Tag: the war on (some) drugs

Utah Passed a Religious Freedom Law. Then Cops Went After This Psychedelic Church.

When Bridger Lee Jensen opened a spiritual center in Provo, Utah, he contacted city officials to let them know the religious group he had founded, Singularism, would be conducting ceremonies involving a tea made from psilocybin mushrooms. “Singularism is optimistic that through partnership and dialogue, it can foster an environment that respects diversity and upholds individual rights,” Jensen wrote in a September 2023 letter to the Provo City Council and Mayor Michelle Kaufusi. Seeking to “establish an open line of communication” with local officials, Jensen invited them to ask questions and visit the center.

Jensen’s optimism proved to be unfounded. The city did not respond to his overture until more than a year later, when Provo police searched the Singularism center and seized the group’s sacrament: about 450 grams of psilocybin mushrooms from Oregon. The seizure resulted from an investigation in which an undercover officer posed as a would-be Singularism facilitator.

That raid happened in November 2024, less than eight months after Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, had signed the state’s version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The state law likely protects Singularism’s psychedelic rituals, a federal judge ruled in February. U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish granted Jensen’s request for a preliminary injunction against city and county officials, ordering them to return the mushrooms and refrain from further interference with the group’s “sincere religious use of psilocybin” while the case is pending.

“In this litigation, the religious-exercise claims of a minority entheogenic religion put the State of Utah’s commitment to religious freedom to the test,” Parrish wrote in Jensen v. Utah County. If such a commitment “is to mean anything,” she said, it must protect “unpopular or unfamiliar religious groups” as well as “popular or familiar ones.”

Parrish noted that “the very founding of the State of Utah reflects the lived experience of that truth by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” In light of that history, she suggested, “it is ironic” that “not long after enacting its RFRA to provide special protections for religious exercise, the State of Utah should so vigorously deploy its resources, particularly the coercive power of its criminal-justice system, to harass and shut down a new religion it finds offensive practically without any evidence that [the] religion’s practices have imposed any harms on its own practitioners or anyone else.”

Under the federal RFRA, which Congress enacted in 1993, the government may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it shows that the burden is “the least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling governmental interest.” In 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that RFRA protected the American branch of a syncretic Brazil-based church from federal interference with its rituals, even though the group’s sacramental tea, ayahuasca, contained the otherwise illegal psychedelic drug dimethyltryptamine.

The Supreme Court has said RFRA cannot be applied to state and local governments. Laws like Utah’s, which 29 states have enacted, aim to fill that gap.

The defendants in Jensen’s case—Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray, the county, and the city of Provo—argued that Utah’s RFRA did not apply to Singularism, which they portrayed as a drug trafficking operation disguised as a religion. Parrish rejected that characterization. “Based on all the evidence in the record,” she wrote, “the court has no difficulty concluding that Plaintiffs are sincere in their beliefs and that those beliefs are religious in nature.”

Parrish also concluded that “preventing Singularism’s adherents from pursuing their spiritual voyages” imposed a substantial burden on their religious freedom that was not “the least restrictive means” of addressing the government’s public safety concerns. She noted that Utah allows religious use of peyote and has authorized “behavioral health treatment programs” in which patients can receive psilocybin.

Keep reading

DEA Judge Sides With Agency On Proposal To Ban Two Psychedelics Despite Challenge From Scientific Researchers

A Drug Enforcement Administration judge has formally sided with the agency in its attempt to ban two psychedelic compounds that researchers say hold significant therapeutic potential, recommending that they be placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

In a ruling on Friday, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Soeffing said he advised the agency to move forward with its plan to place the psychedelics—2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC)—in Schedule I.

This follows administrative hearings where researchers and advocates, including Panacea Plant Sciences (PPS) and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), have fought against DEA to ensure that the psychedelics can continue to be utilized in research.

But in the 118-page ruling, Soeffing ultimately said that “the record contains substantial evidence regarding the eight factors required for consideration under 21 U.S.C. § 811(c) to support recommending the scheduling of DOI and DOC,” referring to an administrative standard for determining the health risks and benefits of substances before when placing them in the CSA.

“Furthermore, I find that the record contains substantial evidence regarding the three factors required for consideration under 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1) to support recommending the placement of DOI and DOC in Schedule I,” he said, adding that the fact that the United Nations put DOC specifically on its own controlled substances list justifies its prohibition.

The bulk of the recommendation, which must be approved by the DEA administrator before potentially being codified, recounts the competing arguments between DEA and organizations opposing the scheduling action. But this ruling could reignite an ongoing legal challenge that PPS levied against the agency, challenging the fundamental constitutionality of the ALJ proceedings in drug scheduling rulemaking.

“It’s not a surprise that a DEA employee would side with the DEA,” PPS CEO David Heldreth told Marijuana Moment on Friday. “We find that the supposed impartiality of the judge is highly questionable due to that, and we plan to appeal this ruling and continue our lawsuit against the DEA.”

SSDP was among stakeholders who requested the psychedelics hearing in the first place, in hopes of challenging what they view as a lack of evidence justifying DEA’s proposed ban. Researchers have pointed out that DOI and DOC, as currently unscheduled substances, have been key components in psychedelics research that show potential in the treatment of anxiety and depression, for example.

Researchers have also argued that DEA has failed to meet the statutory burden of demonstrating that either psychedelic compound has high abuse potential. There are no documented cases in medical literature of “distressing responses or death” related to human consumption of DOI, nor has there been any established evidence of a high risk of dependence, SSDP said in a pre-hearing filing in July.

Keep reading

Texas Governor Tells Lawmakers To Regulate Hemp THC Products Like Alcohol After Vetoing Bill To Ban Most Consumable Cannabinoids

The governor of Texas says that, rather than outright ban consumable hemp products, lawmakers should establish a regulatory framework that treats cannabinoids “similar to the way alcohol is regulated.”

After vetoing a controversial bill on Sunday that would have effectively eliminated the state’s hemp market, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) proposed an extensive list of policy changes that he says he would support—and which the legislature will have the chance to enact during a special session the governor is convening next month.

“Texans on each side of the Senate Bill 3 debate raise serious concerns. But one thing is clear—to ensure the highest level of safety for minors, as well as for adults, who obtain a product more dangerous than what they expected, Texas must strongly regulate hemp, and it must do so immediately,” Abbott said.

Part of the rationale behind his veto was the risk of litigation over “valid constitutional challenges” that he suggested would hold up in court. And to that end, multiple top Texas hemp companies did file a preemptive lawsuit challenging the legislation, SB 3, before the governor’s veto.

“If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed,” Abbott said in his veto message. “Texas cannot afford to wait.”

“At worst, Senate Bill 3 would be permanently invalidated by the courts; at best, its implementation would be delayed for years as the case winds its way through the legal system,” he said. “We can do better.”

Rather than face the possibility of having the law enjoined, or indefinitely delayed, the governor said the state “must enact a regulatory framework that protects public safety, aligns with federal law, has a fully funded enforcement structure, and can take effect without delay.”

“Legislators could consider a structure similar to the way alcohol is regulated, with strict enforcement by an agency like the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission,” he said, adding a list of recommended policies he wants to see lawmakers adopt that include age restrictions, zoning requirements and bans on public consumption.

Here’s the full list of the governor’s recommended hemp regulations:

  • Selling or providing a THC product to a minor must be punishable as a crime.
  • Sales must be prohibited near schools, churches, parks, playgrounds, and other areas frequented by children.
  • Packaging must be child-resistant, tamper-evident, and resealable;
  • Products must not be made, packaged, or marketed in a manner attractive to children.
  • Any store selling these products must have a permit and restrict access to anyone under the age of 21, with strict penalties for any retailer that fails to comply.
  • Products containing THC may not contain other psychoactive substances (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, kratom).
  • Testing must be required at every phase of production and manufacturing, including for both plants and derivative consumable products.
  • Manufacturing and processing facilities must be subject to permitting and food safety rules.
  • Permit and registration fees must suffice to support robust enforcement and testing by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, in partnership with other state agencies.
  • An operator’s permit and warning/danger signs must be posted at any store selling these products.
  • Sales must be limited to the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and prohibited on Sundays.
  • The amount of THC permissible in each product must be restricted and an individual may make only a limited number of purchases in a given period of time.
  • Labels must include a surgeon general-style warning, a clear disclosure of all ingredients, including the THC content, and a scannable barcode or QR code linking to test results.
  • Fraudulently creating or displaying manifests or lab results must be punishable as felony offenses.
  • Public consumption, consumption on the premises of any store that sells these products, and possession of an open container in a vehicle must be punishable as crimes.
  • The Attorney General, district attorneys, and county attorneys must have authority to pursue violations under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
  • Local governments must have the option to prohibit or limit stores selling these products.
  • Excise taxes must be assessed on these products to fund oversight and enforcement.
  • Additional funding must be provided to ensure law enforcement have sufficient resources to vigorously enforce restrictions.

“This list, of course, is not exhaustive. But it may provide items to consider in a regulatory system that is strict, fair, and legally sustainable,” Abbott said. “Passing a law is not the same thing as actually solving a problem. Texas needs a bill that is enforceable and will make our communities safer today, rather than years from now. Next month, the Legislature will have the opportunity to address this serious issue. I look forward to working with them to ensure that we get it right.”

Keep reading

Letting Marijuana Users Have Guns Poses ‘A Clear Danger,’ Trump’s Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

In a recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on arguments made under former President Joe Biden that users of illegal drugs—including marijuana—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”

That risk, DOJ contends, justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.

In a petition for review by the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that despite recent appeals court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

“Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” the government’s June 2 filing in the case, U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But in the appeal petition in Hemani, Trump’s solicitor general said the ban is necessary and narrowly tailored enough to survive the legal challenge.

The federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

Notably, while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

A reply brief from Hemani’s lawyers is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.

While DOJ is asking the high court to take up the Hemani case, at least two other, similar cases are waiting in the wings: U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter both of which also hinge on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

In Cooper, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In Baxter, the Eighth Circuit ruled 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the case.

Judges in that case wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.” Nevertheless, the they wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Keep reading

Missouri Marijuana Officials Are Reviewing Rules On Purchase Limits For Medical Patients

Cannabis advocacy organizations are sounding the alarm about guidance from state regulators limiting how much medical marijuana patients can purchase from licensed dispensaries.

By law, dispensaries are required to track how much medical marijuana patients buy so they don’t exceed their limit.

According to a FAQ that was added earlier this year to the website of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, the state’s cannabis regulatory agency, if patients reach their limit they are not legally allowed to buy marijuana like as a recreational consumer.

“…patient ID card holders are not allowed to purchase as a consumer in a licensed dispensary,” the website states. “These regulations help ensure patients and consumers stay within their allowed possession limits.”

In general, medical patients are limited to a 6-ounce allotment of dried, unprocessed marijuana every 30 days. Recreational consumers are allowed to purchase up to 3 ounces every day—but can’t possess more than 3 ounces.

The state is prohibited by law from tracking the purchases of people who don’t have patient ID cards without their permission.

Andrew Mullins, executive director of the Missouri Marijuana Trade Association, sent a letter to leaders of the Division of Cannabis Regulation in April claiming the policy is unconstitutional.

“We believe that DCR’s interpretation that a Missourian must either be an adult-use consumer or a medical patient is neither good public policy nor a constitutionally sound interpretation,” he wrote.

Keep reading

Texas Governor Signs Bill To Significantly Expand State’s Medical Marijuana Program

The governor of Texas has approved a bill to to significantly expand the state’s medical marijuana program.

As advocates and stakeholders await the fate of a separate measure banning consumable hemp products, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Saturday signed into law the medical cannabis legislation from Rep. Ken King (R).

The new law will expand the state’s list of medical cannabis qualifying conditions to include chronic pain, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory bowel diseases, while also allowing end-of-life patients in palliative or hospice care to use marijuana.

The measure additionally allows patients to access a wider range of cannabis product types—including patches, lotions, suppositories, approved inhalers, nebulizers and vaping devices.

And, it mandates that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) increase the number of medical cannabis business licenses from the current three to 15. It further allows dispensaries to open satellite locations.

Before moving to the governor’s desk, House lawmakers had rejected Senate changes to the bill, which largely scaled back the scope of the proposed expansion to the medical marijuana program.

The version passed by the House last month would have extended the currently limited list of medical cannabis qualifying conditions to include chronic pain, glaucoma, TBI, spinal neuropathy, Crohn’s disease or other inflammatory bowel disease and degenerative disc disease.

It would also have allowed military veterans to become registered cannabis patients for any medical condition—and authorized the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to further expand the list of qualifying conditions.

But those provisions were removed in the Senate State Affairs Committee before the bill reached the floor of that chamber.

Rep. Tom Oliverson (R) suggested there was an agreement around adding chronic pain with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), the presiding officer of the Senate. While Patrick disputed the characterization of their conversation, the lieutenant governor and lawmakers ultimately reached a deal to reinsert the condition into the bill with an amendment that passed on the Senate floor, among others.

Whereas the Senate version had said that chronic pain patients could only access medical cannabis if they had first tried opioids for 90 days, the final version crafted by the conference committee does not contain such a stipulation. And, under the agreement, TBI is being added back in as a new qualifying condition as well.

Keep reading

Nebraska AG Sends Threat Letters To Retailers Over Alleged Sales Of Illegal THC Products

The owners of 82 smoke and vape shops and other THC-friendly retailers in Lincoln are receiving cease and desist letters this week from Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) about selling THC-containing products.

Hilgers, the state’s top prosecutor, ramped back up his push to get stores to stop selling delta-8, delta-9 and other products containing tetrahydrocannabinol that he argues offer people an unregulated, unsafe, illegal way to get high.

Store owners in several cities that Hilgers has targeted have argued state law is unclear about the legality of selling the products. Some have argued that federal law might have a loophole allowing it.

Hilgers had said he would pause his efforts to warn and then sue retailers still offering the targeted THC products if the Legislature in the 2025 session passed a bill to clearly make them illegal in the state, which stalled. The bill is likely to return in 2026.

His office, which also files civil cases to enforce state law, has sent the letters to 204 stores statewide alleging unfair business practices, deception and violations of safety requirements for food. That tally includes 104 stores in Omaha, four in Kearney and three in Nebraska City.

Keep reading

Texas Hemp THC Ban and Medical Marijuana Expansion Set to Become Law on Monday

With the deadline for gubernatorial action falling on Sunday, June 22, both bills are now expected to become law without Abbott’s signature unless he issues a rare weekend veto.

If no veto is delivered by the end of Sunday, the measures will automatically take effect. House Bill 46 would significantly broaden the state’s limited compassionate use program by adding eligibility for patients with chronic pain, terminal illness, and traumatic brain injuries. It would also expand the number of licensed dispensaries from three to fifteen and legalize new product forms, such as patches and inhalers.

Senate Bill 3 would prohibit nearly all hemp-derived THC products—including delta-8, delta-10, and THCO—when intended for ingestion, inhalation, or topical use. Only trace THC amounts would be allowed in non-intoxicating products like CBD. If enacted, the ban would deal a major blow to Texas’ multibillion-dollar hemp THC industry. The restrictions would take effect September 1.

Despite both bills passing with strong bipartisan support, Abbott said earlier this week that he was still undecided on the hemp ban. With time running out, stakeholders are bracing for the likelihood that both measures will quietly become law on Monday, June 23.

Keep reading

“What in the World Would Justify Doing This?”: A Texas Vet and Hemp-Business Owner on the Looming THC Ban

By Sunday, Texans will know whether the hemp-derived THC products that have been legal in the state since 2019 will be banned as of September 1. During the Eighty-Ninth Legislature, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 3, which would end a $5.5 billion industry and which now sits on Governor Greg Abbott’s desk. Sunday is the deadline for him to either veto the bill—breaking with Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who made SB 3 a priority during the session and pushed it through both chambers with zeal—or allow it to become law. 

Lukas Gilkey, an Austin-based U.S. Coast Guard veteran, cofounded the cannabis company Hometown Hero, which has been producing hemp-derived THC products since 2019, and has emerged as one of the most outspoken opponents of the ban. The 44-year-old has gone viral for his social media posts responding to Patrick and defending the industry. With just days to go before Abbott determines the fate of the industry, we asked him to explain his position and make his pitch to the governor for why weed is good for Texas.  

Texas Monthly: So there’s an argument that legalization of these products in 2019 was kind of an accident: The Legislature legalized hemp, mirroring language that appeared in the federal farm bill the previous year, and in the process allowed the proliferation of certain derivatives that it did not consider. And so the argument goes that what it has done this session is just correcting an oversight. Does that hold water for you? 

Lukas Gilkey: Knowingly or unknowingly, they legalized these products, and subsequently a fully legal industry was created from that decision. This industry has over four billion dollars in retail sales in Texas. It’s created over 53,000 jobs, over eight thousand small businesses. If they wanted to correct it, it should have been done much sooner, rather than letting so many Texans enter this industry under the assumption it was legal and the politicians were okay with it. They allowed this thing to grow and then changed their mind six years later when they could have done it in 2021. Why did they not? 

Keep reading

Texas medical marijuana companies spent big on Republican lobbyists to push THC ban

Gov. Greg Abbott has a choice when it comes to banning hemp-derived delta-8 and delta-9 THC products: listen to hundreds of thousands of Texans who enjoy them or a handful of powerful Republican lobbyists working for marijuana investors.

Abbott is in the crossfire of a cannabis civil war. Medical marijuana and retail hemp companies are fighting over who can legally get people high. The standoff is typical Texas politics, with the medical marijuana companies hiring former aides to Abbott and Lt. Gov Dan Patrick to lobby for them, and the hemp industry relying on public pressure.

The Texas Legislature authorized medical marijuana in 2017 for a tiny number of patients. Three medical cannabis companies have spent millions complying with the Texas Compassionate Use Program to legally sell products with THC, the ingredient in marijuana that makes you high. They expected exclusivity. Since then, lawmakers have steadily expanded TCUP to treat more conditions, adding people with chronic pain this year.

In 2021, cannabis-focused venture capital firm AFI Capital Partners led a $21 million Series B investment in Texas Original Compassionate Cultivation. The company supplied 77% of the medical cannabis consumed in 2022, the latest full-year data available in an annual Texas Department of Public Safety TCUP analysis.

The investment had horrible timing. In 2019, federal and state lawmakers legalized hemp, a type of cannabis with low levels of THC. Hemp entrepreneurs figured out how to concentrate the THC, and today, the hemp industry primarily sells edibles containing enough THC to get you stoned.

Keep reading