Tag: the war on (some) drugs

Oregon Marijuana Business Files New Lawsuit Challenging Ban On Interstate Cannabis And Hemp Commerce

An Oregon marijuana business has filed a new federal lawsuit against the state, challenging the constitutionality of laws prohibiting interstate cannabis commerce.

After filing an initial suit in 2022—and later withdrawing it amid expectations of unspecified “big things” coming—the cannabis wholesaler Jefferson Packing House (JPH) filed a revised complaint on Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

The latest suit is lengthier than the original, and it makes additional arguments about the alleged illegality of state laws barring marijuana and hemp businesses from exporting products across state lines.

At issue in the case is the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) of the U.S. Constitution, which generally prevents states from imposing restrictions on interstate commerce in order to ensure competitiveness in the open market.

While marijuana remains federally illegal, the plaintiffs assert that the DCC still precludes Oregon from imposing trade restrictions between states.

“Oregon law harms JPH by increasing its operating costs and preventing it from taking advantage of economies of scale,” the filing states, adding that state statute also harms the business with respect to hemp, which was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.

Barring exports of marijuana and hemp puts JPH “at a competitive disadvantage in the market,” the complaint says, because it can’t source cannabis products from out of state and can’t ship products outside of Oregon, “both of which limit its customer base and ability to offer a complete range of products at the best prices.”

State law “discriminates against interstate commerce by nakedly prohibiting such commerce, without any legitimate, non-protectionist purpose, and is therefore prohibited by the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” it says. “There is no constitutionally adequate reason for Oregon, or any other State, to bar the import or export” marijuana or hemp.

Keep reading

Florida Court Blocks Police From Using The Smell Of Marijuana Alone To Search Vehicles

A Florida court has ruled that police cannot search a person’s vehicle based only on the smell of marijuana.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District on Wednesday issued an opinion, authored by Judge Nelly Khouzam, overturning a lower court decision that upheld the “plain smell doctrine” that has long permitted cannabis odor to be used as a pretense for vehicle searches.

The policy was challenged in district court after a man had his probation revoked when police pulled over a car he was in, claimed to smell marijuana, forced the occupants to exit the vehicle to conduct a search and discovered cannabis and pills.

But while it might have made sense in the past to use cannabis odor as a pretext for a search when it was strictly prohibited, the state’s laws have “fundamentally” changed, the appellate court said, referencing the legalization of hemp and medical marijuana in Florida.

“For generations, cannabis was illegal in all forms—thereby rendering its distinct odor immediately indicative of criminal activity. But several legislative amendments over the years have fundamentally changed its definition and regulation,” it said. “The cumulative result is that cannabis is now legal to possess in multiple forms, depending on discrete characteristics such as where it was procured or its chemical concentration by weight.”

“We are obligated under well-established constitutional principles to give meaning and effect to the legislature’s significant amendments to cannabis regulation,” the opinion, first reported by News Service of Florida, said.

Keep reading

Oregon Officials Ask Federal Court To Reverse Ruling That Blocked Marijuana Industry Labor Law Approved By Voters

Oregon officials are asking a federal appeals court to reverse a judge’s ruling that struck down a voter-approved law to require licensed marijuana businesses to enter into labor peace agreements with workers and mandate that employers remain neutral in discussions around unionization.

In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last week, attorneys for Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D), Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D) and Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission’s (OLCC) Dennis Doherty and Craig Prins urged a review of the “constitutional challenge” to the state law.

The officials previously provided notice that they’d be contesting the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon decision back in June.

After two marijuana businesses—Bubble’s Hash and Ascend Dispensary—initially filed a lawsuit in the district court challenging the implementation of Measure 119, a federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, finding that the law unconstitutionally restricts free speech and violates the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Under the currently paused law, a marijuana businesses that was unable to provide proof of a labor peace agreement could have been subject a denial or revocation of their license.

Keep reading

California Marijuana Tax Cut Officially Takes Effect, With Planned Increase Delayed Through At Least 2028

Three months into a major marijuana tax hike in California, a new law putting a pause on the increase has officially taken effect.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the tax relief legislation from Assemblymember Matt Haney (D) late last month. Now, as of Wednesday, consumers will not be paying the increased excise tax—at least until October 2028.

“We’re rolling back this cannabis tax hike so the legal market can continue to grow, consumers can access safe products, and our local communities see the benefits,” Newsom said at the time of the bill signing.

Haney said that “California’s cannabis economy can bring enormous benefits to our state, but only if our legal industry is given a fair chance to compete against the untaxed and unregulated illegal market.”

“AB 564 helps level the playing field,” he said. “It protects California jobs, keeps small businesses open, and ensures that our legal cannabis market can grow and thrive the way voters intended.”

State officials announced in June that the cannabis excise tax rate would increase from 15 percent to 19 percent on July 1, prompting concern from industry stakeholders and consumer advocates.

Newsom previously supported including a tax freeze in a budget trailer bill, but that didn’t come to fruition. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D) also backed the delay, but Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire (D) reportedly blocked it from the budget legislation.

Before being amended in committee, the newly enacted legislation’s pause of the cannabis tax increase would have been in effect until June 30, 2030. After that, on a biennial basis, regulators would adjust the tax rate “by a percentage that will generate an amount of revenue that would have been collected pursuant to the cultivation tax imposed prior to its discontinuation, as specified, not to exceed 19 percent,” according to a summary.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, moved to shorten the period that the reduction will be in effect, to October 2028.

The new law will make it so the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), working with the Department of Finance, will be required to “adjust the cannabis excise tax rate upon purchasers of cannabis or cannabis products” based on the “additional percentage of the gross receipts of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer that the department estimates will generate an amount of revenue equivalent to the amount that would have been collected in the previous fiscal year,” the text says.

The department will need to “estimate the amount of revenue that would have been collected in the previous fiscal year pursuant to the weight-based cultivation tax” and “estimate this amount by projecting the revenue from weight-based cultivation taxes that would have been collected in the previous calendar year based on information available to the department.”

Keep reading

Nebraska Officials Miss Medical Marijuana Licensing Deadline As Regulators Resign

Supporters have questioned for months whether the voter-authorized Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission would meet its October 1 deadline to grant its first licenses.

The answer is no: The commission will miss that deadline by at least one week, in the wake of two resignations sought and received by Gov. Jim Pillen (R) of liquor regulators who jointly served on the medical cannabis board.

The Medical Cannabis Commission confirmed the new timeline Tuesday at a meeting originally meant to approve the first cultivator licenses and move toward the first steps of a medical cannabis supply chain in the state. However, two of the five cannabis commissioners resigned Monday, both of whom served on a three-member team evaluating and scoring cultivator applications received by September 23.

Now, the remaining commissioners will independently review applications by next Tuesday, when commissioners will meet to decide whether to award up to four cultivator licenses.

“We would just ask for your understanding that this is a situation that none of us created in this, where we’re at right here,” Commissioner Lorelle Mueting of Gretna said Tuesday. “We would just hope you understand that we’re working through this the best that we can to make sure that we get the licenses issued in a timely manner and evaluated and issued in time.”

Keep reading

Feds Call Marijuana A ‘Deadly’ Drug And Say Even Medical Cannabis Has ‘Serious Consequences’

Federal officials are calling marijuana a “deadly” drug—touting their efforts to seize it and other illegal substances—while also warning that possessing cannabis, even for medical use, carries “serious consequences.”

As President Donald Trump considers a cannabis rescheduling proposal—and after he posted a video on the health benefits of CBD—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are sending a conflicting message about cannabis.

In a press release about an August “surge” in drug seizures that was sent out on Tuesday, DHS said that CBP, as part of its “mission to stop harmful drugs from entering the United States,” was announcing that “seizures of deadly drugs—including fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana—increased substantially from July to August.”

That rhetoric as it concerns marijuana departs from how most people view and compare the plant with the other listed substances that can be associated with overdose deaths. By the federal government’s own admission in the past, cannabis has not on its own caused a fatal overdose.

“Cartels are increasingly desperate to keep doing business, but the Trump Administration is stopping their deadly operations,” CBP said.

While looping together marijuana and drugs like fentanyl might raise eyebrows, cartel-related crime associated with cannabis has been a consistent talking point in Congress. In fact, it was the subject of a House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, & Accountability hearing last month that focused on a so-called “invasion” of Chinese and Mexican cartels via illicit cannabis operations.

“Secretary Noem and the Department of Homeland Security are fulfilling President Trump’s promise to make America safe again by dismantling drug cartels and stopping the flow of deadly drugs into American communities,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “Thanks to President Trump, fewer American families will be torn apart by addiction, fewer lives will be lost to overdoses, and fewer profits will go to violent cartels.”

Separately, CBP posted a reminder on social media on Tuesday that cautioned travelers against bringing cannabis across the border.

“Attention, travelers! Did you know that marijuana is still a controlled substance under U.S. federal law?” it said. “This means that selling, possessing, producing, or distributing both medical and recreational cannabis is illegal!”

Keep reading

Top Trump Officials Intensify Push for Regime Change in Venezuela

Senior Trump administration officials have intensified their push to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power and are discussing steps to escalate the military pressure, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The report said the effort is being led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as President Trump’s national security advisor. Other top officials on board for regime change in Venezuela include CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Stephen Miller, Trump’s chief domestic policy advisor.

The report cited Venezuelan opposition figures who say their movement has been planning what to do if Maduro is ousted, and that Rubio had met with five opposition figures who fled to the US back in May. During the first Trump administration, the US backed a failed coup attempt against Maduro led by opposition figure Juan Guaido.

Other Trump officials, most notably special envoy Ric Grennel, are pushing for diplomacy with Venezuela, and Maduro has sent a letter to Trump seeking talks, although it was dismissed by the White House.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil pointed to the fact that his country continues to accept twice-weekly deportation flights from the US as a sign that Caracas is serious about diplomacy. He also said that a war would lead to “excessive migration” and economic collapse that would “destabilize the entire region.”

Officials told the Times that the administration is considering launching direct strikes inside Venezuela against alleged drug cartels, something that’s been reported by several other media outlets.

Keep reading

German Government Report Shows Marijuana Legalization Hasn’t Increased Youth Use Or Traffic Accidents

German officials have released a report on the impact of the nation’s marijuana legalization law, finding that fears from opponents about youth use, traffic safety and more have so far proved largely unfounded. However, the illicit market has not meaningfully diminished under the limited legal regulatory model that has been rolled out in the country to date.

The interim report, which was required under the cannabis law enacted last year, assessed a series of health, public safety and economic factors associated with the end of prohibition.

Among the most notable findings in the document published on Monday is the fact that youth marijuana use has continued to decline, even after possession and home cultivation were legalized for adults and social clubs offering access to members opened.

Further, “no clear changes in the previous trend in cannabis consumption among adults could be observed,” the report, conducted on behalf of the federal Ministry of Health, says, according to a translation.

“The percentage increase in adults who have consumed cannabis in the last 12 months, which has been observed since approximately 2011, is likely to continue…without any drastic changes,” it says.

A separate recent study conducted by German federal health officials also found that rates of marijuana use declined among youth after the country legalized adult-use cannabis, contradicting one of the more common prohibitionist arguments against the reform.

Another finding of the new legalization evaluation concerns traffic safety, with researchers determining that there’s been no meaningful change in incidents on the roadways associated with the policy change.

“In the area of ​​road safety, partial legalization has so far shown no significant changes in self-reported driving under the influence of cannabis or in the number of people killed or injured in road traffic,” the report states.

Early data on the impact of legalization on the illicit market indicates that the law has “not yet made a significant contribution to the displacement of the black market intended by the legislature,” the report found.

One reason for the continued presence of the illegal market could be related to how Germany’s legalization law is being rolled out, with a limited number of social clubs that grow cannabis for members to consume—but without a comprehensive commercial industry that could provide wider access to adults. And even if broad retail launches, it may take time to substantially transition consumers to the legal market, which has been the case in Canada and U.S. states that have enacted the reform.

Keep reading

Mount Sinai: Prenatal Acetaminophen Exposure Increases Risks of Autism and ADHD in Children, According to Analysis of 46 Global Studies

Amid growing concern over neurodevelopmental disorders, a recent study from Mount Sinai Hospital has reignited the debate surrounding acetaminophen, commonly known as paracetamol or Tylenol.

This analgesic, used by over 50% of pregnant women worldwide to relieve pain and fever, maybe linked to an increased risk of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in their children.

The report, published in August 2025 in the journal Environmental Health, analyzed 46 previous studies from international groups.

It applied the Navigation Guide methodology, a rigorous framework for evaluating environmental evidence. The findings show a consistent association: prenatal acetaminophen exposure increases the risk of autism by 19% (odds ratio 1.19) and ADHD by 26% (odds ratio 1.26).

Diddier Prada, MD, PhD, lead researcher at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, emphasized: “Our findings indicate that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and elevated risks of autism and ADHD.”

The analysis included 20 studies on ADHD, eight on autism, and 18 on other neurodevelopmental disorders. This is not an isolated finding. A 2019 Johns Hopkins study, based on umbilical cord blood samples from 996 children, found that high acetaminophen levels tripled the risk of autism (up to 3.62 times) and doubled the risk of ADHD (up to 2.86 times).

Researchers measured metabolites in blood at birth and followed the children for an average of 8.9 years. Another study, funded by the NIH in 2025, confirmed similar patterns: the middle third of exposure increased the risk of ADHD by 2.26 times and autism by 2.14 times.

These data come from cohorts such as the Boston Birth Cohort and the Nurses’ Health Study II. The underlying biology points to concerning mechanisms. Acetaminophen crosses the placental barrier and can induce oxidative stress, disrupt hormones, and cause epigenetic changes that interfere with fetal brain development. The risk appears heightened in the third trimester, when the brain develops rapidly.

In September 2025, the U.S. FDA responded with a letter to clinicians, initiating changes to product labels like Tylenol’s. It cited “accumulated evidence” of an association with autism and ADHD, recommending minimal doses and short-term use.

Keep reading

How Weed Surveillance Drones Destroyed the Lives of These Californians

The drone hovered low, whirring like a giant bug above the lush, green northern California fields. Its camera was trained on the curved roof of an aging dome home. Inside, Keni Meyer, a petite, ponytailed 54-year-old, didn’t know her property was under surveillance again. But the Sonoma County authorities were taking another step in a harassment campaign, ostensibly aimed at unpermitted cannabis grows.

Drone photos of the property spurred the county to allege a series of building code violations. Those citations drew Meyer into a doomed six-year fight to save her property, as Sonoma’s covert cannabis surveillance operation warped into an attack on less affluent residents. For dozens if not hundreds of people, a crackdown on unlicensed cannabis crops has led to six-figure fines, foreclosures, and evictions. The result has been tears and devastation—even for folks, such as Meyer, who did not grow cannabis at all.

In June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of three other Sonoma County residents. The suit says the authorities’ “runaway spying operation” violates constitutional protections against unlawful searches. Officials, the lawsuit charges, deployed a fleet of high-powered drones that could hover at 50 feet and capture high-quality video footage with precision zoom cameras, all while concealing the surveillance from residents, the media, and local oversight bodies.

To the ACLU, this isn’t ultimately about codes, or even cannabis. It’s about the right to privacy.

“We all have the right to live a private life at home without having to worry about a government drone flying overhead and watching us without a warrant or our knowledge,” says Matt Cagle, an attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “Sonoma County’s drone program demonstrates how technology further disrupts the power balance between governments and people, making it easy for agencies to warrantlessly sift through people’s private affairs at scale and levy charges and fines that upend lives and livelihoods. At the same time, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media.”

The lawsuit adds: “Never before has the government been able to deploy, at its convenience, an inexpensive and unobtrusive floating camera, controlled from afar, to surreptitiously monitor and record scenes from above a person’s private property.”

Drive around Sonoma today, and you’ll see plenty of housing that’s ramshackle and almost certainly unpermitted, with many egregious apparent violations. Many residents continue to erect out-buildings without permits, partly because the process is expensive and partly because many of them resent having to deal with Permit Sonoma as a point of principle: It violates their DIY ethos and their sense of rugged frontier freedom.

Keep reading