Cannabis News

The 10 Most Significant Dates in Cannabis History (2024 Update)

Published

1 year ago

October 12, 2023

admin

important dates in cannabis history

Most people don’t understand the history of cannabis, and I don’t blame them. The truth of the matter is that cannabis history is quite significant dating back thousands of years. Some people even believe that cannabis might have been one of the first crops we have ever harvested as modern humans. Seems that cannabis has coevolved with humanity for thousands of years, and This is why it is quite difficult to pinpoint exactly what happened with cannabis throughout history.

However, over the past 100 years, we have a lot more accurate records about what had happened especially with the government, legality, social attitudes, and more.

This is why I have decided to work on this piece today, to provide some historical context of cannabis over the years. What follows is what I found to be some of the more significant dates of modern cannabis history, designed to educate the modern consumer on how we got where we are today.

It’s important to create accurate records of what happened in the past – otherwise we might find ourselves in the same position of prohibition in a hundred or two hundred years.

While I know that this digital record is “soft” – in that it can easily be destroyed. My hope is to inscribe some of these important dates into your consciousness, so that the data remains.

1925: The US Congress passes the Marihuana Tax Act, effectively prohibiting cannabis at the federal level.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1925 was a federal law in the United States that effectively prohibited the use, possession, and sale of cannabis. It was passed by Congress on December 18, 1925, and signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on January 6, 1926.

The act was largely the work of Harry Anslinger, the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger was a staunch prohibitionist who was determined to ban all drugs, including cannabis. He lobbied Congress for years to pass a cannabis prohibition law, and he was finally successful in 1925.

The Marihuana Tax Act imposed a high tax on the sale and possession of cannabis. The tax was so high that it was essentially prohibitive. The act also required anyone who sold or possessed cannabis to register with the federal government and pay an annual tax.

The stated purpose of the Marihuana Tax Act was to generate revenue for the government. However, Anslinger’s true motivation was to ban cannabis altogether. He believed that cannabis was a dangerous drug that led to insanity, violence, and crime. He also believed that cannabis was a gateway drug that led to the use of more dangerous drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.

The Marihuana Tax Act was passed at a time when there was very little scientific evidence about the effects of cannabis. However, Anslinger’s propaganda campaign and his use of scare tactics were effective in persuading Congress to pass the law.

The Marihuana Tax Act had a significant impact on the cannabis industry in the United States. It led to the closure of most cannabis businesses and the arrest and imprisonment of thousands of people for cannabis-related offenses. The law also helped to create a negative public perception of cannabis, which made it difficult for scientists to conduct research on the drug.

The Marihuana Tax Act remained in effect for over 50 years. It was finally repealed in 1976, but cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

Who controlled it?

The Marihuana Tax Act was controlled by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which was headed by Harry Anslinger. Anslinger had a great deal of influence over the enforcement of the law, and he used his power to crack down on cannabis users and sellers.

What it intended to do

The Marihuana Tax Act was intended to generate revenue for the government and to ban the use, possession, and sale of cannabis. Anslinger believed that cannabis was a dangerous drug that led to insanity, violence, and crime, and he was determined to stamp it out.

Why it passed the act

The Marihuana Tax Act passed because of Anslinger’s effective propaganda campaign and the fact that there was very little scientific evidence about the effects of cannabis at the time. Many members of Congress were persuaded by Anslinger’s claims that cannabis was a dangerous drug, and they believed that the law was necessary to protect the public.

1937: Harry Anslinger, the commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, publishes a pamphlet titled “Marihuana: Assassin of Youth,” which demonizes cannabis and spreads misinformation about its effects.

1969: The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is founded.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) was founded in 1969 by Keith Stroup and Larry Schott. Stroup was a lawyer and Schott was a journalist, and they were both motivated by the growing movement to legalize marijuana in the United States.

The 1960s was a time of great social and political change, and the marijuana reform movement was part of that. Many people were disillusioned with the government and its policies, and they saw marijuana as a symbol of freedom and personal expression.

NORML was one of the first organizations to advocate for the legalization of marijuana in a professional and respectable way. Stroup and Schott were careful to distance themselves from the counterculture stereotype of the marijuana smoker. They instead focused on educating the public about the benefits of marijuana and the harms of prohibition.

NORML quickly became a leading voice in the marijuana reform movement. The organization lobbied Congress, state legislatures, and local governments to change marijuana laws. NORML also published educational materials and sponsored research on the effects of marijuana.

NORML’s work helped to change public perceptions of marijuana and to build support for legalization. In 1973, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize marijuana, and in 1992, California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana. Today, marijuana is legal for recreational use in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

NORML continues to be a leading advocate for marijuana reform. The organization works to educate the public about the benefits of marijuana and to promote policies that protect the rights of marijuana users.

Historical context

The founding of NORML in 1969 came at a time when marijuana use was becoming increasingly popular, especially among young people. This was also a time of great social and political unrest, as the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement were raging.

Many people saw marijuana as a symbol of freedom and rebellion. They also believed that marijuana had medicinal benefits, and that it was less harmful than other legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco.

The federal government, however, was still very much opposed to marijuana. In 1970, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” and marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it had a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

NORML’s founding was a significant moment in the marijuana reform movement. It showed that there was a growing movement of people who supported the legalization of marijuana, and that this movement was not just limited to the counterculture.

NORML’s work helped to change public perceptions of marijuana and to build support for legalization. Today, marijuana is legal for recreational use in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and it is likely that more states will follow suit in the coming years.

1970: The US Congress passes the Controlled Substances Act, which classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was passed by the US Congress in 1970 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The CSA is a federal law that regulates the manufacture, possession, and distribution of certain drugs, including cannabis.

The CSA classifies drugs into five schedules, based on their potential for abuse and accepted medical use. Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This is the highest classification of drug under the CSA.

Nixon was a staunch opponent of marijuana, and he pushed for its inclusion in the CSA as a Schedule I drug. He believed that marijuana was a dangerous drug that led to violence and crime. He also saw marijuana as a threat to his authority, as it was popular among young people and anti-war activists.

In a 1971 speech, Nixon said that “marijuana is the most dangerous drug in the United States today.” He also said that “marijuana is a gateway drug” that leads to the use of other, more dangerous drugs.

Nixon’s claims about marijuana were largely based on propaganda and misinformation. There was little scientific evidence at the time to support his claims that marijuana was a dangerous drug or that it was a gateway drug.

Despite the lack of evidence, Nixon’s campaign against marijuana was successful. The CSA was passed by Congress with overwhelming support, and cannabis was classified as a Schedule I drug.

The CSA has had a significant impact on the cannabis industry in the United States. It has made it difficult for researchers to study the effects of cannabis, and it has also led to the arrest and imprisonment of millions of people for cannabis-related offenses.

However, the CSA has also had the unintended consequence of making cannabis more popular. The more the government has cracked down on cannabis, the more people have become curious about it and wanted to try it.

Today, cannabis is legal for recreational use in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and it is likely that more states will follow suit in the coming years. The CSA remains in effect, but public opinion on cannabis has shifted dramatically in recent years.

There is growing evidence that cannabis has a number of medicinal benefits, and it is now widely accepted that cannabis is not as dangerous as Nixon claimed it was. In the future, it is likely that the CSA will be reformed to reflect the new scientific evidence and public opinion on cannabis.

1972: The Shafer Commission, a federal commission appointed to study the effects of marijuana, releases a report that concludes that cannabis is not as dangerous as previously thought and recommends that it be reclassified. The US government ignores the Shafer Commission’s recommendations.

1973: The state of Oregon decriminalizes cannabis.

In 1973, Oregon became the first state in the United States to decriminalize cannabis. This was a landmark moment in cannabis history, as it signified the beginning of a shift in public opinion and policy towards the drug.

Decriminalization means that possession of small amounts of cannabis is no longer a criminal offense, but is instead treated as a civil violation, punishable by a fine. This was a significant departure from the previous policy of criminalizing all cannabis possession, which could result in jail time and a criminal record.

Oregon’s decision to decriminalize cannabis was motivated by a number of factors. One factor was the growing popularity of cannabis, especially among young people. Another factor was the lack of scientific evidence to support the claim that cannabis was a dangerous drug. Additionally, many people believed that the criminalization of cannabis was unfair and disproportionately affected minorities.

The decriminalization of cannabis in Oregon was a major victory for the cannabis reform movement. It showed that there was a growing movement of people who supported the decriminalization or legalization of cannabis, and that this movement was not just limited to the counterculture.

Oregon’s decriminalization law also had a number of positive benefits. It reduced the number of arrests and convictions for cannabis-related offenses, and it freed up police resources to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, the law helped to reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use.

Oregon’s decriminalization law was an important moment in cannabis history. It helped to pave the way for the legalization of cannabis in other states and countries. Today, 19 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for recreational use, and over 30 states have legalized medical marijuana.

The decriminalization of cannabis in Oregon is a reminder that positive change can happen when people come together and advocate for what they believe in. It is also a reminder that the war on drugs has been a failure, and that we need a new approach to drug policy.

1975: The first medical marijuana law is passed in the state of California.

In 1975, California passed the Compassionate Use Act, which was the first medical marijuana law in the United States. The law allowed patients with certain medical conditions to possess and use marijuana with the recommendation of a physician.

The passage of the Compassionate Use Act was a significant victory for the medical marijuana movement. It showed that there was a growing movement of people who supported the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and that this movement was not just limited to the counterculture.

The Compassionate Use Act also helped to pave the way for the legalization of medical marijuana in other states. Today, over 30 states have legalized medical marijuana, and millions of patients are using it to treat a variety of medical conditions.

The passage of the Compassionate Use Act in 1975 was an important moment in cannabis history. It helped to change public perceptions of marijuana and to lay the foundation for the legalization of medical and recreational cannabis in the United States.

1992: The state of California votes to legalize medical marijuana.

In 1992, California voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the medical use of cannabis in the state. This was a landmark moment in cannabis history, as it was the first state in the United States to legalize medical marijuana.

Proposition 215 was passed in response to the growing body of research on the medicinal benefits of cannabis. At the time, there was evidence that cannabis could be used to treat a variety of medical conditions, including AIDS, cancer, and chronic pain.

The passage of Proposition 215 was a major victory for the medical marijuana movement. It showed that there was a growing movement of people who supported the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and that this movement was not just limited to the counterculture.

California’s medical marijuana law also had a number of positive benefits. It allowed patients with chronic and debilitating medical conditions to access a safe and effective treatment option. It also helped to reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use.

The passage of Proposition 215 in 1992 was an important moment in cannabis history. It helped to pave the way for the legalization of medical marijuana in other states and countries. Today, over 30 states have legalized medical marijuana, and millions of patients are using it to treat a variety of medical conditions.

Why is it important to cannabis history?

The passage of Proposition 215 was a significant turning point in the history of cannabis legalization. It was the first time that a majority of voters in a state had explicitly approved the use of cannabis for medical purposes. This showed that public opinion on cannabis was changing, and that there was a growing appetite for legalization.

California’s medical marijuana law also had a number of practical benefits. It created a legal framework for the cultivation, distribution, and use of medical cannabis. This helped to ensure that patients had access to safe and high-quality cannabis products. It also helped to create a new industry that generated jobs and tax revenue.

1996: The state of Colorado votes to legalize medical marijuana.

1998: The state of Washington votes to legalize medical marijuana.

2009: The US Department of Justice issues a memo directing federal prosecutors to focus on enforcing cannabis laws against large-scale trafficking operations and not to interfere with states that have legalized medical marijuana.

The 2009 US Department of Justice memo directing federal prosecutors to focus on enforcing cannabis laws against large-scale trafficking operations and not to interfere with states that have legalized medical marijuana was an important moment in cannabis history. It was the first time that the federal government had explicitly acknowledged that states had the right to legalize medical marijuana, and it signaled a shift in federal enforcement priorities.

The memo was issued by then-Attorney General Eric Holder in response to the growing number of states that had legalized medical marijuana. At the time, 14 states had legalized medical marijuana, and there was a growing movement to legalize recreational cannabis as well.

The memo set forth a number of guidelines for federal prosecutors. First, the memo directed prosecutors to focus on enforcing cannabis laws against large-scale trafficking operations, rather than individuals who were using or possessing cannabis for medical purposes in states where it was legal. Second, the memo instructed prosecutors not to interfere with states that had legalized medical marijuana, as long as those states had strong regulatory systems in place.

The memo was a major victory for the cannabis reform movement. It showed that the federal government was finally willing to respect the rights of states to set their own cannabis policies. It also helped to reduce the risk of federal prosecution for medical marijuana patients and businesses.

The memo had a number of positive benefits. It helped to create a more stable and predictable environment for the medical marijuana industry. It also helped to reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use. Additionally, the memo helped to pave the way for the legalization of recreational cannabis in other states.

The 2009 US Department of Justice memo was an important moment in cannabis history. It helped to change public perceptions of cannabis and to lay the foundation for the legalization of medical and recreational cannabis in the United States.

2012: The state of Colorado becomes the first state to legalize recreational cannabis and Washington becomes the 2nd

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Colorado and Washington in 2012 was a historic moment in cannabis history. It was the first time that any state in the United States had legalized recreational cannabis, and it marked a significant turning point in the national debate over cannabis policy.

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Colorado and Washington was the culmination of decades of activism by the cannabis reform movement. Activists had been working for years to change public perceptions of cannabis and to build support for legalization. The success of their efforts in Colorado and Washington was a major victory for the movement.

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Colorado and Washington has had a number of positive benefits. It has created a new industry that has generated jobs and tax revenue. It has also helped to reduce crime and to improve public health. Additionally, it has helped to change public perceptions of cannabis and to reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use.

The success of Colorado and Washington in legalizing recreational cannabis has inspired other states to follow suit. In the years since 2012, 19 other states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis. This progress would not have been possible without the early leadership of Colorado and Washington.

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Colorado and Washington is important to cannabis history because it marked a turning point in the national debate over cannabis policy. It showed that there was a growing public appetite for legalization, and it helped to pave the way for other states to legalize cannabis.

In addition to the benefits mentioned above, the legalization of recreational cannabis in Colorado and Washington has also had a number of other positive impacts. For example, it has led to a decrease in the number of people arrested for cannabis-related offenses, and it has also led to an increase in tax revenue that can be used to fund important public services.

Overall, the legalization of recreational cannabis in Colorado and Washington has been a success. It has shown that cannabis can be legalized and regulated in a safe and responsible manner, and it has paved the way for other states to follow suit.

2013: Uruguay becomes the first country in the world to legalize recreational cannabis.

In 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize recreational cannabis. This was a historic moment in cannabis history, and it marked a significant turning point in the global debate over cannabis policy.

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Uruguay was the culmination of years of work by the cannabis reform movement. Activists in Uruguay had been working to change public perceptions of cannabis and to build support for legalization for many years. Their success in 2013 was a major victory for the movement.

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Uruguay has had a number of positive benefits. It has created a new industry that has generated jobs and tax revenue. It has also helped to reduce crime and to improve public health. Additionally, it has helped to change public perceptions of cannabis and to reduce the stigma associated with cannabis use.

The success of Uruguay in legalizing recreational cannabis has inspired other countries to follow suit. In the years since 2013, Canada, Mexico, and the Netherlands have all legalized recreational cannabis. Additionally, many other countries are considering or have already decriminalized cannabis.

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Uruguay is important to cannabis history because it marked the first time that a country had legalized cannabis for all adults. It showed that there was a growing international appetite for legalization, and it helped to pave the way for other countries to follow suit.

In addition to the benefits mentioned above, the legalization of recreational cannabis in Uruguay has also had a number of other positive impacts. For example, it has led to a decrease in the number of people arrested for cannabis-related offenses, and it has also led to an increase in tax revenue that can be used to fund important public services.

The legalization of recreational cannabis in Uruguay is a significant milestone in cannabis history. It is a reminder that progress is possible, and that the world is slowly but surely moving towards a more enlightened approach to cannabis policy.

2014: Canada legalizes medical marijuana.

2018: Canada becomes the first G7 country to legalize recreational cannabis.

Canada’s 2018 cannabis legalization marked a turning point in the history of cannabis. As the first developed nation to embrace recreational use, it conveyed a powerful global message: cannabis legalization can be achieved safely and responsibly.

The impact of Canada’s cannabis legalization has been far-reaching. It birthed a thriving industry, generating billions in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. Simultaneously, it contributed to a decline in cannabis-related arrests, offering Canadians a legal and secure means of accessing cannabis.

On the international stage, Canada’s groundbreaking move altered the dynamics of the global cannabis discussion. It proved that responsible cannabis legalization is possible without dire consequences. Consequently, other nations, such as Mexico, Uruguay, and the Netherlands, were encouraged to follow suit, either through full legalization or decriminalization.

Moreover, Canada’s cannabis legalization played a vital role in reshaping public perceptions of cannabis. For years, it had been stigmatized as a dangerous substance with no legitimate applications. However, Canada’s example demonstrated that cannabis can be safely and responsibly integrated into society, offering numerous benefits.

In sum, Canada’s historic cannabis legalization event has left an indelible mark on the cannabis narrative. It definitively showcased that cannabis can be legalized responsibly and safely, prompting a shift in public attitudes and paving the way for other nations to explore similar paths.

2019: The US House of Representatives passes the MORE Act, which would decriminalize cannabis at the federal level and expunge federal cannabis convictions. The bill is currently pending in the Senate.

I will update this at the end of 2023, since there were plenty of other important things that happened post pandemic that I will dedicate an entire article to those events. Look for that in December of 2023.

THE FIRST CANNABIS USER IN HISTORY, READ ON…

WHO WAS THE VERY FIRST CANNABIS USER IN HISTORY?

Source link

Cannabis News

America is Rethinking Marijuana Legalization

Published

4 days ago

March 1, 2025

admin

should we legalize weed

Rethinking Marijuana Legalization: A Response to the National Review

Cannabis legalization has swept across America in waves, creating a patchwork of policies that vary dramatically from state to state. Some jurisdictions embrace full recreational use, others permit medical applications only, while some maintain total prohibition. This inconsistent legal landscape makes it nearly impossible to accurately measure the success or failure of legalization efforts. Without uniform policies and implementations, any cost-benefit analysis becomes murky at best.

In this fragmented environment, opinions about cannabis legalization remain sharply divided. Some celebrate newfound freedoms and opportunities, while others lament perceived social costs and unintended consequences. The National Review recently published an opinion piece questioning whether we should reconsider marijuana legalization altogether, citing several issues they believe undermine the case for legal cannabis.

Today, I’m going to examine these claims with a critical eye. While I agree that we absolutely should “rethink” marijuana legalization, my conclusion differs dramatically from the National Review’s perspective. Rather than retreating from legalization, I believe we need to push forward with more comprehensive reforms that address the legitimate concerns while delivering on the promised benefits.

The current half-measures and regulatory inconsistencies have created a situation where neither prohibitionists nor advocates are satisfied with the outcomes. Only through thoughtful, evidence-based policy adjustments can we realize the full potential of legalization while minimizing downsides. So yes, let’s rethink marijuana legalization – but let’s make sure we’re using all the available data and considering the root causes of any implementation problems.

The National Review piece relies heavily on arguments from Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Steven Malanga, who suggests legalization has failed to deliver on its promises. The article highlights several key complaints:

The pervasive smell of marijuana in public spaces

Failure to eliminate black markets

Disappointing tax revenue that sometimes requires taxpayer subsidies

Increased usage rates contrary to predictions

Health concerns, particularly regarding psychosis

Perceived connections between cannabis and “social breakdown”

Let’s tackle these points one by one:

The Smell: While cannabis odor can be noticeable, this concern fundamentally misunderstands the concept of liberty in a diverse society. If someone is consuming cannabis in their private residence or in designated areas, their personal choices shouldn’t be criminalized simply because others find the smell unpleasant. Just as we accommodate cigarette smokers in designated areas and don’t ban cooking pungent foods, cannabis consumption can be managed through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The development of cannabis social clubs, similar to cigar lounges, would further localize any odor concerns.

Black Markets:

The persistence of illicit markets isn’t a failure of legalization itself but rather of its incomplete implementation. Black markets thrive precisely because cannabis remains federally illegal, creating banking restrictions, interstate commerce prohibitions, and excessive regulatory burdens that drive up costs for legal operators. States with more reasonable tax structures and fewer arbitrary licensing caps have seen significantly less illicit market activity.

Tax Revenue:

Despite claims to the contrary, legal cannabis has generated billions in tax revenue. Colorado alone has collected over $1.6 billion in marijuana taxes since 2014, funding education, public health, and infrastructure projects. Washington state has generated over $3 billion. While projections may have been overoptimistic in some jurisdictions, this hardly constitutes a failure – it simply indicates a need for more realistic forecasting and better-designed tax structures.

Health Risks:

Cannabis, like any substance, carries certain risks. However, comparative risk assessments consistently show it’s less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. Dr. David Nutt’s famous study published in The Lancet ranked alcohol as far more harmful to users and society than cannabis. To focus on potential cannabis risks while ignoring the well-documented devastation of legal substances reveals a problematic double standard.

Usage Patterns:

Youth cannabis use has actually declined or remained stable in many states following legalization, contradicting prohibitionist predictions. Meanwhile, increased use among adults reflects exactly what legalization was designed to accomplish – providing adults with safe, legal access to a substance many find beneficial for relaxation, creativity, or medical symptoms. The decline in youth consumption likely stems partly from reduced novelty and rebellion appeal once cannabis becomes a regulated product rather than a forbidden fruit.

To fully realize the promises of cannabis legalization, we need a more comprehensive approach that addresses the legitimate concerns while removing the artificial constraints that have hampered success.

First and foremost, federal legalization is essential. The current federal prohibition creates unnecessary complications for banking, research, interstate commerce, and taxation. It forces businesses to operate on a cash basis, creating security risks and inefficiencies. It prevents the development of national brands and economies of scale that could drive down consumer costs. And it maintains the Schedule I classification that hampers medical research and perpetuates stigma.

Second, home cultivation rights must be protected. Allowing adults to grow limited amounts of cannabis for personal use provides a safety valve against monopolistic market structures and excessive pricing. It empowers consumers, reduces black market incentives, and recognizes that cannabis is, fundamentally, a plant that people have grown for thousands of years. States that have embraced home grow rights like Michigan and Colorado have seen thriving legal markets alongside personal cultivation.

Third, we need sensible regulatory structures that protect public health without imposing unnecessary burdens. This includes reasonable testing requirements, clear labeling standards, and age restrictions. However, excessive regulations that serve only to limit market participation or drive up costs without clear public health benefits should be eliminated. The current system in many states has created oligopolistic markets where licenses cost millions, shutting out small businesses and social equity applicants.

Fourth, tax policies need recalibration. Excessive taxation, especially when layered across cultivation, processing, and retail levels, drives up consumer prices and fuels black markets. A simple, moderate tax based on potency or sale price would generate revenue while allowing legal markets to compete with illicit operations.

Finally, we need honest education about both the benefits and risks of cannabis. Fear-mongering and exaggeration undermine credibility, while dismissing legitimate concerns is equally problematic. The vast majority of consumers—likely over 95%—will never experience serious adverse effects. However, those with predispositions to certain mental health conditions, particularly adolescents whose brains are still developing, face higher risks that should be clearly communicated.

When we take a clear-eyed look at cannabis legalization’s mixed results, the solution becomes evident: we don’t need less legalization—we need more complete, thoughtful implementation. The problems cited by critics largely stem not from legalization itself, but from the compromised, piecemeal approaches that have characterized policy reform thus far.

Federal legalization with home cultivation rights would strike a devastating blow to illegal markets by allowing interstate commerce, normalizing banking relationships, and recognizing the fundamental right of adults to grow a plant for personal use. The black market doesn’t thrive because legalization failed; it thrives because our current approach is incomplete and inconsistent.

Overtaxing and overregulating legitimate cannabis businesses while maintaining federal prohibition creates the worst of all worlds—high consumer prices, limited access, and continued incentives for illicit operators. We can’t expect the black market to disappear when we’ve designed systems that actively advantage it.

The National Review article gets one thing right—we should indeed rethink marijuana legalization. But instead of retreat, we need to advance toward more coherent, evidence-based policies that truly put “We the People” at the center. Give Americans the freedom to grow their own cannabis, purchase from a diverse marketplace of businesses both small and large, and make personal health decisions without government interference.

Do that, and watch the promises of legalization—reduced black markets, significant tax revenue, controlled access for adults, and diminished criminal influence—finally come to fruition. It’s time to complete the journey we’ve started, not turn back halfway.

TRUMP 2.0 ON LEGAL WEED? READ ON…

WHAT TRUMP’S CANNABIS POLICIES MEAN FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD!

Source link

Cannabis News

Just Say No to Marijuana!

Published

5 days ago

February 28, 2025

admin

Head of DEA not cannabis friendly

In a move that has reignited debates about federal drug policy, former President Donald Trump has appointed Terrance Cole as the new head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Cole, a veteran DEA official with over two decades of experience, is known for his staunch opposition to marijuana legalization. His appointment signals a return to the Reagan-era “Just Say No” approach to drug enforcement, with Cole publicly linking cannabis use to an increased risk of suicide and schizophrenia, particularly among young users.

The announcement has drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the political aisle, with advocates for cannabis reform expressing concern that Cole’s leadership could roll back progress made in recent years. Meanwhile, proponents of stricter drug enforcement have hailed the appointment as a necessary step to combat what they see as the growing normalization of marijuana in American society.

This article delves into Terrance Cole’s background, his controversial views on cannabis, and what his appointment could mean for the future of marijuana policy in the United States.

A Return to Hardline Drug Policies?

Terrance Cole’s appointment comes at a pivotal time for cannabis policy in the United States. Over the past decade, there has been a seismic shift in public attitudes toward marijuana. As of 2025, 23 states have legalized recreational cannabis use, and 38 states allow medical marijuana. Public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support federal legalization. Despite this momentum, marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act—a category reserved for substances with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.

Cole’s nomination appears to signal a departure from the more reform-oriented approach taken by previous administrations. During President Joe Biden’s tenure, there were significant discussions about rescheduling marijuana to a lower classification or even decriminalizing it at the federal level. However, Trump’s decision to appoint Cole suggests that his administration is doubling down on traditional drug enforcement strategies.

In his first public statement following his nomination, Cole said:

”We cannot afford to ignore the science. Marijuana is not the harmless substance that many claim it to be. It poses serious risks to mental health and public safety.”

This rhetoric echoes the anti-drug messaging of the 1980s, when First Lady Nancy Reagan spearheaded the “Just Say No” campaign as part of the broader War on Drugs. Critics argue that such policies disproportionately targeted minority communities and contributed to mass incarceration without effectively addressing substance abuse issues.

Who is Terrance Cole?

Terrance Cole is no stranger to the DEA or its mission. Over his 22-year career with the agency, he rose through the ranks, earning a reputation as a tough-on-crime enforcer. Before his nomination as DEA Administrator, Cole served as Special Agent in Charge of the agency’s Washington Field Division, where he oversaw high-profile operations targeting drug trafficking organizations.

Cole has long been an outspoken critic of marijuana legalization efforts. In 2021, he testified before Congress against proposals to decriminalize cannabis at the federal level. During his testimony, he cited studies suggesting that heavy marijuana use among adolescents could lead to long-term cognitive impairment and an increased likelihood of developing psychosis or schizophrenia.

”The data is clear,” Cole said during his testimony. ”Marijuana today is far more potent than it was 30 years ago. We are not dealing with Woodstock weed anymore; we are dealing with a substance that can have devastating effects on young minds.”

Cole has also linked cannabis use to rising suicide rates among teenagers and young adults. While some studies have explored potential correlations between heavy cannabis use and mental health issues, critics argue that such claims oversimplify complex issues and ignore other contributing factors like socioeconomic conditions and access to mental health care.

The Science Behind Cole’s Claims

Cole’s assertions about marijuana’s risks are not without precedent but remain highly contested within the scientific community. Some research has suggested a potential link between heavy cannabis use and mental health disorders like schizophrenia in individuals predisposed to such conditions. For example:

A 2019 study published in The Lancet Psychiatry found that daily use of high-potency cannabis was associated with an increased risk of psychotic disorders.

Other studies have suggested that early and frequent cannabis use may exacerbate symptoms in individuals already vulnerable to mental health issues.

However, many experts caution against drawing causal conclusions from these findings. Dr. Susan Weiss, director of the ”ivision of Extramural Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), has stated:

”While there is evidence of an association between cannabis use and certain mental health outcomes, it is important to consider other variables that may contribute to these risks.”

Moreover, proponents of legalization argue that regulating marijuana can mitigate some of these risks by ensuring product safety and providing education about responsible use.

Implications for Federal Marijuana Policy

Cole’s appointment could have far-reaching consequences for federal marijuana policy. As head of the DEA, he will play a key role in determining how federal law enforcement approaches cannabis-related offenses. This includes decisions about whether to prioritize crackdowns on state-legal cannabis businesses or focus resources on other drug enforcement efforts.

One immediate concern among advocates is how Cole’s leadership might impact efforts to reschedule or deschedule marijuana under federal law. In October 2022, President Biden directed federal agencies to review marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug—a move widely seen as a step toward reform. However, with Cole at the helm of the DEA, such efforts could face significant resistance.

Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), praised Cole’s appointment as a victory for public health:

”Terrance Cole understands that we cannot sacrifice our youth’s well-being on the altar of Big Marijuana profits.”

On the other hand, organizations like NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) have expressed alarm over what they see as a regressive turn in federal policy. In a statement following Cole’s nomination, NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri said:

”This appointment represents an outdated approach to drug policy that ignores decades of progress and overwhelming public support for legalization.”

State vs. Federal Tensions

Cole’s hardline stance could exacerbate tensions between state governments that have legalized marijuana and federal authorities tasked with enforcing prohibition laws. While Congress passed legislation in 2023 protecting state-legal cannabis businesses from federal interference, these protections are not permanent and could be revisited under new leadership.

In states like Colorado and California—where legal cannabis industries generate billions in revenue annually—there is growing concern about how aggressive federal enforcement might disrupt local economies. Additionally, medical marijuana patients who rely on cannabis for conditions like chronic pain or epilepsy worry about potential restrictions on access.

The Broader Debate: Public Safety vs. Personal Freedom

At its core, Cole’s appointment reignites broader debates about how society should balance public safety concerns with individual freedoms when it comes to drug use. Supporters of stricter enforcement argue that normalizing marijuana sends mixed messages about its risks—particularly to young people—and undermines efforts to address substance abuse more broadly.

Opponents counter that criminalizing cannabis does more harm than good by perpetuating systemic inequalities and diverting resources away from addressing more pressing public health crises like opioid addiction.

Dr. Ethan Russo, a neurologist and prominent cannabis researcher, argues:

”We need policies grounded in science rather than fear-mongering rhetoric. Demonizing cannabis ignores its potential benefits while failing to address legitimate concerns about misuse.”

Conclusion

Terrance Cole’s appointment as DEA Administrator marks a significant shift in federal drug policy under former President Donald Trump’s administration. With his “Just Say No”-style rhetoric and firm opposition to marijuana legalization, Cole represents a return to more traditional approaches to drug enforcement—ones that many hoped were relics of the past.

As debates over cannabis reform continue to unfold at both state and federal levels, one thing is clear: Terrance Cole’s leadership will be closely watched by advocates on all sides of this contentious issue. Whether his tenure will lead to meaningful progress or further polarization remains an open question—but its impact on America’s evolving relationship with marijuana is likely to be profound.

THE DEA ON HEMP AND MARIJUANA, READ ON…

THE DEA MOVES SOME FORMS OF CBD TO SCHEDULE 5, SAY WHAT?

Source link

Cannabis News

The Cannabis Industry is in a Free Fall

Published

6 days ago

February 27, 2025

admin

colorado cannabis sales

The cannabis industry in Colorado, once heralded as a model for legal marijuana markets across the United States, finds itself grappling with significant challenges. The latest sales figures reveal that January 2025 marked the weakest sales performance for the state since 2017, raising alarm bells among industry stakeholders and policymakers alike. This article delves into the factors contributing to this downturn, the implications for the cannabis market, and potential pathways forward as Colorado navigates these turbulent times.

A Closer Look at the Sales Figures

According to data released by the Colorado Department of Revenue, total cannabis sales for January 2025 reached approximately $92.79 million. This figure represents a 7.3% decline compared to January 2024 and an 8.2% decrease from December 2024. The downward trend is particularly concerning given that Colorado has been a pioneer in the legal cannabis space since the state legalized recreational marijuana in 2012.

Key Sales Statistics

Total Sales for January 2025: $92.79 million

Year-over-Year Decline: 7.3%

Month-over-Month Decline: 8.2%

Comparison with Previous Years: January 2024 sales were significantly higher, indicating a stark contrast in consumer spending.

This decline marks a troubling trend for an industry that has experienced robust growth over the past decade. The current figures highlight a stark contrast to January 2024 when sales were considerably higher, raising questions about consumer behavior and market dynamics.

Understanding the Market Dynamics

The decline in cannabis sales can be attributed to several interrelated factors that have reshaped the landscape of Colorado’s cannabis market.

As the market matures, consumer preferences are evolving. Many consumers are becoming more discerning about their purchases, seeking quality over quantity. This shift has led to increased competition among dispensaries, pushing prices down and forcing retailers to adapt their offerings to meet changing demands.

Price Adjustments

In January 2025, the average price of cannabis items in Colorado rose slightly to $14.54, up from $13.49 in December 2024. Despite this increase, overall sales volume did not meet expectations, suggesting that consumers may be more price-sensitive than before. The rising costs may deter budget-conscious consumers from making purchases at licensed dispensaries.

Increased Competition from Illicit Markets

One of the most pressing challenges facing Colorado’s legal cannabis market is competition from unregulated sellers. The illicit market continues to thrive, offering consumers lower prices and greater accessibility than licensed retailers can provide.

The Impact of Illicit Sales

The presence of unlicensed sellers undermines the efforts of licensed dispensaries to maintain profitability. Many consumers are drawn to these illicit sources due to lower prices and convenience, which can lead to significant revenue losses for legal businesses. As a result, licensed retailers are struggling to compete in an increasingly saturated market.

Regulatory Challenges

The regulatory environment surrounding cannabis in Colorado is complex and often burdensome for businesses. High compliance costs and stringent regulations can create barriers for new entrants while placing additional pressure on existing businesses.

Compliance Costs

Licensed dispensaries face significant costs associated with compliance with state regulations, including fees for licensing, testing requirements, and security measures. These expenses can eat into profit margins and make it difficult for retailers to remain competitive against unlicensed sellers who do not face such stringent requirements.

Broader Implications for the Cannabis Market

The decline in Colorado’s cannabis sales is not an isolated incident; it reflects broader trends observed across several states where legalized marijuana markets are experiencing fluctuations in revenue.

National Trends in Cannabis Sales

According to BDSA’s analysis, cannabis sales decreased by 1.3% sequentially across multiple states in January 2025. This decline indicates that Colorado’s struggles may be part of a larger pattern affecting legal cannabis markets nationwide.

The Rise of New Markets

As more states legalize cannabis, competition increases not only within individual states but also between states vying for cannabis tourism and consumer spending. Neighboring states like New Mexico and Arizona have launched their own legal markets, further eroding Colorado’s position as a leading destination for cannabis consumers.

Economic Pressures on Retailers

Retailers in Colorado are facing increasing economic pressures as they navigate this challenging landscape. Many licensed dispensaries report struggling to maintain profitability amid rising costs and declining sales.

Profitability Challenges

With declining revenues and rising operational costs, many dispensaries are forced to make difficult decisions regarding staffing, inventory management, and marketing strategies. Some businesses may even consider downsizing or closing their doors altogether if conditions do not improve.

Industry Reactions: Voices from Within

The current state of Colorado’s cannabis market has prompted reactions from industry experts and stakeholders who express concern over the future of legal marijuana in the state.

Expert Opinions

Jonatan Cvetko, executive director of the United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA), stated that the current market conditions reflect a “complete failure” of regulatory frameworks designed to support licensed businesses. He emphasizes that without meaningful reforms and support from policymakers, many businesses may struggle to survive.

Calls for Change

Industry advocates are calling for changes that could help stabilize the market and support licensed businesses:

Regulatory Reforms: Streamlining regulations to reduce operational burdens on licensed businesses.

Consumer Education: Initiatives aimed at educating consumers about the benefits of purchasing from licensed retailers versus illicit sources.

Market Diversification: Encouraging innovation within product offerings to attract a broader customer base.

Challenges Faced by Retailers

Retailers are facing increasing pressure from both regulatory burdens and competition from unlicensed sellers who often offer lower prices. Many licensed dispensaries report struggling to maintain profitability as consumer spending shifts away from legal sources.

Potential Pathways Forward

As stakeholders work to address these challenges, several potential pathways forward could help stabilize Colorado’s cannabis market.

One of the most pressing needs is regulatory reform aimed at reducing compliance costs and simplifying licensing processes for businesses. By streamlining regulations, policymakers can create a more favorable environment for licensed retailers while discouraging illicit activity.

Educating consumers about the benefits of purchasing from licensed retailers is crucial for restoring confidence in legal markets. Public awareness campaigns can highlight product safety standards, quality assurance measures, and the economic benefits of supporting local businesses.

Encouraging innovation within product offerings can help attract a broader customer base and stimulate demand within the legal market. Retailers may explore new product lines or unique experiences that differentiate them from competitors.

Conclusion

Colorado’s cannabis industry stands at a critical juncture as it faces its weakest January sales since 2017. The combination of rising prices, increased competition from unlicensed sellers, changing consumer preferences, and complex regulatory challenges poses significant hurdles for retailers and regulators alike.

As stakeholders work collaboratively to address these issues, it will be essential to implement supportive policies that foster both public infrastructure needs and economic growth within the cannabis community. The future of Colorado’s once-thriving cannabis market hangs in balance as it navigates these bleak times—an opportunity exists for reform and revitalization if stakeholders commit to working together toward sustainable solutions.