Connect with us

Cannabis News

Intoxicating Hemp Product Laws are More Complicated Than They Seem

Published

on


When Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, did it intend to legalize intoxicating hemp products? If it did, why didn’t it just legalize marijuana? And why didn’t it address the manufacture or sale of intoxicating hemp products?

I think the answer to all of these questions is clearly “no.” Congress did not intend to open Pandora’s Box to any form of legal intoxicating hemp product. But does what I think – or what Congress intended – even matter? Not to some courts, who think that the 2018 Farm Bill is so patently clear that it really doesn’t even matter what Congress intended.

These issues are admittedly very complicated. There are plenty of folks out there who claim that intoxicating hemp products are completely legal with no caveats. That in my view, is wrong. The law is not settled, the text of the 2018 Farm Bill is anything but clear, and whole lot can (and probably will) change with the upcoming Farm Bill. Let’s take a look at some of the issues below.

The Ninth Circuit didn’t legalize delta-8 nationally

A few years back, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held as much in AK Futures v. Boyd Street Distro (we wrote about that case here). That case is widely misquoted as having declared delta-8 THC legal nationwide. It did not. The Ninth Circuit is the appellate court for a group of western states and its rulings have no binding precedential value elsewhere.

What AK Futures actually did was affirm a preliminary ruling in a trademark dispute where legality of delta-8 products was one of a number of issues at play. In order to have a protectible trademark, the good or service must be lawful in commerce. The infringer argued that delta-8 products were not lawful. As part of the preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff was “likely” to succeed in establishing that the products were lawful, if they came from hemp and if they contained under 0.3% delta-9 THC. This was a preliminary ruling, but it’s likely that the court would rule similarly on some sort of final ruling. However, to claim that this case is the be-all-end-all for delta-8 is just, well, wrong. The case is not precedential anywhere outside of the Ninth Circuit.

An Arkansas District Court didn’t legalize intoxicating cannabinoids nationally, either

More recently, hemp attorney Rod Kight posted a blog post entitled “DID A FEDERAL COURT ORDER JUST LEGALIZE THCA AND DELTA-8 THC IN ALL 50 STATES?” Rod referred to Bio Gen LLC v. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a district (lower) court decision out of the Eastern District of Arkansas that only ruled on a specific Arkansas law. So to answer the titular question, no, the court did not legalize anything in all 50 states. The court did, however, strike down a rather poorly drafted Arkansas law that restricted intoxicating cannabinoids on a number of grounds. (As an aside, I think Rod’s analysis is often right, but in this case we diverge.)

Most relevant to this post was the Bio Gen court’s “conflict preemption” analysis. Conflict preemption is a doctrine that finds a state law invalid if it contradicts federal law – i.e., when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law. Imagine a state law that said you did not have to comply with a federal law. You get the idea.

Now in Bio Gen, the court took the position that the state and federal definitions of “hemp” were in conflict. The court recognized that “Clearly, under the 2018 Farm Bill, Arkansas can regulate hemp production and even ban it outright if it is so inclined.” But while the state could ban hemp production, the court thought that bans on intoxicating hemp products were legal. I don’t get it either. And for some reason, the court forgot to cite the following 2018 Farm Bill provision in its conflict preemption analysis, even though it cited it elsewhere in the opinion: “No preemption. Nothing in this subsection preempts or limits any law of a State or Indian Tribe that . . . regulates the production of hemp . . . and is more stringent than this subtitle.”

While I think the Bio Gen court still had ample reasons to strike down the Arkansas law on different grounds, I just don’t get the conflict preemption argument, and I don’t think an appellate court would agree that states could not enact more stringent laws or prohibit intoxicating cannabinoids. Taking this case to its logical end point would likely result in massive re-writes of hemp laws in all states.

So are intoxicating hemp products legal?

This is not an easy thing to answer and depends on many factors. What intoxicating hemp cannabinoid are we talking about? How is it produced? Is it “synthetic” (and what does “synthetic” even mean)? And what state are we talking about?

Let’s take delta-8 as an example. Delta-8 is generally not expressed in high quantities naturally and is created by converting CBD via a chemical or similar process. The Controlled Substance Act prohibits synthetic THCs, and DEA’s 2020 interim final rule stated that any quantity of synthetic THC is controlled. So according to DEA, delta-8 is illegal. On the other hand, I’ve long argued that under the text of the 2018 Farm Bill, there’s a good argument that delta-8 is legal – even in spite of what seems like clear Congressional intent to the contrary. That’s because the 2018 Farm Bill defines “hemp” as follows:

The term “hemp” means 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 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

In other words, if you take hemp and make something with it, that thing is legal. This is not the position of DEA, but is evidently the opinion of the aforementioned three-judge Ninth Circuit panel. I tend to think that court was right, but at the end of the day, this is by no means a conclusive ruling. Other courts of appeal or the Supreme Court may disagree.

Let’s take another common intoxicating hemp product: THCA flower. I wrote a longer post about that recently here. In a nutshell, people argue that because THCA flower has less than 0.3% delta-9 THC, it is “hemp” even if it has 5% or 20% THCA – even though THCA converts into delta-9 THC. DEA has pretty vocally disagreed with this. In this case, I think the THCA advocates are wrong. I outlined my position in the prior post and we’re well over 1,000 words by now so I won’t recite it again.

Moreover, for any intoxicating cannabinoid or intoxicating hemp product, we also need to look at state law. A number of states outright ban smokable hemp or delta-8 products. Other states (like California) have total THC limits that de facto ban many intoxicating hemp products. No matter what you may think about federal law, those states have their own laws. And unless and until courts in those states start issuing conflict preemption rulings, those laws will be upheld.

Is it wise to sell intoxicating hemp products?

This is a hard question to answer but there is no way to be 100% safe or 100% legal. If someone is in a state that allows such products, and has a good federal law argument, the risks are lower. If someone sells THCA flower online in all 50 states, for example, the risks are very high. Moreover, there are a million different practical risks that people almost never consider when looking at the laws. As I mentioned in my THCA post:

[P]ractically speaking, claiming that THCA products are legal is a tough sell to law enforcement or a court that is not familiar with the nuances of federal hemp laws. Imagine a truck driver gets pulled over with a car full of THCA products with 25% THCA. Those products, when tested, will have levels of THC in the double digits. That driver is going to jail, and will have to do their best to persuade a court that a gap in testing requirements under the 2018 Farm Bill makes their product lawful. Even assuming that argument is solid, there are just too many possibilities that law enforcement won’t agree. This is an issue that would likely need to be resolved in the appellate courts, which would be expensive, time consuming, and risky.

Even if someone has what they believe are airtight legal arguments why their intoxicating hemp product is legal, they often fail to consider how costly it would be to get a court to agree. And how long it would take. And how hard it would be to explain to a court or jury. Thinking about the law is not sufficient. You have to consider reality. And reality isn’t cheap or easy.

Indeed, this kind of thing seems to keep happening. Take this example, where a South Carolina man was reportedly arrested for allegedly selling THCA flower that tested over 0.3%. Or this similar example out of Texas. These are just a few reported examples. The point is that being on the right side of the law doesn’t mean you won’t have to pay a boatload of money to be proven right.


When it comes to intoxicating cannabinoids, nothing is easy. Be very skeptical of folks who say that X is legal in all 50 states or that there is no risk with Y. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more updates on intoxicating hemp products.



Source link

Cannabis News

Getting THC Edibles in Your Edible Arrangement?

Published

on

By


edible arragements with hemp thc products

Edible Arrangements Leans into Intoxicating Hemp Products: A Strategic Expansion

 

Edible Arrangements, a brand renowned for its vibrant fruit bouquets and sweet treats, is embarking on a bold new venture into the hemp and THC-infused edibles market. Through its parent company, Edible Brands, the company has launched Edibles.com, an e-commerce platform offering a variety of hemp-based products such as THC-infused beverages, gummies, and snacks. This strategic move taps into the burgeoning demand for cannabis-related wellness products and reflects a deliberate expansion beyond traditional offerings.

 

Introduction to Edible Arrangements and Its New Venture

 

Edible Arrangements was founded in 1999 by Tariq Farid, who envisioned a unique way to gift fresh fruit arrangements that were both visually appealing and delicious. Over the years, the company has grown to become a global brand with hundreds of locations across the United States and internationally. However, the company’s latest initiative marks a significant departure from its traditional fruit-based offerings, signaling a broader strategic shift towards becoming a comprehensive food, health, and wellness company.

 

The New Venture: Edibles.com

 

Edibles.com debuted on March 20, 2025, starting operations in Texas with ambitious plans to expand rapidly across Southeastern states like Florida and Georgia. The platform is designed to cater to consumers aged 21 and older, providing low-dose THC products that comply with the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp containing less than 0.3% THC by dry weight. Select products will also be available for nationwide shipping where legally permitted, leveraging the company’s existing logistics infrastructure.

 

Product Lineup

 

The initial product lineup includes a range of THC-infused beverages, gummies, and snacks. These products are designed to appeal to both seasoned cannabis users and newcomers looking for low-dose, accessible options. The company emphasizes the importance of quality and safety, ensuring that all products undergo rigorous testing to meet high standards of purity and potency.

 

Strategic Alignment and Market Potential

 

The move into the infused edibles market aligns with Edible Brands’ vision of becoming a broader food, health, and wellness company. CEO Somia Farid Silber highlighted that the infused edibles market is a fast-growing sector with high consumer demand for safe and reliable products. The company is leveraging its extensive franchise network to deliver these items while planning to open brick-and-mortar stores under the Incredible Edibles brand.

 

Market Trends and Consumer Demand

 

The cannabis industry, particularly the segment focused on hemp and THC-infused products, has seen exponential growth in recent years. This growth is driven by increasing consumer interest in wellness and recreational products, as well as evolving legal landscapes that have opened up new markets. Edible Arrangements is positioning itself to capitalize on this trend by offering products that cater to both health-conscious consumers and those seeking unique gifting options.

 

Challenges and Opportunities

 

While this expansion offers significant growth potential, it also comes with challenges such as navigating varying state regulations and ensuring product safety and quality. The company aims to address these issues through robust infrastructure and consumer advocacy. Thomas Winstanley, a cannabis industry veteran leading Edibles.com, emphasized the company’s unique position to drive innovation in this emerging market.

 

Regulatory Challenges

 

One of the primary challenges facing Edible Arrangements is the complex regulatory environment surrounding cannabis products. Laws regarding the sale and distribution of THC-infused products vary significantly from state to state, requiring the company to adapt its operations to comply with local regulations. This includes ensuring that products meet specific THC content limits and are marketed responsibly.

 

Quality Control and Safety

 

Another critical challenge is maintaining high standards of quality and safety across all products. Edible Arrangements is investing heavily in testing and quality assurance processes to ensure that all products meet stringent safety standards. This includes partnering with reputable suppliers and implementing rigorous testing protocols to verify the potency and purity of all THC-infused items.

 

Consumer Education and Advocacy

 

As part of its strategy, Edible Arrangements is also focusing on consumer education and advocacy. The company recognizes that many consumers are new to cannabis products and may have questions about usage, dosage, and safety. To address this, Edibles.com will provide comprehensive product information, dosage guidelines, and resources for consumers to learn more about the benefits and risks associated with THC-infused products.

 

Marketing Strategy

 

Edible Arrangements plans to leverage its existing brand recognition and customer loyalty to promote its new line of hemp-based products. The company will utilize social media, email marketing, and targeted advertising to reach its target audience. Additionally, partnerships with influencers and cannabis industry experts will help build credibility and drive awareness about the brand’s entry into this new market.

 

Future Expansion Plans

 

In the coming months, Edible Arrangements plans to expand its operations beyond Texas, targeting key markets in the Southeast. The company is also exploring opportunities to open physical stores under the Incredible Edibles brand, which will offer a curated selection of THC-infused products alongside traditional Edible Arrangements items.

 

Incredible Edibles Stores

 

The Incredible Edibles stores will serve as a unique retail experience, combining the company’s traditional fruit arrangements with its new line of hemp-based products. This format will allow customers to explore and purchase THC-infused items in a welcoming and educational environment. The stores will also host workshops and events focused on cannabis education and wellness, further enhancing the brand’s position as a leader in this emerging market.

 

Conclusion

Edible Arrangements’ foray into the hemp and THC-infused edibles market marks a significant strategic shift for the company. By leveraging its brand recognition and logistical capabilities, Edible Arrangements is poised to become a major player in this rapidly growing sector. While challenges exist, the company’s commitment to quality, safety, and consumer education positions it well for success in this new venture.

As the cannabis industry continues to evolve, Edible Arrangements’ entry into this market underscores the broader trend of mainstream brands embracing cannabis-related products. This move not only expands the company’s offerings but also reflects a broader cultural shift towards greater acceptance and normalization of cannabis use.

 

HEMP-DERIVED THC DELIVERIES ARE HERE, READ ON…

DOOR DASH DELIVERS WEED

DOOR DASH JUMPS IN TO THE HEMP-DERIVED THC GAME!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Is Cannabis Legal in California Right Now?

Published

on

By


california cannabis legality

California Supreme Court Upholds Cannabis Legalization

 

In a landmark decision, the California Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the legality of cannabis in the state by de-publishing a prior appellate ruling. This move effectively prevents the lower court’s opinion from being used as legal precedent in future cases, ensuring that California’s cannabis laws remain intact. The decision is a significant victory for the state’s legal cannabis industry and reinforces California’s position as a leader in cannabis legalization.

 

Background of the Case

 

The case, JCCrandall v. County of Santa Barbara, originated from a lawsuit filed by Lompoc property owner Janna Caron Crandall. She challenged the County of Santa Barbara’s decision to allow cannabis transportation on an easement road crossing her property. Crandall argued that the easement’s terms prohibited federally illegal activities, thus making the county’s permit approval unlawful. This challenge was rooted in the fact that cannabis remains illegal under federal law, despite being legalized in California.

 

The Legal Framework

 

California legalized recreational cannabis in 2016 with the passage of Proposition 64, also known as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). This law allowed adults 21 years and older to possess and use cannabis for recreational purposes. However, the federal government still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance, making it illegal under federal law. This dichotomy between state and federal laws has created legal complexities and challenges for cannabis businesses operating in California.

 

The Appellate Court Ruling

 

In January 2025, the Court of Appeal sided with Crandall, suggesting that California’s cannabis regulations were unlawful due to cannabis being federally illegal. This ruling was seen as a potential threat to the state’s cannabis industry, as it implied that federal law could preempt state laws allowing cannabis use and sale. The appellate court’s decision was based on the argument that the easement agreement prohibited activities that were illegal under federal law, and since cannabis is federally illegal, allowing its transportation on the easement would violate the terms of the agreement.

 

Implications of the Appellate Ruling

 

If the appellate court’s decision had stood, it could have had far-reaching implications for California’s cannabis industry. It would have potentially opened the door for similar challenges to cannabis operations across the state, undermining the legal framework that has been established since Proposition 64. This could have led to increased legal uncertainty and risk for cannabis businesses, potentially stifling growth and investment in the sector.

 

The Supreme Court Decision

 

The California Supreme Court’s decision to de-publish the appellate court’s ruling effectively nullifies its impact as a legal precedent. This means that the opinion cannot be cited or relied upon in future cases, ensuring that California’s cannabis laws remain secure. The Supreme Court’s action was in response to a request from the Department of Cannabis Control and other stakeholders who sought to protect the state’s cannabis regulations.

 

Statement from the Department of Cannabis Control

 

“We are pleased that the Court agreed to address that Court of Appeal decision at the Department of Cannabis Control’s request, supporting California law and its legal cannabis industry,” said DCC Director Nicole Elliott. This statement reflects the relief and support within the industry and regulatory bodies for the Supreme Court’s decision.

 

Impact of the Supreme Court Decision

 

The Supreme Court’s decision has several key implications for California’s cannabis industry and the broader legal landscape:

 

  • Legal Certainty: By preventing the appellate court’s opinion from being used as precedent, the Supreme Court has provided legal certainty for cannabis businesses. This clarity is crucial for investors, operators, and consumers alike, as it ensures that the industry can continue to operate without the threat of federal preemption being used to undermine state laws.

  • Industry Growth: The decision supports the continued growth and development of California’s cannabis industry. With legal certainty, businesses are more likely to invest in expansion, innovation, and compliance, which can lead to increased economic benefits for the state.

  • Regulatory Framework: The ruling reinforces the authority of state regulatory bodies, such as the Department of Cannabis Control, to oversee and enforce cannabis laws. This ensures that the industry operates within a well-defined legal framework, which is essential for maintaining public safety and trust.

  • Consumer Access: For consumers, the decision means that access to legal cannabis will remain unchanged. This is important for both recreational users and patients who rely on cannabis for medical purposes.

  • Federal-State Relations: While the decision does not change federal law, it underscores the ongoing tension between state and federal cannabis policies. It highlights the need for continued advocacy for federal reform to align with the growing number of states that have legalized cannabis.

 

Historical Context of Cannabis Legalization in California

 

California has been at the forefront of cannabis legalization efforts in the United States. The state’s journey towards legalizing cannabis began with the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, which allowed for the medical use of cannabis. This was followed by Proposition 64 in 2016, which legalized recreational cannabis.

 

Proposition 215: Compassionate Use Act

 

Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act, was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that allowed patients with certain medical conditions to use cannabis with a doctor’s recommendation. This law marked the beginning of a shift in public perception and legal treatment of cannabis, paving the way for broader legalization efforts.

 

Proposition 64: Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA)

 

Proposition 64 expanded on Proposition 215 by legalizing the recreational use of cannabis for adults. It established a regulatory framework for the cultivation, distribution, and sale of cannabis, creating a multibillion-dollar industry in California. The law also included provisions for taxation, licensing, and environmental protection.

 

Challenges and Opportunities in the Cannabis Industry

 

Despite the legal victories, the cannabis industry in California faces several challenges:

 

  • Regulatory Compliance:  Businesses must navigate complex state and local regulations, which can be costly and time-consuming. Compliance with these regulations is essential to avoid legal issues and maintain operational licenses.

  • Market Competition: The California cannabis market is highly competitive, with many licensed operators competing for market share. This competition can drive innovation but also poses challenges for smaller businesses trying to establish themselves.

  • Federal Banking Restrictions: Due to federal illegality, cannabis businesses often face difficulties accessing traditional banking services. This forces many companies to operate largely in cash, which can increase security risks and complicate financial management.

  • Environmental Concerns: Cannabis cultivation can have environmental impacts, such as water usage and energy consumption. The industry Is working to address these concerns through sustainable practices and regulatory compliance.

  • Social Equity Programs: California has implemented social equity programs aimed at supporting individuals and communities disproportionately affected by the war on drugs. These programs provide resources and opportunities for entry into the cannabis industry.

 

Future of Cannabis Legalization

 

The California Supreme Court’s decision is part of a broader national conversation about cannabis legalization. As more states legalize cannabis, there is growing pressure for federal reform. Several bills have been introduced in Congress to address issues such as banking access and federal preemption, but comprehensive reform remains elusive.

 

Federal Reform Efforts

 

Efforts to reform federal cannabis laws include bills like the MORE Act, which would decriminalize cannabis at the federal level, and the SAFE Banking Act, which aims to provide banking access to cannabis businesses. While these bills have seen progress, they face significant hurdles in becoming law.

 

International Perspectives

 

Internationally, countries like Canada and Uruguay have fully legalized cannabis, providing models for how federal legalization could work. These countries have established national regulatory frameworks that address issues like taxation, public health, and international trade.

 

Conclusion

 

The California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legality of cannabis in the state is a significant victory for the industry and its stakeholders. It ensures that California can continue to lead in cannabis legalization and regulation, providing a model for other states and countries. As the legal landscape evolves, it is crucial for ongoing advocacy and reform efforts to address the remaining challenges and opportunities in the cannabis sector.

 

CANNABIS IN CALIFORNIA HAS PROBLEMS, READ ON…

CALIFORNIA CANNABIS PROBLEMS

CALIFORNIA CANNABIS IS BIG, BUT ALSO HAS BIG PROBLEMS…



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Daily Cannabis Use Can Help People Get Off Opioids (STUDY)

Published

on

By


opioid crisis and cannabis

Cannabis daily can help people get off opioids (STUDY)

As Donald Trump continues to trudge on in his second term, he’s made it abundantly clear that tackling the fentanyl crisis is high on his agenda. The rhetoric is bold and aggressive – promises to go after cartels with military force, threats against drug dealers, and a generally hawkish stance toward drug trafficking. It’s the kind of tough talk that plays well to his base, but the question remains: will it actually solve anything?

If we look at his appointments and policy directions, it seems we’re heading for War on Drugs 2.0 rather than an innovative approach to a complex problem. History has taught us that you can’t simply bomb, arrest, or threaten your way out of drug epidemics. These tactics have been tried for decades with little success.

There is, however, one solution hiding in plain sight that could revolutionize Trump’s approach to the opioid crisis – cannabis legalization. Yes, you read that correctly. If Trump were to take the bold step of federally legalizing cannabis, he could potentially cement his legacy as one of the most transformative presidents in modern history.

It sounds counterintuitive at first – fighting drugs with another drug? But the evidence is mounting that cannabis could be a powerful weapon against opioid addiction and overdose deaths. Recent studies are showing promising connections between cannabis use and reduced opioid dependency.

So how exactly would legalizing a plant help combat the deadliest drug crisis in American history? Well, let me tell you!

A groundbreaking study published last week in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review has added significant weight to the argument that cannabis could help combat the opioid crisis. The research, conducted by an eight-person team from the British Columbia Centre on Substance Abuse, the University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University, examined data from 1,242 people who used drugs while also living with chronic pain.

Their findings were striking: “Participants reporting daily cannabis use exhibited higher rates of cessation compared to less frequent users or non-users.” In other words, those who used cannabis every day were more likely to quit using opioids altogether. This effect was particularly pronounced among men, suggesting “potential differences in cannabis use behavior and effects” between sexes.

This isn’t an isolated finding. A growing body of research supports the idea that cannabis can serve as an effective substitute for opioids. A federally funded study found that in states with legal marijuana, prescriptions for opioid pain medications dropped significantly among commercially insured adults. Another study discovered that legalizing medical cannabis appeared to significantly reduce payments from opioid manufacturers to doctors specializing in pain management – further evidence that cannabis was replacing prescription painkillers.

Perhaps most compelling is the research linking cannabis legalization to reduced fatal opioid overdoses. One study estimated that recreational marijuana legalization “is associated with a decrease of approximately 3.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.” When you consider that over 107,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2021 alone (with 75% involving opioids), the potential life-saving impact becomes clear.

The opioid crisis has ravaged communities across America, destroying families and costing the economy an estimated $1.5 trillion annually in healthcare costs, criminal justice expenses, and lost productivity. Cannabis legalization offers a multi-pronged solution: it provides a safer alternative for pain management, reduces dependency on opioids, and potentially saves thousands of lives each year.

Beyond addressing the opioid epidemic, legalizing cannabis would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, generate billions in tax revenue, reduce unnecessary incarcerations (particularly in communities of color), and open up new avenues for medical research and international commerce.

For a businessman-turned-president like Trump, the economic case alone should be compelling. The question is whether he has the vision to seize this opportunity or if he’s too beholden to interests that benefit from prohibition – pharmaceutical companies, private prisons, and law enforcement agencies that rely on drug war funding. If he truly wants a slam dunk policy that would address the fentanyl crisis while creating jobs and stimulating the economy, cannabis legalization could be his legacy-defining move.

While we wait for politicians to catch up with science, those suffering from chronic pain or other conditions treatable with cannabis might consider a more immediate solution: growing your own medicine.

Now, let me be crystal clear – I’m not advocating breaking the law. If cannabis is illegal in your state, I don’t want you risking arrest and criminal charges. However, speaking personally, if I were suffering from chronic pain and had few options, I might consider a small, discreet grow operation of 2-4 plants. This would be my absolute secret – something I’d never discuss with anyone, ever.

The beauty of growing your own cannabis extends far beyond just having a supply of medicine. There’s something profoundly therapeutic about nurturing a plant from seed to harvest. You develop patience, attention to detail, and a deeper connection to the plant medicine you’re creating. It’s a relationship, not just a transaction.

When you grow your own cannabis, you also know exactly what’s in it. No pesticides, no mysterious contaminants – just pure plant medicine cultivated with care. You can select strains specifically bred for your conditions, whether that’s pain, anxiety, insomnia, or inflammation. The process puts the power of healing back in your hands.

Beyond the primary flower, home growers can make use of every part of the plant. Fan leaves can be juiced for their non-psychoactive cannabinoid content. Trim can be used to make topicals or edibles. Even the stems can be used to make teas or tinctures. Nothing goes to waste.

There’s also a significant cost advantage. A small home grow can produce enough medicine to last months, potentially saving thousands of dollars compared to dispensary prices. For those on fixed incomes or without insurance coverage for their conditions, this economic benefit can’t be overstated.

I firmly believe that any meaningful cannabis legalization bill must include provisions for home cultivation. Without the right to grow your own medicine, legalization is merely transferring authority from one controlling entity to another. It’s still authoritarianism masquerading as freedom, just with different gatekeepers.

The right to grow is fundamental to true cannabis freedom. It acknowledges the plant for what it is – a natural resource that should be accessible to all, not just those who can afford to purchase it from state-sanctioned vendors. Home cultivation empowers individuals to take control of their own health without excessive dependence on either the black market or corporate cannabis.

While we push for policy change at the federal level, let’s not forget that sometimes the most revolutionary act is simply planting a seed.

The evidence is overwhelming: we’re facing an unprecedented opioid epidemic that’s claiming thousands of American lives every year, and cannabis represents a viable, evidence-based solution to this crisis. The latest research confirming that daily cannabis use can help people quit opioids adds to the mountain of data supporting cannabis as a harm reduction tool.

Yet despite the scientific consensus, I’m not holding my breath for federal action. The sad reality is that most politicians on both sides of the aisle receive substantial funding from industries that benefit directly from cannabis prohibition – pharmaceutical companies pushing their own patented pain medications, private prison corporations dependent on drug offenders to fill beds, and police departments that receive military-grade equipment through drug war budgets.

These entrenched interests have billions of reasons to maintain the status quo, and they’ve proven remarkably effective at delaying meaningful reform for decades. Even as public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of legalization, with roughly two-thirds of Americans now supporting it, policy changes creep along at a glacial pace.

Perhaps Trump, with his penchant for disruption and unpredictability, could surprise us all by embracing cannabis reform as part of his anti-fentanyl strategy. It would certainly align with his populist messaging and “America First” economic policies. A thriving legal cannabis industry would create jobs, boost tax revenues, and potentially save countless lives from opioid overdoses.

I can hope for such bold leadership, but I’ll continue preparing for the long, slow grind of incremental progress. In the meantime, the opioid crisis rages on, claiming lives that could potentially be saved with a plant that’s been used medicinally for thousands of years. If that’s not a tragedy of policy failure, I don’t know what is.

 

CANNABIS TO REDUCE OPIOID USE, READ ON…

DR OZ ON CANNABIS AND OPIOIDS

DR. OZ SAYS CANNABIS CAN GET PEOPLE OFF OPIOIDS, HOW DOES IT WORK?



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media