Cannabis News

Cannabis Prohibition in a Tyranny of Science, A Crime Against the Nation Argues New Law Paper

Published

4 months ago

August 19, 2024

admin

tyranny of science of the csa on cannabis

The Tyranny of Science: Prohibition is a crime against the Nation!

For those familiar with my work, you know I’ve long stood in opposition to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This piece of legislation, which arbitrarily categorizes drugs and makes sweeping claims about their medical value, has been a thorn in the side of rational drug policy for decades. Nowhere is this more evident than in Schedule I, a category reserved for substances deemed to have “no accepted medical use.”

Yet, a closer look at the drugs placed in this restrictive category reveals a startling contradiction. Cannabis, LSD, psilocybin, and other psychedelics – all Schedule I substances – are increasingly shown to have significant medical benefits. This begs the question: What rigorous scientific process led to their classification as medically useless? Or is the CSA merely a political tool, divorced from scientific reality?

It’s refreshing to discover that I’m not alone in labeling the CSA as tyrannical. Robert Mikos, a seasoned law expert specializing in federalism and drug law, shares this perspective. In his recent paper, “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” Mikos meticulously dissects the flaws in the current scheduling system, providing a compelling argument for its reform.

In this article, we’ll dive deep into Mikos’s cannabis analysis, examining how the CSA’s scheduling criteria create what he terms the “Tyranny of Science” and the “Tyranny of the Majority.” We’ll explore how these tyrannies have effectively trapped potentially beneficial substances in Schedule I, stifling research and medical progress.

While Mikos offers some solutions to this dilemma, I believe his proposals, though valuable, don’t go far enough. The CSA, founded on falsehoods and deception rather than scientific evidence, requires more than minor adjustments. It’s time to renegotiate the entire agreement, challenging the monopoly it grants to Big Pharma – an industry that has repeatedly proven unworthy of such trust and power.

Let’s embark on this exploration of the CSA’s tyrannical nature and envision a path towards more rational, science-based drug policies.

In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” Robert Mikos presents a compelling critique of the current drug scheduling system under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). At the heart of his argument is the concept of “currently accepted medical use” (CAMU), a criterion that has become disproportionately influential in determining a substance’s scheduling.

Mikos identifies two major “tyrannies” in the current scheduling process:

The Tyranny of Science: Historically, the DEA insisted that CAMU could only be demonstrated through rigorous scientific research, primarily multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This approach set an almost insurmountable bar for Schedule I substances, as their very classification severely restricts the ability to conduct such research. It created a catch-22 situation: a drug couldn’t be rescheduled without extensive research, but such research was nearly impossible to conduct due to its Schedule I status.

The Tyranny of the Majority: In response to marijuana’s pending rescheduling, the DEA introduced a new CAMU test based on widespread clinical use. While this bypasses the need for extensive scientific studies, it introduces a new challenge. To meet this criteria, a drug must gain enough popular support to be legalized for medical use in numerous states, accumulating substantial clinical experience. This sets a high political bar that few substances are likely to clear.

Mikos argues that these tyrannies effectively trap substances in Schedule I, regardless of their potential benefits or actual harm profile. This is particularly problematic for promising psychedelics like psilocybin and MDMA, which show therapeutic potential but lack the widespread public support that marijuana has garnered over decades.

The core of the problem, according to Mikos, is the DEA’s insistence that a lack of CAMU automatically relegates a substance to Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. This approach, he contends, is not mandated by the CSA and actually runs contrary to the statute’s text and purpose.

To address these issues, Mikos proposes a more flexible approach to scheduling. He suggests that the DEA should consider all three criteria outlined in the CSA – abuse potential, dependence liability, and CAMU – in a more balanced manner when making scheduling decisions. This would allow for substances to be moved out of Schedule I even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, provided their abuse potential and dependence liability warrant such a move.

Mikos argues that this approach would lead to more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the actual benefits and risks of controlled substances, as Congress originally intended. It would provide a path for promising substances like psilocybin or MDMA to be rescheduled, facilitating research and potential medical use, without having to overcome the enormous political hurdles currently in place.

While Mikos’s proposal doesn’t completely overhaul the CSA or challenge its fundamental premises, it offers a pragmatic solution within the existing framework. By reducing the outsized influence of CAMU determinations, it could potentially break the logjam that has kept many substances trapped in Schedule I for decades, opening up new possibilities for research and medical applications.

This nuanced approach recognizes the complexities of drug scheduling and seeks to create a more flexible, scientifically-grounded system within the existing legal structure. While it may not go as far as some drug policy reformers might wish, it represents a significant step towards a more rational and less tyrannical approach to drug scheduling.

While Robert Mikos provides a far more nuanced approach to drug scheduling, his proposal, in my view, doesn’t go far enough. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is fundamentally flawed, built on a foundation of political ideology and pharmaceutical industry lobbying rather than scientific evidence. To truly address the issues plaguing our drug policies, we need to scrap the CSA entirely and start anew.

The arbitrary nature of drug scheduling under the CSA is glaringly evident when we examine the criteria for Schedule I substances. These drugs are claimed to have “no medical value and high abuse potential.” Yet, where is the evidence supporting this assertion for substances like cannabis or psilocybin? When we dig deeper, we find that comprehensive research on these substances is sorely lacking. More disturbingly, the very classification of these drugs as Schedule I creates a catch-22, making it extremely difficult and expensive to conduct the necessary studies to challenge their status.

This system doesn’t just hinder research; it actively stifles scientific inquiry. Researchers need strict permissions and millions of dollars to conduct tests, and even then, they’re often limited to studying subpar versions of these substances that don’t reflect what’s actually used in the real world. It’s a system designed to maintain the status quo, not to uncover truth.

While Mikos’s suggestions aim to fix the situation, they’re akin to putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. The CSA is toxic legislation that erodes personal freedoms and maintains an arbitrary system that can be leveraged to secure a drug monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. We don’t need amendments; we need a complete rethinking of our approach to drugs and addiction.

Our society already accepts and manages certain addictions – gaming, pornography, gambling, alcohol, and tobacco, to name a few. Yet we deem other substances, like cannabis, as “dangerous,” despite evidence suggesting it’s far less harmful than many legal substances. This inconsistency highlights the arbitrary and often hypocritical nature of our drug policies.

What we need are new norms for a new age. The archaic ideologies of early prohibitionists have caused enough havoc around the world. It’s time to end this madness entirely and develop a drug policy based on science, public health, and respect for personal freedom.

Instead of trying to salvage the CSA, we should be asking fundamental questions about our relationship with drugs and addiction. How can we create policies that prioritize harm reduction and public health over punishment? How can we foster an environment that allows for responsible use while providing support for those struggling with addiction? How can we ensure that promising substances with potential medical benefits aren’t trapped in a regulatory limbo for decades?

While I applaud Mikos for his efforts to bring rationality to an irrational system, his proposals simply don’t go far enough. We need to move beyond the paradigm of scheduling and prohibition altogether. It’s time for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to drug policy that respects individual autonomy, promotes public health, and allows for scientific research without unreasonable restrictions.

The CSA, born in an era of fear and misinformation, has outlived its usefulness. It’s time to relegate it to the annals of history and craft drug policies fit for the 21st century. Only by completely rethinking our approach can we hope to address the complex realities of drug use and addiction in our society. The time for half-measures is over – it’s time to end the tyranny of the CSA once and for all.

PROFESSOR MIKOS TALKS TO CANNABIS.NET, WATCH BELOW…

CANNABIS AND THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE WITH PROF. MIKOS!

Source link

Cannabis News

The Grinch Stole SAFE Banking from the Cannabis Industry This Christmas, Yet Again!

Published

8 hours ago

December 22, 2024

admin

no safe banking in 2024

The landscape of cannabis legislation in the United States has been a complex and evolving issue, particularly concerning banking regulations. As of December 2024, it has become official: the current Congress will not provide any protections for banks that serve state-legal marijuana businesses. This decision has significant implications for the cannabis industry, which continues to grow rapidly despite the lack of federal support. In this article, we will explore the reasons behind this decision, the implications for cannabis businesses, and the broader context of cannabis legalization in America.

The State of Cannabis Legalization

A Growing Industry

The cannabis industry has seen remarkable growth over the past decade. As of late 2024, 23 states and Washington D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana use, while 38 states allow medical marijuana. According to recent estimates, the legal cannabis market in the U.S. is projected to reach over $40 billion by 2025. This growth has been fueled by changing public perceptions of marijuana, increased advocacy for legalization, and significant tax revenues generated by state-legal cannabis sales.

The Banking Dilemma

Despite this rapid expansion, cannabis businesses face unique challenges, primarily due to their inability to access traditional banking services. Federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification creates a significant barrier for banks and financial institutions that wish to work with cannabis businesses, as they risk federal penalties for facilitating transactions related to an illegal substance.

As a result, many cannabis companies operate on a cash-only basis. This situation not only poses safety risks—such as increased theft and violence—but also limits these businesses’ ability to manage finances effectively, pay taxes electronically, and build credit histories.

Legislative Attempts at Reform

One of the most prominent legislative efforts aimed at addressing these banking issues is the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. First introduced in 2019, the SAFE Banking Act sought to provide protections for banks that serve legal cannabis businesses by preventing federal regulators from penalizing them for doing so.

The act garnered significant bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. In previous sessions of Congress, it passed multiple times in the House but faced hurdles in the Senate due to opposition from certain lawmakers who were concerned about broader implications of marijuana legalization.

In light of ongoing discussions about federal spending and budgetary priorities, advocates had hoped that some version of the SAFE Banking Act would be included in recent spending bills. However, during negotiations leading up to December 2024, a House committee led by Republicans removed any provisions related to marijuana banking protections from key spending legislation.

This decision reflects a broader trend within Congress where discussions around cannabis reform have become increasingly contentious. While there is still bipartisan support for certain aspects of cannabis legislation—particularly when it comes to medical use—more comprehensive reforms like banking protections have struggled to gain traction.

Implications for Cannabis Businesses

Continued Cash-Only Operations

The removal of banking protections means that many cannabis businesses will continue to operate primarily on a cash basis. This situation presents several challenges:

Safety Risks: Cash-only operations make cannabis dispensaries and cultivation facilities prime targets for theft and robber Employees often have to handle large amounts of cash daily, increasing their risk of violence.

Operational Inefficiencies: Without access to banking services, businesses cannot easily manage payroll or pay bills electronically. This inefficiency can lead to operational delays and increased costs.

Impact on Public Safety

Advocates argue that providing banking access would enhance public safety by reducing the amount of cash circulating within the community. By allowing cannabis businesses to deposit their earnings into banks, it would minimize the risks associated with cash transactions, making both employees and customers safer.

Moreover, having a transparent financial system would help law enforcement track illicit activities more effectively. Currently, without proper banking oversight, there are concerns that some cash-only operations may be involved in money laundering or other illegal activities.

Politics and Public Opinion

Changing Attitudes Toward Cannabis

Public opinion on marijuana legalization has shifted dramatically over recent years. According to various polls, a significant majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use. This shift has put pressure on lawmakers to address outdated federal policies regarding cannabis.

Despite this growing acceptance among the public, political divisions remain strong within Congress regarding how best to approach cannabis reform. Some lawmakers advocate for full legalization at the federal level, while others prefer a more cautious approach that prioritizes regulation over outright legalization.

The Role of Advocacy Groups

Advocacy groups play a crucial role in pushing for legislative change regarding cannabis banking protections. Organizations such as the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) have been vocal proponents of reforming banking laws to support state-legal cannabis businesses.

These groups have mobilized public support through campaigns highlighting the safety risks associated with cash-only operations and advocating for policies that promote financial inclusion for cannabis entrepreneurs.

Future Prospects for Cannabis Banking Reform

While current congressional efforts have stalled regarding marijuana banking protections, there are still potential avenues for reform:

Incremental Reforms: Rather than pursuing comprehensive federal legislation like the SAFE Banking Act all at once, lawmakers may consider incremental reforms that address specific issues related to banking access without fully legalizing marijuana at the federal level.

The Role of Public Awareness

As public awareness about the challenges faced by cannabis businesses grows, there may be increased pressure on lawmakers to act decisively on this issue. Continued advocacy efforts can help ensure that banking reform remains a priority on Congress’s agenda.

Conclusion

The decision by Congress not to include marijuana banking protections in its current spending bill underscores ongoing tensions surrounding cannabis legislation in America. While public opinion increasingly favors legalization and reform, political divisions continue to hinder progress on critical issues such as banking access for state-legal marijuana businesses.

As the industry continues to grow despite these challenges, stakeholders must remain vigilant in advocating for change while exploring alternative solutions at both state and federal levels. The future of cannabis banking reform remains uncertain; however, with continued advocacy and public support, there is hope that meaningful progress can be made in addressing these pressing issues facing one of America’s fastest-growing industries.

SAFE BANKING SINCE 2018, WHAT A FAILURE, READ ON…

SAFER BANKING ACT FAILS AGAINS, SAME OF BANANA IN THE TAILPIPE!

Source link

Cannabis News

HHC vs. Delta 9: Differences & Similarities

Published

2 days ago

December 20, 2024

admin

Cannabis has so many compounds, and two that have been making the rounds lately are HHC and Delta 9 THC. They’re not the same thing, even though they’re both cannabinoids that interact with the body’s endocannabinoid system. Some people want a mild, steady experience, while others might be looking for something more intense. Understanding these two can help you figure out what’s right for you.

What Is HHC?

HHC, short for hexahydrocannabinol, is a hydrogenated version of THC. It’s not something you’d find naturally in large amounts in cannabis plants. Instead, it’s made through a process that adds hydrogen molecules to THC. The result? A more stable compound that’s less prone to breaking down when exposed to heat or UV light.

How HHC Is Made

Think of it like a science experiment. HHC is usually created in a lab by taking Delta 9 or Delta 8 THC and using hydrogenation—basically, combining it with hydrogen under pressure and in the presence of a catalyst. This process changes its structure while keeping its effects somewhat similar to THC.

Common Uses and Effects of HHC

People who use HHC say it’s somewhere between Delta 8 and Delta 9 in terms of effects. It’s often described as relaxing but without being overly sedative. You might feel a light buzz, reduced stress, or mild euphoria. Some even claim it helps with discomfort or improving sleep, but solid research is still catching up. Since it’s less potent than Delta 9, it’s often favored by those who want a manageable experience without the strong psychoactive punch.

If you’re interested in trying HHC and Delta 9 for yourself, check out their wide range of products at trycandycloud.com. They’ve got everything from gummies to disposable vapes, all crafted for a smooth experience.

What Is Delta 9 THC?

Delta 9 THC is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. It’s the reason you feel “high” when you use weed. Chemically speaking, Delta 9 has a double bond in its ninth carbon chain, which plays a big role in how it interacts with your brain.

Natural Occurrence in Cannabis

This one is straightforward: Delta 9 is found in high concentrations in marijuana plants. It’s what most people think of when they hear “THC.” Unlike HHC, there’s no need for a lab process—it’s already there. Hemp plants, however, contain much lower levels of Delta 9 THC, which is why it’s primarily extracted from marijuana.

Common Uses and Effects of Delta 9 THC

The effects of Delta 9 are well-documented. Depending on the dose, you might feel euphoria, increased appetite, or deep relaxation. For medical users, it’s often used to manage chronic pain, nausea, and other conditions. It’s also been studied for its potential benefits in anxiety relief, though higher doses might have the opposite effect, causing paranoia. Delta 9 THC is versatile, but it’s not without its risks, particularly for new users or those sensitive to its psychoactive effects.

Key Differences Between HHC and Delta 9 THC

Chemical Structure and Composition

The main difference is in their structure. Delta 9 THC has that iconic double bond, while HHC’s hydrogenation makes it more stable. This difference might not mean much to the average person, but it’s why HHC is less likely to degrade over time.

Potency Levels

Delta 9 THC is generally more potent. HHC might require a higher dose to get a comparable effect, but some people prefer its lighter touch. Potency differences can also depend on the method of consumption, with edibles typically providing a stronger, longer-lasting effect compared to vaping or smoking.

Duration of Effects

Both last a few hours, but some users report that HHC’s effects fade more gradually. Delta 9, on the other hand, can have a sharper comedown. HHC’s gradual fade makes it appealing for those who want a smooth end to their experience.

Benefits and Drawbacks of HHC and Delta 9 THC

HHC: Pros and Cons

Pros:

More stable, so it lasts longer on the shelf.
Effects are milder, making it less overwhelming for beginners.
Can be a functional option for daytime use.

Cons:

Limited research, so we don’t know its full impact yet.
Availability can be hit or miss depending on where you live.
Legal gray area in many regions.

Delta 9 THC: Pros and Cons

Pros:

Well-studied with established medical uses.
Widely available in areas where cannabis is legal.
Stronger effects make it ideal for experienced users or those with high tolerance.

Cons:

Higher chance of side effects like anxiety.
More likely to show up on drug tests.
Shorter shelf life compared to HHC.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q. Is HHC safer than Delta 9 THC?

Not enough research exists to say definitively, but HHC’s milder effects might make it feel safer to some users.

Q. Will HHC or Delta 9 THC show up on a drug test?

Yes, both can potentially show up on a drug test, so use with caution if that’s a concern.

Q. Which one is better for recreational use?

That depends on your preferences. HHC is great for a mellow time, while Delta 9 is better if you’re looking for something more intense.

HHC vs. Delta 9: Choosing the Right One for You

The choice comes down to what you’re after. If you want a milder, more laid-back experience, HHC might be a good option. On the other hand, if you’re looking for something stronger or need it for medical reasons, Delta 9 is the way to go. It also depends on what’s legal and available where you are. And always consider your tolerance levels and experience before diving in. If you’re unsure, consult with a knowledgeable dispensary staff.

Resources:

Source link

Cannabis News

What Federally Illegal Drug Has Created Almost $10 Billion in Sales Tax Revenue for States in the Last 40 Months?

Published

2 days ago

December 20, 2024

admin

sales tax revenue with marijuana

In a significant development for the burgeoning cannabis industry, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that states across the nation have collectively amassed over **$9.7 billion** in tax revenue from marijuana sales since mid-2021. This figure underscores the economic impact of legalized cannabis and highlights the growing acceptance of marijuana as both a recreational and medicinal substance in various states. As more states move toward legalization, the financial implications both positive and negative are becoming increasingly evident.

The Landscape of Cannabis Legalization

The journey toward cannabis legalization in the United States has been long and complex. Initially criminalized in the early 20th century, cannabis began to regain acceptance in the late 20th century, particularly for medical use. The first state to legalize medical marijuana was California in 1996, setting a precedent that many states would follow.

By 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, paving the way for a wave of legalization efforts across the country. As of now, more than 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana, while over 30 states allow medical use. This shift reflects changing public attitudes toward cannabis and recognition of its potential benefits.

Economic Implications of Legalization

The legalization of cannabis has not only transformed social norms but has also created a substantial economic impact. States that have embraced legalization have seen significant increases in tax revenue, job creation, and investment opportunities.

According to the latest Census Bureau report, states like California, Colorado, Illinois, and Michigan have emerged as leaders in cannabis tax revenue generation. These states have implemented various tax structures on marijuana sales, including excise taxes, sales taxes, and local taxes. The revenue generated is often earmarked for essential public services such as education, healthcare, infrastructure improvements, and drug rehabilitation programs.

Breakdown of Tax Revenue by State

As the largest legal cannabis market in the United States, California has been at the forefront of marijuana tax revenue generation. Since mid-2021, California has contributed approximately $2.5 billion to state coffers from cannabis taxes. This revenue is derived from both recreational and medical marijuana sales.

California’s tax structure includes a 15% excise tax on retail sales, along with local taxes that can vary significantly by city and county. The state has allocated a portion of these funds to various programs aimed at addressing issues related to drug abuse and public health.

Colorado was one of the pioneers in cannabis legalization and continues to serve as a model for other states. Since mid-2021, Colorado has generated around $1.8 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a 15% excise tax on wholesale marijuana transactions and a 2.9% sales tax on retail sales.

The revenue generated from cannabis taxes has been instrumental in funding education initiatives through the Public School Fund, as well as supporting mental health programs and substance abuse treatment services.

Illinois has seen remarkable growth in its cannabis market since legalizing recreational use in January 2020. In just two years, Illinois has collected approximately $1 billion in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state imposes a tiered excise tax based on the potency of the product, ranging from 10% to 25%.

The funds collected are allocated to various initiatives, including community reinvestment programs aimed at addressing social equity issues related to past drug enforcement practices.

Michigan’s cannabis market has also flourished since legalization. Since mid-2021, Michigan has generated about $700 million in tax revenue from marijuana sales. The state’s tax structure includes a 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and a 6% sales tax.

The revenue is utilized for various purposes, including education funding and support for local governments impacted by legalization.

Broader Economic Impact

The legalization of cannabis has led to significant job creation across various sectors. According to industry reports, the legal cannabis market supports hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide—from cultivation and processing to retail and distribution. As more states legalize marijuana, this trend is expected to continue.

With the growth of the legal cannabis industry comes increased investment opportunities. Entrepreneurs are entering the market at an unprecedented rate, leading to innovations in product development, marketing strategies, and distribution channels. This influx of investment not only benefits individual businesses but also stimulates local economies.

Social Equity Considerations

While the financial benefits of cannabis legalization are clear, it is essential to address social equity issues that arise alongside this new industry. Many states have recognized that communities disproportionately affected by past drug enforcement policies should benefit from legalization efforts.

States like Illinois have implemented community reinvestment programs that allocate a portion of cannabis tax revenues to support communities impacted by previous drug laws. These funds can be used for education initiatives, job training programs, and mental health services—aiming to rectify historical injustices associated with cannabis prohibition.

In addition to financial support for communities affected by past policies, some states are also working to create equitable licensing opportunities for individuals from those communities. By prioritizing applications from minority-owned businesses or those directly impacted by previous drug laws, states can foster a more inclusive cannabis industry.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the significant progress made through legalization efforts, challenges remain on both state and federal levels.

Federal Legalization Uncertainty

One major hurdle is the ongoing conflict between state and federal laws regarding cannabis. While many states have legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use, it remains classified as a Schedule I substance under federal law. This discrepancy creates complications for businesses operating legally at the state level but facing potential federal prosecution.

Efforts toward federal legalization or decriminalization have gained traction recently; however, progress remains slow due to political divisions and differing opinions on drug policy reform.

Regulatory Hurdles

As more states enter the legal cannabis market, regulatory frameworks must evolve to ensure consumer safety while promoting fair competition among businesses. States face challenges related to product testing standards, labeling requirements, advertising restrictions, and taxation policies that can impact market dynamics.

Conclusion

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that states have collected over $9.7 billion in marijuana tax revenue since mid-2021, highlighting the significant economic impact of cannabis legalization. As public acceptance grows, more states are likely to pursue legalization. Despite ongoing challenges, including federal regulations and social equity issues, legalized cannabis is poised to remain a vital part of state economies. Collaboration among government officials, business leaders, and community advocates will be essential for fostering an equitable and sustainable cannabis industry. This evolving landscape not only presents economic growth opportunities but also addresses historical injustices tied to drug policy enforcement, shaping the future of cannabis legislation in the U.S.