About four months after the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Expedited Removal of Criminal Aliens Act,” the panel released its report that lays out the majority and minority opinions about the legislation that’s now up for floor action. Representative Jaime Raskin (D-MD), ranking member of the committee, authored the “dissenting views” section of the report, sounding the alarm about potential enforcement overreach.

“This Administration has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to identify gang members and terrorists. But this bill would give them even more power to do that and strip people of their due process rights,” he said. “And unfortunately, the few guardrails this bill tries to insert are woefully inadequate. The definition of a ‘criminal gang’ in this bill is extremely broad and allows the Administration to label all sorts of people as gang members without requiring much, or even any, evidence at all.”

“For example, the bill states a criminal gang is an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of: a felony drug offense, including felony simple possession of marijuana,” Raskin continued. “This could mean a group [of] high school kids who regularly gather to smoke marijuana, even in a state where it is lawful, could be deemed a ‘criminal gang’ under this bill.”

Of course, while young people routinely engaging in smoke sessions aren’t treated like “criminal gangs” in states that have enacted legalization, adult-use marijuana laws that have been enacted at the state level still prohibit the sale, possession and use of cannabis for those under 21.

In any case, the congressman said H.R. 5713, the immigration enforcement proposal that’s before the House, “is a dangerous bill that has the potential to act as a blunt instrument to conduct mass deportations and strip individuals of their rights to due process under the Constitution and even this Supreme Court’s most recent rulings.”

A noncitizen would be subject to expedited removal proceedings under the legislation based on certain convictions or if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary designates them terrorists or gang members.

Raskin previously pressed the former head of DHS during Trump’s first term over criteria used to separate immigrants from their children, pressing the then-secretary in 2019 on whether a prior arrest over simple possession of marijuana could be used to justify the parent’s removal.

In 2022 under the Biden administration, a House spending bill for DHS included a section that would have prevented the agency from using any federal funding to deny admission to, or deport, immigrants who’ve used or possessed marijuana.

Similar language also advanced through the appropriations process in 2021, but it was not included in the final package following bicameral negotiations. Nor was the 2022 version.

Meanwhile, a study published in 2024 found that states that legalize marijuana see a “moderate relative decrease” in immigrant deportation rates compared to states where the drug remains banned, as well as a slight decrease in overall cannabis-related arrests.

Image (cropped) via State of Nevada Cannabis Compliance 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 Bill Could Deport Group Marijuana Users as “Gang Members,” Warns Rep. appeared first on Filter.

Repsresentatives Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL) and Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA) filed the legislation—titled the “Fair Future Act”—on March 4. An earlier version was introduced with a Senate companion last session, but it did not advance to enactment.

The measure would strike a section of the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act that the lawmakers say has prevented more than 9 million people from accessing rental housing no matter how serious the charge was or how long it was since they were convicted.

“Outdated housing policies and conflicting state laws deny those with prior drug convictions a fair shot.”

“Because drug laws vary widely from state to state, this policy can produce dramatically different outcomes for Americans living just miles apart,” said a press release from Frost’s office. “In one state, a person may serve jail time for marijuana possession and then face permanent exclusion from federal Fair Housing protections. Across the state line, however, the same conduct may be entirely legal.”

Frost said that “housing is a fundamental human right and the foundation for a stable and dignified life.”

“People who have served their time and repaid their debt to society should be no exception. Outdated housing policies and conflicting state laws deny those with prior drug convictions a fair shot at reentering society,” he said. “At the same time, the criminalization of homelessness only deepens the cycle of instability, setting people up to fail before they have a chance to rebuild. The Fair Future Act will help break this cycle of exclusion and ensure that a past mistake does not erase a person’s right to a safe, stable place to call home.”

Mackenzie, for his part, said that fair housing access “is fundamental to the American Dream,” and, for many, the current statute “has become an insurmountable obstacle.”

“It’s time to give every American equal opportunity when applying for a lease.”

“By allowing housing providers to automatically reject some applicants based on certain past drug convictions, regardless of how much time has passed, the law can shut the door on individuals who have worked to rebuild their lives,” the congressman said. “It’s time to give every American equal opportunity when applying for a lease.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) filed the Senate companion of the Fair Future Act in 2024. It remains to be seen whether he will lead on the legislation in his chamber this session.

Booker and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) introduced a separate bill in December to allow people living in federally assisted housing to use marijuana in compliance with state laws without having to fear losing their homes.

Under current policy, people who live in public housing are prohibited from using controlled substances in those facilities regardless of state law, and landlords are able to evict them. The bicameral legislation—titled the “Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act”—would change that.

Norton has filed similar versions of the proposal over recent sessions, but the reform has yet to be enacted. Booker joined Norton in sponsoring the legislation last Congress as well.

In 2018, a Trump administration official said that she was working to resolve conflicting federal and state marijuana laws as it applies to residency in federally-subsidized housing, but it’s not clear what came of that effort.

Norton sent a letter to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2021 that implored it to use executive discretion and not punish people over cannabis in legal states. In response, the President Joe Biden’s HUD secretary told the congresswoman that it is statutorily required to continue denying federally assisted housing to people who use marijuana, even if they’re acting in compliance with state law.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) also raised the issue during a committee hearing in 2019, pressing former HUD Secretary Ben Carson (R) on policies that cause public housing residents and their families to be evicted for low-level convictions such as marijuana possession.

Ocasio-Cortez and then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) also filed legislation that year that would protect people with low-level drug convictions from being denied access to or being evicted from public housing.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced an affordable housing bill in 2020 that included a provision to prevent landlords from evicting people over manufacturing marijuana extracts if they have a license to do so.

Earlier in March, Merkley filed an amendment to House-passed housing bill with provisions that would allow people who work in the state-legal marijuana industry to qualify for federal mortgage loans.

Photograph (cropped) by Kjetil Ree via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 2.5

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 Fair Future Act Takes Aim at Housing Discrimination Over Drug Convictions appeared first on Filter.

Weeks after members of the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the legislation from Representative Jared Sullivan (D), deeming it inexpedient to legislate, the full chamber killed the proposal by approving a motion to table it in a 15-9 vote on March 5. The bill cleared the House earlier in 2026 on a 208-135 vote.

“Granite Staters overwhelmingly want cannabis legalized,” Senator Donovan Fenton (D) said ahead of the Senate vote. “This bill would provide roughly $60 million in revenue over three years, money that could help lower costs for New Hampshire residents and provide housing and strengthen services.”

If enacted, HB 186 would have legalized possession of up to 2 ounces of cannabis flower, 10 grams of concentrates and products with up to 2 grams of THC for adults over 21 years of age. They could also have grown six plants at home, three of which could have been mature.

Past cannabis possession convictions would have been vacated, and nondiscrimination protections for consumers would have been established, including for access to medical care, public benefits, child custody and government employment.

A new Cannabis Commission would have been established to license and regulate the marijuana industry, along with a Cannabis Advisory Board.

Sullivan’s bill is one of several cannabis proposals filed for the 2026 session. Governor Kelly Ayotte (R) has threatened to veto any legalization bill that reaches her desk.

Adult-use cannabis sales would have been taxed at 8.5 percent, with revenue split between program administration, municipalities, substance use programs, public safety agencies and the state general fund.

Localities across the state would have had ballot referendums asking voters if they wanted to opt in to allowing retail marijuana sales.

Sullivan’s legalization bill is one of several cannabis proposals filed for the 2026 session, including legislation from Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D) that seeks to put a constitutional amendment on the state ballot that would let voters decide if they want to legalize marijuana for adults 21 and older, allowing them to “possess a modest amount of cannabis for their personal use.” Members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee took up that legislation in January.

Governor Kelly Ayotte (R) has already threatened to veto any legalization bill that reaches her desk, though the constitutional amendment proposal would not require gubernatorial action.

The governor said in August that her position on the reform would not change even if the federal government moved forward with rescheduling the plant. Since then, President Donald Trump has directed the attorney general to finalize the process of moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.

“We know where it’s going to go. Let’s send a virtue signal,” Sullivan said in 2025. “Let them be the ones that are pissing off voters who care about this.”

At a committee meeting in 2025, Sullivan made a persuasive argument for advancing his legalization bill, pointing out that the House has repeatedly passed similar legislation and that the chamber should stand its ground, forcing the Senate and governor to again go on record with their opposition to a policy popular among voters.

“We know where it’s going to go. Let’s send a virtue signal,” Sullivan said. “Let them be the ones that are pissing off voters who care about this.”

In the Senate, the Judiciary Committee in January also took up a bill from Sen. Donovan Fenton (D) that would allow adults over the age of 21 to legally possess up to 4 ounces of cannabis in plant form and 20 grams of concentrated cannabis products, as well as other products containing no more than 2,000 milligrams of THC.

Meanwhile, the New Hampshire House in February approved a bipartisan bill to legalize the regulated use of psilocybin for medical purposes.

In June 2025, the New Hampshire Senate voted to scrap compromise legislation that would have lowered the state’s criminal penalty for first-time psilocybin possession while also creating mandatory minimum sentences around fentanyl.

As originally introduced, the legislation would have completely removed penalties around obtaining, purchasing, transporting, possessing or using psilocybin, effectively legalizing it on a noncommercial basis. However a House committee amended the bill before unanimously advancing it that March.

Photograph via Picryl/Public Domain

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 New Hampshire Senate Kills Latest Marijuana Legalization Bill appeared first on Filter.

Representative Candace Newell (D)—who has long championed legislation to end cannabis criminalization and filed a similar legal marijuana pilot program measure last session—is sponsoring what’s titled the “Adult-Use Cannabis Pilot Program Regulation and Enforcement Act.”

“In an effort to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is the purpose of this Section to establish a temporary pilot program designed to test and evaluate the parameters of the implementation of a permanent adult-use cannabis program in this state,” the bill text states.

The pilot program is meant to evaluate the feasibility of a “potential permanent program” for adult-use cannabis, gain feedback and data on the small-scale trial and analyze the “outcomes and results” to determine whether the pilot program should be expanded and implemented on a permanent basis.

Under the proposal, the state Department of Health would be responsible for regulating the pilot program, including the “cultivation, extraction, processing, production, transportation, and retail sale of adult-use cannabis.”

Only existing medical marijuana dispensaries would be eligible to participate in the pilot program. Those retailers would have to notify the department of their intent to participate no later than 90 days before the implementation of the law. If they don’t express such intent, they could still continue to serve medical cannabis patients in the state.

The legislation would maintain current statute limiting the number of licensed dispensaries in the state to 30, and only 10 of those could join the pilot to serve both patients and adult consumers.

Regulators would need to issue initial permits for cannabis licensees to participate in the pilot program by January 1, 2027. Then, on July 1 of that year, finalized permits would be issued, and they’d be valid for one year. An annual permit fee of $5,000 would be imposed on participating retailers, cultivators and laboratories. The pilot program would last through July 1, 2030.

“For the duration of the pilot program, the department shall assess a fee of three and one-half percent of the gross wholesales of all marijuana, for therapeutic and adult-use, distributed to a therapeutic retail permit holder or pilot program permit holder,” the bill says. “The fee shall be reported and paid by the licensee participating in the pilot program authorized to cultivate, extract, process, produce, and transport adult-use cannabis.”

The legislation—which has been referred to the House Health and Welfare Committee—would maintain current statute limiting the number of licensed dispensaries in the state to 30, and only 10 of those could join the pilot program to serve both patients and adult consumers.

Getting the bill across the finish line could prove complicated in the conservative legislature, however. Newell’s earlier version of the pilot program legislation didn’t advance to enactment in 2025, and lawmakers that session also rejected other marijuana reform proposals, such as one that would have established a tax system to prepare the eventual legalization of adult-use cannabis.

Meanwhile in Louisiana, the Senate in 2025 passed a Republican-led resolution calling for the creation of a task force to study and make recommendations on the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics for military veterans.

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 New Bid to Create Marijuana Legalization Pilot in Louisiana appeared first on Filter.

As more states and localities, as well as Congress, see momentum around psychedelics reform, the poll released on February 24 shows that adults in the United States are currently feeling relatively tepid about the prospect of expanding access to hallucinogenic substances. However, there’s reason to believe that could change dramatically in the years to come, if cannabis-related polling is any indication.

For now, just 23 percent of respondents said that psilocybin mushrooms should be legal, and even fewer (around 10 percent) expressed support for legalizing LSD or MDMA. By contrast, RAND’s data reaffirm that there’s strong majority support (65 percent) for the legalization of marijuana.

“Support for the legal use of psilocybin mushrooms is similar to what it was for cannabis in the mid-1990s—just before state medical cannabis laws started to be implemented.”

Of course, it’s relatively early in the push for psychedelics reform. And a look at the public opinion trajectory for cannabis may offer a window into what’s to come.

“Support for the legal use of psilocybin mushrooms is similar to what it was for cannabis in the mid-1990s—just before state medical cannabis laws started to be implemented,” the poll found, with authors adding that it’s “unclear whether psilocybin will follow a similar trajectory in terms of public opinion or policy changes.”

The think tank said there are “some reasons” that could explain the trend. For example, one could better understand the current sentiment toward psychedelics in the context of how opinions shifted around marriage equality.

“From 1995 to 2016, public support for legalizing marijuana rose in tandem with support for same-sex marriage,” it said. “This suggests that both shifts may have been driven by broader, time-specific increases in socially liberal attitudes rather than by issue-specific factors. If that period reflected a unique generational or cultural moment, the same underlying forces might not be present in the near term.”

Support for legalizing psilocybin was high (62 percent) among those who’ve used the psychedelic. Similarly, 80 percent of adults who’ve used marijuana are in favor of the plant’s legalization.

“When respondents were asked about reasons for allowing legal use, addressing a mental or physical health condition is the most endorsed reason.”

Only 42 percent of those who support the legal use of psilocybin say that adults should be able to use it for any reason, while 56 percent say it should be allowed for medical purposes. Overall, just over 10 percent of respondents said psilocybin should be allowed for any use; for LSD and MDMA, that drops to under 10 percent, and support for the medical use of the three psychedelics is all under 30 percent among the general public.

“When respondents were asked about reasons for allowing legal use, addressing a mental or physical health condition is the most endorsed reason for psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA,” the survey found. “When respondents were asked where adults should get psilocybin mushrooms if they were legal, using them at a medical facility under supervision is the most endorsed option (49 percent). About 28 percent endorse getting psilocybin mushrooms from a dispensary, and 23 percent endorse allowing adults to grow or forage for personal use.”

“Among the three psychedelic substances that our policy questions focused on (psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, and MDMA), psilocybin mushrooms had the most support among US adults when asked a simple question about its legality and when asked more-detailed questions about reasons for use and potential sources of supply,” RAND said. “These findings may not be surprising considering that psilocybin mushrooms are the most-used psychedelic substance among US adults.”

“Among the three psychedelic substances that our policy questions focused on, psilocybin mushrooms are also the most commonly included psychedelic substances in state and local policy initiatives in the United States,” it said.

The survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, involved interviews with 10,122 US adults from September 9 to October 1, 2025. The margin of error was +/-1.33 percentage points.

RAND researchers separately released data in January showing that nearly 10 million US adults microdosed psychedelic substances in 2025.

“To the best of our knowledge, the 2025 RPS is the first probability-based and nationally representative survey to examine policy preferences for individual psychedelic substances rather than asking about the entire class of psychedelics,” RAND said.

Meanwhile, RAND researchers separately released data in January showing that nearly 10 million US adults microdosed psychedelic substances such as psilocybin, LSD or MDMA in 2025.

The results of the RAND Corporation survey indicated that microdosing—which involves ingesting a small amount of a drug to improve mood and well-being without experiencing hallucinations or a full-scale trip—is a popular practice in the US, despite the recent polling that shows limited support for broader legalization of psychedelics.

The latest results are a follow-up to an earlier report RAND issued in 2024 that made the case that “now is the time” for federal policymakers to decide how to regulate psilocybin and other psychedelic substances.

Despite federal prohibition, that report noted, since 2019 more than two dozen localities have deprioritized the enforcement of laws around psychedelics, “generally making it a low or the lowest priority for law enforcement officials.” Voters in Oregon have also legalized supervised use of psilocybin, while Colorado voters legalized not only facilitated psilocybin use but also personal possession and production of psilocybin, DMT, non-peyote mescaline and other psychedelics.

Now is the time for federal policymakers to decide what they want these supply models to look like and to start taking action,” the RAND report said. “Or, if they prefer a patchwork of state policies—possibly including those that allow for commercial supply and promotion—they can do nothing and just watch the industry grow.”

“If that happens,” it added, “it can be difficult to make major changes to supply or regulations, but that will depend on the size and political power of the industry that has taken root.”

The RAND Corporation, which is funded in large part by the US government, is a nonprofit think tank and public consulting firm that’s helped advise policymakers on various issues. In 2021, for example, it released a government-funded report concluding that past cannabis use had relatively little impact on US Army recruits’ overall performance.

Researchers at RAND also contributed to a 2018 report that found that past-month marijuana consumption decreased by a small but statistically significant amount among 8th and 10th grade students in Washington State following legalization there.

Photograph (cropped) by Workman 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 Will Public Support for Legalizing Psychedelics Follow Marijuana’s Path? appeared first on Filter.

In a letter led by Marijuana Justice, the groups tell members of the Senate Finance Committee that they should roll back the amendments that were incorporated at the behest of a different panel’s chairman over the objections of the bill sponsor, Senator Lashrecse Aird (D).

“The measure should focus on responsible regulations, not further criminalization,” the letter says.

The Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Last Prisoner Project, the Minority Cannabis Business Association, the Parabola Center for Law and Policy, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 400 and the Virginia Cannabis Association are among other signatories on the letter.

“Senator Surovell’s harmful amendments will undoubtedly inflict disproportionate harm on Black people, people of color, and low income earners while further criminalizing our communities.”

Senate Courts of Justice Committee Chairman Scott Surovell’s (D) amendments “are an attempt to unravel Virginia’s commitment to undoing the harms of the War on Drugs, despite clear finding from the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission that Black Virginians were disproportionately harmed by marijuana enforcement,” the groups write.

The amendments at issue include those that increase penalties for consumers who buy from unlicensed sources; recriminalize cannabis possession by people under 21; and make unlawful sales a class 1 misdemeanor for a first case, and punishable by mandatory jail time for a second case.

As amended, the bill would also raise the penalty for unlicensed cultivation to a felony punishable by up to five years in jail, and make it a felony to transport with intent to distribute cannabis across state lines.

The bill sponsor “explicitly identified these amendments as unfriendly and inconsistent with the purpose and intent of SB 542,” the letter continues. “Several members of the committee, both Republican and Democrat, also identified the amendments as problematic, confusing, and in direct conflict with the intent of legalization. Cannabis should not be treated the same as alcohol, including penalties.”

“We are demanding the members of the Senate Finance Committee remove these amendments in their entirety and prioritize legalizing it right,” the letter concludes. “By signing this letter, organizations are not endorsing the retail bill but opposing Senator Surovell’s harmful amendments, which will undoubtedly inflict disproportionate harm on Black people, people of color, and low income earners while further criminalizing our communities.”

“It’s particularly unsettling that as this body is moving to address resentencing for marijuana-related convictions, it is simultaneously entertaining new ways to further criminalize consumers.”

JM Pedini, development director for the advocacy group NORML and executive director for Virginia NORML, told Marijuana Moment previously that the organization is “deeply concerned by committee members’ efforts to recriminalize cannabis consumers and adopt marijuana mandatory minimums.”

“It’s particularly unsettling that as this body is moving to address resentencing for marijuana-related convictions, it is simultaneously entertaining new ways to further criminalize consumers,” Pedini said.

NORML is not a signatory on the new letter.

The advancement of the commercial sales bill as amended comes about a week after the House General Laws Committee approved a companion version of the legislation, sponsored by Delegate Paul Krizek (D).

As approved in committee, the legislation largely aligns with recommendations released in December by the legislature’s Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Cannabis Retail Market.

Since legalizing cannabis possession and home cultivation in 2021, Virginia lawmakers have worked to establish a commercial marijuana market—only to have those efforts consistently stalled under former Governor Glenn Youngkin (R), who twice vetoed measures to enact it that were sent to his desk by the legislature.

The Senate version calls for sales to start on January 1, 2027, while the House bill stipulates that adult-use cannabis sales could begin on November 1, 2026.

Here are the key details of the Virginia marijuana sales legalization legislation:

* Adults would be able to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators.

* The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry. Its board of directors would have the authority to control possession, sale, transportation, distribution, delivery and testing of marijuana.

* A tax of up to 12.625 percent would apply to the retail sale of any cannabis product. That would include a state retail and use tax of 1.125 percent on top of a new marijuana-specific tax of 8 percent. Local governments could levy an additional 3.5 percent.

* Tax revenue would be split between the costs of administering and enforcing the state’s marijuana system, a new Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, pre-kindergarten programs, substance use disorder prevention and treatment programs, and public health programs such as awareness campaigns designed to prevent drug-impaired driving and discourage underage consumption.

* Local governments could not opt out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area.

* Delivery services would be allowed.

* Serving sizes would be capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package.

* Existing medical cannabis operators could enter the adult-use market if they pay a $10 million licensing conversion fee.

* Cannabis businesses would have to establish labor peace agreements with workers.

* A legislative commission would be directed to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations. It would also investigate the possibility of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority becoming involved in marijuana regulations and enforcement.

Newly sworn-in Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) supports legalizing adult-use marijuana sales.

Another cannabis bill approved by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee a week earlier would mandate that individuals with certain convictions automatically receive resentencing hearings and have their punishments adjusted. A House companion version from Del. Rozia Henson, Jr. (D) also advanced recently.

The legislation would create a process by which people who are incarcerated or on community supervision for certain felonies involving the possession, manufacture, selling or distribution of marijuana could receive an automatic hearing to consider modification of their sentences.

The bill applies to people whose convictions or adjudications are for conduct that occurred prior to July 1, 2021, when a state law legalizing personal possession and home cultivation of marijuana went into effect.

The panel adopted a series of technical changes to the legislation prior to approving it.

Photograph by Rusty Blazenhoff 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 Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, previously received a restricted grant from DPA. Filter‘s Editorial Independence Policy applies.

The post Cut New Marijuana Penalties From Sales Bill, Coalition Urges VA Senate appeared first on Filter.

As part of appropriations legislation that President Donald Trump signed in 2025, many hemp products that were legalized during his first term under the 2018 Farm Bill will be prohibited once again, starting in November. The spending measure included separate provisions, however, to have the FDA and other relevant agencies study the cannabinoid marketplace and develop lists of cannabis components.

After the bill was signed, the FDA was given 90 days to publish: 1) a list of  “all cannabinoids known to FDA to be capable of being naturally produced” by cannabis; 2) a list of “all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant;” and 3) a list of “all other know cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids.”

The purpose of the FDA directive appears to be related to how federal law will distinguish between legal hemp products under a new, narrower definition, and marijuana.

Further, the agency was tasked with providing “additional information and specificity about the term ‘container’” with respect to hemp product THC serving sizes. In the bill, the term is defined as “the innermost wrapping, packaging, or vessel in direct contact with a final hemp-derived cannabinoid product in which the final hemp-derived cannabinoid product is enclosed for retail sale to consumers, such as a jar, bottle, bag, box, packet, can, carton, or cartridge.”

The lists and information are due by February 10. Whether the FDA makes the deadline is yet to be seen, however, as there are multiple examples of federal agencies failing to meet congressionally mandated timelines, including when it comes to marijuana-related policy issues.

The purpose of the FDA directive appears to be related to how federal law will distinguish between legal hemp products under a new, narrower definition in the recently enacted legislation and marijuana, which remains illegal under US law.

Since 2018, cannabis products have been considered legal hemp if they contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis.

However, the law that is set to take effect in November specifies that, within one year of enactment, the weight would apply to total THC—including delta-8 and other isomers. It would also include “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).”

The new definition of legal hemp would additionally ban “any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products which are marketed or sold as a final product or directly to an end consumer for personal or household use” as well as products containing cannabinoids that are synthesized or manufactured outside of the cannabis plant or not capable of being naturally produced by it.

Legal hemp products would be limited to a per-container total of 0.4 milligrams of total THC or any other cannabinoids with similar effects.

“If it remains unclear exactly which cannabinoids are outlawed, then the McConnell hemp ban will just cause more confusion and chaos.”

Hemp stakeholders are paying particularly close attention to the “container” definition for cannabinoid products.

“No matter what they come up with, it won’t solve the intermediate issue,” Adam Terry, CEO of the hemp beverage company Cantrip, told Marijuana Moment on February 5. “It may allow something like individually wrapped gummies with 0.4mg THC per piece, but the liquid used to pour into molds will still break that container rule, which under statute applies to intermediates.”

“So the gummies would be illegal to make in the US. Full-spectrum CBD needs a more comprehensive reform as the president said” in his recent executive order, Terry said, adding that a bill introduced by Representatives Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Marc Veasey (D-TX) in January is “the best proposal for that.”

Jim Higdon, the co-founder and chief communications officer at Cornbread Hemp, said he is “eager for the FDA to finally provide some guidance on hemp, which they have withheld since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill.”

“If it remains unclear exactly which cannabinoids are outlawed, then the McConnell hemp ban will just cause more confusion and chaos,” he said, referring to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who led the charge to both initially legalize hemp in 2018 and the more recent push to recriminalize hemp THC products.

The Hemp Enforcement, Modernization, and Protection (HEMP) Act represents a potential alternative to the outright THC ban that was included in the spending bill Trump signed, affirmatively allowing the sale of consumable hemp products to adults 21 and older. That includes edibles, beverages and inhalable items.

If the legislation is enacted, there would be various regulatory restrictions for the market. For example, packaging couldn’t appeal to youth and would need to be tamper-proof. It would also need to list all cannabinoids present and include a QR code linking to a certificate of analysis.

Hemp product makers would be prohibited from adding substances like alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, nicotine, melatonin or others “with effects that could interact with cannabinoids or enhance or alter their effects.”

For what it’s worth, four in five marijuana consumers say they oppose the recriminalization of hemp THC products.

There would also be manufacturing and testing requirements, and hemp businesses would need to register their facilities.

Additionally, there are provisions mandating the establishment of a total cannabinoid cap on hemp products. The US. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be charged with proposing cannabinoid limits within 60 days of enactment.

Meanwhile, alcohol retailers recently came together to encourage Congress to delay the enactment of the law Trump signed to federally recriminalize hemp-derived THC beverages and other products.

The coalition is calling on lawmakers to pass recently introduced legislation, the Hemp Planting Predictability Act, that would give the hemp industry two more years before a federal ban on THC products would take effect—which stakeholders hope will better position them to negotiate a broader regulatory compromise.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY), who is cosponsoring the proposal, appeared at a January press conference alongside farmers who are concerned about the looming federal hemp ban’s impact on their businesses.

For what it’s worth, four in five marijuana consumers say they oppose the recriminalization of hemp THC products under the spending bill Trump signed in November. However, it should be noted that that poll was conducted weeks before he issued a cannabis rescheduling order and took steps to protect access to full-spectrum CBD.

Trump signed an executive order in January directing the attorney general to complete the process of moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Part of that announcement also holds implications for the forthcoming hemp law. The president’s order urged Congress to examine updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is accessible to patients.

A further redefinition of hemp would be part of a novel proposal to allow Medicare recipients to access non-intoxicating CBD that’d be covered under the federal health care plan.

To effectuate that, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will be announcing “a model that will allow a number of CMS beneficiaries to benefit from receiving CBD under doctor recommendation at no cost,” a White House official said during a briefing from which Marijuana Moment first reported leaked details ahead of the signing event.

Trump seemed to endorse a more flexible CBD policy when in summer 2025 he shared a video calling for that specific reform while promoting the health benefits of cannabidiol, particularly for seniors.

A White House spokesperson said prior to the bill signing that Trump specifically supported the prohibition language.

Meanwhile, a separate recently filed Republican-led congressional bill would stop the implementation of the hemp ban under the enacted appropriations legislation.

Hemp businesses and industry groups have warned about the potential ramifications of the ban, but despite his support for states’ rights for cannabis and a recent social media post touting the benefits of CBD, Trump signed the underlying spending measure into law without acknowledging the hemp provisions.

GOP political operative Roger Stone said recently that Trump was effectively “forced” by Republican lawmakers to sign the spending bill with the hemp THC ban language.

However, a White House spokesperson said prior to the bill signing that Trump specifically supported the prohibition language.

The Democratic governor of Kentucky said that the hemp industry is an “important” part of the economy that deserves to be regulated at the state level—rather than federally prohibited, as Congress has moved to do.

Also, a leading veterans organization is warning congressional leaders that the newly approved blanket ban on consumable hemp products could inadvertently “slam the door shut” on critical research.

Image via New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission

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 FDA Faces Cannabinoid-Lists Deadline Ahead of Hemp Clampdown appeared first on Filter.

Nearly half of the states have enacted adult-use legalization, and the vast majority of states allow some form of medical cannabis access for qualified patients. But the push for further reform isn’t letting up in 2026, with advocates targeting states across the country—from New Hampshire to Hawaii and several in between.

President Donald Trump’s recent executive order directing the attorney general to complete the process of moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act may also bolster state-level reform efforts. That policy change wouldn’t federally legalize marijuana, but some advocates feel it could embolden more state lawmakers to supporting ending prohibition locally.

“2026 holds both great potential and great peril for cannabis policy reform.”

“President Trump’s executive order directing his attorney general to swiftly reschedule cannabis to Schedule III, coupled with the [Food and Drug Administration’s] prior analysis recommending rescheduling, should be a game changer in the states that have failed to adopt medical cannabis laws,” Karen O’Keefe, state policy director at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), told Marijuana Moment. “Federal law is on the brink of finally acknowledging cannabis has accepted medical use and that it is less risky than opioids.”

“Only 10 states lack a medical cannabis law and they all have Republican-led legislatures,” she said. “Now, their party’s standard bearer has forcefully made the case that medical cannabis can help older Americans, veterans, and be a substitute for ‘potentially lethal opioid painkillers.'”

“While I don’t expect all 10 remaining states to pass medical cannabis bills this year as a result, this could make the difference in some,” O’Keefe said. “In South Carolina, North Carolina and Kansas, at least one legislative chamber previously passed medical cannabis, only for it to not receive a floor vote in the other chamber. Federal rescheduling at the behest of President Trump could make the difference.”

At the same time, however, anti-marijuana activists are stepping up their own campaigns seeking to roll back legalization in several states, despite the fact that polling shows consistent majority, bipartisan support for replacing criminalization with regulation.

Here’s an overview of the states most likely to legalize marijuana in 2026.

Legalization for Adult Use

Florida

While it seems doubtful that Florida lawmakers will move to legalize adult-use cannabis legislatively, there’s another push to enact the reform at the ballot in 2026—spearheaded by the campaign Smart & Safe Florida.

The proposed marijuana legalization initiative is currently under review by the Florida Supreme Court after the campaign collected enough signatures to initiate that process. But the state attorney general and other opponents recently filed briefs challenging its constitutionality, arguing that it misleads voters, violates a single-subject rule for ballot measures and conflicts with federal law.

An earlier version of the initiative made the ballot in 2024, but while a majority of voters supported it, the measure failed to reach the requisite 60 percent threshold for passage of a constitutional amendment. Smart & Safe Florida made certain revisions to the new proposal, but the campaign is running against the clock to secure ballot placement amid litigation that’s already led to the invalidation of about 200,000 signatures it collected.

If advocates do make the ballot, polling continues to signal that a majority of voters would embrace it. Whether it could get to the 60 percent mark is uncertain, however. And Governor Ron DeSantis (R), who actively campaigned against the earlier version, has said he doesn’t think the state Supreme Court will allow it to proceed in any case.

The campaign has relied heavily on funding from a major marijuana company, Trulieve, whose CEO Kim Rivers is credited with lobbying the president directly to both endorse the prior Florida legalization initiative as well as federal cannabis rescheduling.

Meanwhile, a Florida senator recently filed a bill to legalize cannabis statutorily through the legislature.

Hawaii

Past attempts to legislatively enact legalization in Hawaii have fallen short, but momentum has continue to build over recent sessions, and Gov. Josh Green (D) is supportive of the reform.

House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee Chairman David Tarnas (D) also recently said that he will work to advance a bill in the 2026 session that would put the question of marijuana legalization to Hawaii voters to decide on the ballot.

House Speaker Nadine Nakamura (D) has acknowledged broad public support for the reform, but she said that some of her chamber’s members from the island of Oahu are not on board.

In February 2025, Hawaii’s Senate narrowly defeated a proposal that would have increased fivefold the amount of cannabis that a person could possess without risk of criminal charges.

A Senate bill that would have legalized marijuana for adults, meanwhile, ultimately stalled for the session. That measure, SB 1613, failed to make it out of committee by a legislative deadline.

While advocates felt there was sufficient support for the legalization proposal in the Senate, it’s widely believed that House lawmakers would have ultimately scuttled the measure, as they did in 2025 with a legalization companion bill, HB 1246.

In 2024, a Senate-passed legalization bill also fizzled out in the House.

The 2025 House vote to stall the bill came just days after approval from a pair of committees at a joint hearing. Ahead of that hearing, the panels received nearly 300 pages of testimony, including from state agencies, advocacy organizations and members of the public.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire lawmakers have introduced a slew of marijuana-related bills for the 2026 session, including proposals to legislatively enact adult-use legalization—or alternatively leave it up to voters to decide at the ballot.

A proposal from Representative Jonah Wheeler (D) stands out because it seeks to put a constitutional amendment on the state ballot that would let voters decide if they want to legalize marijuana for adults 21 and older, allowing them to “possess a modest amount of cannabis for their personal use.”

The measure comes as lawmakers have had difficulty advancing legalization bills through both chambers in recent sessions, and as Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) has threatened to veto any such bill that reaches her desk.

Other bills filed for 2026 include measures to legalize marijuana possession statutorily, protect the gun rights of medical cannabis patients and make it so medical marijuana dispensaries could operate on a for-profit basis, as is the case in the majority of states that have legalized the plant.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives gave approval to a marijuana legalization bill on the first day of the 2026 session earlier in January, but its prospects in the Senate are questionable. Even if approved there, the governor remains opposed.

“We know where it’s going to go. Let’s send a virtue signal,” the sponsor of the legalization proposal, Rep. Jared Sullivan (D), said during a House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee hearing. “Let them be the ones that are pissing off voters who care about this.”

The House has repeatedly passed similar legalization legislation in past sessions.

Pennsylvania

Bipartisan Pennsylvania lawmakers who’ve been working to enact adult-use legalization over recent sessions without success so far say Trump’s federal marijuana rescheduling order could grease the wheels in the new year.

The House passed a marijuana legalization bill in 2025, with a novel proposal to have sales take place at state-run stores, but it was promptly rejected by the GOP-controlled Senate.

A top House lawmaker said recently that legalizing cannabis is one way to create a “very important” revenue source for the state, and it’s an achievable reform if only legislators could find “the will to do it.”

Separately, a top GOP senator—Scott Martin (R), chair of the chamber’s Appropriations Committee—said in December that he was skeptical about the prospects of enacting legalization in the 2026 session, in part because of the federal classification of cannabis that’s now expected to change. Of course, marijuana would still be federally illegal under Schedule III, so it’s unclear if a simple loosening of the law would move the needle enough from his perspective.

A top aide to Pennsylvania’s governor said in September that lawmakers should stop introducing new competing legalization bills and instead focus on building consensus on the issue—while emphasizing that any measure that advances needs to contain equity provisions if the governor is going to sign it into law.

Sen. Dan Laughlin (R), for his part, said in August that the House “needs to pass the language in my bill and send it to my committee,” after which point he “can negotiate with the Senate and the governor.”

The senator separately said recently that supporters are “picking up votes” to enact the reform this session.

Polls have shown bipartisan support for legalization among voters, but the reform has consistently stalled in the legislature, due largely to GOP opposition. But not all Republican members are against the policy change—and one recently said she felt her party should seize the “opportunity to snatch” the issue from Democrats.

Medical Marijuana Legalization

Idaho

A campaign is seeking to put medical marijuana legalization on Idaho’s 2026 ballot, and it recently stepped up its efforts by recruiting paid petitioners to gather voter signatures to qualify the measure.

The Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho (NMAI) unveiled its certified initiative to put medical marijuana legalization on the ballot in October 2025. The measure would provide patients with qualifying conditions access to marijuana from a limited number of dispensaries and provide a regulatory framework for the market.

In order to make the ballot, the campaign will need to collect 70,725 valid signatures, including from at least 6 percent of registered voters in 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts.

Meanwhile, voters will see a different kind of proposal on the ballot in November: a constitutional amendment that the legislature approved to make it so only lawmakers could legalize marijuana or other controlled substances.

Legislators separately held a hearing in March 2025 to discuss a bill to enact medical cannabis legalization legislatively, but there hasn’t been meaningful action on the issue in the months since.

Kansas

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) said in 2025 that it’s time for lawmakers in the state to finally legalize medical marijuana. Whether that happens remains to be seen, but advocates see opportunities for advancing the reform.

Polling from late 2024 found that nearly three quarters (73 percent) of Kansans support legalizing medical marijuana. About six in 10 (61 percent) respondents also said they supported legalizing cannabis for broader adult use.

Legislators have nevertheless repeatedly shot down reform efforts.

The House of Representatives passed a medical cannabis bill in 2021, for example, but it stalled out in the Senate. And after numerous hearings on the issue, the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee voted in 2024 to table a limited medical marijuana pilot program bill.

A later effort to revive the medical cannabis bill on the Senate floor ultimately fell short. That measure was filed about a month after the House rejected a Democratic lawmaker’s amendment to a broader drug scheduling bill that would have removed marijuana entirely from the state’s controlled substances law, effectively legalizing it.

After the Senate committee shelved the limited medical marijuana bill, Kelly issued a statement urging the public to contact their representatives to demand that they take the legislation back up for action, but that did not happen before the end of the legislative session.

Senate President Ty Masterson (R) said in 2023 that was open to a discussion about a limited medical marijuana program. But in 2024, he appeared less welcoming to the idea, calling medical legalization a “nonstarter,” suggesting the policy change would lead to a surge in “gang activity” and put kids at risk.

In October 2024, meanwhile, a state legislative panel voted against a recommendation that lawmakers legalize medical cannabis in 2025.

The legislature’s Special Committee on Medical Marijuana, charged with consideration of possible pathways for medical cannabis reform, said legalizing medical marijuana was premature and that lawmakers should first wait to see how federal rescheduling and other reform efforts unfold.

North Carolina

The governor of North Carolina in June reiterated his support for legalizing marijuana, stressing the need to create a regulated cannabis program to mitigate the risks associated with products in the intoxicating hemp market.

“Our state’s unregulated cannabis market is the Wild West, and it is crying out for order,” Gov. Josh Stein (D) said, adding that’s the reason he signed an executive order creating a bipartisan commission to study cannabis legalization in hopes of moving the GOP-controlled legislature to act on reform.

During his time as the state’s attorney general, Stein led a separate task force under then-Gov. Roy Cooper (D) that examined racial injustice issues and ultimately recommended decriminalizing marijuana and studying broader legalization in response to racially disparate enforcement trends.

In recent sessions, multiple limited medical marijuana legalization bills advanced through the Senate, only to stall out in the House.

Meanwhile, in the House, Rep. Aisha Dew (D) filed a bill in April 2025 that would have legalized medical marijuana for patients with a variety of specified conditions, including cancer, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, PTSD, end-of-life care and other serious ailments.

The North Carolina Compassionate Care Act is considerably more detailed than a separate Democrat-led medical cannabis bill that would allow access only for patients enrolled in a “registered research study.”

Advocates had been awaiting House introduction of a comprehensive bill, especially since Senate President Phil Berger (R) said his chamber was deferring to the House to move first on medical marijuana reform this session.

South Carolina

The governor of South Carolina said in June that there’s a “compelling” case to be made for legalizing medical marijuana in the state, despite reservations from law enforcement. And a key GOP lawmaker who’s championed the reform over multiple sessions said he’s eyeing 2026 as the year to finally get the job done.

Gov. Henry McMaster (R) said he thinks supporters of the reform have a “very compelling situation,” despite the fact that “law enforcement, almost end-to-end, still have grave concerns.”

Sen. Tom Davis (R), who has sponsored several bills to legalize medical cannabis, has described his legislation as “conservative.”

An earlier version of Davis’s cannabis measure passed the Senate in 2024 but was never taken up in the House. He then filed a revised version in 2025 that also did not advance.

The office of House Speaker Murrell Smith (R) has tempered expectations about reform, saying “previous statement on the medical marijuana bill holds true,” referencing his comments on insufficient support within the GOP caucus to advance the reform.

Among the public, medical marijuana legalization enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in the state, with a 2025 poll finding that 93 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of independents back the reform.

The state Senate passed an earlier version of the legislation in 2022, but it stalled in the opposite body over a procedural hiccup.

Wisconsin

With less than a year to go until Wisconsin voters are set to elect their next governor, the majority of the current candidates are making clear that they will support efforts to legalize marijuana—in part to fund public programs such as increased access to broadband.

In 2025, Wisconsin senators took up a filed Republican-led bill that would legalize medical marijuana in the state, but it has yet to advance.

Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R) filed the legislation, and the Senate Health Committee debated the proposal at a hearing, taking testimony from patients and other advocates. Members didn’t vote on the bill, but the chair said the panel would be advancing it “fairly quickly.”

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) said in 2025 that he hopes lawmakers in the state can “find a consensus” on legislation to legalize medical marijuana. But he added that the cannabis bill filed by his Republican leadership counterpart in the Senate was “unlikely” to pass his chamber because it is “way too broad and way too wide-ranging.”

More recently, Vos said he thinks “we are not there” in terms of having enough votes to advance even a medical cannabis bill through his chamber at this point, despite characterizing himself as a supporter of patients’ access to marijuana “for almost a decade now.”

As the 2025 session was set to get underway, Felzkowski said she was “hoping to have a conversation” in the legislature about legalizing medical marijuana—though she viewed the Republican Assembly speaker as “an obstacle.”

Gov. Tony Evers (D), who supports legalizing cannabis, isn’t seeking re-election—but he said in June that if his party can take control of the legislature, the state can “finally” legalize marijuana so that residents don’t have to go to neighboring Illinois to visit its adult-use market.

The chances of advancing reform may also be bolstered by the redistricting map the governor signed in June 2024.

Separately that month, a poll from Marquette Law School found that two in three Wisconsin voters support legalizing marijuana.

The state’s Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly last summer rejected another attempt to legalize marijuana, defeating amendments to budget legislation that would have ended prohibition in the state and established new medical and adult-use cannabis programs.

Evers has routinely attempted to change that policy as part of his budget requests—and Democratic leaders have similarly pushed for reform.

Republicans in the legislature also cut the marijuana provisions from a state budget proposal in May, as they’d done in past sessions.

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.

Rollback Bids and Other Measures

Arizona

A recently filed ballot initiative in Arizona would repeal key provisions of the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law by eliminating commercial sales, while still permitting possession and personal cultivation.

The “Sensible Marijuana Policy Act for Arizona” is being spearheaded by Sean Noble, president of the political strategy firm American Encore.

Possession and home cultivation would remain lawful if voters chose to enact the initiative—and Arizona’s medical marijuana program would remain intact—but the commercial market for adult-use cannabis that’s evolved since voters approved a legalization measure in 2020 would be quashed.

In order to make the ballot, the campaign will need to collect 255,949 valid signatures by July 2. If the proposal goes to voters and is approved, it would take effect in January 2028.

It remains to be seen if there will be an appetite for repeal among voters, as 60 percent of the electorate approved legalization at the ballot in 2020.

What’s more a 2025 poll found majority support for medical cannabis legalization (86 percent), adult-use legalization (69 percent) and banking reform (78 percent).

Maine

Maine officials in December cleared prohibitionist activists to begin collecting signatures for a proposed ballot initiative that would roll back the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law. The measure, if approved, would also revise the regulatory structure of the medical cannabis program by imposing product testing requirements.

The proposal—titled “An Act to Amend the Cannabis Legalization Act and the Maine Medical Use of Cannabis Act”—is a revised version of a marijuana initiative filed in September that was backed by a Republican state senator and a former top staffer to then-Gov. Paul LePage (R), a staunch prohibitionist.

The latest proposal, petitions for which were approved by the secretary of state’s office, would remove and amend multiple sections of current state statute—aimed at effectively repealing the legalization of adult-use marijuana sales that voters approved in 2016.

Possession of up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis by adults 21 and older would remain legal under the proposal, but a section of the law permitting home cultivation would be repealed. Medical marijuana sales and home cultivation would remain legal.

Activists must submit at least 67,682 valid voter signatures by February 2 in order to qualify for next year’s ballot. If approved by voters, the initiative would take effect on January 1, 2028.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts officials in December announced that a campaign behind an initiative to roll back the state’s marijuana legalization law collected enough valid signatures to send the measure to lawmakers for consideration, before it potentially gets put in front of voters to decide on at the ballot.

The campaign had already expressed confidence that it secured enough signatures to advance. Lawmakers received the proposal at the start of the 2026 session on January 7, and have until May 5 to act on it. If they choose not to enact it legislatively, the campaign would need to go through another round of petitioning and get at least 12,429 certified signatures by July 1 to make the November ballot.

There’s been controversy surrounding the prohibitionist coalition’s signature collection tactics, with allegations that petitioners working on behalf of the campaign shared misleading information about what the measure would accomplish—with claims that paid petitioners have used fake cover letters for other ballot measures on issues like affordable housing and same-day voter registration.

The state attorney general’s office has confirmed it’s received complaints to that end. And an association of state marijuana businesses in December urged voters to report to local officials if they observe any instances of “fraudulent message” or other deceitful petitioning tactics. The campaign has denied the allegations.

The State Ballot Law Commission has scheduled a hearing to consider the complaints of alleged fraud for this month.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s (D) office—which cleared the campaign for signature gathering in September—has stressed to voters the importance of reading their summary, which is required to go at the top of the signature form, before signing any petitions.

Meanwhile, the head of Massachusetts’s marijuana regulatory agency recently suggested that the measure to effectively recriminalize adult-use cannabis sales could imperil tax revenue that’s being used to support substance use disorder treatment efforts and other public programs.

Whether the cannabis measures make the cut is yet to be seen. Voters approved legalization at the ballot in 2016, with sales launching two years later. And the past decade has seen the market evolve and expand. As of August, Massachusetts officials reported more than $8 billion in adult-use marijuana sales.

Massachusetts lawmakers recently assembled a bicameral conference committee to reach a deal on a bill that would double the legal marijuana possession limit for adults and revise the regulatory framework for the state’s adult-use cannabis market.

Ohio

On the other side of the debate, Ohio activists recently said that they’ve met an initial signature requirement to launch a campaign aimed at repealing key components of a bill the governor signed to scale back the state’s voter-approved marijuana law and ban the sale of consumable hemp products outside of licensed cannabis dispensaries.

2026 Could Be a Big Year for Marijuana

“2026 marks a potential inflection point for the cannabis reform movement,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, told Marijuana Moment. “We faced significant headwinds in 2025, with lawmakers in several states rolling back voter-initiated cannabis reforms, and we face additional repeal efforts in 2026.”

“How successfully we respond to these challenges will determine the degree to which our movement continues to move forward,” he said. “The public remains committed to adult-use legalization and medical cannabis access, and it is our responsibility to galvanize this public opinion and ensure that it prevails in state houses and at the ballot box.”

O’Keefe of MPP said “2026 holds both great potential and great peril for cannabis policy reform.”

“For the first time, ballot initiatives may quality to reinstate cannabis prohibition. Meanwhile, two of the most populous states in the country—one purple and one red—could legalize cannabis for adults,” she said. “And we are on the cusp of federal rescheduling at the direction of a Republican president, which could provide a boost in the states that continue to prohibit medical cannabis.”

“We are also seeing continued attempts to whittle away at cannabis freedoms, along with proposals to reduce the numbers of lives ruined over cannabis that already have legalization,” O’Keefe said.

What 2026 ultimately brings in the way of marijuana reform is yet to be seen. But if 2025 is any indicator—with a sometimes dizzying series of policy developments that advocates have worked to navigate—it seems likely that the cannabis community is looking at another rollercoaster.

Photograph (cropped) by Abdulvahap Demir via Pexels

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 Which States Could Legalize Marijuana in 2026? appeared first on Filter.

Moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act would not federally legalize marijuana, but it would have significant policy implications. While much of the industry and public attention has focused on how the reform would affect tax and research issues, the move could have an outsized impact on local policy in the nation’s capital.

According to congressional analysts and other experts, a Schedule III reclassification would mean that DC—which for over a decade has been barred from using its appropriated funds to allow marijuana sales, despite voter approval of of a noncommercial legalization initiative and local elected officials’ support for adding retail sales—could finally create a regulated adult-use market.

In a report published in 2024, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) said that while federal cannabis prohibition would still be the law of the land, it “would permit the District government, as a matter of local law, to authorize the commercial sale of recreational marijuana, establish market regulations, and levy marijuana taxes, among other policy options.”

The reason that DC is restricted from enacting that regulatory reform—even as nearly half of the states have established adult-use cannabis markets—is because of a congressional spending bill rider championed by prohibitionist Representative Andy Harris (D-MD), which deprives the District of the ability to expend its appropriated dollars to set up such a system.

There is a complication; the provision stipulates that DC can’t use funds to legalize or reduce penalties for “any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.” But that term isn’t clearly defined.

The rider specifically states that DC can’t use its own local funds to “legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any Schedule I substance.” Moving marijuana to Schedule III would mean that part of the rider would no longer be applicable to cannabis.

There is a complication, however, because the congressional provision that’s been annually renewed since 2014 also stipulates that the District of Columbia can’t use funds to legalize or reduce penalties for “any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.”

But that term isn’t clearly defined in the rider, or anywhere else in federal law.

“The continued prohibition on legalization of tetrahydrocannabinols derivatives by the District could lead to interpretive questions about whether a particular substance is legally marijuana, hemp, a tetrahydrocannabinols derivative, or something else,” the 2024 CRS report said.

“Certain synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols remain illegal for recreational use under DC law, but it is not clear whether these synthetic substances would constitute derivatives,” it continued. “In addition, although federal law defines marijuana and hemp to be exclusive of each other, a substance could conceivably be both a tetrahydrocannabinols derivative and marijuana or hemp as a matter of law.”

One of the nation’s top cannabis advocacy groups, NORML, also posted an analysis in 2024 arguing that rescheduling could “open a door” for DC to finally legalize adult-use marijuana sales. The group suggested that the term tetrahydrocannabinols derivative “is unlikely to be interpreted by a court as inclusive of marijuana generally.”

In March 2025, the White House claimed that marijuana reform in DC is an example of a “failed” policy that “opened the door to disorder.”

In 2021, the Government Accountability Office separately responded to a congressional inquiry by affirming that, even with the DC marijuana sales ban in place, local lawmakers there can still take steps to prepare for the potential creational of a regulated adult-use market.

Medical cannabis sales are already legal in DC.

In March 2025, the White House claimed that marijuana reform in DC is an example of a “failed” policy that “opened the door to disorder.”

In September, the Trump administration asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit from a DC hemp business challenging the federal government over the congressional budget restriction preventing cannabis sales.

About three months after Capitol Hemp filed the suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department submitted a motion requesting dismissal of the case, largely on procedural grounds. The court agreed the next month.

Photograph (cropped) by Terrance Barksdail via Pexels

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 Rescheduling Could Finally Allow Adult-Use Sales in DC appeared first on Filter.

What the president did through executive action was direct the attorney general to expeditiously complete the process of moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, in accordance with a proposed rule initiated under the Biden administration. Short of that sign-off, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug.

“At the time the executive order was issued, the agencies had not taken final action on the proposed rescheduling, and it remains to be seen whether and when they will do so,” the Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in an analysis published December 22. “It remains to be seen whether DOJ will take final action to reschedule marijuana and, if so, when and how the agency will act.”

So far, the DOJ has been silent on potential next steps. Attorney General Pam Bondi did not appear at Trump’s signing ceremony for the cannabis executive order. And DOJ has not responded to repeated requests for comment from Marijuana Moment.

That’s not necessarily indicative of resistance to the president’s directive, especially considering that the department is dealing with unrelated controversies such as the disclosure of files associated with Jeffrey Epstein. But without DOJ input on the rescheduling issue since Trump signed the order, questions have arisen as to how the order will be executed and how long the process will take.

“DOJ could potentially finalize the May 2024 proposed rule or issue a new proposed rule,” CRS said in the new report. The president “cannot directly change the status of marijuana under federal controlled substances law but can direct executive agencies to consider rescheduling marijuana, as President Trump did in the December 2025 executive order.”

The tax parity impact of moving marijuana to Schedule III is one of the more significant reasons industry stakeholders have been pushing for the incremental reform.

As in past reports on rescheduling, the independent agency’s analysis notes that the classification of cannabis can be altered by either the executive branch or Congress.

“If Congress seeks to change the legal status of marijuana, it has broad authority to do so before or after [the Drug Enforcement Administration] makes any final scheduling decision,” CRS said, adding that there have been attempts in recent sessions to pass legislation to reschedule or legalize marijuana altogether.

Either reform “could raise additional legal questions,” however, it said. For example, the Food and Drug Administration currently regulates certain cannabinoid-based prescription drugs, so it’s possible that legislators may work to create a broader regulatory framework for marijuana.

“While most recent proposals would relax federal regulation of marijuana, Congress could also seek to impose more stringent controls,” the report continued, pointing to GOP-led bills to continue to prevent cannabis businesses from taking federal tax deductions even if the plant is rescheduled.

The tax parity impact of moving marijuana to Schedule III is one of the more significant reasons industry stakeholders have been pushing for the incremental reform, even if it doesn’t immediately legalize cannabis. Beyond that, a Schedule III designation would symbolically recognize the plant’s medical value and loosen certain research restrictions tied to Schedule I drugs.

Meanwhile, a coalition of Republican state attorneys general are criticizing Trump’s decision, saying cannabis is “properly” classified as a Schedule I drug with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

Earlier in December, groups of House and Senate Republican lawmakers also sent letters urging Trump not to reschedule cannabis. Trump, however, dismissed those concerns—pointing out that an overwhelming majority of the country supports the reform and that cannabis can help people who are suffering from serious health issues, including his personal friends.

Image (cropped) via Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission

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 Whether DOJ Reschedules Marijuana “Remains to Be Seen,” Per CRS Report appeared first on Filter.