Connect with us

Cannabis News

New Lawsuit Filed Against the US Government Says Cannabis Prohibition is Now Illegal Based on States’ Legal Marijuana Programs

Published

on


us companies suing us government

New lawsuit puts in question the rationale behind marijuana prohibition

 

If you’re a regular reader of my articles, you know I’ve long held that the federal government’s blanket prohibition on drugs like marijuana is an irrational, unethical, and unconstitutional violation of individual liberty. The harsh criminalization of a plant that has been used by humans for thousands of years is the height of authoritarian overreach, driven more by reefer madness propaganda than any legitimate public policy rationale.

 

Well, it turns out I’m not alone in viewing the federal drug war as a catastrophic failure and affront to common sense. A group of cannabis companies has filed a major lawsuit challenging the very legal foundations of marijuana’s prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act. Their argument? That the federal ban no longer has any rational basis when dozens of states have implemented regulated programs that have replaced the illicit market the original law aimed to eliminate.

 

This lawsuit represents a potentially groundbreaking direct assault on the crumbling facade of marijuana prohibition. In this article, we’ll dive deep into the core arguments advanced by the plaintiffs, evaluate the legal prospects of their case, and discuss whether it could finally force the government’s hand. We’ll also explore actions individuals can take to further apply pressure and make our voices heard on this crucially important issue.

 

Regardless of the outcome, this bold litigation demonstrates that the tides have turned irrevocably against the draconian policies of the failed war on drugs. The march toward legalization may have started as a revolution, but it is increasingly becoming a inexorable reckoning that even the federal government cannot defy forever.

 

 

The lawsuit in question was filed by a group of marijuana companies including multi-state operator Verano Holdings Corp., Massachusetts-based Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farm, and Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers. They are represented by the prominent law firms Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Lesser, Newman, Aleo and Nasser LLP. The lawsuit alleges that the federal government’s ongoing cannabis prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is unconstitutional and irrational given the widespread state-level legalization and regulation that has occurred. As the filing states:

 

“Dozens of states have implemented programs to legalize and regulate medical or adult use marijuana…And by providing consumers with safe, regulated, and local access to marijuana, those states have reduced illicit interstate commerce, as customers switch to purchasing state-regulated marijuana over illicit interstate marijuana.”

 

This new 32-page filing is a response to the federal government’s attempt to dismiss an underlying lawsuit first brought by the companies in October 2022. That original complaint argued that “the federal government has long ago abandoned the goal of eliminating marijuana from commerce” and that “even if Congress still wished to eliminate interstate transactions in marijuana in their entirety (it does not), it has no rational basis for banning state-regulated activities that reduce interstate traffic in marijuana.”

 

The crux of the case centers on overturning the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which held that the federal ban on cannabis preempted state legalization laws due to Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. As the plaintiffs’ latest filing contends:

 

“In the two decades since Raich, all the legislative and operative facts on which Raich’s conclusion rested have changed. It is therefore necessary to assess Congress’s regulation of intrastate marijuana based on the new regulatory framework and new factual circumstances.”

 

By filing this lawsuit and seeking to overturn Raich, the cannabis companies aim to finally eliminate the threat of federal enforcement in legal state markets. If successful, it would open the door for state-licensed businesses to access financial services, claim tax deductions, and operate without the cloud of residual illegality that has hampered the industry.

 

While the odds of the Supreme Court revisiting its decision are difficult to gauge, the filing of lawsuits like this plays a vital role in applying public pressure and highlighting the dissonance between state and federal marijuana laws. Even if the case itself does not prevail, it shines a spotlight on the irrationality of the government’s current stance and forces lawmakers and enforcement agencies to contort themselves further to justify an untenable policy kurns out of step with public opinion and modern governance.

 

Prominent litigator David Boies, whose prior high-profile cases include the Department of Justice lawsuit against Microsoft and the overturning of California’s same-sex marriage ban, made the sweeping argument that:

 

“Americans believe that cannabis should be legal and available subject to reasonable regulation by the states…The federal government lacks authority to prohibit intrastate cannabis commerce. Outdated precedents from decades ago no longer apply—the Supreme Court has since made clear that the federal government lacks the authority to regulate purely intrastate commerce.”

 

By methodically deconstructing the legal underpinnings of prohibition, pushing for judicial remedies, and elevating the issue through the courts, this lawsuit contributes to further eroding the false narratives that enabled the cruel excess of the war on drugs. Initiatives like this are crucial steps towards finally ending failed marijuana criminalization once and for all.

 

trust in us government

SOURCE: GALLUP

 

Given that national polls consistently show a solid majority of Americans supporting legalizing marijuana, and the fact that 38 states have already implemented some form of legal cannabis program, one might reasonably ask: why is the federal government dragging its feet so much on this issue?

 

The unfortunate truth is that the sluggish pace is very much by design. The complex bureaucratic maze surrounding federal drug policies, centered on agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and laws like the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), has been structured in a way that makes meaningful reform excruciatingly difficult and subject to endless delays.

 

The DEA has historically been able to take a decade or more just to reject rescheduling petitions, often without providing any substantive rationale beyond simply stating “it’s the law.” This byzantine process essentially allows the agency to run out the clock indefinitely on any cannabis policy changes it ideologically opposes.

 

But the bigger impediment to legalization is the very existence of the CSA itself and its unconstitutional centralization of power over drug manufacturing, distribution, research, and consumption. By arrogating control over Americans’ free choice as individuals under the flimsy pretext of interstate commerce regulation, the CSA represents a startlingly authoritarian federal overreach into what should be a matter of personal liberty.

 

Of course, the self-serving motives behind Congress’ reluctance to amend or abolish this draconian statutory regime are not exactly a mystery. With only 32% of the U.S. public expressing trust in Congress to act in the national interest, lawmakers have amply demonstrated whose interests they really serve – chiefly those of deep-pocketed special interests like the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Numerous studies have shown that after states legalize medical marijuana, drug companies see sharp declines in revenues and prescription numbers for lucrative pain medications as patients turn to cannabis as an alternative treatment. With legal marijuana inevitably disrupting Big Pharma’s profit streams, it’s no surprise these powerful corporate forces have aggressively lobbied Congress to maintain cannabis prohibition and protect their bottom line.

 

So while a majority of the American people have left the Reefer Madness propaganda behind, Congress continues to peddle laughably disingenuous narratives about marijuana’s dangers precisely because it remains so beholden to the powerful moneyed interests profiting from the drug war status quo.

 

Until the people demand full representation from their elected officials instead of fealty to corporate overlords, we are likely to see this same cynical political theater play out repeatedly. Even outright legalizing marijuana at the federal level may not dismantle the bureaucratic fortresses that have been cleverly constructed to impede American’s free access to cannabis as a matter of individual choice.

 

 

While lawsuits like this are invaluable for shining a light on the absurdity of continued federal cannabis prohibition, it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will revisit its precedent and overturn the Controlled Substances Act – at least not through this particular case. The inertia and institutional resistance to marijuana legalization remains powerful.

 

The Biden administration will no doubt continue to cite its modest cannabis pardons and drug rescheduling review as major reform “wins.” But such half-measures are mere political theater, failing to deliver on Biden’s campaign promises of full decriminalization and expungement of prior records.

 

Ultimately, the cruel overreach of the CSA cannot be undone through bureaucratic nibbling around the edges. To reclaim our inalienable rights to bodily autonomy and cognitive liberty, we must reject the unconstitutional foundations of this oppressive statute entirely at every level of society and governance.

 

Where the federal government continues to fail, it falls to the people themselves to enact the drug policy change we deserve through local and state reforms. Most Americans still place high trust in their municipal and state governments over Washington D.C. It is here, in our own backyards, that we can make real progress.

 

While the latest lawsuit highlights the building momentum to end the irrational war on cannabis, true liberation will only come from a flourishing of grassroots activism. Making that dream a reality will require each of us to do our part by demanding more from our communities and our representatives. The American people are ready to legalize freedom – the question is whether our institutions can evolve quickly enough to get out of the way.

 

SUING TO GET WEED LEGAL, READ MORE…

DEA SUED TO MAKE CANNABIS ILLEGAL

SCIENTISTS SUE THE DEA TO LEGALIZE MEDICAL CANNABIS, AGAIN!



Source link

Cannabis News

California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality

Published

on

By


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

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

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

The case at hand

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

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

Key legal findings

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

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

California cannabis industry implications

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

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

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

Looking ahead

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

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

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

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



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Autoimmune Conditions Are Rising Fast in American Medicine, Can Cannabis Help?

Published

on

By


cannabis autoimmune problems

Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help

 

Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.

 

In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.

Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.

 

According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.

 

But cannabis can help!

 

How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases

 

Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.

 

In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.

 

Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.


There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.

 

Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis

 

Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

 

The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.

 

“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.

 

In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.

 

According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”

 

“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote. 

 

Anecdotal Evidence

 

While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.

 

In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.

 

Conclusion

Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.

 

AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES THAT CANNABIS CAN HELP

CANNABIS FOR 9 DIFFERENT AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill

Published

on

By


The U.S. Senate’s version of the Farm Bill finally landed this week. They’re calling it the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024 (the “Senate bill”). The Senate bill follows on the House’s proposal, called the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (the “House bill”), offered in May. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill would preempt state or Indian law regarding hemp or the regulation of hemp products. This means states and tribes will retain a lot of latitude in regulating hemp and hemp-derived products– which gets people fired up.

Aside from giving states some runway, the Senate bill and the House bill differ in key respects regarding hemp. Therefore, these august bodies must confer and reconcile their sundry proposals. That could happen in 2024, but seems more likely in 2025 when the new Congress convenes. As of this week, though, we finally have a framework.

The Senate Bill re-defines “hemp” and defines “industrial hemp”

Section 10016 of the Senate bill (“Hemp Production”) amends the definition of “hemp.” Hemp was defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), taking us on a truly wild ride. See: What Happened to Hemp? (“What Happened”). The Senate bill also gives us a definition for “industrial hemp.” Here are those definitions, with points of emphasis in bold:

(1) Hemp. The term “hemp” means (A) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; and (B) industrial hemp.

(3) Industrial Hemp. The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. if the harvested material (A) is only (i) the stalks of that plant, fiber produced from those stalks, or any other manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of those stalks (except cannabinoid resin extracted from those stalks); (ii) whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other compound, manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the seeds of that plant (except cannabinoid resin extracted from the seeds of that plant); or (iii) viable seeds of that plant produced solely for production or manufacture of any material described in clause (i) or (ii); and (B) will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.

The new regime

Again, the definitional stuff in bold is what I want to emphasize.

First, the Senate bill keeps the THC threshold at 0.3 percent, which is an arbitrary number we’ve been advocating against for years. The Senate bill mirrors the House bill in this respect, though, so we are stuck with this, unless Ron Paul gets his way.

Second, the Senate bill keeps the 2018 Farm Bill’s total THC standard, including THCA. The House bill does this too. This was fairly predictable: in What Happened, I wrote that we could “expect the total THC standard to remain, which means that actual Delta-9 THC won’t be the only metric for calculating THC content.”

We’ve also explained on this blog that the 2018 Farm Bill and USDA rules mandate total THC testing on pre-harvest hemp batches, but do not mandate such testing on post-harvest hemp or hemp products. The Senate bill doesn’t change this paradigm, which means the “loophole” for gas station weed remains open. This proposal is a big win for opponents of the House bill’s “Miller Amendment,” which would narrow the definition of “hemp” to exclude intoxicating hemp-derived substances.

Third, the Senate bill introduces a new definition and framework for industrial hemp. The House bill does this too, albeit slightly differently. The idea here is to invite farmers to grow hemp for fiber and grain purposes, while freeing them from regulatory burdens with the Department of Agriculture and criminal exposure with the Department of Justice. More specifically, for “industrial hemp” growers, the Senate bill:

  • removes background check requirements;
  • instates “relaxed regulatory requirements” for sampling and inspection methodologies (which will need to be adopted by rule); and
  • develops a certified seed program. 

The Senate bill also makes any hemp producer ineligible to grow hemp for five years if that producer, “with a culpable mental state greater than negligence, produces a crop of hemp that is inconsistent with that license.”(Hint: use the seed program.) The proof standard here seems like it could be an issue, and even if anyone has been adjudicated as growing marijuana under the guise of hemp, Farm Bill ineligibility seems like a far-off concern.

Bottom line

The big takeaway for me is that the Senate bill leaves the door open for intoxicating hemp products, whereas the Miller Amendment to the House bill does not. Something’s gotta give. And it needs to happen soon, because we’re already long overdue. As I explained in a webinar last week, the Farm Bill deals with the nation’s entire food supply, not just hemp. Therefore, this is not like with the SAFE Banking Act, where we have a proposed law specific to cannabis that may or may not ever pass. The Farm Bill must pass, and soon.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep you updated on any major happenings. For more on this topic, check out our massive hemp and CBD archive, or these specific, recent posts:



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media