Connect with us

Cannabis News

Did the Supreme Court Kill Cannabis Resheduling with their Chevron Case Ruling, Yes or No?

Published

on


schedule 3 for marijuana

Schedule III Rescheduling might have just died

As many of you know, I’ve never been a fan of rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III. It’s a half-measure that doesn’t address the core issues of prohibition, and ironically, it’s one of the few things I find myself agreeing with prohibitionists on. Who would have thought?

But here we are in 2024, and it seems the Supreme Court has just thrown a massive wrench into the whole rescheduling process. And you know what? I can’t say I’m too broken up about it. The move to Schedule III always felt more like a political stunt to me – a way for the Democrats to claim a win without actually solving the problem. It’s the kind of move that looks good on paper but does little to address the real issues facing cannabis users and the industry.

Today, we’re diving into a recent SCOTUS ruling that’s sending shockwaves through the regulatory world. It’s all about something called the Chevron doctrine – a legal principle that’s been around since the ’80s and has played a huge role in how government agencies interpret and enforce laws. The Court’s decision to overturn this doctrine has some serious implications for cannabis regulation, and specifically, for the proposed move to Schedule III.

Now, I know what some of you might be thinking: “Great! Less regulation is always better for cannabis, right?” Well, not so fast. As much as I’m not a fan of excessive regulation, this ruling might actually create more chaos and uncertainty for the cannabis industry in the short term. And let’s be real – uncertainty is the last thing this industry needs right now.

So, buckle up, folks. We’re about to take a deep dive into the world of administrative law, regulatory authority, and what it all means for the future of cannabis in America. It’s not the sexiest topic, I know, but trust me – this ruling could have a massive impact on the industry we all care about. Let’s get into it!

 

So, what’s this Chevron business all about? Let’s break it down.

The Chevron doctrine, named after a 1984 Supreme Court case, has been a cornerstone of administrative law for nearly four decades. In essence, it told courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws, as long as those interpretations were reasonable. The idea was that agencies, with their specialized expertise, were better equipped to fill in the gaps left by Congress.

But last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority decided to toss this longstanding principle out the window. In their ruling, they essentially said, “Nah, we don’t trust these agencies anymore. Courts should be the ones interpreting the law, not bureaucrats.”

Now, you might be wondering, “What does this have to do with weed?” Well, buckle up, because it has everything to do with it.

See, the whole process of rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III was based on the idea that the DEA and FDA had the authority to interpret and apply the Controlled Substances Act. With Chevron gone, that authority is now on shaky ground. It’s like the refs changed the rules in the middle of the game, and now everyone’s scrambling to figure out what’s legal and what’s not.

For the cannabis industry, this means the path to Schedule III just got a whole lot rockier. Before, if someone challenged the rescheduling, courts would have likely deferred to the DEA’s decision. Now? It’s open season. Any judge can look at the Controlled Substances Act and decide for themselves whether the DEA has the power to reschedule cannabis at all.

And let’s be real – the chances of Schedule III happening anytime soon just went from slim to practically non-existent. It’s like trying to hit a moving target while blindfolded and standing on one foot. Good luck with that.

But here’s where it gets really nasty. You know those anti-cannabis groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)? They must be dancing in the streets right now. This ruling hands them a shiny new weapon to use in the courts. They can challenge every single move towards legalization or rescheduling, arguing that agencies are overstepping their bounds.

Imagine this: Every time a state tries to implement new cannabis regulations, or the feds make any move towards loosening restrictions, SAM and their buddies can run to the courts. They’ll argue that these actions go beyond what Congress explicitly authorized. And with Chevron gone, they’ve got a much better shot at winning these cases or at least tying things up in the legal system for years.

It’s like giving prohibitionists a legal sledgehammer. They can use it to smash any progress we’ve made, all while claiming they’re just upholding the “true meaning” of the law.

So, while the death of Chevron might sound like some dry legal mumbo-jumbo, it’s actually a game-changer for cannabis policy. And not in a good way. We’re in for a bumpy ride, folks.

Alright, I know I’ve been painting a pretty grim picture here, but hear me out – there might actually be a silver lining to this whole mess. And it’s a big one.

Let’s be real for a second: Schedule III was never the promised land we were hoping for. Sure, it sounded nice on paper, but in reality? It was just handing cannabis over to Big Pharma on a silver platter. It wouldn’t have legalized weed for the average Joe – it would have just made it easier for pharmaceutical companies to profit off it while the rest of us still faced legal risks.

So here’s the twist: with Schedule III now stuck in legal limbo thanks to the Chevron ruling, and with groups like SAM chomping at the bit to challenge every little move, we might actually have a shot at something better. I’m talking about full legalization or complete removal from the Controlled Substances Act. Yeah, you heard that right.

Now, I’m not saying it’ll happen overnight. We’re probably looking at years of legal battles and political maneuvering. But here’s the thing: the regulatory nightmare created by ditching the Chevron doctrine could take even longer to sort out. So in a weird way, this chaos might force Congress to finally step up and do something decisive.

Let’s not forget, Congress is the reason we’re in this mess in the first place. They enacted the CSA over 50 years ago based on a bunch of faulty narratives and racist fearmongering. And we’ve been paying the price ever since. But now? They might not have a choice but to fix their mistake.

The truth is, to really solve this problem, Congress needs to legalize cannabis at the federal level. That’s where the real battle is going to happen, folks. And if you ask me, it’s high time for cannabis companies to band together and start lobbying hard for this. We’re talking about forming a united front, pooling resources, and making our voices heard in the halls of power.

Because let’s face it – the current state of affairs, including this whole Schedule III business, doesn’t serve the best interests of the people. It’s a half-measure at best, and at worst, it’s a way to keep control in the hands of big corporations and government agencies.

So yeah, it might seem counterintuitive, but this Supreme Court decision could actually be the first domino to fall in the path towards real, meaningful legalization. Not this phony Schedule III Big Pharma dream, but actual freedom for cannabis users and small businesses.

It’s going to be a long, hard fight. But for the first time in a while, I’m feeling optimistic in a manner of speaking. This could be our chance to push for what we really want, not just settle for what the government is willing to give us. So let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work. The real battle for cannabis freedom is just beginning.

Alright, folks, let’s cut to the chase. It’s time to get off our collective asses and do something about this mess. The days of sitting back and hoping for change are over. We need to start making some noise.

First things first: start talking to your representatives. I mean really talking to them, not just firing off a quick email. Educate them, and while you’re at it, educate your friends, family, and anyone who’ll listen. It’s time to undo these dangerous prohibition policies that have been screwing us over for decades.

And let’s think bigger. The Controlled Substances Act isn’t just flawed when it comes to cannabis – it’s a hot mess across the board. It’s not based on science, it’s not helping public health, and it’s only benefiting a select few. I say it’s time we renegotiate the whole damn thing.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. “But it’s an election year!” You’re right, and realistically, nothing major is going to happen on the federal level until after the dust settles. But that doesn’t mean we can’t start laying the groundwork.

Come 2025, it’s time to become full-fledged activists. I want you calling your representatives so much their ears start bleeding. Make it impossible for them to ignore us. Let them know in no uncertain terms that we want cannabis completely legal, not this half-assed rescheduling nonsense.

And don’t let up. The support for legalization is growing every day. Make sure they know that. Make sure they understand that this isn’t just about getting high – it’s about personal freedom, medical access, criminal justice reform, and economic opportunity.

As for me? Well, you know I’m not going anywhere. I’ll keep doing what I do best – exposing the government’s shitfuckery and educating people on how we can fight back. I’ll keep shining a light on the hypocrisy, the lies, and the special interests that are keeping cannabis illegal.

But I can’t do it alone. This is a fight we all need to be in. So get informed, get angry, and most importantly, get active. The path to legalization isn’t going to be easy, but nothing worth fighting for ever is.

Remember, change doesn’t come from the top down – it comes from the bottom up. And right now, we’re the bottom pushing up against decades of bullshit. So let’s push hard, let’s push together, and let’s not stop until we get the legalization we deserve.

The sticky bottom line? The future of cannabis is in our hands. Let’s not fuck it up.

SOURCE: Marijuana Moment

 

MORE ON THE SCOTUS CHEVRON RULING, READ BELOW…

chevron case for the cannabis industry

HOW DID A COURT CASE AGAINST CHEVRON WRECK THE WEED INDUSTRY?



Source link

Cannabis News

California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality

Published

on

By


In a landmark decision that highlights the tension between state and federal cannabis laws, a California appellate court ruled on October 29th that property owners can refuse to allow the transportation of cannabis across their land via easements, even when the cannabis operation is approved by local authorities.

The Second District Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision draws attention to private property rights in a context where cannabis remains federally illegal, but state law allows licensed cultivation, distribution and sale. Presiding Justice Albert Gilbert stated, “No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.” JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, Case No. B333201, 2024 WL 4599304, Oct. 29, 2024.

Unless the California Supreme Court grants review – which I would not rule out – the decision empowers private property owners to refuse to contract with cannabis businesses, and restricts local government from approving cannabis operations that implicate the property rights of neighbors who object.

The case at hand

The dispute centered around a cannabis cultivation operation in Santa Barbara County, where JCCrandall LLC challenged a conditional use permit granted by the County to its neighbor, Santa Rita Holdings Inc. The critical issue was that Santa Rita Holdings could only access its 2.5-acre cannabis farm via an unpaved road crossing JCCrandall’s property through a pre-existing easement. JCCrandall grows oats and barley.

JCCrandall’s primary concern? It raised a number of complaints with the Santa Barbara County Supervisors about truck traffic and night operations, which did not gain traction, but in the Court of Appeal JCCrandall focused on what it claimed was potential liability associated with having federally illegal substances transported across its property, even though County regulators found that the Santa Rita operation was fully compliant with state and local laws.

Key legal findings

The appellate court’s decision hinged on several crucial points:

  1. Property Rights: The court emphasized that “the right to exclude others is the essence of the right of property ownership” and classified it as a fundamental vested right.
  2. Federal Supremacy: The panel determined that allowing cannabis transportation across private property “defies the Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
  3. State vs. Federal Law: While cannabis might be legal under California law, the court ruled that federal law’s prohibition takes precedence in this context.

California cannabis industry implications

Legal experts suggest this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for California’s cannabis industry. Section 1550.5(b) of the California Civil Code makes contracts within California involving cannabis lawful and enforceable, and Santa Rita Holdings bet the ranch on that argument. But the Court of Appeal held that the statute could not compel a landowner to allow cannabis to travel across its property on a pre-existing easement. Licensed operators may find it harder to do business because neighbors who have property rights affected by a cannabis business can object, and, under the JCCrandall ruling, local government must yield to those objections.

An example might be a cannabis dispensary that depends on access to its parking lot via an easement or is located in a shopping center where other lessees have rights to object to tenants notwithstanding the approval of the landlord. In cultivation, many cannabis farms depend on vehicular access through easements because they are remote and do not always have direct access to public thoroughfares, or they depend on water sourced from other properties pursuant to agreements made by prior owners who grew traditional crops. These neighbors might not need to show any negative impact on their property, but can argue that they could be found complicit in federally illegal activities.

I think the most problematic language in the JCCrandall ruling is the following, which might draw the attention of the California Supreme Court and cause it to grant review: “For as long as an easement is enjoyed, its mode and manner of use shall remain substantially the same as it was at the time the easement was created. The County argues the easement was used for agricultural purposes. But there is a vast difference between legal and illegal agricultural purposes.” (Emphasis added.) If California has determined that cannabis cultivation is legal – as it has – and state courts routinely enforce contracts involving cannabis, it is a pretty bold step to declare the use of a lawful pre-existing easement illegal simply because the agricultural crop is cannabis and take away easement access from Santa Rita.

Looking ahead

This decision creates new challenges for cannabis businesses in California, and will result in more disputes among neighbors. While the Biden administration has shown signs of easing federal marijuana restrictions, this ruling demonstrates that the federal-state law conflict continues to create significant legal hurdles for the cannabis industry.

California court decisions also can be persuasive authority in other states, so we might see similar litigation (and decisions) elsewhere in the country where cannabis has been legalized.

The case serves as a reminder that despite California’s progressive stance on cannabis, federal prohibition continues to cast a long shadow over the industry’s operations and development. As the cannabis landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may prompt businesses to reassess their property arrangements and local governments will certainly have to reconsider their permitting processes to give more careful consideration to objections by neighbors who claim that their property rights are implicated by cannabis operations.

Note: This post was first published earlier this month on the Alger ADR Blog.



Source link

Continue Reading

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
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media