Goines’ lawyers argued that Tuttle and Nicholas would still be alive if they had surrendered instead of resisting. While the prosecution emphasized that the cops fired first, Secrest emphasized that Tuttle fired “the first shot at a human being” (as opposed to the dog). “These officers didn’t fire upon anyone until they were fired upon themselves,” he said. “Nobody shot at Dennis Tuttle until he started putting bullets into peoples’ faces and necks.”

Keep reading