Tag: the war on (some) drugs

DEA Should Be Removed From Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing After Illegally Conspiring With Prohibitionists, Legal Filing Says

A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge is being asked to remove the agency from its role in an upcoming hearing on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal, with a new legal filing citing alleged statutory violations that include “unlawful” communication with a prohibitionist group.

When the Department of Justice formally proposed moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—consistent with a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—one aspect stood out: The DEA administrator didn’t sign the notice of proposed rulemaking, breaking with historical precedent on federal scheduling proceedings. Instead, it was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

That was one of several factors that led to a motion being filed with DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney on Monday, seeking corrective action. It was submitted on behalf of Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International, which were both invited to participate in the rescheduling hearing that’s set to begin next month.

The issue isn’t just that DEA Administrator Anne Milgram declined to sign the proposed rule. Throughout that notice, the agency said it needed additional data on a variety of issues—namely cannabis-related health issues and law enforcement concerns—in order to make a complete assessment. The motion argues that the backwards approach to the rulemaking violates federal statute.

“By waiting until the publication of the [proposed rule]—and thus after DOJ had initiated proceedings under [the CSA]—to flag categories of supposedly ‘necessary data,’ DEA ensured that HHS would not get to respond to that data in its recommendation and evaluation,” the motion says. “Even worse, DEA effectively turned the [proposed rule] into a blueprint for the Prohibitionists it apparently was communicating with behind the scenes.”

Another issue that’s arisen concerns DEA’s selection of witnesses to participate in the December hearing, which was scheduled following a public comment period that saw tens of thousands of submissions—a majority of which favored rescheduling or otherwise pushed for bolder reform such as removing marijuana from the CSA altogether.

Keep reading

State’s Audit Reveals Rampant Abuse of Psychotropic Drugs on Children in State Care

A recent audit conducted by the Massachusetts Office of the State Auditor reveals that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) apparently is really bad at doing its job and the fact that the well-being of children is at stake makes the incompetence incomprehensible.

The DCF is tasked with providing services to children who are at risk and victims of abuse or neglect. The services the state is responsible for providing include adoption, guardianship, foster care, housing stabilization, and family support.

Specifically, AbleChild is interested in the section of the audit that reviews the oversight of the drugging of children with serious psychiatric mind-altering drugs. The audit reviewed the period from July of 2019 to December of 2023.

During the audit period, 3,899 (22%) of the 17,891 children in DCF’s protective custody were prescribed at least one psychotropic medication. During the audit period, the number of prescriptions filled for each drug category included 1,065 prescriptions for anti-anxiety meds, 21,585 Antidepressants, 10,564 Antipsychotics, 10,776 Mood Stabilizers, and 48,453 Stimulants. Clearly, chemical behavior modification is a common practice, and the state’s DCF social workers are required to participate in, follow, and document the medication history of each child under their care.

To help caseworkers provide the required services, a child is provided a physical Medical Passport that records its healthcare services while in state custody. Social Workers are required to review these physical passports every six months to keep the children’s related medical records in iFN (electronic information system) updated with their most recent healthcare information.

In Massachusetts, it is required that the Courts approve antipsychotic medication use in children in the state’s protective custody. The audit revealed that “the Department of Children and Families did not always obtain or renew court approval before children in its protective custody were administered antipsychotic medications.” This is a problem because the court needs to know that the drug regimen is safe and effective. Furthermore, the courts have oversight of children who are too young to consent to the drug treatment and act as a neutral party.

The audit also found that “the Department of Children and Families did not properly maintain healthcare records in iFamilyNet (iFN) for children in its protective custody who received psychotropic medications.” Keeping up-to-date records is essential to ensure that the child is not being overprescribed with toxic mind-altering drugs. There is no oversight, leaving the children in custody at risk.

Additionally, the DCF did not list and/or update the psychotropic medications prescribed to children in their medical passports, which clearly can lead to overprescribing of dangerous mind-altering drugs and serious, if not deadly, adverse events. And with the lack of documentation, the DCF also did not document follow-up doctor appointments and recommended psychosocial services. How can these deficits possibly help children in the state’s care?

Keep reading

Trump Taps Pro-Marijuana Legalization Congressman Matt Gaetz For U.S. Attorney General

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to serve as the next U.S. attorney general—a selection that would put one of the only GOP members of Congress who actively supports and voted for marijuana legalization into the nation’s top law enforcement position.

As Trump works to put together his cabinet, the choice of Gaetz stands out as one of the most positive signals that the state-level cannabis marketplace will not be impeded under his administration. And it also bodes well for the ongoing Biden administration-led marijuana rescheduling effort that Trump has endorsed.

Gaetz was one of three Republican members of the House to approve a Democratic-led bill to federally legalize marijuana, titled the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act in 2022. He also supported a prior version of the legislation despite his concerns with equity-focused provisions.

Keep reading

Every GOP Senate Majority Leader Candidate Opposes Marijuana Legalization

With Republicans winning control of the U.S. Senate in last week’s elections, a key question for marijuana reform advocates and stakeholders is what the selection of a new GOP majority leader will mean for cannabis reform.

There are three names currently at the top of the list of potential majority leaders who will set the legislative agenda: Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Rick Scott (R-FL) and John Thune (R-SD). None have embraced ending prohibition, and each has a track record of expressing concerns about cannabis use or even moderate policy reforms such as those endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) having already announced he will not be seeking to return to the leadership position, this will the first time since 2007 that the GOP caucus will be selecting a new majority leader. Republican senators are set to meet on Wednesday to make that determination.

Trump hasn’t endorsed a specific candidate to assume the top Senate role, but while Thune is generally considered a front-runner, certain of the president-elect’s allies such as Elon Musk have been pushing for Scott to become the chamber’s leader.

However it shakes out, the current contenders are united in their opposition to legalizing marijuana.

There are some in the industry who remain hopeful that Trump’s embrace of an unsuccessful Florida legalization measure, cannabis banking reform and rescheduling could move the party to fall in line. But the extent to which the incoming president cares enough about the issue to forcefully push for, or even occasionally mention, it from the White House remains to be seen.

After announcing his support for the policy change, Trump became relatively quiet on the issue ahead of the election—which may partly explain why his supporters evidently did not adopt his position, according to a recent poll.

And based on the records of the top contenders for Senate majority leader, it seems highly unlikely they would proactively try to enact reform legislation without a major push from the president.

Keep reading

Marijuana Legalization Faces A ‘Red Wall’ In Remaining Conservative States That Still Criminalize Consumers

November 5, 2024, was a tough day for cannabis legalization supporters.

Recreational legalization ballot questions in Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota all failed.

Two medical measures passed in Nebraska but face legal challenges over the validity of the signatures required to get the measures on the ballot. Why two measures? One legalizes the medical use of cannabis, and the second regulates it.

A medical use measure also appeared on the ballot in Arkansas, but the state Supreme Court ruled before the election that the votes can’t be counted because the title and name were “misleading.”

These failures raise questions about where the movement to legalize cannabis goes from here.

The red wall holds

I’ve been researching cannabis legalization in the U.S. since 2014. I’ve previously written about how the cannabis legalization movement’s primary obstacle is the “red wall,” a term I use to refer to the 20 states where Republicans have total control of state government and recreational cannabis remains illegal.

Another four states without recreational legalization—Kansas, Wisconsin, Kentucky and North Carolina—could be described as “red wall adjacent.” These states have Democratic governors, but Republicans control the state legislatures.

Keep reading

Ohio Would Ban Intoxicating Hemp Product Sales Under GOP Senator’s New Bill

State Sen. Steve Huffman, R-Tipp City, introduced a bill that would ban the sale of intoxicating hemp products in Ohio.

The Republican lawmaker introduced Senate Bill 326 on Thursday. State lawmakers are set to return to the Ohio Statehouse next week for the start of lame duck.

S.B. 326 defines intoxicating hemp products as containing more than 0.5 of a milligram of delta-9 THC per serving, two milligrams of delta-9 THC per package, or 0.5 of a milligram of total non-delta-9 THC per package, according to the bill’s language.

“This act is hereby declared to be an emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety,” the bill said. “The reason for such necessity is to protect Ohioans, especially Ohio’s youth, from untested, unregulated dangerous tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products. Therefore, this act shall go into immediate effect.”

Marijuana, which is legal in Ohio, is not included as an intoxicating hemp product, according to the bill’s language. Ohio recreational marijuana sales recently topped $143.4 million since sales started three months ago, according to the the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Cannabis Control.

The 2018 Farm Bill says hemp can be grown legally if it contains less than 0.3 percent THC. Intoxicating hemp products can come in many forms including edibles, beverages, vaping cartridges or oils, among other things.

Delta-9 THC is the main naturally occurring intoxicating part of the cannabis plant and people typically experience a high after consuming or smoking delta-9 THC beyond a certain threshold.

Under S.B. 326, the Ohio Investigative Unit would enforce this piece of legislation if it were to become law, with the assistance of the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

The Ohio Department of Commerce Director (who is currently Sheryl Maxfield) could impose an administrative penalty against someone who sells intoxicating hemp products—$10,000 for a first violation, $25,000 for a second violation and $50,000 for a third violation.

Violating the proposed law would be a first degree misdemeanor on a first offense and a fifth degree felony for a second offense, according to the bill’s language. It would be a fifth degree felony if someone sold intoxicating hemp to someone under 21.

Keep reading

A Psychedelic Ban Would Disrupt Important Research

You have probably never heard of 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI), much less worried about its possible abuse. Yet the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wants to ban this synthetic psychedelic, a promising research chemical used in more than 900 published studies, by placing it in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), which defeated a previous DEA attempt to ban DOI in 2022, is determined to stop the agency’s interference with science again.

A DEA administrative law judge has scheduled a 10-day hearing on the proposed ban, beginning on November 12. SSDP, which filed a prehearing statement on behalf of more than 20 scientists, argues that placing DOI in Schedule I would impose “onerous financial and bureaucratic obstacles on researchers.” SSDP also opposes the scheduling of another psychedelic, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC), under the same proposed rule, which the DEA published last December.

“DOI and DOC are important research chemicals with basically no evidence of abuse,” says SSDP alum and legal counsel Brett Phelps. Phelps is working with Denver attorney Robert Rush, who represents 
University of California, Berkeley, neuroscientist Raul Ramos.

“The DEA’s attempt to classify DOI, a compound of great significance to both psychedelic and fundamental serotonin research, as a Schedule I substance exemplifies an administrative agency overstepping its bounds,” Rush says. “The government admits DOI is not being diverted for use outside of scientific research yet insists on placing this substance in such a restricted class that it will disrupt virtually all current research.”

SSDP describes the two compounds as “essential research chemicals in pre-clinical psychiatry and neurobiology,” noting that their unscheduled status has made them accessible as tools for studying serotonin receptors. It says DOI, in particular, has been “a cornerstone in neuroscience research” due to its selectivity for the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor, crucial for understanding the therapeutic effects of psychedelics. Scientists have used DOI to “map the localization of an important serotonin receptor in the brain critical in learning, memory, and psychiatric disease,” SSDP notes, and DOI studies “have shown encouraging results in managing pain and reducing opioid cravings.”

The DEA argues that DOI and DOC “have a high potential for abuse.” While the two compounds “are available for purchase from legitimate chemical synthesis companies,” the DEA concedes, “there is no evidence of diversion from these companies.” But it notes that both drugs “have been encountered by law enforcement in the United States,” indicating their “availability for abuse.” Because “DOI and DOC are not found in FDA-approved drug products,” the DEA says, people who use them must be doing so “on their own initiative, rather than based on medical advice.”

Keep reading

Florida Sen. Rick Scott says he’ll vote against recreational pot after brother’s death

Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida says he’ll be voting in November against a ballot amendment to legalize recreational marijuana in his state, a deeply personal decision based on his brother’s long history of addiction.

The senator and former Florida governor said he watched his brother Roger Scott begin smoking marijuana as a teenager and then struggle with substance use for the rest of life.

“People end up with addictive personalities, and so he did,” Scott said in an interview. “It messes up your life, and so that’s why I’ve never supported legalization of drugs.”

When Roger Scott died in April at 67, the cause wasn’t substance abuse, but rather “a life of drugs and alcohol” catching up with him, the senator said. He had lived in an apartment in Dallas, Texas, where he served jail time in 1990 on a misdemeanor conviction of possessing dangerous drugs, court records show.

Rick Scott became wealthy as a lawyer and health care industry executive before entering politics. Now running for reelection, he lamented that his brother had a “tough life” and says it all began with marijuana.

Keep reading

Dallas Voters Nix an All-Purpose Excuse for Police Harassment: ‘I Smelled Marijuana’

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case involving a Texas police officer, Roberto Felix Jr., who shot and killed a motorist, Ashtian Barnes, after stopping him for toll violations tied to the rental car he was driving. The issue in Barnes v. Felix is whether that use of deadly force, which happened after Felix leaped onto the car as Barnes began driving away, should be assessed based solely on “the moment of the threat” or based on an analysis that includes the circumstances that produced the threat. But another detail of the encounter reflects the role that the purported odor of marijuana plays in police stops that may lead to humiliating searches, cash seizures, arrests, or, as in this case, potentially lethal violence.

When Felix asked Barnes for his driver’s license and proof of insurance, a federal judge noted in 2021, “Barnes informed him that he did not have his license and that he had rented the vehicle a week earlier in his girlfriend’s name.” Barnes started “reaching around the vehicle and rummaging through papers.” Felix told him to stop “digging around” and “asked Barnes whether he had anything in the vehicle he should know about, claiming he smelled marijuana.” Although a search conducted after Felix killed Barnes found no marijuana, the alleged odor helped escalate the encounter, indicating that Felix suspected Barnes of criminal activity as well as toll violations.

A ballot initiative that Dallas voters overwhelmingly approved this week aims to avoid such escalation. In addition to generally barring local police from arresting people for marijuana possession misdemeanors, Proposition R says “Dallas police shall not consider the odor of marijuana or hemp to constitute probable cause for any search or seizure.” That seemingly modest restriction undercuts an excuse that in practice gives cops the discretion to stop, harass, and search pretty much anyone by claiming to smell pot.

Proposition R reflects an ongoing controversy over marijuana odor and probable cause. In states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, some courts have held that the smell of cannabis, whether detected by a human or a police dog, can no longer justify a search, since it does not necessarily constitute evidence of a crime. And while Texas has not legalized marijuana for any use, it has legalized hemp, which comes from the same plant species and cannot be distinguished from marijuana without a laboratory test to measure THC content.

In 2019, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1325, which changed the state’s definition of “marihuana” to exclude “hemp, as that term is defined by Section 121.001” of the Texas Agriculture Code. Consistent with federal law, Section 121.001 defines “hemp” as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds of the plant and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

The difference between legal “hemp” and prohibited “marihuana,” in other words, is the THC concentration, which cannot be measured by smell or even by a field test. “Before H.B. 1325,” Dallas attorney Jon McCurley notes, “marijuana’s distinct and readily recognizable odor often [led] law enforcement to believe that a criminal act was occurring.” But after H.B. 1325, “simply detecting the odor of marijuana may not be enough to justify a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment because in order to search or get a warrant, law enforcement officials must have probable cause that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.”

Keep reading