In an opinion from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the court remanded the case, Safehouse v. Department of Justice, back to district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine whether the group “has plausibly pleaded” its case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment.

An earlier district court ruling in the case rejected Safehouse’s claim that the group was protected under RFRA, siding with Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers who’d argued that the group’s views on harm reduction were “socio-political,” not religious. Safehouse appealed that ruling in September 2024.

The new Third Circuit opinion, published July 24, says the lower court ruling was a “reversible error.”

“RFRA’s plain text and Free Exercise doctrine are clear that those statutory and constitutional protections extend to non-natural persons, including so-called non-religious entities,” the ruling states, citing past court decisions in favor of the evangelical-owned arts-and-crafts store Hobby Lobby as well as a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

For those and other reasons, the court said, “we will reverse the District Court’s order that Safehouse is not protected by RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause as a non-religious entity and remand for it to consider whether Safehouse has plausibly pleaded RFRA and Free Exercise counterclaims.”

The appeals ruling does not itself allow Safehouse to open its OPC.

In a statement sent to supporters, Safehouse leaders said they “are gratified that the Third Circuit acknowledges that Safehouse is entitled to the full protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.”

“[The] decision is an important milestone not only for Safehouse, but for all community-based organizations that save lives by evidence-based, compassionate harm-reduction strategies,” the group said. “The Court’s opinion recognizes what we have always believed: The law safeguards our mission to preserve human life in an unprecedented overdose crisis.”

The appeals ruling does not itself allow Safehouse to open its OPC facility in Philadelphia, though it allows the group to continue its challenge against the federal government’s assertion that the prospective site would violate federal law.

In August 2023, when the case was still in district court, 35 Christian and Jewish faith leaders from 19 states submitted an amicus brief in which they supported the nonprofit’s establishment of an OPC under RFRA, stating that Safehouse’s board members’ mission to reduce harm aligns with sincerely held religious beliefs.

DOJ had argued, meanwhile, that “maintaining a place where Safehouse would invite drug users to consume illegal drugs would violate 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2).”

That law, in relevant part, makes it illegal to “manage or control any place … and knowingly or intentionally … make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing or using a controlled substance.”

DOJ has previously argued that the religious exemption does not apply because Safehouse itself is not a bona fide religious organization. But the religious leaders asserted that the group’s board members are nevertheless motivated by a faith-based understanding of their obligation to prevent unnecessary overdose deaths.

As to whether RFRA would allow an exemption to Controlled Substances Act (CSA) itself, the federal drug law does state that “any person may apply for an exception to the application of any provision of this chapter,” but DOJ lawyers have argued that the provision allows only “an exception to particular CSA regulations,” not an exemption from the statute itself.

Safehouse first announced plans to open a Philadelphia OPC in 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first administration. DOJ sued to block the facility, arguing that it would violate federal drug laws. The district court in that matter sided with Safehouse, but the ruling was later overturned by the Third Circuit.

The case continued under the administration of former president Joe Biden, with DOJ officials continuing to push back against the site. The Supreme Court rejected a request to hear a case on the legality of the Safehouse OPC in October 2021.

New York City opened the nation’s first sanctioned OPC in November 2021.

While the Philadelphia facility was being held up in the litigation, New York City opened the first locally sanctioned OPC in the US in November 2021, and officials reported positive results saving lives.

A 2022 study published by the American Medical Association (AMA) found that the New York City OPC decreased the risk of overdose, steered people away from using unregulated drugs in public and provided other ancillary health services.

Separate research published AMA the following year found that New York City’s OPC did not lead to increased “crime and disorder” despite a significant decrease in arrests.

Rhode Island, Minnesota and Vermont have also authorized OPC at the state level. Earlier in 2025, however, the Minnesota plans were put on pause, with state officials citing concerns about federal law.

In October 2024, a group of doctors argued that OPC—where people can more safely use unregulated drugs in a supervised environment and be connected to a host of other services—“represent a wise, cost-effective and necessary use” of state opioid settlement funds.

OPC can “save lives, improve public health and advance racial equity,” said the paper from the advocacy group Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR), adding that the sites have been operating in Europe for almost four decades and have existed in North America since 2003.

“These sites have reduced overdose morbidity and mortality, improved injection safety and increased access to addiction treatment without raising crime rates,” the group said. “For many individuals who use drugs, these centers are often the only places where they are treated with dignity and respect.”

The National Institutes of Health put out a pair of requests for applications in December 2021 to investigate how OPC and other harm reduction policies could help address the overdose crisis.

In August 2023, a US congresswoman from New Jersey was among a number of speakers who called for support and expansion of OPC at a Drug Policy Alliance event held ahead of International Overdose Awareness Day.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), who in 2021 sponsored a bill to federally decriminalize all drugs, said that OPC are an “important part” of a “necessary shift” away from punitive drug policies and toward a more health-centered approach.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow in 2022 also tacitly endorsed the idea of authorizing OPC, arguing that evidence has effectively demonstrated that the facilities can prevent overdose deaths.

Volkow declined to say specifically what she believes should happen with the ongoing lawsuit, but she said OPC that have been the subject of research “have shown that it has saved a significant [percentage of] patients from overdosing.”

Read the full Third Circuit ruling in Safehouse v. DOJ below:

Image via State of Massachusetts/Global Platform for Drug Consumption Rooms

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Judge Rules Safehouse Philly Can Use Religious Rights Defense Against DOJ appeared first on Filter.

Another newly filed measure, meanwhile, would order state officials to conduct a study on testing for THC intoxication.

The legalization bill—HB 195, introduced on July 24 by Representative Jessica González (D)—would allow possession of up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis, with no more than 15 grams of that amount being in concentrated form. Adults could also share up to those amounts between one another, provided the transfers aren’t advertised or promoted and don’t involve any type of payment.

At home, adults could keep up to 10 ounces total, with any amount over 2.5 ounces needing to be stored in a locked container or other restricted area, but home cultivation for personal use would not be legal under the proposal.

Consuming marijuana in a motor vehicle, aircraft or watercraft would remain illegal, as would using it in a public place unless a local government allows cannabis use in that area. Property owners could also prohibit tenants from smoking marijuana on the premises, but could not ban consumption through other means or forbid possession of cannabis, cannabis products or paraphernalia.

The state’s commercial cannabis market would be overseen by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (DLR), with licenses for growers, transporters, testing facilities, processors and retailers. Licensing would need to begin by November 1, 2026.

“Her bill cuts to the chase: Cannabis should be legal for adult use. Not more arrests. No more criminal records.”

Specific industry rules would be set by the department’s governing board, the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation. The bill does specify some details, however, for example requiring that product packaging be child-resistant and clearly labeled as cannabis. Packaging could also not resemble that of commercially sold candy.

The commission would also be tasked with rules around restricting dangerous pesticides, advertising and display of products, security measures and tracking products through the cannabis supply chain.

Taxes and fees from the legal system would pay for the DLR’s regulation of the program (10 percent) and the Department of Safety’s tasked oversight of marijuana lab testing (10 percent), as well as going to municipalities or counties in which at least one licensed cannabis business is located (20 percent). The remainder would go to fund the state’s Foundation School Program.

Local governments would need to affirmatively authorize that facilities are allowed in their jurisdictions. They could also set limits on the number of businesses and their locations, operating hours and other manners of conducting business.

Selling or delivering marijuana to a minor would be a Class C misdemeanor under the HB 195—unless the minor provided “apparently valid proof of identification”—with individual company employees subject to criminal liability.

Unlike many other state cannabis laws, the new 28-page legalization bill does not appear to contain any provisions intended to address past disparities in cannabis enforcement, such as priority licensing or reinvestment into communities disproportionately harmed by the drug war.

Heather Fazio, director of the Texas Cannabis Policy Center, told Marijuana Moment that advocates welcome HB 195’s introduction for the special session.

“As we continue the conversation about hemp regulation, we appreciate Rep. Gonzalez’s bill to simply legalize and regulate cannabis across the board,” Fazio said. “Her bill cuts to the chase: Cannabis should be legal for adult use. Not more arrests. No more criminal records. And no more confusing policies. Just safe, legal cannabis in Texas.”

Gov. Abbott made headlines in June after vetoing a hemp THC ban bill, then convening a special session with a mandate to legislators to take the issue back up.

Another measure introduced on July 4, HB 198, would direct the Department of State Health Services to “conduct a study on establishing testing and scientific standards for determining tetrahydrocannabinol intoxication.”

The study, which would be due by the end of 2026, would need to include an evaluation of available and emerging testing methods, analysis of thresholds for intoxication “comparable to the standards applicable to blood alcohol content” as well as legislative recommendations on how lawmakers should proceed on the issue.

More cannabis- and hemp-related bills are still expected as the state’s special legislative session, which kicked off on July 21, unfolds.

On July 22, the governor of Texas explained where he stands on a renewed push in the legislature to ban most consumable hemp products, seemingly departing from a proposal that just advanced through a Senate committee by calling for regulated access to low-THC hemp items for adults.

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) made headlines in June after vetoing an earlier hemp THC ban bill, SB 3, then convening a special session with a mandate to legislators to take the issue, as well as others, back up. A new measure for the special session, SB 5 from Senator Charles Perry (R), cleared the Senate State Affairs Committee on July 22, and would effectively create the same prohibition that the governor vetoed.

“We must continue to criminalize marijuana in the state of Texas—no change in the marijuana laws,” Abbott said.

Asked about the proposal, Abbott told FOX 4 that he stands “in favor of doing all we can to protect the lives of our children, while also protecting the liberty of adults.”

“So the structure of what I’m looking for is this, and that is, we must continue to criminalize marijuana in the state of Texas—no change in the marijuana laws,” he said. “We need to ban THC, as well as hemp products, for children under the age of 21. We don’t want them to be exposed to that.”

He added that the state needs to “ban synthetics that are laced onto hemp products that are extraordinarily dangerous.” But once those safeguards are in place, the governor said “we need to have a highly regulated hemp industry to ensure that farmers are able to grow it, and that hemp products that do not have an intoxicating level of THC on it can be sold in the marketplace for adults to be able to use.”

That’s where there’s some apparent splintering between what the governor is describing as his preference and what’s moving through the Senate.

Abbott gave a somewhat confusing definition of what he’d be comfortable with as far as allowable THC limits in hemp, saying there should be a “3 percent” or “3 milligram” cap, which is a meaningful difference. SB 5, on the other hand, would prohibit products with any quantifiable amount of THC or most other cannabinoids—explicitly exempting CBD and CBG from the ban—but industry stakeholders say that’s logistically unfeasible and would decimate the market.

“To be clear, with regard to adults—again, with minors, no access to it at all. For adults, we do want the THC level to be below 3 percent, or we’re doing it in milligrams, 3 milligrams of THC, and it’s called non-intoxicating levels of hemp that would be marketed,” Abbott said. “But it would be a highly regulated system where, from the farmers to the wholesalers to the distributors to the retailers, there would be checks along the way to make sure that anybody involved in that entire system would not be able to be selling, transmitting, moving or involved in any hemp-based product that had more than three milligrams of hemp in it.”

During the July 22 Senate committee hearing, most law enforcement speakers said they supported an all-out ban on hemp products containing any THC.

Separately, a spokesperson for the governor issued a statement that largely aligns with what Abbott described in the interview.

“Governor Abbott has been clear that Texas must do all we can to protect the lives of children while protecting the liberty of adults. Hemp products should be banned for those under the age of 21, with a full ban on extraordinarily dangerous synthetic products,” they said. “Adults should be able to access heavily regulated, nonintoxicating levels of hemp, and there should be strict legal enforcement of hemp that exceeds 3.0 milligrams total THC per serving. The Governor will continue working with the legislature to establish a framework that meets those goals.”

Meanwhile, in response to questions from senators during the July 22 Senate committee hearing, most law enforcement speakers said they supported an all-out ban on hemp products containing any THC, rather than attempts at regulation. Some later added, however, that they felt the state’s limited medical marijuana program, known as the Texas Compassionate Use Program (TCUP), should be expanded to ease access by patients—especially military veterans—who could benefit from therapeutic cannabis.

Notably, Abbott in June signed a bill into law that expanded the state’s list of medical cannabis qualifying conditions, adding chronic pain, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Crohn’s disease and other inflammatory bowel diseases, while also allowing end-of-life patients in palliative or hospice care to use marijuana.

More New Hemp Bills

SB 5 is among a small handful of bills introduced for the new special session to address consumable hemp products.

Among the other proposals are measures to require extensive product warning labels and limit how hemp products are packaged.

Abbott has specifically asked lawmakers to prioritize hemp regulatory issues during the special session that kicked off on July 21. Two other newly introduced bills are HB 160 from Rep. Charlene Ward Johnson (D) and SB 39 from Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D).

The former would require a number of warning labels to be carried on hemp products with any more than trace amounts of THC, cautioning that the products can cause “cannabis poisoning that can be life-threatening to children,” harm brain development in youth, increase “risk of mental disorders like psychosis and schizophrenia” and lead to anxiety, depression and substance use disorders.

SB 39, meanwhile, would prohibit hemp products from being packaged or marketed “in a manner attractive to children,” limiting packaging shaped like humans, animals, fruit, cartoons or “another shape that is attractive to minors” as well as packaging that looks similar to legal products already marketed to children, for example candy or juice. It would also outlaw misleading product packaging. Violations would be a Class A misdemeanor, carrying up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

Separately, Rep. Nicole Collier (D) introduced a one-page bill, HB 42, designed to protect consumers in the state from criminal charges if what they believed was a legal hemp product turned out to contain excessive amounts of THC, making it illegal marijuana. It would prevent the criminalization of someone found in possession of a product that’s labeled as hemp but is determined to contain “a controlled substance or marihuana.”

Ahead of the governor’s recent veto of SB 3, hemp advocates and stakeholders had delivered more than 100,000 petition signatures asking Abbott to reject the measure.

In order for the person to obtain the legal protection, the product would need to have been purchased “from a retailer the person reasonably believed was authorized to sell a consumable hemp product.”

The governor also said in June that rather than ban consumable hemp products outright, he wants to see lawmakers establish a regulatory framework that treats cannabinoids “similar to the way alcohol is regulated.”

Lawmakers at the July 22 hearing said that criminalization of possession would only kick in on a person’s third offense, however that provision does not seem to be included in the current version of SB 5.

Ahead of the governor’s recent veto of SB 3, hemp advocates and stakeholders had delivered more than 100,000 petition signatures asking Abbott to reject the measure. Critics of the bill argued that the industry—which employs an estimated 53,000 people—would be decimated if the measure became law.

Texas lawmakers legalized the sale of consumable hemp in 2019, following enactment of the 2018 federal Farm Bill, which legalized the plant nationwide. That led to an explosion of products—including edibles, drinks, vape products and cured flower—now sold by an estimated 8,000 retailers.

Military veterans advocates, including Texas Veterans of Foreign Wars, also called on the governor to veto the hemp ban, saying it “would cause irreversible harm to communities across the state.”

Farmers said the prohibition would devastate a key sector of the state’s agriculture industry.

Following his veto, Abbott proposed an extensive list of policy changes that he said he would support—and which the legislature will have the chance to enact during the special session.

“Texans on each side of the Senate Bill 3 debate raise serious concerns. But one thing is clear—to ensure the highest level of safety for minors, as well as for adults, who obtain a product more dangerous than what they expected, Texas must strongly regulate hemp, and it must do so immediately,” Abbott said.

Part of the rationale behind his veto was the risk of litigation over “valid constitutional challenges” that he suggested would hold up in court. Multiple top Texas hemp companies had already filed a preemptive lawsuit challenging the legislation before the governor’s veto.

“If I were to allow Senate Bill 3 to become law, its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed,” Abbott said in his veto message. “Texas cannot afford to wait.”

Rather than face the possibility of having the law enjoined, or indefinitely delayed, the governor said the state “must enact a regulatory framework that protects public safety, aligns with federal law, has a fully funded enforcement structure, and can take effect without delay.”

Meanwhile, a recent survey from a GOP pollster affiliated with President Donald Trump showed that Texas Democratic and Republican voters are unified in their opposition to the hemp ban bill.

Another poll commissioned by the Texas Hemp Business Council (THBC) found that Texas Republican primary voters oppose the proposal.

A House committee approved a Senate-passed bill in May that would prohibit cities from putting any citizen initiative on local ballots that would decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances.

In June, Abbott also signed a bill into law to create a state-backed research consortium to conduct clinical trials on ibogaine as a possible treatment for substance use disorders and other mental health conditions. The ultimate goal of the project is to develop the psychedelic into a prescription drug with federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, with the state retaining a portion of the profit.

Separately in Texas, a House committee approved a Senate-passed bill in May that would prohibit cities from putting any citizen initiative on local ballots that would decriminalize marijuana or other controlled substances—as several localities have already done, despite lawsuits from the state attorney general.

Under the proposal, state law would be amended to say that local entities “may not place an item on a ballot, including a municipal charter or charter amendment, that would provide that the local entity will not fully enforce” state drug laws.

While several courts have previously upheld local cannabis decriminalization laws, an appellate court comprised of three conservative justices appointed by the governor has recently pushed back against two of those rulings, siding with the state in its legal challenge to the marijuana policy in Austin and San Marcos.

Despite the ongoing litigation and advancement of the House and Senate bills, Texas activists have their targets set on yet another city, Kyle, where they hope put an initiative before voters to enact local marijuana reform at the ballot this coming November.

A recent poll found that four in five Texas voters want to see marijuana legalized in some form, and most also want to see regulations around cannabis relaxed.

Photograph via Picryl

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Marijuana Legalization Bill Introduced in Texas, Amid Battles Over Hemp appeared first on Filter.

But the move, NIDA said, isn’t expected to interrupt the availability of cannabis for government-approved research.

A recent executive order—titled “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative”—led to the Department of Health and Human Services conducting “a comprehensive review of all existing contracts to identify opportunities for cost reduction,” NIDA representatives said in an email to Marijuana Moment.

“As a result of this initiative, no new task orders for cannabis cultivation have been issued,” the email explained. “That said, the NIDA Drug Supply Program maintains an existing inventory of cannabis and cannabis-derived products, which remain available for approved research.”

NIDA’s email also clarified that while the agency has not issued new orders for research cannabis, its “contract with the University of Mississippi to grow cannabis for research remains in place,” active until 2028.

The agency does not contract with other growers, it confirmed in a follow-up email.

“The NIDA-supported marijuana cultivation contract is only with the University of Mississippi,” it said.

While the University of Mississippi for decades held a monopoly on the production of research cannabis, there are now seven Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)-approved “bulk manufacturer marihuana growers.” The DEA in recent years has slowly expanded the pool of institutions eligible to produce and provide marijuana for research purposes amid calls by politicians and public health experts to more intensively study the drug.

In the wake of NIDA’s recent halt of its orders, some other DEA-approved cultivators are warning that future marijuana research could be at risk.

Nevertheless, NIDA exclusively contracted Ole Miss to provide marijuana for its Drug Supply Program (DSP), which allows researchers working on federally approved studies to obtain cannabis for free.

In the wake of NIDA’s recent halt of its orders, news of which was first reported by Cannabis Wire, some other DEA-approved cultivators are warning that future marijuana research could be at risk.

Maine-based Maridose said in a July 16 press release, for example, that NIDA’s cancellation “has created uncertainty regarding the future of cannabis research.”

“While existing inventory produced under this program is currently sufficient to support immediate research needs through the end of 2025, there is no assurance that additional product will be available once those supplies are exhausted,” the company said. “This disruption could jeopardize ongoing clinical and preclinical studies, and impede progress on critical cannabis research across the country.”

Researchers conducting federally approved studies can obtain cannabis through any of the DEA-approved cultivators, though materials cost more than going through the free Drug Supply Program.

Growers like Maridose say they’re prepared to fill any unmet demand.

“Our team is committed to working with researchers to ensure uninterrupted access to high-quality materials for both current and future studies,” founder Richard Shain said in the company’s release. “While the loss of the University of Mississippi program may present short-term challenges, Maridose stands ready to help fill that gap.”

Others, however, said there was little risk that NIDA’s move would impact research. A lack of funding and regulatory hurdles as the result of cannabis’s Schedule I status—not a scarcity of research marijuana—are what’s holding back clinical studies, they said.

Sue Sisley, a researcher at the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI), which is itself a DEA-licensed cannabis cultivator, said NIDA severing its order with Ole Miss “doesn’t affect Scottsdale Research Institute at all.”

“The bottom line is that we are growing our own cannabis and it’s ten times better than anything that’s grown at the University of Mississippi,” an SRI researcher said.

“We grow our own high-quality (comparable to real world) marijuana,” she told Marijuana Moment in an email. “We use it for our own FDA [Food and Drug Administration] studies and we grow to supply other studies. So U Miss closing down new cannabis orders is irrelevant.”

As for barriers to research, Sisley emphasized that there is “barely any new marijuana research happening,” calling the amount of funding available “minuscule compared to other areas.”

“And therefore the demand for new research cannabis is minimal,” she explained.

In fact, Sisley cheered the end of the Ole Miss order.

“This is a brilliant move by the Trump admin,” she wrote. “I applaud this administration for having the courage to finally acknowledge that there was no need to have only one federally legal supplier that was receiving millions in government money annually.”

“The bottom line is that we are growing our own cannabis and it’s ten times better than anything that’s grown at the University of Mississippi,” the researcher added, noting that SRI “just supplied 400 bottles of low-THC cannabis tincture … for a phase 1 trial examining cannabis oil treating autism.”

Sisley and others in past years have complained about the quality of cannabis grown by the University of Mississippi and supplied through NIDA, claiming that some provided samples wouldn’t even pass basic testing standards in state-legal cannabis markets. Nevertheless, a study in late 2024 by researchers at Ole Miss asserted that cannabis produced at the school was “very similar” to products found on state-legal markets.

“There’s been limited demand for NIDA supplied cannabis due to well-documented concerns about quality, consistency, and lack of suitability for pharmaceutical development.”

“The pause between NIDA and Ole Miss highlights what many in the research community have known for years,” Justin Abril, co-founder of DEA-licensed cultivator Royal Emerald Pharmaceuticals, said in an email to Marijuana Moment. “There’s been limited demand for NIDA supplied cannabis due to well-documented concerns about quality, consistency, and lack of suitability for pharmaceutical development.”

“The fact that NIDA reports having excess material on hand speaks for itself,” Abril added. “Now that there are multiple DEA-licensed manufacturers online and news of the intended rescheduling, researchers finally have access to pharmaceutical grade material appropriate for investigational studies.”

Sisley at SRI said it’s time to give other growers—who haven’t had government subsidies—an opportunity to fill the demand for research marijuana.

“Let’s give these other 10 DEA licensed growers a chance to start growing research grade cannabis and taking over where University of Mississippi is now suddenly unfunded,” she said, noting that at SRI, “we’ve never had an opportunity to enjoy government money flowing month after month.”

Even leadership at Maridose, which warned that NIDA’s move could threaten future research, think the University of Mississippi order cancellation could eventually improve the supply of cannabis used for clinical studies.

“The cancellation should have a positive effect on the quality of research because the cannabis obtained from other DEA manufacturers will be more analogous to what is sold to the public,” founder Richard Shain said in an email. “DOGE’s cancellation of the DSP contract makes perfect business sense,” he added, noting that “demand was decreasing and other non-government sources are available.”

Shain also said he doubted the NIDA development signaled skepticism by the Trump administration toward marijuana research generally.

“No manufacturing licenses were canceled and the government grant establishing the Resource Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids (R3CR) was not affected,” he said, referring to another federally funded marijuana facility housed at Ole Miss. “This seems to indicate the administration support for cannabis research.”

Mahmoud ElSohly—who has long helmed the University of Mississippi cannabis cultivation and research division, contracted as part of NIDA’s Drug Supply Program—declined to offer additional reaction on the order cancellation. In past comments to Marijuana Moment, he’s challenged the claims that the school’s cannabis is of low quality.

Ole Miss “stands ready to leverage its more than 57 years of cannabis research experience to advance the field of cannabis science and meet any future needs NIDA may have.”

An Ole Miss spokesperson, meanwhile, confirmed to Marijuana Moment that “NIDA has chosen not to award the current year task order to the University of Mississippi for cannabis production.”

“The university has two years remaining on its federal contract,” added Jacob Batte, the school’s director of news and media relations, “and stands ready to leverage its more than 57 years of cannabis research experience to advance the field of cannabis science and meet any future needs NIDA may have.”

NIDA’s cancellation of the Ole Miss order comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) ending a contract in May with the University of Mississippi through which the school monitored cannabinoid content such as THC and CBD in cannabis confiscated by law enforcement.

ElSohly, who also heads that program, said at the time that it was still possible his lab’s work could limp along until the federal funding resumes. But if samples stop flowing to his Mississippi lab, a decades-long history of monitoring THC levels in the illicit US cannabis supply will soon come to an end, he said.

The earlier contract cancellation came about two months after DOGE separately promoted the end of a separate grant meant to fund a study examining cannabis-use risks among LGBTQ+ individuals, non-binary people and heterosexual women.

Despite the cuts to some programs, it’s hardly the end for the University of Mississippi’s involvement in marijuana research.

“The UM School of Pharmacy will continue to play a leading role in the state and around the country in cannabis discovery, innovation and research through the National Center for Natural Products Research, the National Center for Cannabis Research and Education, and the Resource Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research,” Batte said in the statement to Marijuana Moment.

The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Resource Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, hosted at Ole Miss, launched earlier in 2025.

For that project, the university partnered with Washington State University (WSU) and the United States Pharmacopoeia, with support from a grant awarded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under NIH. Ole Miss is leading the effort’s regulatory guidance core, while WSU will handle research support and USP will focus on research standards.

Ole Miss’s National Center for Natural Products Research is housing the NIH resource center to “provide cannabis research information through an interactive website, webinars, seed funding and conferences” to empower researchers to “generate more science-backed evidence,” it said in a press release at the time.

Classifying cannabis as a Schedule I substance “traps researchers in a paradox: proving medical value requires studies, yet studies are heavily restricted.”

Meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Administration has ramped up recruitment—recently urging people to join them on the frontlines of the “War on Drugs,” even if they currently work as a “coffee barista” or otherwise have a non-law enforcement background.

It was also recently revealed that marijuana is one of nearly two dozen “controversial or high-profile topics” that staff and researchers at the National Cancer Institute are required to clear with higher-ups before writing about, according to a leaked memo from within the federal agency.

Separately, researchers involved in a federally funded clinical trial around marijuana wrote in a recent article in the American Journal of Medicine that further study into the substance is of “critical importance” given the millions of patients and consumers in legal states, but they warned that government restrictions “stifle scientific exploration of its potential and risks.”

Classifying cannabis as a Schedule I substance, said authors from the University of Maryland schools of medicine and nursing, “traps researchers in a paradox: proving medical value requires studies, yet studies are heavily restricted.”

“As legalization outpaces science,” they added, “reform is imperative to close the evidence gap and meet society’s demands.”

Photograph via the National Institute of Standards and Technology

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post NIDA Says It Halted Research-Cannabis Orders Due to DOGE Directive appeared first on Filter.

The goal, it states, is to “support advancements in breeding programs, enhance product quality control and guide future research in cannabis sensory science.”

A wide array of molecules—terpenes, flavonoids, phenols, aldehydes, ketones, esthers and sulfer-containing compounds—are behind the sensory profiles of cannabis, the study explains. Terpenes are the most prominent contributor to the plant’s bouquet, but authors point out that recent findings around other compounds “challenge the conventional focus on terpenes as the primary determinants of aroma, underscoring the importance of volatiles in shaping the aromatic complexity of cannabis.”

Production of those chemicals is determined through both a plant’s genes as well as its metabolic and environmental conditions, the review adds, meaning that maintaining “robust agricultural properties―such as optimized nutrient and water use, temperature tolerance, pest resistance and shortened growth cycles—remains critical even as breeders reconfigure cannabinoid and aroma profiles.”

“While modifications to flavor traits and the cannabinoid content can enhance the product quality,” it continues. For example, “there is increasing evidence that these traits are intertwined with plant stress responses and the overall cultivation performance.”

Plants can also be modified through genetic manipulation or post-harvest handling techniques. “By optimizing these variables,” the review explains, “it is feasible to enhance the profiles of aroma and flavor compounds.”

Cannabis growers and others would benefit from a flavor wheel mapping marijuana aromas, similar to standardization practices in wine, coffee, tea and tobacco.

While gene-editing technology can revise the foundational makeup of cannabis plants, various environmental factors—ranging from differences in light wavelengths, soil composition and water availability, among others—can also significantly affect terpene levels, the review continues, highlighting the roles of UV light and various soil nutrients.

“Combining these methods―genetic selection, optimized cultivation practices, and meticulous post-harvest techniques―yields the most effective results,” authors wrote in the new paper. “For example, selecting varieties with high terpene potential, cultivating them under specific light and nutrient regimens and employing precise drying and curing methods can maximize the aroma and flavor qualities of cannabis.”

The review, by four independent researchers in Switzerland and Germany along with the founder of the Spanish plant science firm SeedCraft, was published in late June in the journal Molecules.

“By leveraging advances in genetics, agronomy and post-harvest handling,” it states, “it is possible to not only preserve, but also enhance the terpene profiles of C. sativa L., ultimately improving the sensory experience for consumers and expanding the applications in both the medicinal and recreational contexts.”

Compounds that imbue cannabis with its smell and flavor are also prone to degradation, the result of factors like light, heat, oxygen and humidity. Many volatile chemicals, for example, are lost when products are exposed to heat.

“Regarding light exposure,” the paper adds, “UV and other light wavelengths can catalyze photochemical reactions, leading to the breakdown of terpenes and the formation of undesirable byproducts. For example, limonene can oxidize under UV exposure to produce terpinolene or other oxidized derivatives, altering its citrusy aroma.”

Oxidization, it continues, “not only reduces terpene concentrations, but also generates additional compounds with different sensory properties, such as alcohols or ketones, which can alter the aromatic characteristics and perceived flavor of cannabis products.”

Researchers also published a map intended to visualize the flavor and aroma descriptors of various commercially available terpenes.

Preservation strategies might include novel packing methods, refrigeration or freezing, removing oxygen from packaging, freeze-drying or so-called microencapsulation or nanoencapsulation, where desired compounds are embedded in protective carriers.

Cannabis growers and others would benefit from a flavor wheel mapping marijuana aromas, similar to standardization practices in wine, coffee, tea and tobacco, authors wrote: “Consumers receive a tool to match preferences with effects, while researchers benefit from a standardized system that aids data comparison and advances the scientific understanding of the cannabis aroma and flavor.”

To that end, the researchers also published a map intended to visualize the flavor and aroma descriptors of various commercially available terpenes.

“For example, the descriptors floral and lavender are frequently used for linalool,” the paper states.  “[Ci]trus, lemon, and orange are frequently used with limonene; pine is frequently used with pinene; earthy and woody are frequently used with humulene; and woody, spicy, and peppery are frequently used with caryophyllene.”

The review states future research “should continue to explore the interactions between compounds, the environmental factors influencing their production, and the development of preservation techniques to maintain their stability,” with authors opining that the “application of cutting-edge technologies, such as synthetic biology and computational modeling, holds promise for optimizing aroma and flavor profiles while ensuring product quality and consistency.”

And while a “comprehensive aroma wheel” would be “desirable within the field,” the paper states, developing one might be a challenge. “It is posited that an extensive study encompassing various strains, trained sensory panelists, and detailed metabolomic analysis is essential to ensure accurate representation.”

“This review highlights the complexity and significance of cannabis aroma and flavor, emphasizing the need for continued collaboration between researchers and industry stakeholders,” the review concludes. “By addressing these challenges, the cannabis sector can unlock new opportunities for product development and scientific discovery.”

Cannabis market incentives may be leading to a global decline in marijuana biodiversity.

A separate study by a California graduate student, meanwhile, recently found that incentives in the legal cannabis market—such as the desire for plants to mature faster and produce more cannabinoids for extraction—may be leading to a decline in global biodiversity of the plant.

That paper noted that while humans have been selectively breeding the cannabis plant for thousands of years, breeders in what it refers to as the “post-prohibition” era have optimized for a handful of traits, such as a high proportion of flowers as opposed to stalks or leaves, maximum cannabinoid content, a “desirable suite” of aromatic terpenes and a reproducible chemical profile.

Amid an upswing in marijuana research in the post-prohibition era, researchers are still unlocking new secrets about the cannabis plant. Researchers earlier in 2025, for example, announced that they successfully identified a new cannabinoid—cannabielsoxa—produced by the marijuana plant as well as a number of other compounds “reported for the first time from the flowers of C. sativa.”

Other research in 2023, published by the American Chemical Society, identified “previously undiscovered cannabis compounds” that challenged conventional wisdom of what really gives cannabis varieties their unique olfactory profiles.

As for other recent cannabis research, scientists reported in May that they identified 33 “significant markers” in the cannabis genome that “significantly influence cannabinoid production”—a finding they say promises to drive the development of new plant varieties with specific cannabinoid profiles.

Among the findings were what the paper called a “massive” set of genes on one plant chromosome that involved about 60 megabases (Mb) and was associated specifically with THC-dominant cannabis strains.

The article said the results “offer valuable guidance for Cannabis breeding programs, enabling the use of precise genetic markers to select and refine promising Cannabis varieties.”

While research into marijuana has exploded in recent years as the result of more jurisdictions legalizing the drug for medical and adult use, it’s unclear how the President Donald Trump’s administrative priorities will impact that trend.

For example, under the new administration, “marijuana” is also now one of nearly two dozen “controversial or high-profile topics” that staff and researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) are required to clear with higher-ups before writing about.

Image (cropped) via Vermont Department of Health

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Study Supports Creation of Universal Cannabis Aroma and Flavor Wheel appeared first on Filter.

If approved, HB 4686, from Representative Mike McFall and six cosponsors, would effectively legalize the personal use and cultivation of the psychedelic substances by people with the diagnosis. The two-page bill would not create a regulated psychedelics system or change the legal status of the drugs more broadly.

McFall held a press conference on June 25 about the measure, saying it “will help protect those suffering from PTSD so they can use their medicine without fear of the unnecessary legal risks that veterans seeking this treatment currently must navigate.”

“Our understanding of medicine is constantly evolving, and there has been a shift in treating PTSD with psychedelics over the last decade,” he said. “Preliminary research is promising that psilocybin has potentially life-changing effects for extended periods of time after treatment.”

“I had more success in the mitigation of my PTSD symptoms with microdosing psilocybin than all the talk therapy offered by the VA.”

Appearing with McFall was Michael G. Smith Jr., a retired United States Army sergeant, who said he’d “had more success in the mitigation of my PTSD symptoms with microdosing psilocybin than all the talk therapy offered by the VA Health Care system,” adding that he’d tried “all their therapies available” at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

“As a veteran with PTSD, I am encouraged by the legislative efforts to decriminalize psilocybin since it has been clinically proven to mitigate and eliminate the symptomatology related to PTSD,” Smith said. “This is important considering the vast field of studies over 25 years that identify that PTSD can lead to coronary vascular diseases, atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, which means there is an awesome opportunity to prevent veterans from developing life-threatening heart conditions with the treatment of psilocyn.”

A press release from McFall notes that the VA “has started research on veterans and treating their PTSD with psychedelics, including psilocybin,” and, citing the advocacy group Heroic Hearts Project, says that 80 percent of veterans experienced improvements in PTSD symptoms after a single psilocybin session.

The bill was officially introduced on June 25 and has been referred to the House Committee on Families and Veterans.

In 2024, Michigan lawmakers sent a letter to Congress, the US Department of Defense and the VA, urging them to prioritize research and investment in psychedelics and other “non-technology treatment options” to address psychological trauma from military service.

Several cities in Michigan have enacted local psychedelics decriminalization policies.

State officials earlier in 2025 announced the disbursement of nearly $100 million in marijuana tax revenue to over 300 cities and tribes across the state.

Separately in Michigan, a second Bigfoot and marijuana news story recently broke in the span of a month.

Previously, an alleged Bigfoot sighting in Monroe County in May sparked some creativity within the marijuana community when, earlier in June, the dispensary Uniq Cannabis started offering a free pre-roll to anyone who brought in photographic proof of the mythological creature.

More recently, a Sasquatch statue outside the retailer Higher Love, located in Menominee, is at the center of controversy. The exhibit became a talking point at the city planning commission’s June meeting, where certain community members argued that the faux beast could attract the attention of youth—with one resident advising the panel to “think about what mascots they see in our community and how they are impacting children.”

Meanwhile, state officials earlier in 2025 announced the disbursement of nearly $100 million in marijuana tax revenue to over 300 cities and tribes across the state, thanks to the state’s adult-use legalization law. That’s part of the overall $331 million in tax dollars Michigan is distributing across various initiatives.

The tax dollars will support various local infrastructure, education and other needed services, the state Treasury Department said.

Photograph by Talakay Pakay via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Michigan Bill Would Legalize Psilocybin for People With PTSD appeared first on Filter.

Four care providers—three licensed psilocybin facilitators and a physician specializing in advanced and terminal illnesses—sued the state in 2024, alleging that the state Psilocybin Services Act (PSA) discriminates against disabled individuals who can’t travel to designated service centers where the substance is administered.

The providers said they were told by the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) that there was no way to accommodate homebound patients under the state’s psilocybin law.

In a 12-page ruling issued in late May, District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai denied the state’s motion to dismiss the suit, opining that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the challenge and that a modification of the state’s psilocybin law to provide a reasonable accommodation to homebound patients under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would not violate principles of federalism.

“The Court agrees with Plaintiffs and finds that their requested remedy rests on physical access rather than use or distribution of a controlled substance in violation of state and federal laws,” the ruling says. “Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to order the provision of a controlled substance, as Defendants contend. Instead … Plaintiffs seek compliance with the ADA so that their disabled clients will have the same physical access to a service that is available to nondisabled individuals.”

“We are eager to ensure that homebound disabled and dying Oregonians can access psilocybin services, as they are among those most likely to benefit.”

Reached by email on June 3, plaintiffs’ attorney Kathryn Tucker said she was pleased the court ruled in favor of the providers seeking to offer home psilocybin services.

“We are eager to ensure that homebound disabled and dying Oregonians can access psilocybin services, as they are among those most likely to benefit,” she wrote. “Opening access for these Oregonians will increase demand for psilocybin produced pursuant to the PSA as well as demand for services of facilitators, particularly those with expertise in providing care to disabled persons and those with advanced illness.”

“We hope to move this forward quickly now that the court has rejected the State’s effort to dismiss, recognizing that the ADA does apply to Oregon’s psilocybin program,” she added. “Because people with advancing illness may have little time left, delay in enabling access can mean that patients who might have obtained relief from debilitating anxiety and depression will die in unrelieved suffering.”

Notably, the new opinion, as noted earlier by Psychedelic Week, does not order a specific remedy. It simply allows the underlying suit, Cusker v. Oregon Health Authority, to proceed toward a final decision.

As for what the plaintiffs are ultimately seeking, their complaint filed in June 2024 asked the court to assume jurisdiction over the issue and require the state health authority to “provide the reasonable accommodation of home service when necessary to allow disabled individuals access to psilocybin services, and to notify all licensed facilitators that such accommodations are permitted.”

“Public entities are required to make reasonable accommodations … to allow disabled individuals to access programs and services unless doing so would result in an undue burden.”

They further requested that the court declare that the OHA violated state and federal anti-discrimination statues when refusing to find reasonable accommodations, and prevent the state “from taking any disciplinary or other adverse action” against licensed facilitators for providing such reasonable accommodations.

“Public entities are required to make reasonable accommodations when necessary to allow disabled individuals to access programs and services unless doing so would result in an undue burden or a fundamental alteration of the program or service,” they stated. “Allowing disabled individuals whose disability prevents them from travelling to a licensed service center to receive psilocybin services in their homes as a reasonable accommodation would not result in an undue burden or a fundamental alteration of the psilocybin services program.”

Oregon voters legalized facilitated psilocybin services through a 2020 ballot measure. The state approved its first service center in mid-2023.

Photograph by Kristie Gianopulos via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Lawsuit Seeking Psilocybin Home-Care in Oregon Permitted to Proceed appeared first on Filter.

A smaller proportion of respondents said they felt the VA should provide psychedelic treatments, such as MDMA or psilocybin (27 percent), while 17 percent supported VA-provided ketamine and 12 percent supported access to a similar drug, esketamine.

The poll was conducted by Mission Roll Call, a nonprofit that represents veterans. Results come from “nearly 2,000 responses from all 50 states, and 95% of respondents are either a veteran or a family member of a veteran,” the group said.

The questions about VA-provided substances like medical marijuana and psychedelics were part of a question around “novel treatments.” Others included obesity treatment, abortion and hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Graphic by Mission Roll Call

“In general the respondents to our survey support the inclusion of novel treatments for ailments,” Mission Roll Call said in its report on the findings. The group added that it’s “working with several partners to introduce initiatives to help veterans where the research and results support it,” pointing specifically to hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

In early 2024, a separate Ohio State University (OSU) survey found that six in 10 active duty military service members and veterans—as well as 85 percent of military family members—supported legalizing marijuana.

Along the lines of the new poll, that survey found that fewer veterans—four in 10—favored legalizing psychedelics, at least for nonmedical use. Among family members and non-military respondents, meanwhile, 59 percent and 61 percent, respectively, supported the change.

Support among veterans was markedly higher when it came to doctor-recommended use of marijuana and psychedelics, which an earlier OSU study discussed.

The work aims to evaluate and allow the VA to more clearly communicate cannabis’s potential benefits for conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder.

That paper found 72 percent support among veterans for VA doctors to be legally allowed to recommend marijuana and 64 percent support when it came to psychedelics.

Separately, VA officials recently announced they’re looking for contractors to analyze and explain scientific evidence on medical marijuana to clinicians and the general public as part of an ongoing project.

The work aims to evaluate and allow the VA to more clearly communicate cannabis’s potential benefits for conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as potential risks around cannabis use disorder and consumption during pregnancy.

As the VA explained in an earlier filing, about 9 percent of military veterans reported using cannabis in the past year, and about 40 percent of those said they used marijuana to treat medical conditions. The trouble comes when veterans try to talk to VA doctors about use of the drug.

“In short, clinicians will encounter patients who are using cannabis or who have questions about using cannabis,” the VA said. “Discussions about cannabis are challenging in part because evidence examining the benefits and harms of cannabis is growing and changing rapidly, and because of the variability in the way the existing evidence base has been interpreted.”

Earlier in May, meanwhile, a military veteran who’s become an advocate for psilocybin access met with VA staff, and VA Secretary Doug Collins, to discuss the therapeutic potential of psychedelic medicine for the veteran community.

Collins said he’s open to the idea of government vouchers to cover the costs of psychedelic therapy for veterans who receive services outside of the VA.

The visit came as Collins continues to promote psychedelics as a possible alternative treatment option for those suffering from serious mental health conditions such as PTSD.

Collins said in April that he had an “eye-opening” talk with US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the therapeutic potential of psychedelic medicine. And Collins said he’s open to the idea of having the government provide vouchers to cover the costs of psychedelic therapy for veterans who receive services outside of the VA, as Congress considers pathways for access.

During a Senate committee in May, he separately reiterated his commitment to exploring the efficacy of psychedelic therapy to address serious mental health conditions that commonly afflict military veterans.

Bipartisan congressional lawmakers also recently asked the VA head to meet with them to discuss ways to provide access to psychedelic medicine for military veterans.

In a letter sent to Collins, Reps. Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI)—co-chairs of the Congressional Psychedelic Advancing Therapies (PATH) Caucus—said they were “encouraged by your recent remarks about the importance of pursuing research into psychedelic treatments and other alternative treatments to improve Veterans’ care.”

Correa and Bergman separately introduced a bill in April to provide $30 million in funding annually to establish psychedelics-focused “centers for excellence” at VA facilities, where veterans could receive novel treatment involving substances like psilocybin, MDMA and ibogaine.

A VA-funded study produced “stunning and robust results” from its first-ever clinical trial into MDMA therapy.

Bergman has also expressed optimism about the prospects of advancing psychedelics reform under President Trump, arguing that the administration’s efforts to cut spending and the federal workforce will give agencies “spines” to tackle such complex issues.

In December, the VA separately announced that it’s providing $1.5 million in funding to study the efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for veterans with PTSD and alcohol use disorder (AUD).

In 2024 Rachel Yehuda, who has overseen some psychedelic research as director of mental health at the  James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also touted an initial study the agency funded that produced “stunning and robust results” from its first-ever clinical trial into MDMA therapy.

In January, former VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said that it was “very encouraging” that Kennedy has supported psychedelics reform. And he hoped to work with him on the issue if he stayed on for the next administration, but that didn’t pan out.

Photograph (cropped) of Audie L. Murphy VA Hospital, San Antonio, by Billy Hathorn via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Veterans Want VA to Provide Medical Marijuana: Survey appeared first on Filter.

The changes came in a Joint Finance Committee hearing, where members removed a long list of items included in the governor’s budget. In addition to cannabis legalization, other deleted items include tax cuts for the middle class, tax increases for millionaires and state support for children, farmers and veterans.

Evers said on social media ahead of the vote that “today, Republican lawmakers are gutting my budget that does what’s best for our kids and the folks, families, and communities that raise them.”

The committee’s 21 pages of cuts remove multiple marijuana provisions from Evers’s budget, such as regulation, taxation, licensing and civil and criminal-legal adjustments.

The legalization proposal would have regulated marijuana “much like the state already does with alcohol,” something “over 60 percent of Wisconsinites support.”

The actions are a repeat of 2023, when GOP members of the same committee removed proposals to legalize marijuana for adult and medical use from the governor’s biennial executive budget at that time.

A press release from the governor’s office about the May 8 committee changes says the legalization proposal would have regulated marijuana “much like the state already does with alcohol, which would help Wisconsin compete with other states for talented workers and have more resources to invest in critical state priorities.”

The reform is “a proposal that over 60 percent of Wisconsinites support,” the release notes, pointing to a poll from February.

Evers included the latest marijuana legalization plan in his biennial budget request to lawmakers in February, projecting at the time that the change would result in “$58.1 million in revenue in fiscal year 2026-27 and growing amounts in future years.”

Under current Wisconsin law, cannabis is illegal for both adult use and medical purposes.

The legalization proposal would have imposed a 15 percent wholesale excise tax and a 10 percent retail excise tax on adult-use cannabis products. It additionally sought to “create a process for individuals serving sentences or previously convicted of marijuana-related crimes to have an opportunity to repeal or reduce their sentences for nonviolent minor offenses.”

GOP leaders recently acknowledged that the debate over medical marijuana is “not going to go away,” and there’s hope it can be resolved this session.

The companion bills that were filed in tandem with the governor’s budget request stipulate that all revenue collected from the proposed cannabis taxes would be deposited into the state general fund.

In addition to legalizing cannabis for adult use, Evers aimed to include delta-8, delta-10 THC and other intoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoids in the definition of marijuana to “ensure their production, processing and sale is regulated and not available to individuals under 21.”

Further, the governor called for the the Department of Revenue the enter into agreements with tribal territories “for the refund to tribes of marijuana excise taxes estimated to be collected from sales on tribal lands,” similar to current policy with tobacco products.

Home cultivation of up to six cannabis plants would also have been allowed.

In terms of medical cannabis, a qualifying patient would have been defined as someone “who has been diagnosed by a physician as having or undergoing a debilitating medical condition or treatment and who is at least 18 years old.”

The legislation would also have prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of off-duty marijuana use, exempted THC from drug testing for certain public assistance programs and protected people from being denied organ transplants due to cannabis consumption.

“The bill creates a process to review convictions for acts that have been decriminalized under the bill,” a legislative summary said prior to the May 8 changes. “If the person is currently serving a sentence or on probation for such a conviction, the person may petition a court to dismiss the conviction and expunge the record. If the person has completed a sentence or period of probation for such a conviction, the person may petition a court to expunge the record or, if applicable, redesignate it to a lower crime.”

“I don’t think anyone is naive enough to think that marijuana and THC products aren’t present in  Wisconsin when they are readily available over state lines.”

Despite Republicans’ move to cut legalization from the budget legislation, party leaders recently acknowledged that the debate over medical marijuana legalization is “not going to go away,” and there’s hope it can be resolved this session.

“I don’t think anyone is naive enough to think that marijuana and THC products aren’t present in the state of Wisconsin when they are readily available over state lines, so I think we need to come to an answer on this,” Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August (R) said in February. “I’m hopeful that we can.”

“If we’re going to call it medical marijuana, it needs to be treated like a pharmaceutical. But the marijuana debate is going to be something that is not going to go away,” Senator Dan Feyen (R), the assistant majority leader, said at the time. “The margins are tighter.”

There have been repeated attempts to legalize medical marijuana in the legislature over recent years, including the introduction of legislation from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) that called for a limited program facilitated through state-run dispensaries. That proved controversial among his Republican colleagues, however, and it ultimately stalled out in 2024.

Evers previewed his plan to include marijuana legalization in his budget in January, while also arguing that residents of the state should be allowed to propose new laws by putting binding questions on the ballot—citing the fact that issues such as cannabis reform enjoy sizable bipartisan support among voters while the GOP-controlled legislature has repeatedly refused to act.

Previously, in 2022, the governor signed an executive order to convene a special legislative session with the specific goal of giving people the right to put citizen initiatives on the ballot, raising hopes among advocates that cannabis legalization could eventually be decided by voters. The GOP legislature did not adopt the proposal, however.

Evers said in December that marijuana reform is one of several key priorities the state should pursue in the 2025 session, as lawmakers work with a budget surplus.

Days after he made the remarks, a survey found the reform would be welcomed by voters in rural parts of the state. Nearly two thirds (65 percent) said they support legalizing cannabis.

A legislative analysis requested by lawmakers estimated that Wisconsin residents spent more than $121 million on cannabis in Illinois alone in 2022.

In May 2024, the governor said he was “hopeful” that the November election would lead to Democratic control of the legislature, in part because he argued it would position the state to finally legalize cannabis.

“We’ve been working hard over the last five years, several budgets, to make that happen,” he said at the time. “I know we’re surrounded by states with recreational marijuana, and we’re going to continue to do it.”

A Wisconsin Democratic assemblymember tried to force a vote on a medical cannabis compromise proposal in 2024, as an amendment to an unrelated kratom bill, but he told Marijuana Moment he suspects leadership intentionally pulled that legislation from the agenda at the last minute to avoid a showdown on the issue.

The state Department of Revenue released a fiscal estimate of the economic impact of a legalization bill from then-Sen. Melissa Agard (D) in 2023, projecting that the reform would generate nearly $170 million annually in tax revenue.

A legislative analysis requested by lawmakers estimated that Wisconsin residents spent more than $121 million on cannabis in Illinois alone in 2022, contributing $36 million in tax revenue to the neighboring state.

Evers and other Democrats have, since at least January 2024, insisted that they would be willing to enact a modest medical marijuana program, even if they’d prefer more comprehensive reform.

Photograph (adapted) by Pierre5018 via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Wisconsin Republicans Cut Marijuana Legalization From Governor’s Budget appeared first on Filter.

The report, which was published on April 23 in JAMA Network Open, looked at data from 1,428 adults aged 18 to 65, who completed assessments roughly every six months between September 2018 and October 2023.

A primary goal of the study, which was partially funded by the federal Canadian Institutes of Health Research, was to examine how consumption patterns changed following the country’s legalization of adult-use marijuana, sales of which began in October 2018. Researchers also wanted to understand whether use patterns changed based on how frequently people used cannabis prior to legalization as well as how users’ product preferences changed.

Frequency of marijuana use overall increased slightly but significantly over the five-year period. Among all participants, the mean proportion of days using cannabis increased by 0.35 percent per year, or 1.75 percent over the five-year study period.

People who used cannabis most frequently before legalization saw the largest declines in use. People who consumed marijuana on a daily basis prior to legalization decreased their use frequency more than those who’d used marijuana on a weekly basis.

Those who used marijuana once a month or less before legalization, meanwhile, reported slight increases in use.

Problematic use appeared to significantly decrease, especially early in the pandemic.

As for problematic use, analysis using the so-called Cannabis Use Disorder Identification Test – Revised (CUDIT-R) showed a significant decrease overall, authors wrote, especially during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from April to October 2020.

People who reported using marijuana monthly or less than monthly before legalization saw their CUDIT-R scores drop significantly, while those who said they hadn’t used marijuana in at least six months saw a slight increase.

Notably, people who were using marijuana weekly prior to legalization saw their average CUDIT-R scores fall “from above to below the validated CUDIT-R cutoff score of 6 indicating problem cannabis misuse,” the report states. That suggests a healthier post-legalization relationship with marijuana among occasional users.

One explanation for that trend could be the age of consumers. “The apparent discrepancy between increasing cannabis use and decreasing cannabis misuse may have been driven by younger cannabis users,” the report continues, “who typically transition from problematic to nonproblematic use as they age.”

As for how use patterns changed based on frequency of use prior to legalization, authors wrote that “it is also possible that regression to the mean explains part of the interaction findings.”

“Fundamentally, however, these results do not suggest increased adverse outcomes for adults who were actively using cannabis before legalization,” they continued.

Regarding product preferences, the study period overall saw statistically significant decreases in the use of flower, cannabis concentrates, oil, tinctures and topicals. Increases, meanwhile, were observed in the use of edibles, beverages and vape cartridges.

“The most pronounced increase was in use of cannabis oil cartridges or disposable vape pens.”

“The most pronounced increase was in use of cannabis oil cartridges or disposable vape pens,” the report states, “with a 3.39-percent annual increase in prevalence among active cannabis users (from 18.4 percent pre-legalization to 33.0 percent at five years post-legalization).”

“From a public health standpoint, these results are mixed,” the report continues, “as increased use might be considered harmful, while decreased misuse is a positive outcome.”

Additionally, while the results were statistically significant, the research team noted that “for both outcomes … it is debatable whether these changes were clinically significant.”

That’s especially true in the case of misuse CUDIT-R scores, “which decreased by only 0.4 points on a scale of 32 over five years,” they continued.

Governments and public health experts have been working to track consumer behavior as laws around marijuana continue to change. In the United States, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report recently broke down federal data on cannabis use among thousands of US adults, finding that while smoking marijuana remains the most common way to consume it, methods such as eating, vaping and dabbing are growing in popularity.

Overall in 2022, 15.3 percent of adults reported current marijuana use, while 7.9 percent reported daily use. Among users, most (79.4 percent) reported smoking, followed by eating (41.6 percent), vaping (30.3 percent) and dabbing (14.6 percent).

About half of all adults who used marijuana (46.7 percent) reported multiple methods of use—most typically smoking and eating or smoking and vaping.

Rates of both vaping and dabbing—as well as cannabis use in general—were higher in young adults than the general adult population.

An earlier analysis from CDC found that rates of current and lifetime cannabis use among high-school students have continued to drop amid the legalization movement.

A recent US report found that consumption among people age 12 to 20 had fallen slightly.

Another recent federal report, published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, found that consumption among minors—defined as people 12 to 20 years of age—had fallen slightly from 2022 to 2023. Despite methodological changes that make comparisons over time difficult, it also suggests that youth use has fallen significantly in the past decade.

A separate US poll recently found that that more respondents smoke marijuana on a daily basis than drink alcohol every day—and that alcohol drinkers are more likely to say they would benefit from limiting their use than cannabis consumers are.

US adults who drink alcohol are nearly three times as likely to say they’d be better off reducing their intake compared to marijuana consumers who said they’d benefit from using their preferred substance less often, the survey found. Further, it found that while lifetime and monthly alcohol drinking among adults was far more common than cannabis use, daily marijuana consumption was slightly more popular than daily drinking.

An earlier report published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs that found that secondhand harm caused by marijuana use is far less prevalent than that of alcohol, with respondents reporting secondhand harm from drinking at nearly six times the rate they did for cannabis.

Yet another 2022 study from Michigan State University researchers, published in the journal PLOS One, found that “cannabis retail sales might be followed by the increased occurrence of cannabis onsets for older adults” in legal states, “but not for underage persons who cannot buy cannabis products in a retail outlet.”

The trends were observed despite adult use of marijuana and certain psychedelics reaching “historic highs” in 2022, according to separate data.

Image via Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post AMA: Marijuana Use Up, Problematic Use Down in Canada Post-Legalization appeared first on Filter.

The brief agency report, published April 10, looks at data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual nationwide telephone survey of people 18 and older. Specifically, it unpacks responses from an “optional marijuana module” that was included in the 2022 survey.

The module included additional questions for past-month cannabis users that asked about methods of use.

Notably, the use of that module was the first time since 2016 that the survey allowed for the selection of multiple methods of use. From 2017 through 2021, marijuana modules permitted only a single method of use.

Comparing 2022 results to those in 2016, the authors found that “the prevalences of eating and vaping marijuana were each higher in 2022, as was the prevalence of reporting multiple routes of use.”

Monitoring trends like those, they added, “is important because each route of use is associated with unique health risks. For example, the wider availability of edibles has been associated with increased accidental pediatric ingestion.”

Overall in 2022, 15.3 percent of adults reported current marijuana use, while 7.9 percent reported daily use. Among users, most (79.4 percent) reported smoking, followed by eating (41.6 percent), vaping (30.3 percent) and dabbing (14.6 percent).

Vaping and dabbing were more common among young adults than the general adult population.

About half of all adults who used marijuana (46.7 percent) reported multiple methods of use—most typically smoking and eating or smoking and vaping.

Rates of both vaping and dabbing—as well as cannabis use in general—were higher in young adults than the general adult population.

“Among adults aged 18–24 and 25–34 years,” the report states, “approximately one in four reported current marijuana use, and approximately one in eight reported daily use.”

Vaping and dabbing were also most common in the 18–24 age range, as well as among non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander respondents.

Both current and daily marijuana use were also more common in 2022 among males, non-Hispanic multiracial adults, American Indians or Alaska Natives and people whose highest level of education was a high-school degree or lower, the CDC report states.

The survey’s 2022 marijuana module was used in 22 states and two US territories, while the 2016 module covered just 12 states. That difference may complicate some comparisons, the authors noted.

“Questions about routes of use had not been consistently asked across previous BRFSS survey years or asked consistently across the same jurisdictions every survey year,” they stated in the report. “Therefore, it is not possible to examine trends in routes of use, and comparisons of results to those obtained in previous years might reflect changes in sampling rather than only changes in prevalence.”

Data is also self-reported, which “might lead to underestimation of prevalence estimates if respondents were influenced by social desirability,” they continued.

Though youth use rates have ticked up and down by a few percentage points, the overall trend is that past-month use among high-school students declined since 2013.

As for what the findings mean for public health, authors—a four person team from CDC’s Division of Overdose Prevention—said education is paramount.

“Given the prevalence of cannabis smoking, eating, vaping and dabbing, public health–related messaging specific to these routes of use can help guide persons about potential risks,” they wrote. “Messaging can focus on the risks related to each of these routes of use, such as exposure to contaminants or adulterants with vaping, or exposure to high concentrations of THC from ingestion, vaping and dabbing.”

While the 2022 data show comparatively high use among young adults, a separate CDC report in 2024 found a decline in teen use over the past decade, as dozens of states moved to legalize cannabis.

As of 2023, for example, 17 percent of high-school students reported using marijuana within the past month. In 2013, that figure was 23 percent.

Though youth use rates ticked up and down by a few percentage points from survey to survey over the 10-year timespan covered by that CDC report, the overall trend was that past-month use among high-school students declined since 2013.

Notably, male students showed a more marked drop in marijuana use over the past decade, with rates falling from 25 percent in 2013 to 15 percent in 2023. Among female students over the same time period, rates decreased from 22 percent to 19 percent.

Another earlier analysis from CDC found that rates of current and lifetime cannabis use among high school students have continued to drop amid the legalization movement.

Separate research recently found that that more respondents smoke marijuana on a daily basis than drink alcohol every day.

Another recent federal report, published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, found that consumption among minors—defined as people 12 to 20 years of age—had fallen slightly in the past year. Despite methodological changes that make comparisons over time difficult, it also suggests that youth use has fallen significantly in the past decade.

A separate US poll recently found that that more respondents smoke marijuana on a daily basis than drink alcohol every day—and that alcohol drinkers are more likely to say they would benefit from limiting their use than cannabis consumers are.

US adults who drink alcohol are nearly three times as likely to say they’d be better off reducing their intake of the drug compared to marijuana consumers who said they’d benefit from using their preferred substance less often, the survey found. Further, it found that while lifetime and monthly alcohol drinking among adults was far more common than cannabis use, daily marijuana consumption was slightly more popular than daily drinking.

An earlier report published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs that found that secondhand harm caused by marijuana use is far less prevalent than that of alcohol, with respondents reporting secondhand harm from drinking at nearly six times the rate they did for cannabis.

Yet another 2022 study from Michigan State University researchers, published in the journal PLOS One, found that “cannabis retail sales might be followed by the increased occurrence of cannabis onsets for older adults” in legal states, “but not for underage persons who cannot buy cannabis products in a retail outlet.”

The trends were observed despite adult use of marijuana and certain psychedelics reaching “historic highs” in 2022, according to separate data.

Image via State of New Jersey

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post CDC Marijuana Use Report: Edibles, Vaping and Dabbing All on the Rise appeared first on Filter.