Connect with us

Cannabis News

Cannabis May Be Moved to a Schedule 3 Drug

Published

on


wiinners and losers from schedule 3

Cannabis to Schedule 3? Who are the Winners, the Whiners, and the Losers?

 

It has been over a week so how do you feel about the possible move coming for marijuana to go from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule 3 drug on the CSA?

 

The industry has been volleying opinions back and forth so I won’t bore you with the “it’s great, it’s not great” debate, you can read that stuf pretty much all over, including a nice piece by Cannabis Tech as they talked to 19 cannabis leaders about the HHS recommendation here.  Cannabis.net also had a legacy stoner write up his opinion on the change and what it means in a piece called, “Lipstick on a Pig”.

 

In case you aren’t an avid follower of the weed industry or have been off the grid for a few weeks, let me update you on the big cannabis news.  The Department of Health and Human Services has formally recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reduce federal restrictions on marijuana despite its continued federal illegality. However, 40 states permit its use to varying degrees.

 

This action comes after President Joe Biden’s order to the leading health organization to carry out a thorough assessment of marijuana, which was given 11 months ago. The HHS recommends moving cannabis from being classified as a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

 

According to the DEA, cannabis is classified alongside other Schedule I substances, such as heroin and LSD. This classification implies a perceived high potential for abuse and a lack of recognized medical utility.

 

If this recommendation became law, it would mark a huge and fundamental divergence from cannabis’s existing classification as a Schedule I drug. This categorization would change how people view marijuana by separating it from high-risk substances like heroin and recognizing its possible medical uses.

 

The HHS Recommendation to Reschedule

 

 

An HHS spokesperson conveyed that they promptly responded to the directive by submitting their recommendation to the DEA on August 29th.

 

Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine stated that her recommendation was grounded in a thorough review by the Food and Drug Administration regarding the classification of marijuana. This review had been pledged following President Biden’s October pardon of federal offenses related to simple possession. At that time, President Biden tasked the HHS secretary and the U.S. Attorney General with assessing the federal scheduling of marijuana.

 

Cannabis would significantly change if the DEA reclassified it as a Schedule III substance, including the elimination of an IRS provision that forbade drug traffickers from deducting their business expenditures from their taxes (280E as it is so affectionately known as in the cannabis industry). The marijuana sector might be able to save hundreds of millions of dollars annually because of this change. According to NBC News, small business owners have stated that their inability to deduct what are normally thought of as regular business expenses is their biggest financial difficulty.

 

Now that HHS has made its recommendation, all attention is on the DEA, which holds the ultimate authority over substance scheduling.  The DEA, not a historical fan of cannabis, could take years to review and make a decision.

 

According to five sources familiar with the planning, the Biden administration had aimed to announce the drug’s rescheduling in the Fall to coincide with the election cycle in 2024, approximately a year after the president’s request for the review. The duration of the DEA’s public review process remains uncertain at this point.

 

In response to inquiries, a DEA spokesperson confirmed, “We can confirm DEA received a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services providing its findings and recommendation on marijuana scheduling, pursuant to President Biden’s request for a review.” The spokesperson also stated, “DEA will now initiate its review.”

 

When questioned about the recommendation during a news briefing on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre emphasized that the review is an independent process led by HHS and the Department of Justice. She declined to comment on President Biden’s current stance on the federal decriminalization of marijuana.

 

Response/Reactions to The Recommendation

 

 

The response to the HHS recommendation has garnered strong support within the corridors of Capitol Hill. In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer commended HHS for taking a decisive step in the right direction. He urged the DEA to swiftly follow suit, emphasizing the importance of this move in significantly reducing the harm caused by stringent marijuana laws. Senator Schumer, a Democrat from New York, stressed that there remains a considerable legislative agenda to dismantle the federal cannabis prohibition and roll back the War on Drugs.

 

Advocates of marijuana legalization perceive this initial action as a momentous milestone. It signifies the federal government’s formal recognition of cannabis’s medical contributions for the very first time.

 

The Cannabis Industry Association emphasized the necessity of further harmonizing federal law with states where marijuana is legal while acknowledging the historical significance of the suggested reclassification. According to CEO Aaron Smith, delisting cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and regulating it similarly to alcohol will ultimately address the complex issues arising from the federal-state conflict.

 

As both political parties look to use this issue as a political wedge in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, relaxing federal marijuana laws also has political relevance. The majority of Americans support legalization, according to polls taken year over year since 2016.

 

Reps. Matt Gaetz, Greg Steube, and Brian Mast, all Republicans from Florida, have openly advocated for the drug to be rescheduled and urged the Biden administration to prioritize the endeavor. Although Florida voters legalized medicinal marijuana usage last year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has stepped up his opposition to decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana on the presidential campaign trail this week. The Florida Supreme Court is debating whether a ballot measure legalizing marijuana will appear in 2024.

 

 

Additionally, there is a bipartisan initiative underway in Congress aimed at simplifying the provision of banking services to legitimate cannabis businesses.

 

Senator Schumer has emphasized that passing the SAFE Banking Act, as it’s known, will be of utmost importance when the Senate reconvenes in September. However, the potential for a government shutdown could pose challenges to this object bill’s proponents of the bill to resolve a deadlock that emerged concerning the August recess.

 

One of the primary reasons why cannabis enterprises continue to struggle with limited access to financial services, obstacles in conducting medical research, and restrictions on the interstate transportation of products approved for medical use in numerous U.S. states is the current Schedule I classification of marijuana. Despite the widespread acceptance of medical marijuana, only the FDA possesses the legal authority to approve medications for medical use throughout the United States.

 

Bottom Line – Who are the Winners, the Whiners, and the Losers?

 

WinnersThe cannabis industry in general, the black market, and MSOs.  One, regardless of what you think schedule 3 will ultimately mean, pharma taking over the whole industry or not, it is better than a schedule 1 drug, period. If you are a conspiracy theorist and believe this is Big Pharma’s move to control prescriptions and the industry, so be it, time will tell, but getting cannabis off the “spend the rest of your life in prison” drug list, is the #1 win of the whole thing, let the chips fall where they may in the future. This writer does not feel this is the trojan horse some have made it out to be and Big Pharma will rule cannabis forever going forward. 3 < 1, win!

 

The second biggest winners, and a groan will go out from all the legacy cannabis people, the MSOs, or multistate operators will be BIG financial winners in this one.  Basically, the bigger your expenses and operation, the more damage 280E and the inability to write off any of those expenses, did to your bottom line.  If you reverse that same equation and take 280E off those financial statements, all those expenses now become tax write-offs, saving the MSO hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credit or refunds.  We caught wind of this strategy at the Benzinga Cannabis Conference where it was mentioned that none of the MSOs were actually paying the taxes, they were kicking the can down the road hoping for a descheduling or rescheduling of the drug.  Once that happened, they could go to court and say they should have never paid those taxes in the first place as cannabis is no longer a schedule 1 drug, and at this point, that bat bleep crazy strategy actually worked!  MJ BIZ picked up on this same theme recently in their article on the cash windfall coming to companies for the 280E tax classification change.

 

Third place winner, the black or illicit cannabis market.  While already booming in the US and around the world, any instance of lessening of the punishment for getting caught selling or shipping cannabis will only encourage more aggressive business behavior.  For example, if you get caught shipping 20lbs of a schedule 1 drug from California to New York, you were looking at life in jail.  If that changes to a fine or something much less severe, you remove a disincentive, in economic terms, to not take an action. Hence, the opposite is true, you created more of an incentive to take chances, push the limits to get more profit because the punishment for getting caught will be much less severe. (Schedule 3 illegal drug shipment compared to a Schedule 1).  The illicit market should sleep well at night if this change is made because the possible punishment for growing weed without a license and selling it out of your van or shipping it over the internet will not be much less than any time since 1952.  There is now economic inventive for the illicit market to push the limits on growing, sending, and pricing, as getting caught “won’t be so bad” in historical perspective.

 

Fourth Place Winner – International Markets – UN drug treaties be damned as Canada and Colombia have already shown the world, as they have been shipping cannabis internationally for months if not years now, but any change to the “severity of US listings of the drug”, will only increase risk from companies in other countries to push the boundaries of international and US law.  Anything that dissipates the sting of that law will only encourage more business aggression in shipping and growing cannabis.   Similar to the black-market argument above, if the fines and repercussions are lessened by the US and the UN, you are inviting more risk and aggressive behavior to try and make a profit.

 

Honorable Mention Winner – The rumor and speculation mill. Ever since the announcement by the HHS, the rumor mill about what could happen, secret plans, what it really means, wake up people, don’t get fooled, happiest day of my life, stuff is going off the rails.  One rumor is that it will only apply to medical marijuana and recreational will still be a schedule 1 drug.  Hard to do since THC is the actual cannabinoid on the Schedule 1 list, so lowering it to schedule 3 would affect both recreational and medical.  The biggest rumor is the cannabis industry will be place in the hands of the FDA and Big Pharma like we all feared from day #1 and all the local growers and providers will be shut out of the industry.  Fat chance.  They have been trying to shut down illegal cannabis since 1952, no luck, now legal in over 40 states in some form or another. Don’t count of the FDA and DEA hiring thousands of agents to try and snuff out state-legal cannabis operations and public companies.

 

Losers – It is hard to find a loser when you go from a schedule 1 to a schedule 3 drug without going into fear mongering about the FDA and Big Pharma.  In general, MSOs are going to have way more cash and profits, so that won’t bode well for smaller companies trying to compete with the big boys.  Those that want cannabis descheduled will hoot and holler, but that was never really a viable option. You aren’t going from “schedule 1 like cocaine and heroin” to “unscheduled like peanut butter” overnight. Cannabis does pass through the blood-brain barrier and get you high, it does impair your senses and alter your thoughts and concept of reality for a bit while using it, so descheduling, while sounding nice, was never really on the table unfortunately.

 

Interstate commerce is the next massive shoe to drop, so not sure how Schedule 3 will affect those companies that had to “silo” their whole operation in each state, having to go from seed to sale and production in each state they enter.  If interstate commerce is opened up, then the industry will finally start to reach a state of economic equilibrium as you will know the price of a Snoop Leaf or Chong’s Choice blunt in California and Massachusetts.  You will also know the fair price of a pound of Emerald Triangle legal weed vs a pound of Emerald Triangle illegal weed.

 

 

Whiners – The cannabis industry proletariat that are screaming “rescheduling is not enough, we need descheduling!”.  These are the same people that say, “cannabis isn’t a drug, it’s a plant”.  First off, almost all drugs come from plants or did in their infancy.  Nicotine, caffeine, heroin, cocaine, and opium all “come from plants” and they are clearly drugs, so yes, cannabis is a plant and a drug.  Its cannabinoids pass through the blood-brain barrier and get you high, it is a drug and plant, move on.

 

The words “don’t settle for rescheduling” have been part of many op-ed pieces about the HHS news, and for some reason, these people think the US government and the cannabis industry are some sort of equal parties or in negotiations about this subject.  As Binder says in the Breakfast Club movie, “Not even close, bud!”.  The word “settle” implies some sort of negotiations or bartering of the details, which is just not the case in the US government vs the marijuana industry.  There are no negotiations or evidence the US government gives one iota what the marijuana industry wants, so to say “don’t settle” is a bit rich.  It is like being at your sentencing in front of judge where you get 2 years in jail and saying, “I won’t settle for that, I want less!”. Umm, yeah, it doesn’t work that way, the US government is the judge, and they decide the status of cannabis based on voters and future election results that the present party in office is worried about, not what the marijuana industry wants to see.

 

What if we all decide “not to settle for Schedule 3”?  Now what? Oh yeah, nothing we can do since as a group we have very limited power and influence in politics.  The industry is an outlier, we have cut lobbying money down to the bare bones in DC, no one of influence cares what we want or think, they are looking out for votes and power-broker money, think about what Big Tobacco and Big Pharma want, that is what is on their minds as they write the big checks in DC.

 

It isn’t up to us to settle; we sound like bratty little kids who just got their first dinner in months and are complaining it didn’t come with a dinner roll and desert.  Take the Schedule 3 W when and if it comes and live to fight another day.  Win the battle and keep fighting the war.

 

MORE ON A POSSIBLE SCHEDULE 3 MOVE, READ ON…

CANNABIS SCHEDULE 3 DRUG PIG

CANNABIS AS A SCHEDULE 3 DRUG, LIPSTICK ON A PIG?



Source link

Cannabis News

Autoimmune Conditions Are Rising Fast in American Medicine, Can Cannabis Help?

Published

on

By


cannabis autoimmune problems

Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help

 

Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.

 

In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.

Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.

 

According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.

 

But cannabis can help!

 

How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases

 

Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.

 

In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.

 

Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.


There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.

 

Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis

 

Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

 

The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.

 

“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.

 

In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.

 

According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”

 

“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote. 

 

Anecdotal Evidence

 

While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.

 

In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.

 

Conclusion

Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.

 

AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES THAT CANNABIS CAN HELP

CANNABIS FOR 9 DIFFERENT AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill

Published

on

By


The U.S. Senate’s version of the Farm Bill finally landed this week. They’re calling it the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024 (the “Senate bill”). The Senate bill follows on the House’s proposal, called the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (the “House bill”), offered in May. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill would preempt state or Indian law regarding hemp or the regulation of hemp products. This means states and tribes will retain a lot of latitude in regulating hemp and hemp-derived products– which gets people fired up.

Aside from giving states some runway, the Senate bill and the House bill differ in key respects regarding hemp. Therefore, these august bodies must confer and reconcile their sundry proposals. That could happen in 2024, but seems more likely in 2025 when the new Congress convenes. As of this week, though, we finally have a framework.

The Senate Bill re-defines “hemp” and defines “industrial hemp”

Section 10016 of the Senate bill (“Hemp Production”) amends the definition of “hemp.” Hemp was defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), taking us on a truly wild ride. See: What Happened to Hemp? (“What Happened”). The Senate bill also gives us a definition for “industrial hemp.” Here are those definitions, with points of emphasis in bold:

(1) Hemp. The term “hemp” means (A) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; and (B) industrial hemp.

(3) Industrial Hemp. The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. if the harvested material (A) is only (i) the stalks of that plant, fiber produced from those stalks, or any other manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of those stalks (except cannabinoid resin extracted from those stalks); (ii) whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other compound, manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the seeds of that plant (except cannabinoid resin extracted from the seeds of that plant); or (iii) viable seeds of that plant produced solely for production or manufacture of any material described in clause (i) or (ii); and (B) will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.

The new regime

Again, the definitional stuff in bold is what I want to emphasize.

First, the Senate bill keeps the THC threshold at 0.3 percent, which is an arbitrary number we’ve been advocating against for years. The Senate bill mirrors the House bill in this respect, though, so we are stuck with this, unless Ron Paul gets his way.

Second, the Senate bill keeps the 2018 Farm Bill’s total THC standard, including THCA. The House bill does this too. This was fairly predictable: in What Happened, I wrote that we could “expect the total THC standard to remain, which means that actual Delta-9 THC won’t be the only metric for calculating THC content.”

We’ve also explained on this blog that the 2018 Farm Bill and USDA rules mandate total THC testing on pre-harvest hemp batches, but do not mandate such testing on post-harvest hemp or hemp products. The Senate bill doesn’t change this paradigm, which means the “loophole” for gas station weed remains open. This proposal is a big win for opponents of the House bill’s “Miller Amendment,” which would narrow the definition of “hemp” to exclude intoxicating hemp-derived substances.

Third, the Senate bill introduces a new definition and framework for industrial hemp. The House bill does this too, albeit slightly differently. The idea here is to invite farmers to grow hemp for fiber and grain purposes, while freeing them from regulatory burdens with the Department of Agriculture and criminal exposure with the Department of Justice. More specifically, for “industrial hemp” growers, the Senate bill:

  • removes background check requirements;
  • instates “relaxed regulatory requirements” for sampling and inspection methodologies (which will need to be adopted by rule); and
  • develops a certified seed program. 

The Senate bill also makes any hemp producer ineligible to grow hemp for five years if that producer, “with a culpable mental state greater than negligence, produces a crop of hemp that is inconsistent with that license.”(Hint: use the seed program.) The proof standard here seems like it could be an issue, and even if anyone has been adjudicated as growing marijuana under the guise of hemp, Farm Bill ineligibility seems like a far-off concern.

Bottom line

The big takeaway for me is that the Senate bill leaves the door open for intoxicating hemp products, whereas the Miller Amendment to the House bill does not. Something’s gotta give. And it needs to happen soon, because we’re already long overdue. As I explained in a webinar last week, the Farm Bill deals with the nation’s entire food supply, not just hemp. Therefore, this is not like with the SAFE Banking Act, where we have a proposed law specific to cannabis that may or may not ever pass. The Farm Bill must pass, and soon.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep you updated on any major happenings. For more on this topic, check out our massive hemp and CBD archive, or these specific, recent posts:



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

The Red Wall Blocking Marijuana Legalization in America, Real or Imagined?

Published

on

By


red wall blocking marijuana

As the movement for marijuana legalization gains momentum across the United States, a significant barrier remains in place in many conservative states, forming what advocates and analysts have termed a “red wall.” This phenomenon highlights the stark divide between states that have embraced cannabis reform and those that continue to criminalize its use, particularly in areas where Republican leadership is firmly entrenched. This article will explore the current landscape of marijuana legalization, the factors contributing to this resistance, and the implications for consumers and advocates alike.

 

 The Current State of Marijuana Legalization

 

Over the past decade, public opinion regarding marijuana has shifted dramatically. According to recent polls, approximately 68% of Americans support legalizing cannabis for recreational use. This shift has translated into legislative action, with 38 states and the District of Columbia allowing medical marijuana and 24 states legalizing it for recreational use. States like California, Colorado, and Illinois have set precedents with robust frameworks for both medical and recreational cannabis markets.

 

Despite this progress, a significant number of states remain resistant to change. As of 2024, there are still 20 states where marijuana is illegal for recreational use, many of which are governed by Republican majorities. This resistance is often attributed to a combination of political ideology, cultural attitudes, and concerns about public safety.

 

The Red Wall: A Political Barrier

 

The term “red wall” refers to the political landscape in conservative states where Republicans maintain control over both legislative chambers and the governor’s office—known as a trifecta. In these states, efforts to legalize cannabis face substantial obstacles due to party alignment and prevailing conservative values.

 

States such as Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska exemplify this red wall. Here, despite growing public support for legalization, lawmakers remain hesitant to advance legislation or allow ballot initiatives that would enable voters to decide on cannabis reform. The result is a patchwork of laws that leaves millions of Americans in conservative regions without access to legal cannabis.

 

 Factors Contributing to Resistance

 

 

One of the primary reasons for the red wall against marijuana legalization is the deeply ingrained political ideology within conservative circles. Many Republican leaders view cannabis as a moral issue rather than a public health or economic one. This perspective is often rooted in traditional values that prioritize law and order over personal freedom.

 

Additionally, some conservative lawmakers express concerns about the potential societal impacts of legalization, including increased drug use among youth and impaired driving incidents. These fears can overshadow empirical evidence from states that have legalized cannabis, which often show no significant increase in youth usage or traffic accidents.

 

 

Cultural attitudes toward marijuana also play a significant role in shaping policy decisions in conservative states. In many regions, cannabis remains stigmatized as a dangerous drug associated with criminal behavior. This stigma can lead to fear-based policymaking that prioritizes prohibition over regulation.

 

Moreover, conservative communities may have strong ties to traditional industries such as agriculture and law enforcement that view marijuana legalization as a threat to their interests. These cultural dynamics create an environment where lawmakers are reluctant to support reform efforts that could alienate their constituents or undermine their political base.

 

Legislative Challenges

 

In addition to ideological resistance, practical legislative challenges further complicate efforts to advance marijuana legalization in conservative states. Many red wall states have stringent requirements for ballot initiatives or legislative proposals that make it difficult for advocates to gain traction.

 

For instance, some states require an exceptionally high percentage of signatures from registered voters to qualify for a ballot initiative. In Florida, a recent attempt to legalize recreational cannabis fell short of the required 60% supermajority needed for passage, despite receiving majority support from voters. Such hurdles can stifle grassroots efforts and limit opportunities for public input on cannabis policy.

 

Recent Developments in Red Wall States

 

 

Historically, ballot initiatives have been an effective strategy for advancing marijuana legalization in various states. However, this approach has faced increasing challenges in conservative strongholds. In North Dakota and South Dakota, recreational cannabis measures were defeated again in 2024 after previous attempts had also failed.

 

In South Dakota specifically, voters approved a legalization measure in 2020 only to see it challenged by state officials who argued it was unconstitutional. This led to protracted legal battles that ultimately stalled implementation efforts. Such experiences highlight how state officials can actively work against voter-approved measures when they conflict with prevailing political ideologies.

 

Legislative Efforts: Stalled Progress

 

In addition to ballot initiatives failing at the polls, legislative efforts in red wall states have also struggled to gain traction. For example:

  • Kansas: Despite growing support among residents for medical marijuana legalization, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly blocked proposals aimed at establishing a regulated medical program.

  • Kentucky: Efforts to legalize medical cannabis have faced significant hurdles in the state legislature despite bipartisan support among constituents.

  • Wisconsin: Governor Tony Evers has proposed measures to legalize both medical and recreational marijuana; however, these proposals have consistently met resistance from Republican-controlled legislative chambers.

 

These examples illustrate how even when there is public support for reform, entrenched political opposition can thwart progress.

 

Implications for Consumers and Advocates

 

Continued Criminalization

 

The persistence of the red wall means that millions of Americans living in conservative states continue to face criminal penalties for cannabis use. Individuals caught with small amounts of marijuana can face fines or even jail time disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.

 

Moreover, the lack of legal access forces consumers into unregulated markets where product safety cannot be guaranteed. This situation poses health risks associated with untested products and contributes to ongoing cycles of criminalization rather than promoting responsible use through regulation.

 

Economic Consequences

 

The economic implications of maintaining prohibition are significant as well. States that refuse to legalize cannabis miss out on substantial tax revenue generated from regulated markets. For instance:

 

  • Colorado: Since legalizing recreational marijuana in 2014, Colorado has generated over $1 billion in tax revenue from cannabis sales.

  • California: The state’s legal cannabis market is projected to generate billions annually in tax revenue—money that could be used for education, infrastructure, and public health initiatives.

 

In contrast, conservative states that uphold prohibition forego these potential revenues while also incurring costs associated with enforcing drug laws and managing related criminal justice issues.

 

Advocacy Strategies Moving Forward

 

Given the challenges posed by the red wall, advocates for marijuana legalization must adapt their strategies if they hope to make progress in conservative states:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The Future of Marijuana Legalization

 

As we look ahead, it is clear that overcoming the red wall will require persistent effort from advocates committed to changing hearts and minds within conservative states. While progress may be slow and fraught with challenges, shifts in public opinion suggest that change is possible.

 

The ongoing conversation surrounding federal rescheduling under President Biden’s administration could also influence state-level policies. If cannabis were moved from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal law—a move some speculate could happen under future administrations—states might feel pressured to reconsider their own prohibitive laws.

 

Ultimately, navigating this complex landscape will require resilience from advocates who understand both the political realities at play and the potential benefits of legalization for consumers and society as a whole.

 

Conclusion

The “red wall” against marijuana legalization represents a formidable barrier within many conservative states where outdated perceptions about cannabis persist alongside strong political opposition. As public opinion continues to evolve nationally favoring greater acceptance of both medical and recreational use advocates must adapt their strategies accordingly.

By building coalitions across diverse groups and focusing on education at the community level while pursuing incremental reforms where possible, advocates can work toward dismantling this barrier over time. The journey toward comprehensive marijuana reform may be long and challenging; however, with sustained effort and commitment from supporters across all sectors of society including those residing behind the red wall progress is achievable.

 

CONSERVATIVES BLOCKING CANNABIS BILLS?, READ ON…

CONSERVATIVES BLOCKING MARIJUANA

CONSERVATIVES BLOCKING MARIJUANA BILLS, YOU BET!



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media