Tag: the war on (some) drugs

Russian Arms Dealer and “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout Who Joe Biden Exchanged for Pot-Smoking Brittney Griner Is Back in Business Selling $10 Million in Arms to Houthi Rebels

Another major foreign policy failure by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

Nothing ever seems to go right for this ridiculous, tyrannical administration.

The infamous “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout, who Joe Biden traded for WNBA pot-smoking star Brittney Griner, is allegedly back in business. Bout reportedly was caught selling $10 million in arms to Houthi rebels in Yemen, according to The Wall Street Journal.

WNBA star Brittney Griner was found guilty of drug smuggling with criminal intent in a Russian court in August 2022.

The 6’9″ basketball star was accused of possession of vape cartridges containing cannabis oil at a Moscow airport in February, during the lead-up to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine later that month. Griner’s defense team said she was prescribed marijuana by a doctor for pain treatment.

Russia released Brittney Griner in exchange for international arms dealer Viktor Bout, the notorious “Merchant of Death.”

Vikor Bout is a former Soviet military officer, who was serving a 25-year prison sentence in the United States on charges of conspiring to kill Americans, acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles, and provide material support to a terrorist organization. Bout has maintained he is innocent – via CNN.

Bout armed terrorist groups in some of the most violent conflicts in the world.

Bout was arrested back in 2008 in Thailand and extradited back to the United States. His arrest was linked at the time to FARC rebels in Colombia.

Keep reading

DEA Seeks To Block Experts From Giving ‘Incompetent’ Testimony At Hearing On Proposed Psychedelics Ban

The Drug Enforcement Administration is seeking to block certain experts from testifying in an administrative hearing about the agency’s proposal to ban two psychedelic compounds that scientists say hold significant therapeutic potential.

Ahead of the 10-day hearing that a DEA administrative law judge (ALJ) scheduled for next month, the agency pushed back against the inclusion of multiple experts in the proceeding on the basis that the “proposed testimony and exhibits are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious.”

DEA further asserted that while the head of the agency can consider arguments on “barriers or hinderances to research” in the event that the psychedelics—2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—are placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), allowing scientific experts to testify about the potential research harm without qualifying evidence “would result in a waste of judicial time and resources.”

“The Government argues that research harm evidence is not relevant to the issues and factors discussed above,” DEA said. That’s in spite of the fact that federal officials have repeatedly discussed the barriers to research associated with a drug’s placement in Schedule I.

Following a public comment period, DEA ALJ Paul Soeffing in August set an administrative hearing on the issue from November 12-22, with a final meeting on November 25, according to a recent notice that was shared with Marijuana Moment by the advocacy group Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP).

On Thursday, SSDP filed a motion responding to DEA’s brief, saying that agency is “purporting much of the testimony and exhibits are incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and/or unduly repetitious despite the less rigid evidentiary rules that exist for administrative hearings where courts have repeatedly established that the [ALJ] has great deference in deciding what evidence may be permitted.”

“What is the DEA so scared of that these leading scientists must be muzzled?” Robert Rush, a Denver-based attorney who is working with SSDP on the DOI and DOC case, said in a press release.

“By trying to silence the world’s leading experts in neuroscience and pharmacology, the DEA is attempting to prevent the tribunal—and the public—from understanding the true potential of these substances,” he said. “We vigorously oppose the DEA’s efforts to stop scientific research and call on the tribunal to reject the Government’s motion and ensure that all relevant evidence is heard.”

This all comes as DEA separately scheduled a December hearing to gain additional input on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal—a move that will delay that reform from potentially taking effect until after the presidential election.

Keep reading

New Cory Booker Bill Would Prevent Housing Discrimination Against People Convicted Of Marijuana And Other Drug Offenses

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL) have filed a bill to repeal a decades-old federal statute that’s led to the denial of housing for millions of people with prior drug convictions.

The Fair Future Act would strike a section of the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act that the lawmakers say has prevented more than nine million people from accessing rental housing no matter how serious the offense was or how long it’s been since they’ve been convicted.

“No one should be permanently denied a place to live because of a prior drug conviction,” Booker said in a press release. “Right now, housing laws have denied people with prior drug convictions the ability to live in rental housing and in turn, denied them a fair chance at reentering society. The Fair Future Act will eliminate this discriminatory barrier to housing and help us put an end to our nation’s cycle of poverty and recidivism.”

Frost said that people “who have served their time, repaid their debt to society, and are looking to re-enter our communities cannot do so when the deck is stacked against them.”

“Housing is the foundation of a safe and secure life–yet outdated housing laws and conflicting state laws on marijuana mean that someone could go to jail, serve time, and be denied housing in one state, while someone carrying the same amount of marijuana in another state is abiding by the law,” the congressman said. “It’s time we allow folks a fresh start and put an end to housing exclusion for folks who have paid for their crimes and are rebuilding their lives.”

Keep reading

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