The U.S. Supreme Court is about to make a crucial decision that could reshape the rules around drug testing in workplaces across the nation. The case involves a truck driver who was terminated after testing positive for THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana, despite claiming to have only used legal cannabidiol (CBD) products. This case is gaining attention because it touches on key issues such as the fairness of drug testing, employee rights, and the evolving legal status of cannabis-related products.

The Rise of CBD and Legal Ambiguities

Understanding CBD and THC

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-psychoactive compound derived from the cannabis plant, often touted for its potential therapeutic benefits, including pain relief and anxiety reduction. Unlike THC, which is associated with the “high” commonly linked to marijuana use, CBD products are marketed as safe alternatives that do not impair cognitive function or motor skills. However, the legal landscape surrounding CBD is complex. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp-derived CBD products at the federal level, provided they contain less than 0.3% THC. Despite this legalization, many consumers remain unaware that even trace amounts of THC can lead to positive drug tests.

The Employment Context

For commercial drivers like Horn, drug testing is not merely a workplace policy but a federal requirement governed by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The DOT mandates regular drug testing for safety-sensitive positions to ensure public safety on the roads. A positive THC test can lead to severe repercussions, including job loss and disqualification from future employment in driving roles.

Douglas Horn’s Dismissal

In 2020, Douglas Horn, a truck driver employed by a logistics company, found himself at the center of a legal battle that would ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. His ordeal began when he decided to try a CBD (cannabidiol) product called Dixie X, produced by Medical Marijuana Inc., which he believed to be completely free of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the psychoactive compound in cannabis. This decision was motivated by Horn’s desire to manage chronic pain resulting from injuries sustained in a previous trucking accident.

Horn’s journey into the world of CBD started after he suffered significant injuries, including shoulder and hip damage, from a truck accident in 2012. In search of relief, he turned to CBD products, which were marketed as natural remedies with therapeutic benefits but without the intoxicating effects associated with THC. After researching various options, Horn purchased Dixie X, which claimed to contain “0% THC.” He felt confident in his choice, believing it would not jeopardize his job as a commercial driver, which required him to undergo regular drug testing.

However, shortly after using the product, Horn was subjected to a routine drug test mandated by his employer. To his shock and dismay, the test results came back positive for THC. This unexpected outcome led to his immediate termination from the trucking position he had held for over ten years. The loss was not just professional; it also resulted in significant financial strain for Horn and his family. His wife, who worked alongside him as a team driver, felt unsafe continuing without him and subsequently quit her job as well.

Following his termination, Douglas Horn took legal action against Medical Marijuana Inc., alleging that the company had misrepresented their product. He claimed that their advertising falsely assured consumers that Dixie X was free of THC, leading him to believe it was safe for use without risking his employment. The lawsuit was filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a federal statute originally designed to combat organized crime.

Horn’s legal argument hinged on whether his job loss constituted harm to his “business or property,” which is a prerequisite for pursuing claims under RICO. This aspect of the case is particularly significant because it raises questions about how personal injuries can be framed within the context of business losses.

The RICO Act

The RICO Act allows individuals who have suffered injuries due to racketeering activities to sue for damages. It provides a mechanism for victims to seek triple damages if they can prove that their injury resulted from unlawful activities conducted by an organization. While traditionally associated with organized crime, RICO can also apply in civil cases where individuals claim economic harm due to fraudulent practices.

In Horn’s case, he argued that Medical Marijuana Inc.’s misleading marketing constituted racketeering activity that directly led to his job loss. He claimed that the company’s actions amounted to mail and wire fraud under RICO provisions.

Legal Proceedings and Challenges

Initially, Horn’s lawsuit faced challenges in lower courts. A federal trial judge dismissed his RICO claim, stating that it did not meet the necessary criteria for “business or property” injury as outlined in the statute. However, Horn appealed this decision, and the Second Circuit Court overturned the dismissal, allowing his case to proceed.

The appeal brought forth several critical questions regarding the interpretation of RICO and its applicability in this context:

• Definition of Harm: Did Horn’s termination from his job constitute harm to his business or property? The crux of this question lies in whether personal injuries can be reclassified as business injuries under RICO.

• Causation: Was there sufficient evidence to establish that Medical Marijuana Inc.’s actions directly caused Horn’s job loss? Establishing this link is essential for proving damages under RICO.

• Implications for Future Cases: If Horn were successful in his claim, what precedent would it set for similar cases involving CBD products and employment disputes?

Supreme Court Review

The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices deliberated on whether Horn could pursue his lawsuit against Medical Marijuana Inc. under RICO. During oral arguments, several justices expressed concerns about the implications of allowing personal injury claims to be framed as business injuries under federal law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that while there are complexities involved in interpreting RICO’s provisions, establishing that Horn suffered harm to his business or property would be crucial for his case to proceed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised questions about whether Horn’s situation truly represented an injury beyond personal harm.

The manufacturers’ legal team argued that Horn’s injuries were personal and did not fall within the scope of RICO protections designed for economic harm related to business interests. They contended that allowing such claims could lead to an influx of lawsuits where personal grievances are transformed into federal issues better suited for state courts.

Conclusion

Douglas Horn’s dismissal and subsequent legal battle represent a significant moment in cannabis law and employment rights. As attitudes toward cannabis products evolve and more individuals turn to CBD for relief from various ailments, cases like Horn’s highlight the urgent need for regulatory clarity regarding product labeling and consumer protections.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter will not only determine Horn’s fate but may also set important precedents affecting how similar cases are handled across the country. As we await their decision anticipated by June 2025 the implications for workers navigating employment policies amid changing cannabis laws will undoubtedly continue to unfold.

TESTING POSITIVE FOR THC AFTER TAKING JUST CBD, READ ON…

CAN YOU TEST POSITIVE FOR THC AFTER TAKING CBD? YEP!

In recent years, we’ve heard politicians clamoring about the dangers of “misinformation” and “disinformation,” with some even calling for regulations on free speech. But these same politicians seem to have a glaring blind spot when it comes to their own history of spreading falsehoods, particularly regarding cannabis.

For over a century, the U.S. government has been the primary purveyor of marijuana misinformation, running smear campaigns that have shaped public perception and policy. From outlandish claims about cannabis-induced insanity in the 1920s to Nixon’s war on drugs in the 1970s, official channels have consistently peddled propaganda over facts.

The irony is palpable. While decrying the spread of misinformation in the digital age, many politicians conveniently ignore the government’s long-standing role as the chief architect of cannabis myths and misconceptions.

Today, we’re diving into this rich history of government-sponsored cannabis disinformation and examining recent findings from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that reveal a telling trend: Americans don’t trust official sources when it comes to marijuana information.

As we peel back the layers of propaganda and explore the roots of public mistrust, we’ll see how the government’s own actions have undermined its credibility on this issue. The marijuana misinformation machine has been running for decades, and it’s time to set the record straight.

So buckle up, dear readers. We’re about to embark on a journey through the smoky haze of cannabis history, separating fact from fiction and exposing the hypocrisy at the heart of the war on drugs. Let’s dive in!

In an era where information is at our fingertips, it’s ironic that when it comes to cannabis, Americans are turning away from traditional sources of medical knowledge. A recent study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research, partially funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has shed light on this phenomenon, revealing a startling lack of trust in government and medical sources for cannabis information.

The study, which surveyed 1,161 adults nationwide, found that only 4.7% of respondents relied on government agencies for cannabis-related information. Even more surprisingly, health and medical care providers fared only slightly better at 9.3%. Instead, the majority of people turn to friends and family (35.6%) or websites (33.7%) for their cannabis knowledge.

This mistrust isn’t unfounded. For decades, the U.S. government has been the primary purveyor of cannabis misinformation, running smear campaigns that have shaped public perception and policy. This propaganda has not only affected the general public but has also seeped into medical education, creating a knowledge gap among healthcare providers.

The study highlights this medical ignorance, noting that only 9% of medical schools in 2016 offered cannabis-specific curricula. This lack of education isn’t necessarily the fault of individual healthcare providers, but rather a systemic issue rooted in years of government-sponsored misinformation. Many medical professionals simply haven’t had the opportunity to update their “firmware” on the subject matter.

As cannabis use continues to rise and legalization spreads across the country, it’s clear that the medical community needs to catch up. The study authors emphasize the “strong need for better clinician education, public outreach strategies, and improved communication between patients and clinicians about cannabis.”

However, addressing this knowledge gap isn’t as simple as updating medical textbooks. A separate study published in PeerJ Life & Environment reveals a troubling trend in biomedical education materials. The study found that many authors of influential medical textbooks have undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, including patents and compensation from pharmaceutical companies.

This ethical conflict of interest raises questions about the objectivity of medical education materials, particularly when it comes to topics like cannabis that could potentially threaten pharmaceutical profits. As we push for better cannabis education in medical schools, we must also address these underlying conflicts of interest to ensure that future healthcare providers receive unbiased, evidence-based information.

The age of mistrust in official sources of cannabis information presents both challenges and opportunities. While it’s concerning that so few people turn to medical professionals for guidance, it also highlights the need for a major overhaul in how we educate both the public and healthcare providers about cannabis.

As we move forward, it’s crucial that we address the legacy of misinformation, update medical curricula, and ensure transparency in medical education materials. Only then can we hope to bridge the trust gap and provide accurate, unbiased information about cannabis to those who need it most.

The prohibition of cannabis in the United States is a tale woven with threads of deception, racism, and political manipulation. From its inception, the campaign against marijuana has relied on sensationalism and outright lies to justify its existence.

As NORML points out, the initial push for cannabis criminalization had little to do with public health or safety. Instead, it was fueled by xenophobia and racist rhetoric. A prime example is a 1927 New York Times story headlined “Mexican Family Goes Insane,” which farcically claimed that a widow and her children were driven insane by eating the “marihuana plant.” Such sensationalist reporting was common, with a 1933 academic paper in The Journal of Law and Criminology asserting that marijuana use inevitably resulted in “incurable” insanity and death.

At the forefront of this misinformation campaign was Harry J. Anslinger, America’s first “Drug Czar.” Anslinger successfully lobbied Congress to ban cannabis nationwide in 1937, relying heavily on racist rhetoric. He claimed, “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers.” He even went so far as to assert that marijuana caused “white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

The weaponization of cannabis misinformation reached new heights during the Nixon administration. Despite privately acknowledging that cannabis wasn’t “particularly dangerous,” Nixon and his team publicly doubled down on the supposed marijuana threat for political gain. John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s domestic policy chief, later admitted the true motives behind their actions: “We couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the (Vietnam) war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin… we could disrupt those communities.”

This legacy of lies continued well into the late 20th century with programs like D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), which perpetuated exaggerated claims about marijuana. The “lazy stoner” stereotype, heavily promoted by these campaigns, has been debunked by recent studies showing that cannabis users tend to be more active than their non-using counterparts.

Given this extensive history of deception, is it any wonder that people don’t trust the government on cannabis-related information? The federal government didn’t just create fake studies; they actively stonewalled legitimate research to sustain a policy founded on lies and misinformation. This deliberate suppression of scientific inquiry has had far-reaching consequences, hindering our understanding of cannabis and its potential benefits for decades.

The damage caused by this misinformation campaign extends beyond public perception. It has shaped policy, driven mass incarceration, and stifled potentially life-changing medical research. The classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, alongside drugs like heroin, flies in the face of scientific evidence and has been a major obstacle to comprehensive study.

This is why simply rescheduling cannabis is not enough. What we need is a complete dismantling of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). We need an independent, unbiased group to research these substances without the weight of decades of political baggage. It’s time to rethink our approach as a society to drug consumption and remove the regulatory hurdles that have long impeded research and product development.

The path forward requires more than just correcting misinformation; it demands a fundamental shift in how we approach drug policy. We must acknowledge the racist and politically motivated roots of cannabis prohibition and work to undo the harm caused by decades of lies. Only then can we hope to develop a rational, evidence-based approach to cannabis that prioritizes public health, individual liberty, and scientific truth over political agendas and corporate interests.

As we move into a new era of cannabis policy, let’s learn from the mistakes of the past. It’s time to replace fear-mongering with facts, propaganda with peer-reviewed research, and prohibition with sensible regulation. The history of cannabis prohibition in America is indeed a history of lies – but it doesn’t have to be our future.

After more than half a century of lies, misinformation, and propaganda, the U.S. government and healthcare establishment face a monumental task: regaining the public’s trust on cannabis and drug policy. But here’s the harsh truth – they can’t. At least, not without radical, systemic change.

The problem runs deep. How can we trust pharma-sponsored studies when there’s an obvious conflict of interest? How can we believe government agencies that have consistently prioritized political agendas over scientific truth? The credibility well has run dry, and refilling it will require more than just a change in rhetoric or policy tweaks.

The only path forward is a complete overhaul of our approach to drugs in America. This means dismantling the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and renegotiating how we produce, distribute, and regulate drugs in the U.S. Until we take this drastic step, public trust in government agencies and healthcare providers on these issues will remain – justifiably – at rock bottom.

We need to create a new system built on transparency, scientific integrity, and genuine concern for public health. This means severing the ties between drug policy and corporate interests, political agendas, and law enforcement quotas. It means funding independent research, free from the influence of pharmaceutical companies or government agencies with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Let’s be clear: you can’t trust a politician who takes money from Big Pharma or law enforcement unions to make unbiased decisions about drug legalization. That’s like trusting an obese person’s advice on losing weight – the conflict of interest is too glaring to ignore.

Moving forward, we need to demand full transparency in medical education, research funding, and policy-making. We need to elevate voices that have been historically marginalized in these discussions, including those of cannabis users, medical patients, and communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.

The road to rebuilding trust will be long and challenging. But it starts with acknowledging past wrongs, committing to radical change, and putting the wellbeing of individuals and communities above political and corporate interests. Only then can we hope to create a drug policy that truly serves the American people.

SOURCES:

1. https://norml.org/blog/2024/10/07/norml-op-ed-marijuana-prohibition-has-been-a-fraud-from-the-get-go/

2. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/most-people-dont-trust-the-government-for-marijuana-information-federally-funded-study-shows/

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6613575/

MISINFORMATION IN YOUR FEED, YOU BET, READ ON…

HOW “EAT THIS NOT THAT “SPREAD MARIJUANA MISINFORMATION!

The cannabis industry has seen exponential growth in recent years, driven by evolving legislation and increasing consumer acceptance. However, as the market expands, so does the need for stringent safety measures, particularly regarding product packaging. One critical aspect that often goes overlooked is the potential for heavy metals to leach from packaging materials into cannabis products. This article delves into the implications of heavy metals leachability in cannabis packaging, exploring its sources, risks, regulatory frameworks, and best practices for ensuring consumer safety.

Understanding Heavy Metals and Their Sources

 What Are Heavy Metals?

Heavy metals are a group of metallic elements that have high densities and are toxic at low concentrations. Common heavy metals include lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, and chromium. These elements can have detrimental effects on human health, leading to various medical conditions ranging from neurological disorders to cancer. Heavy metals have tested much higher in cannabis users in some medical studies, but why?

 Sources of Heavy Metals in Cannabis Products

1. Environmental Contamination: Cannabis plants can absorb heavy metals from contaminated soil, water, or air. This absorption can occur during cultivation, leading to the accumulation of harmful substances in the plant material itself.

2. Fertilizers and Pesticides: Some agricultural inputs may contain heavy metals as impurities. When these products are used in cannabis cultivation, they can contribute to the overall metal content of the plant.

3. Processing Equipment: The machinery used in processing cannabis can also introduce heavy metals into the final product. For example, wear and tear on metal components may lead to contamination.

4. Packaging Materials: Perhaps the most insidious source of heavy metals is the packaging itself. Materials used for packaging cannabis products can leach harmful substances into the contents, particularly when exposed to heat or light.

Common Packaging Materials Used in Cannabis Industry

The cannabis industry utilizes a variety of packaging materials, including:

• Glass: Often used for tinctures and oils due to its inert nature.

• Plastic: Commonly used for edibles and concentrates; includes materials like PETE (polyethylene terephthalate), LDPE (low-density polyethylene), and HDPE (high-density polyethylene).

• Metal: Used in vape cartridges and containers; aluminum is frequently employed.

• Paper and Cardboard: Typically used for outer packaging or labels.

How Packaging Contributes to Heavy Metals Leachability

1. Chemical Composition: Many plastics contain additives such as stabilizers and colorants that may contain heavy metals like lead or cadmium. When these materials are exposed to heat or solvents (as with oils or alcohol-based tinctures), they can leach into the product.

2. Ink and Labeling: The inks used on packaging can also be a source of contamination. Some inks contain heavy metals like lead or chromium for pigmentation purposes. If these inks come into contact with the product (for example, through permeable materials), leaching can occur.

3. Temperature Sensitivity: Cannabis products are often stored in varying temperature conditions. High temperatures can accelerate the leaching process from packaging materials into the product.

4. Time Factor: The longer a product is stored in its packaging, the greater the risk of leaching occurring over time.

Health Risks Associated with Heavy Metal Exposure

Short-Term Effects

Short-term exposure to heavy metals can lead to acute health issues such as:

• Nausea

• Vomiting

• Abdominal pain

• Diarrhea

•  Headaches

Long-Term Effects

Chronic exposure to heavy metals is far more concerning and is associated with various serious health conditions:

• Neurological Damage: Lead exposure has been linked to cognitive impairments and developmental delays in children.

• Kidney Damage: Cadmium is known to cause kidney dysfunction over time.

• Cancer Risk: Certain heavy metals like arsenic are classified as carcinogens and have been linked to various types of cancer.

• Reproductive Issues: Heavy metal exposure can affect reproductive health, leading to complications such as infertility or developmental issues in offspring.

Regulatory Framework Surrounding Cannabis Packaging

Current Regulations

Despite growing concerns about heavy metal contamination from packaging materials, regulatory frameworks often focus more on the cannabis product itself rather than its packaging. For instance:

 The Need for Comprehensive Testing

Given that current regulations often overlook packaging materials as potential sources of contamination, there is a pressing need for comprehensive testing protocols that include:

1. Material Safety Assessments: Before being approved for use in cannabis packaging, materials should undergo rigorous safety assessments that evaluate their potential for leaching heavy metals.

2. Regular Testing Protocols: Ongoing testing should be mandated for both cannabis products and their packaging throughout their lifecycle—from production through distribution to ensure consumer safety.

3. Transparency Requirements: Companies should be required to disclose information about their packaging materials and any potential contaminants they may introduce.

Best Practices for Ensuring Safe Cannabis Packaging

Choosing Safe Materials

1. Select Inert Materials: Whenever possible, opt for inert materials such as glass or high-quality food-grade plastics that are less likely to leach harmful substances.

2. Avoid Certain Additives: Be cautious about using plastics that contain additives known for leaching heavy metals such as certain colorants or stabilizers.

3. Use Non-Toxic Inks: Ensure that any inks used on labels or packaging are free from heavy metals and other harmful chemicals.

 Implementing Rigorous Testing Protocols

1. Conduct Leachability Studies: Perform studies specifically designed to evaluate how different packaging materials interact with cannabis products under various conditions (e.g., temperature changes).

2. Third-Party Testing: Engage independent laboratories to conduct thorough testing on both products and their packaging for heavy metal contamination.

3. Document Findings: Maintain detailed records of all testing results and make them available to consumers upon request.

Educating Consumers

1. Transparency About Packaging Choices: Companies should provide clear information about their choice of packaging materials and any safety measures taken during production.

2. Labeling Requirements: Consider implementing labeling requirements that inform consumers about potential risks associated with certain types of packaging materials.

3. Consumer Awareness Campaigns: Engage in educational campaigns aimed at informing consumers about safe consumption practices related to cannabis products and their packaging.

Conclusion

As the cannabis industry continues to grow, it is imperative that stakeholders prioritize consumer safety by addressing potential risks associated with heavy metals leachability from packaging materials. By understanding the sources of contamination, advocating for comprehensive regulatory measures, adopting best practices in material selection and testing protocols, and educating consumers about safe consumption practices, we can create a safer environment for all cannabis users.

The responsibility lies not only with manufacturers but also with regulators and consumers alike to ensure that every aspect of cannabis production—from cultivation through consumption is conducted with safety at its core. Only through collective action can we mitigate the risks associated with heavy metal contamination in cannabis products and protect public health effectively.

CANNABIS AND HEAVY METALS, READ ON…

HEAVY METALS IN CANNABIS, WHAT ARE THE DANGERS?