Tag: the war on (some) drugs

Attorney General Misses Deadline For Rules To Make It Easier To Study Schedule I Drugs Like Marijuana And Psychedelics

Attorney General Pam Bondi has missed a congressionally mandated deadline to issue guidelines for easing barriers to research on Schedule I substances such as marijuana and psychedelics.

Under legislation passed by lawmakers and signed into law by President Donald Trump last year, Bondi was supposed to publish interim rules setting out new processes for Schedule I research registration by January 16—but that has not occurred.

“This failure to act leaves researchers, institutions and regulators without clear guidance and directly contributes to research harm—the preventable damage caused when restrictive or unclear drug policies obstruct legitimate scientific research,” Kat Murti, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), said in a press release on Tuesday. “Research harm delays medical innovation, limits evidence-based policymaking and slows the development of potential treatments for overdose, pain, addiction and mental health conditions.”

“Congress gave the attorney general a clear deadline and a clear mandate: reduce barriers to research while ensuring transparency and public input,” Murti said. “Missing this deadline is not a neutral administrative failure—it actively perpetuates research harm. When scientists are left navigating vague or contradictory rules, lifesaving research is delayed, innovation stalls and public health suffers.”

While drug policy reform advocates have sounded the alarm about the main thrust of the bill, which is to permanently place analogues of the opioid fentanyl into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), there are components that could help facilitate studies into drugs, including cannabis, psilocybin, MDMA and others.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) broke down the various provisions of the law—the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act (HALT Fentanyl Act)—in a report last year, including its potential impact on studies into currently controlled substances.

“Section 3 of the HALT Fentanyl Act contains multiple provisions designed to streamline research with Schedule I controlled substances,” CRS said. “The section applies generally to Schedule I substances, including but not limited to [fentanyl-related substances, or FRS.]”

It would do so by amending statute in a way that creates a “simplified registration process for researchers whose research” is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for example.

The revised registration process would also apply to entities studying Schedule I drugs under an Investigational New Drug (IND) exemption from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“Under the new process, the researcher may submit a notice to [the Drug Enforcement Administration] containing the controlled substance to be used in the research, the quantity of the substance to be used, demonstration that one of the above criteria is met (e.g., the grant or project number and identification of the funding agency or the IND application number), and demonstration that the researcher is allowed to do the research under the law of the state where the research will be conducted,” the CRS report said.

“Researchers currently registered to conduct research with Schedule I or II controlled substances may begin their new research within 30 days of the notice to DEA,” it says. “For a researcher without a current registration, DEA must act within 45 days of receiving all required information either to register the applicant or issue an order for the applicant to show cause why registration should not be denied.”

Another change under the new law makes it so DEA-registered researchers will not have to obtain a separate registration for a Schedule I drug “if the manufactured quantities are small and are produced for purposes of the research and the researcher notifies DEA of the manufacturing activities and the quantities of the substance in question.”

Keep reading

19 States That Legalized Marijuana Use Nevertheless Say It Should Disqualify People From Owning Guns

If you are a cannabis consumer who owns a gun, you are committing a federal felony right now, even if you live in one of the 40 states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. That perplexing situation is perfectly reasonable and constitutional, according to 19 of those states, which are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the federal ban on gun possession by “unlawful” users of “any controlled substance.”

That law is at the center of a case that the Court is scheduled to hear on March 2, which involves a Texas man, Ali Hemani, who was charged with illegal gun possession after an FBI search of his home discovered a Glock 19 pistol, two ounces of marijuana, and less than a gram of cocaine. The potential implications extend far beyond Hemani because this ban applies to millions of peaceful Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety.

As I explain in my new book, Beyond Control, that policy authorizes severe criminal penalties for drug users who try to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Under the law that Hemani violated, it does not matter whether someone handles guns while intoxicated or otherwise endangers the public.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a federal judge’s dismissal of the gun charge against Hemani. That outcome was dictated by a 2024 ruling in which the 5th Circuit held that the Second Amendment barred the government from prosecuting a gun-owning cannabis consumer “based solely on her ‘habitual or occasional drug use.'”

Such prosecutions, the 5th Circuit said, are not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the Second Amendment test that the Supreme Court established in 2022. While “our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon,” the appeals court said, “they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”

The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to reject that conclusion and reinstate the charge against Hemani. Solicitor General D. John Sauer implausibly argues that all “unlawful” drug users, including occasional cannabis consumers and state-registered patients who use marijuana for symptom relief, pose a danger that justifies disarming them.

Sauer likens drug users to “habitual drunkards,” who historically could be confined to workhouses as “vagrants.” But the law he is defending is more analogous to a categorical ban on gun possession by alcohol consumers, which would be clearly unconstitutional.

The Trump administration’s position, which echoes the Biden administration’s, seems inconsistent with the president’s avowed commitment to the Second Amendment. The states that have joined Sauer in asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 5th Circuit likewise seem to be contradicting their own policies.

Keep reading

Joni Ernst, Mike Lee Sound Alarm on Alleged Fraud by Somali-Owned Rehab Center in Minneapolis

Sens. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Mike Lee (R-UT) are asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate alleged fraud by a Somali-owned rehab center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as alleged fraud schemes among Somali-owned nonprofits, daycare centers, and medical transportation companies have been referred to federal investigators.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ernst and Lee accuse the Minneapolis-based rehabilitation center Generation Hope MN, a Somali-owned business, of accepting millions in federal dollars while having a “troubling pattern of red flags around its legitimacy, operational capacity, and financial stewardship.”

“… we are alarmed that this organization was ever positioned to receive over $1 million in congressionally directed Department of Justice (DOJ) funding despite multiple indicators that should have rendered it ineligible for any federal assistance or grants,” the senators wrote:

Generation Hope MN was established in 2019 and describes itself as a Somali-led organization focused on addiction recovery and substance use disorder services in Minneapolis’ East African community. [Emphasis added]

IRS documents, specifically IRS Form 1023-EZ, which is used to apply for recognition as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, showed the three directors of Generation Hope MN listed the same address for a five-bedroom home in Minneapolis as their primary residence. [Emphasis added]

Generation Hope MN’s website lists two Minneapolis addresses, including a location on Cedar Avenue. This same address is publicly associated with Sagal Restaurant and Coffee, a Somali restaurant. While the Sagal restaurant’s owner claims Generation Hope MN occupies office space above the restaurant, this shared address with a commercial establishment, combined with the absence of dedicated program facilities or visible service infrastructure, raises substantial doubts about the organization’s independent operations and scale—particularly for an entity purporting to deliver intensive therapy and rehabilitation services. [Emphasis added]

Ernst and Lee are asking Bondi to investigate Generation Hope MN, comparing the business’s financial records as similar to those of Feeding Our Future, the nonprofit that was used as a massive fraud scheme to enrich those, mostly Somali immigrants, involved.

“These financial characteristics closely resemble tactics alleged in ongoing federal investigations into Minnesota nonprofit fraud, including the Feeding Our Future case, in which federal prosecutors allege kickbacks were routed through inflated ‘consulting’ or contractor fees to shell entities,” the senators wrote.

Keep reading

Sovereignty or Terrorism? Why Doesn’t Mexico Legally Treat Drug Cartels as Terrorist Organizations, Unlike the United States?

The debate over whether Mexican cartels “fit” the classic definition of terrorism risks becoming a legal alibi for inaction.

Although these organizations do not pursue a political utopia or a revolutionary ideology, they produce effects identical to—and in many cases greater than—those of traditional terrorism: territorial control, mass intimidation of civilians, institutional collapse, and systematic violence against the state.

Insisting that ideological motivation alone defines terrorism is a formalistic and outdated reading when confronted with non-state armed actors capable of paralyzing entire regions, capturing institutions, and openly challenging national governments. The problem is no longer merely semantic, but structural.

Mexico claims to be defending its sovereignty, but sovereignty cannot become a shield to preserve legal frameworks that no longer reflect reality—much less a pretext for failing to confront criminal organizations responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, inside and outside its territory, every year.

Keep reading

GOP Senators Move to Block Trump Marijuana Reclassification

Republican Sens. Ted Budd of North Carolina and James Lankford of Oklahoma are moving to block the Trump administration’s effort to reclassify marijuana under federal law, arguing the move would undermine public safety and bypass Congress.

The two senators this week filed an amendment to a House-passed, three-bill funding package that would prevent the Justice Department from reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

Marijuana has been listed as a Schedule I substance since the Controlled Substances Act was signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970, more than five decades ago.

Heroin, LSD, and ecstasy also are classified as Schedule I substances.

The Budd-Lankford amendment would bar the use of federal funds to reschedule marijuana, effectively stopping the Justice Department from carrying out the administration’s directive.

The proposal was formally entered into the Congressional Record this week as lawmakers prepare to debate the spending package in the Senate.

The language mirrors provisions that were recently removed from the appropriations bill during negotiations between House and Senate leaders.

While similar restrictions had advanced through the House Appropriations Committee, they were ultimately stripped from the final package, which passed the House Jan. 8 by a 397-28 vote.

Now, Budd and Lankford are seeking to reinsert the prohibition before the legislation clears the Senate.

Keep reading

B.C. officially ends decriminalization pilot project after concerns about public drug use

B.C.’s health minister announced Wednesday that the province’s decriminalization pilot project will come to an end, three years after it was introduced with much fanfare as a measure meant to reduce stigma toward drug users and keep them alive until they could receive treatment.

The pilot had been put in place in January 2023 following an exemption issued by Health Canada and it is due to expire on Jan. 31 of this year.

Josie Osborne told reporters in Victoria that it is clear the pilot project — which allowed drug users to carry up to 2.5 grams of substances such as cocaine and heroin without having it confiscated by police — wasn’t working, and that the province is shifting its focus toward building up voluntary and involuntary treatment options.

“Despite the hard work and good intentions behind the pilot, it has not delivered the results we hoped for,” said Osborne. “For that reason, we will not be asking the federal government to renew the exemption.

“Our priority is, and always has been, to make sure people can get help when and where they need it. We continue to believe that addiction is a health issue, not a criminal justice issue.”

At the time of its announcement, then mental health and addictions minister Jennifer Whiteside said that “by decriminalizing people who use drugs, we will break down the stigma that stops people from accessing life-saving support and services.”

Keep reading

Hemp’s Death Sentence Gets a Stay of Execution

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is moving to slow down the federal hemp THC ban that Congress quietly enacted during last year’s government shutdown, giving the industry more time to adjust and reopening a debate that many thought was settled.

On January 12, Rep. Jim Baird of Indiana introduced the Hemp Planting Predictability Act, a short bill that would delay implementation of the new federal hemp definition from one year to three. The change would push enforcement from November 2026 to November 2028, buying time for farmers, manufacturers, and regulators to negotiate a regulatory alternative to prohibition.

As reported by Marijuana Moment, the bill arrives after weeks of escalating concern from state officials, brewers, farmers, and hemp trade groups who say the existing timeline is unworkable.

A one-line fix with major consequences

The bill itself is only two pages long and makes a single change. It amends Section 781 of the appropriations law that ended the 2025 shutdown by striking the phrase “365 days” and replacing it with “3 years.”

That one edit pauses a sweeping policy shift that would otherwise take effect next year. Under the shutdown deal, most hemp-derived products would be treated as illegal marijuana if they contain more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container. The law also bans synthetic and chemically converted cannabinoids and redefines hemp in a way that collapses much of the post-2018 market.

High Times previously broke down the implications of that language in detail in its coverage of the shutdown deal that recriminalized hemp, setting off a one-year countdown that many operators described as existential.

Bipartisan backing and planting season pressure

Baird’s bill has attracted bipartisan support from the start. Initial cosponsors include Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, Rep. Gabe Evans of Colorado, Rep. Tim Moore of North Carolina, and Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota.

In statements following the bill’s introduction, lawmakers framed the delay as a matter of basic agricultural reality.

“Planting and growing crops requires planning well in advance,” Baird said, noting that farmers made investment decisions under the framework created by the 2018 Farm Bill and now face sudden legal uncertainty.

Craig echoed that concern, saying recent changes “pulled the rug out from under Minnesota’s hemp producers, craft brewers, and retailers” at a time when many small businesses are already dealing with rising costs and instability.

Those concerns align with what High Times reported in November, when states began signaling they would push back against the federal cap rather than immediately dismantle regulated hemp markets.

Keep reading

Fentanyl Deaths Fall As Evidence Points To China Crackdown Trump Long Advocated

A sharp decline in U.S. overdose deaths appears increasingly tied to a disruption in the global fentanyl supply chain – an outcome that new research suggests may stem in part from intensified pressure on Chinese chemical suppliers.

The findings, published Thursday in Science, enter a long-running debate over what finally reversed a drug crisis that pushed annual overdose deaths above 100,000 during the Biden administration. Fatalities began falling in mid-2023 and dropped more sharply thereafter, a trend that has continued under Donald Trump, who has long-framed fentanyl trafficking as a national-security threat and used tariffs, border enforcement and overseas interdictions as leverage.

While public-health officials have pointed to billions spent on addiction treatment, naloxone distribution and domestic law enforcement, the research places renewed emphasis on a crackdown by Beijing – specifically, efforts to prevent fentanyl from being manufactured at all.

The paper concludes that the illicit fentanyl market experienced a significant supply contraction, “possibly tied to Chinese government actions,” citing falling purity in seized drugs, reduced seizure volumes and online reports of shortages. The findings align with arguments long advanced by Trump and his advisers: that pressuring China’s chemical sector was central to choking off supply.

“This demonstrates how influential China can be and how much they can help us – or hurt us,” said Keith Humphreys, a co-author of the study and a former White House drug policy adviser under President Barack Obama.

U.S. law-enforcement agencies have for years scrutinized China’s role as a key supplier of precursor chemicals used by Mexican criminal organizations to synthesize fentanyl. During Trump’s first term, Beijing agreed to classify fentanyl-related substances, though traffickers adapted by shifting to precursor chemicals instead.

Since 2023, however, Chinese authorities have shut down some chemical suppliers and tightened oversight. The Drug Enforcement Administration, in its latest annual drug intelligence report, said China-based suppliers are increasingly wary of selling internationally – evidence, the agency said, that enforcement pressure is having an effect.

According to the CDC, estimated U.S. drug deaths fell in 2024 to about 81,700, with roughly 49,200 involving synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. While 2025 data are not yet available, researchers believe the downward trend is continuing.

The timing remains contested. Formal U.S. – China cooperation was announced ahead of a November 2023 summit between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, months after overdose deaths had already begun to fall. Researchers acknowledge the mismatch but suggest Chinese enforcement may have begun quietly before the agreement was made public.

Keep reading

Multiple States Facing Marijuana Legalization Repeal Threats in 2026

Prohibitionist-led efforts are underway in multiple states to repeal voter-initiated adult-use marijuana markets.

In Maine and Arizona, campaigners are collecting signatures to place ballot questions before voters undermining those states’ cannabis legalization laws. If passed the Arizona initiative would repeal the state’s licensed retail marijuana market. The initiative in Maine would similarly wipe out the state’s regulated adult-use market, while also eliminating consumers’ ability to legally grow personal use quantities of cannabis at home.

In Massachusetts, campaigners have already collected the necessary number of signatures to place a similar repeal measure, titled An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy, before voters. In Massachusetts and Maine, allegations persist that voters’ signatures in support of the proposals were fraudulently obtained.

“2026 is going to be a pivotal year for the marijuana reform movement,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “If successful, these measures will wipe out regulated cannabis markets — eliminating tens of thousands of jobs, ballooning state budget deficits, and disrupting safe access to millions of consumers. How successfully we respond to these challenges today will determine the degree to which our movement continues to move forward tomorrow.”

Also, in Idaho, a constitutional amendment will appear on the November ballot that, if approved, will forbid voters from ever again having the opportunity to decide on statewide marijuana policies. State lawmakers voted last year to place the amendment on the 2026 ballot.

Keep reading

The War on Drugs Failed Because It Never Understood Why People Use Drugs

The conversation around drugs has long been framed by cost. Policymakers calculate the billions lost every year to productivity gaps, hospitalizations, law enforcement and incarceration. The U.S. alone spends an estimated $193 billion annually dealing with the fallout of illicit drug use, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Yet there is a blind spot. People do not only use drugs because of the usual suspects: trauma, poverty or pathology. They also use them because they feel good. Pleasure. Connection. Belonging. A stronger sense of self.

There is an old joke that goes: “Do you know what’s the problem with drugs? That they feel too good.” And it is spot on. Ignoring this basic human driver has a cost of its own.

Researchers and frontline harm-reduction workers are now introducing a radical, almost counterintuitive idea: what if drug policy and education started not from fear, but from pleasure? What if acknowledging the real reasons people use could reduce overdoses, improve mental health and save governments millions?

As Valentine and Fraser noted in their 2008 study of methadone patients: “Although pleasurable and problematic drug use are often thought to be mutually exclusive, pleasure is reported from both the effects of drugs such as heroin and methadone and from the social worlds of methadone maintenance treatment.”

This is the frontier of “pleasure management” or “pleasure maximization,” a new way of thinking about consumption that blends economics, public health and lived experience. Daniel Bear and colleagues argue that harm reduction too often “foregrounds risks at the expense of benefits.” Their framework of Mindful Consumption and Benefit Maximization (MCBM) begins by asking users why they consume, what benefits they seek and how to reduce risks while preserving those benefits.

Zara Snapp, director of Instituto RIA in Mexico, reminds us that this is not a new invention. She points to ancestral traditions across Latin America where psychoactive plants were used to foster vision, knowledge and connection to the sacred. In this sense, today’s debates about pleasure management are part of a much longer human story about using substances for meaning and wellbeing, not only risk.

Silvia Inchaurraga, a psychoanalyst and president of ARDA (the Harm Reduction Association of Argentina), frames it in terms of rights: “The concept of harm reduction cannot stand without legitimizing the right of people to consume drugs… interventions must always start from recognition of this right and the user as a citizen.” She argues that pleasure management challenges abstentionist logics that seek to eliminate risk altogether, instead of acknowledging that people use for multiple reasons, including wellbeing.

Keep reading