Tag: the war on (some) drugs

Ex-DEA agent gets 5 years in prison for using badge to protect drug trafficking friends: “Little dark secret”

In two decades of kicking in doors for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Joseph Bongiovanni often took on the risks of being the “lead breacher,” meaning he was the first person into the room.

On Wednesday, he felt a familiar uncertainty awaiting sentencing for using his DEA badge to protect childhood friends who became prolific drug traffickers in Buffalo, New York.

“I never knew what was on the other side of that door — that fear is what I feel today,” Bongiovanni, 61, told a federal judge, pounding the defense table as his face reddened with emotion. “I’ve always been innocent. I loved that job.”

U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo sentenced the disgraced lawman to five years in federal prison on a string of corruption counts. The punishment was significantly less than the 15 years prosecutors sought even after a jury acquitted Bongiovanni of the most serious charges he faced, including an allegation he pocketed $250,000 in bribes from the Mafia.

The judge said the sentence reflected the complexity of the mixed verdicts following two lengthy trials and the almost Jekyll-and-Hyde nature of Bongiovanni’s career, in which the lawman racked up enough front-page accolades to fill a trophy case.

Bongiovanni once hurtled into a burning apartment building to evacuate residents through billowing smoke. He locked up drug dealers, including the first ever prosecuted in the region for causing a fatal overdose.

“There are two completely polar opposite versions of the facts and polar opposite versions of the defendant,” Vilardo said, assuring prosecutors five years behind bars would pose a considerable hardship to someone who has never been to prison.

Keep reading

South Dakota Senate Panel Advances Bills To Ban Intoxicating Hemp And Kratom—But Without Recommendations For Passage

A South Dakota Senate panel advanced—but did not endorse—bans on hemp-derived intoxicants and kratom on Wednesday at the Capitol in Pierre.

Both bills were sponsored by Sen. John Carley, R-Piedmont.

The Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted unanimously to put the two prohibition bills in front of the full state Senate with no recommendation. Committees generally give a “do pass” recommendation to the bills they send out for a floor vote.

The votes came one day after the Senate Judiciary Committee offered its unqualified support for a bill meant to restrict the sale of certain hemp-based products to people older than 21. That bill came from Attorney General Marty Jackley (R).

In testimony about Carley’s bills, business owners and consumers of products like hemp-derived THC seltzers and kratom said they helped people kick opioids or alcohol. They also mentioned sales taxes collected on consumable products and the value of hemp to South Dakota farmers. That led some committee members to oppose the bills and sparked failed attempts to block the proposals. Ultimately, however, the committee opted to let the state Senate weigh in.

“We need to have a conversation about this on the floor,” said Sen. Curt Voight, R-Rapid City. “I think it rises to the level of a legislative decision.”

Possession, sale or use of kratom or THC consumables under each proposal would be a class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Tighter rules on hemp products

The first bill, Senate Bill 61, aims to act as an outright ban on the possession, sale or use of any intoxicating hemp products in the state outside of licensed medical marijuana dispensaries.

Such products are typically produced by altering or distilling cannabidiol, or CBD, found in the hemp plant to produce forms of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is the intoxicating compound found in greater abundance in the marijuana plant.

Many of the gummies, vape cartridges and other products made using hemp-derived THC variants like Delta-8, Delta-9 or Delta-10 are sold primarily in smoke shops, but THC seltzers are often available at bars, liquor stores or grocery stores.

The products essentially act as a workaround for the prohibition of marijuana in South Dakota by anyone who lacks a medical marijuana card, Carley said. The senator is also a member of the state’s Medical Marijuana Oversight Committee, which has taken testimony from medical cannabis providers about the impact the unregulated market has on their operations.

“This actually is harming the licensed marijuana businesses,” Carley said.

Carley had the support of the South Dakota Police Chiefs’ Association, South Dakota Sheriff’s Association and a group called Protecting South Dakota Kids.

Opponents included representatives for hemp retailers and hemp growers and a handful of business owners, who said the bill’s ban on any products with more than 0.4 percent THC by weight would remove many non-intoxicating products from store shelves, including topical creams.

“All this is a hemp and CBD ban,” said Matt Yde, who sells CBD in Sioux Falls but does not offer intoxicating products. “I would have to close my store, because I would have to remove 90 percent of my products.”

Steve Siegel of the South Dakota Trial Lawyers Association said he’s had many friends who’ve switched to THC seltzers from alcohol or pain killers. He said their popularity shows consumer demand, and getting a medical marijuana card can be expensive and onerous.

“These drinks should be regulated. But they’re selling like wildfire,” Siegel said. “They’re a phenomenal alternative to alcohol.”

Carley responded by saying the state shouldn’t be encouraging people to switch from one mind-altering drug to another.

He was “sorry to hear” about people who’d been addicted to painkillers and alcohol, but said instead of switching to a THC alternative, “They need some friends there. They need some church. They need some God in their life, or even ice cream or tea.”

Keep reading

Ancient Cannabis Enzymes Reveal How THC and CBD First Evolved

Scientists are taking a deeper look at the origins of cannabis chemistry by reconstructing enzymes from ancient plants, offering new insight into how cannabis first developed the ability to produce compounds like THC and CBD.

In a recent study published in Plant Biotechnology Journal, researchers at Wageningen University & Research rebuilt molecular structures that existed millions of years ago, revealing that ancient forms of cannabis enzymes were more flexible and robust than those found in modern plants.

The team behind the research says they have successfully traced the evolution of cannabinoid chemistry and identified molecular tools that could improve the biotechnological production of modern medicinal cannabinoids.

The Origin of Cannabinoids

In modern cannabis plants, specialized enzymes are responsible for making individual cannabinoids like THC or CBD. Each enzyme is highly efficient at producing one specific compound. The new study shows that this precision is a recent development in cannabis evolution, rather than something that existed from the start.

Early ancestors of cannabis used versatile enzymes that could create several cannabinoids at once. These enzymes became more specialized over time as gene duplication occurred. This led to the distinct chemical profiles seen in cannabis plants today.

The research team provided direct evidence for this evolutionary process by reconstructing ancient cannabis enzymes in the lab. Their results show that the pathways for creating specific cannabinoids like THC appeared relatively recently and became more specialized over time through natural selection.

Rebuilding Lost Enzymes

The team relied on ancestral sequence reconstruction to study this evolutionary history. They compared DNA from modern cannabis and related species to determine what cannabinoid-producing enzymes looked like millions of years ago.

The researchers synthesized the predicted enzymes and tested their functions in the lab. Many of the reconstructed enzymes converted precursor molecules into several different cannabinoids, unlike the more specialized modern enzymes.

These experiments enabled the team to directly test evolutionary hypotheses that had previously relied solely on genetic comparisons.

Ancient Enzymes as Biotech Tools

The most immediate implications of the study are for biotechnology rather than evolutionary biology. When the researchers expressed ancient enzymes in microbial systems, they found that the reconstructed enzymes were often easier to use than those found in modern cannabis plants.

“What once seemed evolutionarily ‘unfinished’ turns out to be highly useful,” said Robin van Velzen, who led the study with colleague Cloé Villard. “These ancestral enzymes are more robust and flexible than their descendants, which makes them very attractive starting points for new applications in biotechnology and pharmaceutical research.”

Keep reading

‘Dark Money’ Anti-Marijuana Group Is Bankrolling Ballot Measures To Roll Back Legalization In Multiple States, Records Show

When it comes to putting a proposed new law before voters, it helps to have lots of money ready to burn.

More than $11 million has already changed hands to advance or oppose a potentially record-breaking field of ballot questions that Massachusetts voters could decide in November, according to newly filed campaign finance reports, including a significant injection by a national dark-money group that opposes legal drug use.

All $1.55 million raised so far in support of a proposal to recriminalize recreational marijuana in Massachusetts came from SAM Action Inc., an organization that is not required to disclose the source of its own funding.

It’s the same organization that bankrolled opposition to a 2024 Massachusetts ballot question that sought to open up access to some psychedelic substances, which voters rejected.

Massachusetts is not alone as a battleground, either. SAM Action is also the only donor behind a ballot question in Maine this cycle that would similarly prohibit recreational pot use there, as the Portland Press Herald reported.

Both campaigns have generated scrutiny over their efforts to gather signatures from voters.

In Massachusetts, opponents filed an objection alleging the campaign “obtained signatures fraudulently” by telling voters the measure would provide affordable housing or fund public parks, not that it would ban recreational marijuana.

The State Ballot Law Commission heard arguments last week and is expected to rule by Friday. State law empowers the panel to determine whether signatures were placed on a ballot question petition “by fraud,” and its interpretation could set off a lengthier court battle over whether the question can go before voters.

Similarly, Mainers have been alleging in recent weeks that they were misled about what the anti-marijuana petition would do when they signed it. Maine’s secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, said she’s received complaints about the topic, adding that she has no enforcement power because, as she put it to lawmakers, “You have a right to lie under the First Amendment.”

Wendy Wakeman, a veteran Republican operative who is working as spokesperson for the repeal campaign, said the Massachusetts and Maine questions are “not a coordinated effort” despite funding coming from the same national group.

SAM Action is a 501(c)(4) organization, so it’s not required to disclose its donors, leaving unclear exactly who is putting major dollars toward shutting down an industry both Massachusetts and Maine voted nearly a decade ago to legalize.

On its website, SAM Action claims affiliation with the nonprofit Smart Approaches to Marijuana group co-founded by former US Rep. Patrick Kennedy—a Democrat who represented Rhode Island, and the son of longtime US Sen. Ted Kennedy—along with former White House Office of National Drug Control Policy advisor Kevin Sabet and David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush who is now a senior editor at The Atlantic.

Wakeman declined to comment on SAM Action’s primary donors.

Keep reading

Secretary Noem: Gov. Walz and Mayor Frey Have Released 490 Murderers, Rapists, and Drug Traffickers onto their Streets Rather than Turn Them Over to ICE

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem joined Greta Van Susteren on Newsmax for an interview on Monday.

During their discussion Secretary Noem announced that Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Tim Walz RELEASED 490 murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers onto the streets.

The Democrat leaders did this INSTEAD of handing them over to ICE. Who in their right mind would support this?

Secretary Kristi Noem: “We have a National Targeting Center that identifies those who’ve committed crimes. So they’ve done something in this country or in their home country that has been criminal charges against them, or they’ve been convicted. Many times, these individuals are in jails or prisons in some of our states already that we just want those local law enforcement officers to turn over to us.

“For example, one of the things we’ve asked Governor Walz for, and Mayor Frey, is to give us the criminals you have in jail. They’ve released 490 murderers, and rapists, and drug traffickers onto their streets, rather than just give them to us—and that’s what I don’t understand.”

That is TREASON! There is no other way to put it.

Angry Democrats support this!

Keep reading

Florida Lawmakers Approve Bill To Ban Public Marijuana Smoking Ahead Of Possible Legalization Vote On The Ballot

A Florida Senate panel has advanced legislation to ban smoking or vaping marijuana in public places, a development that comes as an industry-funded campaign is seeking to place a recreational cannabis legalization initiative on the November ballot.

The Senate Regulated Industries Committee on Tuesday approved the bill, which defines a public place as “a place to which the public has access, including, but not limited to, streets; sidewalks; highways; public parks; public beaches; and the common areas, both inside and outside, of schools, hospitals, government buildings, apartment buildings, office buildings, lodging establishments, restaurants, transportation facilities, and retail shops.”

The measure from Sen. Joe Gruters (R), who is also chairman of the Republican National Committee, would specify that marijuana cannot be smoked or vaped in customs smoking rooms at airports.

Sen. Ana Maria Rodriguez (R) presented the bill, SB 986, on Gruters’s behalf at the committee hearing.

“There is currently no prohibition on smoking marijuana in public places if adult use is approved by the voters,” she said, according to Florida Politics. “By banning public smoking of marijuana, we are protecting community health and quality of life, as well as protecting certain outdoor spaces from marijuana smoke such as beaches and parks.”

Rep. Alex Andrade (R) is sponsoring a similar bill to ban public cannabis smoking in the House of Representatives.

The proposals are among a growing list of cannabis legislation that lawmakers are introducing for consideration next year.

Keep reading

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