Connect with us

Cannabis News

How Likely is Cannabis Rescheduling, Now?

Published

on


how likely is cannabis rescheduling

The potential rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III has been met with a mix of celebration and skepticism within the industry. While many view this as a significant step forward, I find myself in the camp of cautious observers. As someone who has closely followed and written about cannabis policy, I’ve long maintained that Schedule III is less about progress and more about creating a sweet spot for Big Pharma to dominate the cannabis market, leaving smaller players and consumers at a disadvantage.

However, the path to rescheduling is far from clear-cut. Depending on who you ask, you’ll hear vastly different predictions about the likelihood and timeline of this potential shift. The waters are murky, with legal experts, industry insiders, and politicians all weighing in with their own perspectives and agendas.

In this article, we’ll dive deep into the opinions of various stakeholders. We’ll examine the insights shared by legal experts at a recent conference in Chicago, who emphasized the uncertainty surrounding the rescheduling process. Their cautious approach stands in contrast to the more optimistic outlook of a prominent cannabis businessman with significant skin in the game.

By presenting these diverse viewpoints, my aim is not to push a particular narrative, but to provide you with a comprehensive overview of the current landscape. I invite you to consider the evidence, weigh the arguments, and form your own conclusions about the likelihood and potential impacts of cannabis rescheduling.

As we navigate through these expert opinions, keep in mind that the cannabis industry is no stranger to unexpected turns and political maneuvering. What seems certain today may shift dramatically tomorrow. So, let’s embark on this exploration of the complex and often contradictory world of cannabis policy reform, and see what insights we can glean about the potential future of marijuana’s legal status in the United States.

 

The International Cannabis Bar Association recently convened in Chicago, bringing together a cadre of legal experts to discuss the intricacies of cannabis law and policy. Among the hot topics at this gathering was the potential rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III, a move that could dramatically reshape the industry landscape.

Kelly Fair, a San Francisco-based cannabis attorney, set the tone for the discussions, emphasizing the prevailing uncertainty: “We don’t know what’s going to happen. The only thing we’re certain about today is that we’re uncertain about what’s going to happen.” This sentiment echoed throughout the conference, with experts grappling with the complexities of the rescheduling process and its potential outcomes.

While some experts entertained the possibility of swift action, most remained cautious about the timeline. Fair suggested that in a best-case scenario, “there’s a final rule that gets announced in August.” However, this optimistic view was tempered by Robert Tobiassen, president of the National Association of Beverage Importers, who called such a six-month timeframe “unbelievably ambitious.”

The legal experts identified several potential hurdles that could impede the path to Schedule III:

  1. Political Uncertainty: The looming presidential election adds a layer of complexity. As Michael Joseph Heaton, a cannabis attorney and lobbyist, pointed out, “A Harris-whoever administration… would probably be, I think, more aggressive than the current Biden administration” in supporting federal cannabis reform. Conversely, “a Trump-Vance administration, where we probably will see most of this go away.”

  2. Administrative Processes: The DEA has nearly 43,000 public comments to digest before proceeding, which could significantly slow the process.

  3. Potential Legal Challenges: Cannabis opponents, such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), have promised to attempt to block rescheduling through legal action.

  4. Congressional Interference: Heaton highlighted attempts by Republican opponents to use backdoor methods through Congressional appropriations to halt rescheduling, including introducing amendments to withhold funding for the move.

  5. International Treaty Obligations: The experts noted that U.S. obligations under international treaties could impact the final rule.

Despite these challenges, there seemed to be a cautious consensus among the legal experts that rescheduling to Schedule III is more likely than not to occur. However, the timeline remains a point of contention. While some optimistically pointed to the possibility of a final rule by August, most experts viewed this as highly ambitious.

Tobiassen refused to speculate on specific timing, emphasizing the multitude of unknowns in play. He suggested that the outcome of the November election could significantly impact the process, potentially leading to either accelerated reform or a complete reversal of progress.

Overall, the legal experts at the Chicago conference painted a picture of a complex, uncertain process with high stakes for the cannabis industry. While they generally believed that rescheduling to Schedule III is on the horizon, they stressed that the path forward is far from straightforward. They urged industry stakeholders to remain vigilant and engaged in the political process, as the coming months and years could bring significant changes to the federal status of cannabis.

 

While legal experts express caution, Jason Vedadi, CEO of Story Cannabis, offers a more bullish perspective on cannabis rescheduling. Vedadi is no newcomer to the industry; he’s a real estate developer and cannabis industry pioneer who served as executive chairman of Harvest Health and Recreation. He took Harvest Health public in 2018 and was its largest shareholder until the company was acquired in a $2.1-billion deal with Trulieve in 2021.

Vedadi’s optimism about rescheduling is palpable. “I understand why people are completely skeptical and that they think the rug’s going to get pulled out from underneath them,” he acknowledges. “I also can relate to that kind of mentality in this industry, but if you ask me where my true gut instinct is on this, this is kind of a done deal.”

His confidence stems from the process itself. Vedadi points out that the rescheduling initiative has been ongoing since 2022 and has progressed exactly as expected. This consistency in the process fuels his belief that rescheduling is more than just a possibility—it’s a near certainty.

However, Vedadi isn’t blind to the potential risks. He acknowledges that if rescheduling isn’t completed before the end of Biden’s term, particularly if Democrats lose the White House, there’s an element of uncertainty. “If Democrats are reelected, then I would say there’s zero risk to Schedule III. If Republicans are elected, it adds an element of risk and, I think, some discomfort for people,” Vedadi explains.

The ideal scenario, according to Vedadi, would be for rescheduling to occur before the November elections. This would eliminate the risk of a potential Republican administration halting or reversing the process. However, he also notes that even during the Trump administration, there wasn’t active opposition to state-level cannabis reforms: “If you go back to Trump, he didn’t do anything for four years. He didn’t stop anything. He didn’t prosecute anybody. He didn’t push any agenda.”

Despite his optimism, Vedadi recognizes that completing the rescheduling process before November is unlikely. The DEA still has to review over 43,000 public comments, and there’s potential for administrative law hearings or legal challenges that could extend the timeline.

This delay in the process lends credence to the theory that the push for Schedule III rescheduling is, at least in part, a political maneuver. By keeping the issue alive through the election cycle, Democrats can position themselves as progressive on cannabis reform, potentially swaying voters who prioritize this issue.

Vedadi doesn’t directly address this political angle, focusing instead on the business implications of rescheduling. He emphasizes that for EBITDA-positive companies, rescheduling “changes everything,” potentially providing more cash flow, growth capital, and improved relationships with lenders.

While Vedadi’s optimism provides a counterpoint to the cautiousness of legal experts, it’s clear that the path to Schedule III is not without its hurdles. Whether his confidence is well-founded or overly optimistic remains to be seen as the rescheduling process continues to unfold in the coming months.

Despite the optimism of industry insiders and the cautious analysis of legal experts, the truth remains that nobody can predict with certainty how the cannabis rescheduling saga will unfold. My gut feeling, however, is that Schedule III may be a pipe dream—or if achieved, it could be short-lived.

A significant hurdle emerged with the recent rescinding of the Chevron Doctrine by the Supreme Court. This doctrine, which previously gave federal agencies like the DEA broad authority to interpret ambiguous statutes, has been overturned. Its absence opens the door for anti-cannabis groups to wage legal battles against rescheduling, potentially tying up the process in courts for years.

Moreover, with the November elections looming and Trump’s popularity seemingly unscathed—or even boosted—by recent legal challenges, the political landscape remains unpredictable. This uncertainty makes it increasingly likely that cannabis will remain in a state of limbo, caught between progressive promises and conservative resistance.

But here’s the crux of the matter: Schedule III is not what the cannabis community truly desires. It’s a half-measure, a “bread and circuses” approach that fails to address the core issues. What we really want—and need—is full deregulation. We want the freedom to grow our own plants, to have access to this plant without government interference or corporate monopolization.

The push for Schedule III feels like a political ploy, a way for politicians to appear progressive on cannabis without truly committing to comprehensive reform. It’s a compromise that ultimately serves neither the industry nor the consumers effectively.

So, regardless of whether cannabis ends up in Schedule III or remains in its current classification, our focus should remain unwavering. We must continue to push for full decriminalization and legalization. We should advocate for policies that allow home cultivation and remove government oversight from personal cannabis use.

The sticky bottom line is this: don’t be distracted by the promise of incremental change. Keep your eyes on the prize—complete cannabis freedom. Anything less is just smoke and mirrors in the grand scheme of drug policy reform.

 

RESCHEDULING CANNABIS WINNERS AND LOSERS, READ ON…

WINNERS IN CANNABIS RESCHEDULING

WHO ARE WINNERS, WHINERS, AND LOSERS FROM CANNABIS RESCHEDULING?



Source link

Cannabis News

US Court Rules Delta-8 THC Derived from Hemp is 100% Legal, Slamming the DEA in Embarrassing Court Case

Published

on

By


supreme cour ruling on delta-8 thc from hemp

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) derived from legal hemp sources is not classified as a controlled substance under federal law, directly contradicting the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) position that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, fall under Schedule I controlled substances. This landmark ruling emerged from a case brought forward by several key players in the hemp industry who challenged the DEA’s interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives. The court’s decision not only rejects the DEA’s restrictive stance but also provides much-needed clarity regarding the legal status of Delta-8 THC, allowing for its continued production and sale from legally sourced hemp. This ruling is significant as it has the potential to reshape the regulatory landscape for cannabinoids, encouraging further exploration and commercialization of hemp-derived products while also highlighting the ongoing tensions between federal regulations and the rapidly evolving hemp industry.

 

 Delta-8 THC: A Naturally Occurring Cannabinoid

Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) is a naturally occurring cannabinoid found in trace amounts in hemp and cannabis plants that shares a similar molecular structure to Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana, but is known to produce significantly milder intoxicating effects; the 2018 Farm Bill’s legalization of hemp and its derivatives containing no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis created a legal gray area for Delta-8 THC, which has proliferated in the form of various products derived from legal hemp sources and sold in a largely unregulated market, as they are not explicitly classified as controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) despite the agency’s stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols should be treated as Schedule I drugs regardless of their origin or potency, a position that has been challenged by hemp industry players arguing that Delta-8 THC from legal hemp should be exempt from the same restrictions as Delta-9 THC.

 

 The DEA’s Stance and Industry Challenges

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has taken a firm stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, are classified as Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), regardless of their source or concentration. This position has faced considerable resistance from various stakeholders within the hemp industry, who argue that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp should not be subjected to the same stringent restrictions as Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana. Proponents contend that the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives, should extend to include Delta-8 THC, allowing it to be treated as a legal product when sourced from hemp that contains less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC. They emphasize that while Delta-8 THC may occur naturally in small amounts in hemp, the majority of Delta-8 products on the market are produced through a chemical conversion process from CBD, which the DEA argues renders them synthetic and thus illegal. This conflict has led to ongoing legal challenges, with some courts ruling in favor of the hemp industry, asserting that Delta-8 THC should not be classified as a controlled substance when derived from legal hemp. As the debate continues, the tension between the DEA’s regulatory framework and the evolving hemp market raises critical questions about the future of cannabinoid regulation in the United States.

 

 The Court’s Ruling and Its Implications

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp sources is not controlled substance.

  • The court found the DEA’s interpretation of the law was “arbitrary and capricious” and lacked a reasoned explanation.

  • This ruling effectively removes Delta-8 THC from the DEA’s list of controlled substances, provided it is derived from hemp containing less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC.

  • The decision provides legal protection for businesses and consumers involved in Delta-8 THC products derived from legal hemp sources.

 

 

Opportunities for the Hemp and Cannabis Industries

The recent court ruling represents a significant victory for the hemp and cannabis industries, paving the way for new possibilities in product development and research.

  • Therapeutic Potential: Delta-8 THC has been recognized for its potential therapeutic benefits, which could attract more consumers seeking alternative treatments.

  • Increased Investment: The legalization of Delta-8 THC may lead to heightened investment and innovation within the sector, encouraging the development of new products and formulations.

  • Regulatory Concerns: Despite the positive implications, the ruling also raises important concerns regarding the regulation and quality control of Delta-8 THC products, necessitating careful oversight.

  • Need for Standards: As the market for Delta-8 THC expands, there will be a pressing need for clear guidelines and standards to ensure consumer safety and product consistency, helping to build trust in these emerging products.

Broader Implications for Cannabis Legalization

The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives.

  • Increasing State Legalization: As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify.

  • Step Forward for Delta-8 THC: The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization, yet significant challenges remain.

  • Path to Comprehensive Legalization: There is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.

 

Conclusion

 

The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives. As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify. The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization; however, significant challenges remain, and there is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.

 

DELTA-8 THC IS LEGAL, READ MORE…

DELTA-8 NOW LEGAL

COURT PANEL RULES DELTA-8 THC IS LEGAL UNDER THE FARM BILL!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

What Is It, Why You Should Care, and How Cannabis Helps

Published

on

By


metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome is an umbrella term referring to several conditions that negatively impact how the body metabolizes carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.


It occurs when there are unusual, abnormal chemical processes in the body which affect otherwise healthy metabolic functions. The primary symptoms of metabolic syndrome include abdominal fat, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides, and low levels of LDL (good) cholesterol. These conditions all greatly increase the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and other severe health issues that are difficult or near impossible to reverse.

 

The most telling symptom, though, is a large waist circumference – and you don’t need to take any kind of medical test to tell you this because it’s completely visible.


That’s why prevention is key when it comes to metabolic syndrome. However, the choices you make on a daily basis in your lifestyle can determine your risk for metabolic syndrome of not. We know that an unhealthy diet that is high in sugar, salt, and processed food can contribute to the symptoms of metabolic syndrome. A sedentary lifestyle, obesity, poor sleep hygiene, and exposure to chronic stress can also make the risk much worse. Smoking tobacco and alcohol are even worse – don’t even think about it.


But cannabis? That can actually help!

What Studies Say

 

A recent study that was published in the American Journal of Open Medicine found that young adults with a habit of consuming cannabis had a significantly lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome. For the study, investigators from the University of Miami analyzed a cohort of almost 4,000 individuals whose ages ranged from 18 to 25. They specifically zoned in on the young adults’ cannabis use.

 

They found that current cannabis users were 42% less likely to have metabolic syndrome. They also found that Non-Hispanic Blacks, who were consuming more weed than the other subjects, were found to be the least likely of all to have metabolic syndrome. “Current cannabis users had a lower prevalence of MetS, predominantly noted among NHB (non-Hispanic Blacks], the group with the highest prevalence of current cannabis use,” said the study’s authors. “Future prospective studies are warranted to examine the role of specific cannabinoids on MetS by race/ethnicity,” they said.

 

A Smaller Waist Circumference: Why You Should Pay Attention, And How Weed Can Help

 

Having a large waist circumference or a visibly fatty belly has been associated with numerous health conditions. Of course, this includes a heightened risk of metabolic disease. It also increases the risk of inflammation, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease incidence, and cancer among others.

That is why it’s critical to pay attention to the size of your stomach. A smaller waist means you have a smaller amount of visceral fat, which is necessary for better health and an improved quality of life.

There are many steps you can take to reduce your visceral fat. These include:

 

  • Sticking to a low carbohydrate and low sugar diet

  • Having a diet high in good protein sources

  • Reduce consumption of trans fat and saturated fats

  • Engage in strength training and cardiovascular exercises

  • Manage stress effectively

 

Last but not the least: did you know that consuming cannabis has been shown to be associated with smaller waistlines and a reduced risk for obesity?

In 2020, a study out of Quebec in Canada revealed that cannabis consumption was linked to a smaller waist and reduced triglyceride levels. For this study, the investigator in Canada analyzed subjects who either never consumed marijuana in the past, used it sometime in the past but had no recent use, had some infrequent use, or consume it infrequently. They specifically measured the participants’ waist circumference and triglycerides.

 

They found out that the subjects who consumed certain marijuana strains for metabolic syndrome for at least 4 days per week were found to have smaller waistlines as well as less triglycerides compared to the other participants in the study.

 

Another study from 2015, also out of Quebec, was conducted by researchers from the Conference of Quebec University Health Centers. They analyzed cannabis consumption patterns of 786 Arctic aboriginal adults, the Inuits. The investigators also analyzed their body mass index to search for any links between cannabis use and BMI.

They found that study participants who consumed marijuana within the last year were more likely to have a lower body mass index, as well as reduced fasting insulin and better insulin resistance (using the HOMA-IR indicator) compared to those who did not.

“In this large cross-sectional adult survey with high prevalence of both substance use and obesity, cannabis use in the past year was associated with lower BMI, lower percentage fat mass, lower fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR,” said the researchers. In other words, they observed a relationship between cannabis use and BMI that led them to conclude that cannabis and cannabinoid use can help consumers reduce the likelihood of obesity and diabetes.

 

Meanwhile, an older study from 2013 also had similar results. Research data from The American Journal of Medicine taken from more than 4,600 patients yielded interesting findings. Almost 45% of patients never consumed marijuana in their lives, while 43% of them smoked in the past though no longer do currently. And 12% of them were regular cannabis users.

Researchers discovered that cannabis users who consumed marijuana within the past month had 16% less fasting insulin levels compared to those who never consumed weed. In addition, they even add reduced HOMA-IR levels and higher high-density lipoprotein. Furthermore, the investigators found that regular cannabis users who usually consume more calories, they also had lower BMI’s.

 

Conclusion

 

Staying fit and healthy is much more than vanity: science and medical research makes it clear that there is a strong link between obesity and body mass index, to overall health and wellness. Metabolic syndrome further emphasizes the importance of keeping one’s BMI normal, and based on these studies, that’s something cannabis can help with. Integrating responsible cannabis use into your lifestyle is one tool out of many that can help you stay healthy and reduce the risks of developing metabolic syndrome.

 

MORE ON METABOLIC SYNDROME AND WEED, READ ON…

MARIJAUNA HELPS WITH METABOLIC SYNDROME

WHY CANNABIS HELPS METABOLIC SYNDROME NUMBERS!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

More Bad News for Intoxicating Hemp (California, Missouri, New Jersey)

Published

on

By


Last week, I wrote a post entitled “Loper Comes For the DEA. Will it Matter Though?” In that post, I discussed a brand new federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case that concluded that hemp derivatives like THC-O are not controlled substances. The hemp community has largely celebrated this as a win, even though as I wrote in that post and back in July, none of this really matters if Congress bans intoxicating hemp products – which looks like it will happen.

On the heels of the Fourth Circuit case, a few things happened that don’t make life easier for people who want intoxicating hemp products.

Probably the most significant of the bad news, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued emergency regulations to ban a series of intoxicating hemp products. A lot has been written about these regulations, but it’s worth pointing out that California’s hemp law (AB-45) was already not very favorable to smokable hemp products.

For example, AB-45 already prohibits smokable hemp products. And more notably, it defines THC to include THCA and “any tetrahydrocannabinol, including, but not limited to, Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and Delta-10-tetrahydrocannabinol, however derived”. In other words, all of the various things that are defined as THC – and there are many – must already not exceed 0.3% in the aggregate. This means that a host of products were already de facto banned in the state.

While, to be sure, the new emergency regulations take things farther, I think it would be inaccurate to describe this as a “sea change” in how hemp products are regulated in the state. What remains to be seen is whether CDPH or other agencies ramp up enforcement in any meaningful way. It’s California, so my guess is no.

California’s not the only state taking aim at intoxicating hemp products. Just the other day, Missouri’s Attorney General created a new task force to crack down on intoxicating hemp products. New Jersey’s Governor also signed a bill cracking down on intoxicating hemp products.

All this just adds to the long list of states and municipalities that had been going after unregulated intoxicating hemp products prior to the Fourth Circuit’s decision – often for violations of state or local law which are unlikely to be impacted by the federal case. And of course, if Congress gets around to banning intoxicating hemp products, that will likely be the last straw for many of these products.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media