Experts say THC percentage is the wrong way to shop for cannabis

Published

6 hours ago

July 3, 2026

admin

Related Topics:Cannabis Experts percentage Shop THC wrong

DOJ Marijuana Lawsuit Filing Cites Drug Testing Industry And Pharma Company ‘Pocketbook Interests’ In Opposing Rescheduling

Click to comment

DOJ Marijuana Lawsuit Filing Cites Drug Testing Industry And Pharma Company ‘Pocketbook Interests’ In Opposing Rescheduling

Published

6 hours ago

July 3, 2026

admin

The Justice Department is asking a federal court to stop the marijuana opponents’ request to deny it The Trump administration’s cannabis rescheduling proposal advancing among the general lawsuits challenging the reform.

The government’s brief argues drug testing industry association and pharmaceutical company trying to block rescheduling of cannabis “fulfilling pocket interest by keeping all marijuana on schedule I.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District is handling three separate cases regarding whether cannabis is subject to Schedule I through Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Against moving to the Annex.

A lawsuit is led by a prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and National Drug and Alcohol Screening (NDASA)and they say they are “offended” by the reform. Another comes from a coalition anti-marijuana activists, substance abuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation. He filed a third claim Attorneys General of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana— although the latter appeared later withdrew from the suit.

Two of the entities involved in the case — NDASA and the cannabis-based biopharmaceutical corporation MMJ International Holdings — filed a separate motion asking the court to stay the reorganization while the broader challenge is considered.

The DOJ responded to that request on Thursday, arguing that the court should not halt cannabis reform because NDASA and MMJ lack standing to bring the challenge and have not “demonstrated a likelihood of success” in the overall lawsuit.

“Applicants are nowhere near meeting the exacting standard of such exceptional relief.”

The government report says NDASA, which represents drug-testing companies, “only cited general speculation about how the reorganization order might affect the drug-testing industry, rather than specific allegations about how the order affected specific members of the association.”

The group argued that its members would lose revenue due to less employer drug testing for marijuana and the “higher costs” required to “determine whether positive results reflect state-licensed medical use.”

But the DOJ says that’s not the government’s problem.

“In addition, NDASA’s feared future injury would result from customers’ decisions to stop testing marijuana altogether or from its members and their customers’ decisions to increase drug testing costs. Petitioners have not demonstrated that it is “foreseeable,” rather than “speculative,” that third parties will choose to use any illegal testing for marijuana. Increasing costs to drug screeners from continued customer testing would be a continuation of their voluntary billing decisions, not in the reprogramming order.”

The government’s report also states that MMJ has also not set out to pursue its review request, stating that it is “not a current market competitor” and without products that have completed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) clinical research process.

“Petitioners do not establish an Article III identification: the association does not identify any concrete harm to any of its members, and the pharmaceutical company does not demonstrate a competitor’s position when it has not yet produced a product authorized to compete on the market. Nor do the petitioners’ alleged injuries fall within the purview of the CSA. The CSA was enacted to provide a permanent source of revenue for drug enforcement to test marijuana, nor to enact the law to protect “market opportunities” to create “cannabinoid-based drugs.” also

The DOJ filing says the drug-testing group and pharmaceutical company are not “adequate challengers” to the marijuana rescheduling movement.

“The intended beneficiaries of the CSA are therefore the United States public and scientists and physicians seeking legitimate access to controlled substances for research and patient treatment. Petitioners are not the intended beneficiaries of the CSA, nor are their interests systematically aligned with those beneficiaries. Petitioners invoke (1) the interests of drug controllers; to avoid cost losses in business; drug testing protocols; and (3) to prevent market competition by a pharmaceutical company (MMJ), therefore, They call the pocket interests that all marijuana is kept in Schedule I.

NDASA and MMJ argued in their stay motion that cannabis is a “dangerous drug that destroys lives,” and asked the court to suspend reform “to avoid the devastating consequences of ballooning marijuana while this case is pending.”

But the government said in its opposition document that “as the reorganization order recognizes, 40 states have already ‘legalized the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes’.”

“In light of existing state practice, there is no basis to believe that the limited reorganization action here would result in such prejudice in this appeal,” he said.

This week, Two medical marijuana companies filed a motion to intervene in the reconsideration case siding with the government and opposing the prohibition lawsuits.

The evolution of the case is coming The DEA this week began an administrative hearing on the proposed marijuana redistricting government witnesses and lawyers present highlighting the medical uses and relative safety of cannabis opponents, meanwhile, challenge the process by which officials developed the recommendation for reform.

Under an action announced in April by Attorney General Todd Blanche, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license were immediately changed from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Annex, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The ongoing hearing is looking at broader rescheduling of cannabis, including for recreational products.

The challenge to SAM and NDASA’s reconsideration request was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term, is a partner.

SAM announced in January that it was Hiring Barr’s firm to fight cannabis rescheduling After Trump signed an executive order directing officials to quickly complete the process.

Meanwhile, the Appropriations Committee of the Chamber Federal officials voted to block further steps to reschedule cannabis. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment, however don’t expect legislative efforts to block rescheduling to be successful.

Separately, SAM, MMJ and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s program. Certain hemp-derived products are covered by Medicare. That the case was dismissed by a federal judge in May, though that decision is being appealed.

Read the full DOJ short in the marijuana reorganization case below:

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Cannabis News

AWH files DEA registration applications

Published

1 day ago

July 2, 2026

admin

Ascend Wellness has filed applications with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to register certain state-licensed medical cannabis operations under Schedule III medical marijuana.

“This is an important first step for medical cannabis patients and the medical community, while laying the groundwork for broader standardization across the industry,” said Sam Brill, CEO of AWH. “We remain hopeful about what might come next as the DEA’s hearing on adult-use cannabis rescheduling continues. Further reforms will help establish a more level playing field for cannabis operators and align the industry with more economic opportunities and regulatory frameworks available to traditional businesses.”

Applications include dispensary operations to support medical cannabis patients in the Company’s core markets. AWH’s footprint spans 51 retail locations in seven states, including partner-owned and operated stores, and occupies more than 260,000 square feet in its six cultivation, processing and manufacturing facilities.

For more information:
Ascend Wellness Holdings
www.awholdings.com

Cannabis News

Arizona Bill To Punish People Over ‘Excessive’ Marijuana Odor Or Smoke Dies As Session Adjourns

Published

1 day ago

July 2, 2026

admin

An Arizona bill that would have It has penalized people who produce “excessive” amounts of marijuana smoke or smell is dead, for advocates who have said it is to defeat a proposal that would have weakened the legalization law.

The legislation by Sen. JD Mesnard (R) passed the Senate in March, as well as the House Judiciary Committee, but stalled on the floor despite support from Republican and Democratic groups in the House, after an objection to the approval of the consensus schedule.

Members of Parliament adjourned the legislative session on June 13, before taking up the proposal on the regular schedule, officially killing it for the year.

Throughout the measure’s history, lawmakers have heard testimony from both sides of the debate, with advocates arguing that it is a necessary update to the state statute that would prevent unsolicited exposure to the smell of cannabis, and opponents, such as Arizona NORML and the ACLU of Arizona, arguing that it unnecessarily undermines the will of voters who voted to legalize the proposal.

Mesnard, the bill’s sponsor, addressed criticism of the proposal, including the possibility that it could be subject to political litigation if it eventually becomes law, at a House committee hearing in March.

“I don’t think we should feel paralyzed as politicians to advance the right policy that protects someone’s private property rights,” he said. “Anyone can challenge anything we do down here, and it’s often used to try to stop the way we make decisions. I don’t think it should be in this case.”

He also explained to a member of the House panel that the bill would not force local governments to adopt their own rules or take enforcement action.

“Some cities or towns can get something, some can’t. This is protection if they don’t have something,” the senator said. “Obviously, it’s something that’s easier at the local level – and usually the objections are faced at the local level – so it’s not trying to interfere with the most common approach.”

Another subsidiary resolution to put the issue up to voters failed in the Senate, but Mesnard later made a successful motion to reconsider that failure, although the measure was not brought up again.

As introduced, both measures would add broad criminalization provisions to state cannabis use laws. But most of that penalty language was revised Senate Committees of the Whole. For example, it was changed to provide a clearer definition of “excessive” smoking and to remove the reference to making the offense a “felony.”

The Senate-passed bill, however, would make it a public nuisance by making it punishable by up to four months in jail and a $750 fine for “excessive marijuana smoke or odor … if the person’s conduct willfully or knowingly and substantially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.”

The final definition of excess cannabis smoke or odor described it as “air emissions from smoking, heating, or vaporizing marijuana or marijuana products,” according to a summary of the approved amendment.

Such emissions “can be detected by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibility on other private property” and “occur for no more than 30 consecutive minutes in a single period or on three or more days within a 30-day period.”

invoice (SB 1725) and resolution (SCR 1048) specified in their final form: “The legal possession or use of marijuana does not preclude a finding of nuisance, except that a court may consider the possession of a valid registration identification card as a mitigating factor,” and they provide that “a person is not liable for a private nuisance unless the person receives notice of the interference within five days.”

Under the revised legislation, an aggrieved party would first have to file a complaint with local officials before taking action with the state, but only if the city has passed an ordinance regulating the excessive smoke or smell of cannabis.

A person would be deemed to be in violation of the law if a local court orders them to “reduce the excessive smoke or odor of marijuana that causes a tint” and the person “knowingly violates or refuses to comply with the order.”

Each subsequent day of non-compliance with the order would be considered a separate offense, and non-compliance would be a minor offence.

—
It’s Marijuana Time tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelic and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters by pledging at least $25/month, you’ll get access to our interactive maps, charts, and audio calendars so you never miss a development.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracking and become a Patreon supporter to gain access
—

Separately, Marijuana opponents introduced a ballot initiative to roll back legalization in Arizona this year, but that effort was abandoned after the local campaign leader said he has “adjusted my views on the threat to children” posed by the legal marijuana industry.

Sean Noble, president of the political strategy firm American Encore, told local media that as he began campaigning over concerns about the marketing of cannabis to children, he realized that marijuana businesses in Arizona “didn’t do some things that I thought they did.”

“I went in with a very deep belief that this was happening,” Noble said. “I relied on things I saw or read from other people.”

“I don’t think they’re marketing it the way I was led to believe they were doing gummies and candy and stuff like that,” he said. “Maybe they’re doing that in other states. But it’s not happening here in Arizona.”

A The 2024 poll found continued majority support From Arizona, it is likely to legalize medical cannabis (86 percent), legalize adult use (69 percent) and the industry for banking reform (78 percent).

Meanwhile, seniors in Arizona’s independent living communities may soon see another type of caregiving service available in their neighborhoods: Kiosks that allow you to view and purchase marijuana products at licensed dispensaries.

Retailer Life Is Chill and cannabis technology company LoveBud recently announced a partnership to launch the novel initiative, which will deploy kiosks in participating senior living communities that residents can use to deliver and order marijuana products.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with the help of readers. If you rely on our pro-cannabis journalism to stay informed, consider a monthly Patreon pledge.