Connect with us

Cannabis News

America Can’t Defend Its Border Because Border Patrol Agents Are Smoking Too Much Weed?

Published

on


border patrol marijuana policy

A Republican senator is pushing back against a recent policy change by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that reduced the term of ineligibility for work due to past marijuana use from two years to three months. The senator doubts the trustworthiness of recruits who have used cannabis and believes that this move jeopardizes the safety and integrity of Border Patrol agents.

 

Senator James Lankford (R-OK) wrote to CBP Acting Commissioner Troy Miller, expressing severe concerns about the effects of this shift. He stated that the amendment blatantly contradicts the Border Patrol’s principal mission of safeguarding the country from illicit drugs.

 

Ironically, no one in the Senator’s office seemed worried about the US and Canadian border where cannabis has been recreationally legal for 7 years now.  Many Canadians have been stopped and banned for cannabis use, yet the security issue does not seem relevant at the Northern border, just the Southern.

 

While the exact timing of the CBP’s policy revision remains unclear, Senator Lankford disclosed that his office became aware of it during a briefing last month.

 

The senator alleges that CBP officers told his staff that ambiguity generated by disparities between state and federal marijuana regulations in places where cannabis has been legalized had a role in the policy shift. Senator Lankford did, however, emphasize that CBP, as a federal agency, is responsible for ensuring that federal rules governing the use of illegal substances are obeyed.

 

Additionally, the senator asserted that individuals who admit to past marijuana use often disclose involvement in other criminal activities, which he deemed unsurprising. He attributed this to the fact that irrespective of state laws, users frequently obtain marijuana from unlicensed vendors in the “gray market” due to its lower cost.

 

Furthermore, Senator Lankford alleged that licensed cannabis establishments frequently encounter corruption issues, citing reports of malpractices within his state’s medical marijuana program. He claimed that undocumented immigrants are exploited for labor and subjected to adverse conditions in these facilities.

 

Addressing worries about the health repercussions of cannabis usage, the senator cited a putative relationship between marijuana intake and diseases including schizophrenia and psychosis. Despite contradicting study findings on the subject, Senator Lankford emphasized the need for federal government screening for psychiatric disorders and illegal drug use during background checks for federal jobs.

 

In conclusion, Senator Lankford cautioned that regular marijuana use, particularly in states where it is legalized, could significantly affect the trustworthiness of Border Patrol recruits, especially considering the incidence of psychosis among heavy cannabis users.

 

Concerns Over Border Patrol Recruits’ Ties to Transnational Criminal Organizations Due to Altered Marijuana Use Review Period

 

Lankford expressed concern that shortening the period for reviewing marijuana use history raises the risk of Border Patrol recruits having financially supported transnational criminal organizations for marijuana cultivated by illegal immigrant labor. This scenario directly contradicts the Border Patrol’s mission and could lead to significant security and integrity issues among agents.

 

In his capacity as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Governmental Operations and Border Management, Lankford emphasized his Subcommittee’s authority over Federal hiring and border management. He strongly objected to the policy change, fearing it would undermine the security and integrity of the Border Patrol workforce. Consequently, he urged CBP to revoke the policy and reinstate the two-year review period for marijuana use among Border Patrol recruits.

 

The senator presented eleven questions to CBP, seeking clarification by May 7 on various aspects, including the rationale behind the cannabis policy alteration, its impact on polygraph passage rates, and any other modifications to employment standards related to past marijuana use.

 

In essence, Lankford’s stance is clear: despite acknowledging CBP’s ongoing recruitment challenges and advocating for legalization to bolster border security and increase the agency’s personnel, he believes that hiring individuals who may have used cannabis three months prior, as opposed to two years ago, poses an unacceptable risk.

 

Meanwhile, CBP advised its employees and their families against using even federally legal CBD products last year. The federal legalization of hemp and its derivatives has complicated CBP’s enforcement efforts, prompting officials to seek portable marijuana analyzers to swiftly identify cannabinoid profiles and differentiate between marijuana and hemp.

 

Lankford’s opposition to the policy change is unsurprising, given his longstanding reputation as a fervent prohibitionist. For instance, last September, he spearheaded a separate letter urging the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reject a recommendation to reschedule cannabis.

 

Potential Impact on Border Security and Drug Interdiction Efforts

 

Senator Lankford is concerned about more than just the short-term effects of shorter qualifying periods for recruits to the Border Patrol. He predicts a chain reaction that may make border security and drug interdiction efforts less successful. Lankford contends that CBP runs the danger of admitting people who may have engaged in criminal activity in the past, especially those connected to transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), by loosening the scrutiny on prior marijuana usage. Because TCOs frequently take advantage of gaps in border control to move narcotics, weapons, and people across international borders, such links directly endanger national security.

 

Furthermore, Lankford questions the reliability of background checks and polygraph tests in identifying individuals with ties to criminal organizations, particularly given the evolving nature of drug-related crimes. The shortened review period may not provide sufficient time to uncover deeper associations or patterns of behavior indicative of criminal involvement. This, in turn, could lead to the infiltration of Border Patrol ranks by individuals sympathetic to or actively engaged in illicit activities, compromising the integrity of the agency and its mission to safeguard the nation’s borders.

 

Lankford’s worries about the wider social effects of permissive marijuana laws among law enforcement agencies go beyond the direct security ramifications. He argues that CBP’s decision may undermine attempts to curb drug misuse and related criminal activity by sending a message of tolerance toward drug use. It also calls into doubt the coherence of federal drug enforcement initiatives, particularly given disparate state legalization policies for marijuana. Lankford highlights the necessity of a unified strategy for border security and drug control, one that respects federal authority while taking into account the intricacies of changing state laws.

 

Bottom Line

 

Senator James Lankford’s staunch opposition to the recent policy change by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which shortened the term of ineligibility for Border Patrol recruits due to past marijuana use, underscores concerns about potential risks to national security and the integrity of law enforcement agencies. His apprehensions regarding the infiltration of criminal elements into the Border Patrol workforce, coupled with doubts about the efficacy of screening procedures, highlight the broader implications of drug policy shifts within federal agencies. Lankford’s stance emphasizes the importance of maintaining stringent standards in border security efforts while navigating the complex landscape of state and federal marijuana regulations.

 

US BORDERS AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

BORDER PATROL ON WEED

BORDER  PATROL ON CANNABIS USEAGE, DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL!



Source link

Cannabis News

What Rescheduling Marijuana Means for California’s Cannabis Industry

Published

on

By


California‘s cannabis industry suffers from a seemingly unending list of problems: high taxes, prohibitionist cities, a related lack of retail licenses and oversupply of non-retail licenses, a monster illegal market with no end in sight, burdensome and often senseless regulations, and so on. Unfortunately, rescheduling won’t solve most of these problems–at least not directly. Today I want to look at what rescheduling could mean for California’s cannabis industry.

If you’re not already up to speed on rescheduling, check out my colleague Vince Sliwoski’s explainer of the DEA’s notice of proposed rulemaking to move marijuana from schedule I (where it sits next to heroin) to schedule III, or any of the following posts of ours:

With that out of the way, let’s look how rescheduling could affect (or not affect) California’s cannabis industry.

First and foremost, rescheduling does not mean that state-legal cannabis markets will be federally compliant. In other words, all California cannabis businesses will still violate federal law. The biggest change would be that  IRC § 280E – which prohibits cannabis businesses from making standard federal tax deductions – will go away. But the statewide cannabis industry won’t be federally “legal.”

What that means is that rescheduling will have no impact on things like the prohibition on interstate commerce, which has kept California walled off from other states (at least California’s legal market). So for now, California’s still on its own.

Rescheduling also won’t impact state law where it counts. Things like local control, burdensome regulations, fighting the illegal market, and so on, will stay the same. Importantly, local and state tax law won’t change: California and many local cities tax cannabis businesses as if they are piggybanks. While 280E relief will undoubtedly help, it makes it much less likely that the state will revisit its own excise tax or think about how it could cap local gross receipts taxes.

So with all that out of the way, is there any good news? I think the answer is a clear yes. Here’s why:

  • Even without state and local tax relief, 280E relief alone will be a monumental change for the industry.
  • Investments into California’s cannabis industry are likely to increase as investors who previously stood on the sidelines become more comfortable with the idea of investing into a (slightly) less regulated industry.
  • Other ancillary service providers may also be more open to providing services to the industry for similar reasons. More ancillary service providers may reduce costs within the cannabis industry.
  • It’s possible that state governments also decide to be more bold. For example, states could decide to roll the dice on interstate commerce compacts after rescheduling, even in spite of schedule III issues.
  • Although the impact on the illegal market will likely be small, the removal of 280E liabilities could entice people who would otherwise have remained unlicensed to become legal and complaint operators.

We’ve got a long way to go before rescheduling happens. And while nobody can really say for sure how things will shake out, it seems like there are some definite positive outcomes for California’s cannabis industry. So stay tuned for more updates.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

The End of the US Hemp Industry is Near

Published

on

By


end of hemp in america

The 2018 Farm Bill legalized the cultivation of hemp, distinguishing it from marijuana based on its low THC content. However, an emerging loophole has allowed the proliferation of psychoactive hemp-derived products, particularly delta-8 THC, which has led to significant regulatory and public health concerns. In response, a proposed amendment to the Farm Bill seeks to address these issues by banning hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including delta-8 THC. This proposed amendment, filed by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), aims to redefine hemp and close the existing loophole around intoxicating hemp. The amendment has sparked a heated debate among industry stakeholders, regulators, and lawmakers.

If you have followed the legal hemp market over the past 8 years and attended shows like the Benzinga Cannabis Conference, you know that the only thing keeping the US hemp industry alive, and on life-support at best, is the sale of commerical retail products that create revenue, ie, Delta-8 THC and Delta-9 THC products derived from hemp.  While hemp-crete and hemp twine are nice stories, the only “cash crop” hemp has right now is selling “hemp that gets you high” to Americans that don’t have acccess to legal weed.

As mentioned by a few VCs and investment firms at the industry trade shows, the only think keeping hemp alive in America is Delta-8 and Delta-9 THC products and sales.

That “loophole” in the original 2018 Farm Bill may be closing, and for good, with a new amendment put forward this week.

 

 Key Provisions of the Proposed Amendment

The amendment includes several critical provisions designed to tighten regulations on hemp-derived products:

  • Redefinition of Hemp: Redefines hemp to exclude products containing detectable levels of THC and cannabinoids synthesized outside the plant.

  • Ban on Delta-8 THC: Explicitly bans hemp-derived products that contain psychoactive cannabinoids, such as delta-8 THC.

  • Enhanced Regulatory Oversight: Aims to provide clearer guidelines and stricter controls over the production and sale of hemp-derived products.

 Concerns Leading to the Amendment

Proponents of the amendment argue that the current lack of regulation has led to several issues:

  • Marketing to Children and Teens: Psychoactive hemp products are often marketed in colorful packaging, resembling candy and snacks, raising concerns about their appeal to children and teenagers.

  • Unregulated Market: The proliferation of hemp-derived cannabinoids has resulted in an unregulated market where the safety and quality of products are inconsistent.

  • Public Health Risks: There are concerns about the potential health risks associated with the unregulated sale and consumption of these products.

 Industry Opposition and Concerns

Industry stakeholders and advocates for the hemp industry have voiced strong opposition to the proposed amendment. Their main arguments include:

  • Impact on CBD Products: The amendment could criminalize many non-intoxicating CBD products that naturally contain trace amounts of THC.

  • Economic Consequences: The ban could devastate the hemp industry, resulting in significant job losses and economic decline.

  • Access to Health Products: Many Americans rely on hemp-derived products for health and wellness, and the ban could deny them access to these beneficial products.

 Economic Implications

The hemp market is currently valued at approximately $28 billion, with a significant portion of this market driven by hemp-derived cannabinoid products. The proposed amendment could have profound economic implications, including:

  • Job Losses: Potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs in agriculture, retail, and manufacturing sectors.

  • Market Decline: A potential decline in sales and overall market value as many products would no longer be legally available.

  • Investment Uncertainty: Increased regulatory uncertainty could deter future investments in the hemp industry.

Regulatory Challenges

The hemp industry has faced numerous regulatory challenges since the legalization of hemp in 2018. Key regulatory hurdles include:

Lack of FDA Regulation: The FDA has yet to establish clear regulations for hemp-derived CBD products, creating a patchwork of state-level regulations and contributing to market instability.

  • Safety and Quality Standards: The absence of federal guidelines has led to inconsistent safety and quality standards across the industry.

  • Youth Access: The unregulated sale of psychoactive hemp products has raised concerns about youth access and potential misuse.

Legislative Process and Potential Outcomes

The amendment’s approval by the House Agriculture Committee is the first step in a potentially contentious legislative process. The Senate, which has yet to release its version of the Farm Bill, will play a crucial role in determining the amendment’s fate. Key considerations include:

  • Senate’s Stance: The Democratic-controlled Senate may take a different approach to the regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoids, potentially leading to a conflict between the two chambers.

  • Bipartisan Negotiations: Successful passage of the amendment will likely require bipartisan support and negotiations to reconcile differing viewpoints.

  • Final Legislation: The final version of the Farm Bill will need to balance the interests of public health, industry stakeholders, and regulatory clarity.

Broader Implications for Cannabinoid Regulation

The proposed amendment raises broader questions about the regulation of cannabinoids in general:

  • Defining Cannabinoids: The amendment’s language excluding detectable levels of THC and synthesized cannabinoids could impact the regulation of other cannabinoids, such as CBD.

  • Regulatory Parity: Proponents argue that the amendment would create regulatory parity and facilitate state-level regulation of intoxicating hemp products.

  • Future of Cannabinoid Products: The regulation of cannabinoids will continue to evolve, with ongoing debates about the safety, efficacy, and legality of various products.

 Public Health Considerations

The shift towards greater regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoids has significant public health implications:

  • Consumer Safety: Enhanced regulatory oversight could improve consumer safety by ensuring that hemp-derived products meet consistent quality and safety standards.

  • Health Risks: The unregulated sale of psychoactive hemp products poses potential health risks, particularly for vulnerable populations.

  • Research and Education: Increased research and public education efforts are needed to fully understand the health impacts of hemp-derived cannabinoids and inform regulatory policies.

Industry Adaptation and Future Outlook

The hemp industry will need to adapt to the proposed regulatory changes if the amendment is enacted. Key strategies for adaptation include:

  • Compliance and Certification: Producers and manufacturers will need to invest in compliance and certification processes to meet new regulatory standards.

  • Product Innovation: The industry may shift focus towards non-psychoactive hemp applications and develop new products that comply with stricter regulations.

  • Advocacy and Engagement: Ongoing advocacy and engagement with policymakers will be essential to ensure that the industry’s interests are represented in regulatory discussions.

 Conclusion

The proposed Farm Bill amendment to ban hemp-derived cannabinoid products represents a significant shift in U.S. agricultural and regulatory policy. While proponents argue that it addresses critical public health and safety concerns, industry stakeholders warn of devastating economic consequences and the potential loss of beneficial products. As the amendment moves through the legislative process, the hemp industry faces a period of uncertainty and adaptation. The outcome of this debate will shape the future of hemp regulation, balancing the need for consumer protection with the growth and innovation of a burgeoning industry.

 

HIGH ON HEMP, YOU BET, READ ON…

CAN YOU GET HIGH ON HEMP

HIGH ON HEMP, HOW AMERICA IS GETTING LEGALLY HIGH EACH DAY!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Just Say No to Pesticides on Your Weed

Published

on

By


pesticide free cannabis growing

How To Prevent Pests In Your Homegrown Cannabis Plants Without Using Harmful Chemicals

 

Just like every other plant, cannabis plants will also attract its fair share of pests and bugs when you try to grow them at home. Even professional cannabis growers have to deal with pests!


Pests come in the form of insects, fungus, mites, and bacteria. For homegrown marijuana, the most common offenders include aphids, thrips, spider mites, botrytis, cabbage loopers, whiteflies, powdery mildew, fungus gnats, and root aphids. When they go on undetected or without any treatment, they can cause a wide array of damage to your precious cannabis plant.

 

The worst-case scenario is that your plant can end up being so unhealthy and damaged, that you might even have to end up throwing it away before you can harvest anything. Sometimes, the pest problem can hide itself so effectively that you won’t even know it’s there until you’ve harvested your weed, and are opening your buds apart to smoke. Then, it would be far too late to do anything!

 

Many weed growers end up resorting to strong, harmful chemical pesticides and fungicides to prevent pest problems or nip them in the bud. However, these chemical pesticides and fungicides can also be dangerous for humans and the environment. They are, after all, made with chemicals – and some of these chemicals are known to be carcinogenic.

 

But don’t worry: there are several other ways cannabis home growers can deal with pests without harmful chemicals and strong pesticides.

 

Prevention Is Key

 

Truly understanding your home grow setup and operation is the first and most important step to preventing pests. This can take some time and resources in the beginning, but it will save you time and money in the long run!

There are certain factors involved with specific grow setups as well as environments. For example, when growing marijuana outdoors, the most common pests to deal with include aphids, Eurasian hemp borers, corn earworms, and hemp russet mites among others. You’ll also have to learn to prevent squirrels, deer, raccoons, and other bigger animals since humans aren’t the only ones that are attracted to weed!

 

Meanwhile, there’s a different set of beasts to deal with indoors because other factors are involved. These include humidity, ventilation, and air circulation. But regardless of whether you are growing indoors or outdoors, keep in mind that soil plays a critical role in preventing pests. Many growers have found success in using beneficial nematodes, which are microscopic and thus invisible roundworms that eat pests that thrive in soil. Nematodes are excellent for eliminating root aphids and fungus gnats; you can drench the soil in it or mix it up in water before irrigation.

 

Companion Planting

 

Companion planting is a common and widely practiced technique in farming as well as gardening. You can apply the principles of companion planting for cannabis cultivation; it entails planting certain plants or herbs next to cannabis which are known to create a symbiotic or beneficial environment. For example, certain plants or vegetables are known to equally feed off water, while other plants consume more water and thus leave their companion plants thirsty.

 

Meanwhile, some companion plants are effective in helping repel insects and diseases, which is why they are favored among cannabis growers. When it comes to companion planting, some plants to consider include marigolds, lavender, basil, and nasturtiums.

 

Beneficial Insects

 

Believe it or not, some insects can actually be good for your cannabis harvest. Lacewings and ladybugs are two of the most valuable types of insects for cannabis growers, especially if you are growing outside.

To ensure an abundant population, you can purchase beneficial insects and let them roam free in your greenhouse or grow area. They are fantastic for all kinds of plants, not just marijuana. Ladybugs and lacewings are particularly effective because they feed on spider mites, whiteflies, mealybugs, and other soft-bodied pests as well as larvae.

 

Organic Pesticides

 

There are several different kinds of effective organic pesticides and fungicides in the market, too. You can use them as a complement to other pest-prevention techniques that you are already doing. Adding organic pesticides to cannabis crop care and maintenance can help greatly deter pests especially if you find that other techniques are lacking or not working as well.


Organic pesticides come in the form of neem oil, insecticidal soap, and botanical sprays. Neem oil is a top choice when it comes to organic pest control, even among household plants! Keep in mind to use neem oil only during the vegetative growth cycle of marijuana.

 

 Just dilute two teaspoons of neem essential oil into a gallon of water, then spray. Or, you can also buy ready-to-use neem spray. Neem oil can be sprayed directly on the foliage, or you can also drench the soil in neem oil no matter what stage of growth your cannabis plant is in. It’s extremely effective in killing and preventing cannabis pests including leafhoppers, crickets, aphids, mealybugs, and so much more.

 

If you’re going to end up using foliar sprays, it’s important to buy the best-quality organic, natural sprays that you can afford. That’s because any ingredients used in those sprays are going to end up in the cannabis flower, which means that you’re going to end up smoking it. When it comes to the best time to use foliar spray on cannabis, it’s during the flowering cycle because it can help keep cabbage loopers and other pests off during this phase.


Conclusion

 

There are many creative ways you can get rid of pests effectively, whether you are growing cannabis indoors or outdoors. Follow these tips to ensure a healthy harvest without compromising your health or that of the environment – there’s no need to use nasty and highly toxic chemical sprays

 

PESTICIDES ON WEED? YOU BET, READ ON..

IS ALL WEED TAINTED WITH PESTICIDES

IS ALL WEED TAINTED? 90% OF BLACK MARKET TESTED WEED IS TAINTED!



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media