Hemp derivatives with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill that President Donald Trump signed during his first term in office. But in late 2025, the president signed new legislation containing provisions that will redefine hemp to make it so only products with 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will remain legal after November 12.

Leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee recently released the text of a continuing resolution to extend funding for federal agencies through December 11, past the end of the current fiscal year on September 30. Included in the legislation are provisions that will also delay the planned prohibition on most hemp products until December 11—although there is a carve-out that will allow the immediate recriminalization on November 12 of synthetic cannabinoids “that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant.”

While the White House supports the delayed ban on THC products, Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) and several GOP cosponsors filed an amendment that seeks to strip those hemp provisions out of the bill and keep the planned prohibition on schedule.

“‘Closing the loophole’ is prohibition.”

Now, groups on both sides of the issue are weighing in as the Senate seeks to wrap up its business for the August recess.

“Allowing this deadline to proceed without a comprehensive regulatory framework will not result in improved public safety,” said a letter from Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, National Association of Convenience Stores and American Beverage Licensees. “It will produce the opposite: a thriving illicit market, weakened state enforcement, economic disruption for more than one million American workers, and less safety for the very consumers Congress is committed to protecting.”

Supporters of the forthcoming ban have said it will close a “loophole” in the prior Farm Bill, but the new letter, which is also signed by the Hemp Beverage Alliance, Coalition for Adult Beverage Alternatives, Beverage Wholesalers for Responsible Regulation and Beverage Alcohol Merchants Coalition, says that “‘Closing the loophole’ is prohibition.”

“Prohibition would be a failure and risk to Consumer Health & Safety. The November 12 deadline does not create a safer, better-regulated hemp market. It creates no legal market at all, while creating an illicit market,” it says. “This is not regulation. This is prohibition.”

“The historical record is consistent: prohibition does not eliminate consumer access, improve product safety, or reduce youth exposure. Bad actors will not disappear when the legal market closes, and many consumers will have no regulated alternative. The choice before Congress is not between a ‘loophole’ and safety—It is between regulation and prohibition. We urge Congress to choose regulation.”

Meanwhile, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, representing nearly 1.4 million veterans, also sent a letter urging hemp regulation over a ban, saying that THC products “could offer a real alternative to the heavy prescription drugs so many of our veterans are given for PTSD, anxiety, pain, and sleep problems.”

“Every day, doctors hand out strong sedatives and psychoactive meds to help veterans cope. They work for some, but too many end up hooked, numb, or dealing with brutal side effects,” the letter said. “We’ve all watched good men and women get trapped in a cycle of pills that dull the pain but don’t fix the problem.”

“A blanket ban on hemp cannabinoids would make it nearly impossible for researchers and VA hospitals to study these compounds legally.”

“It’s time to look harder at safer options. Early research on certain hemp compounds shows promise for managing symptoms and reducing physical pain without the same addiction risks … This isn’t proof of a miracle cure, just clear signs we should keep studying.”

“But sweeping moves to ‘close the hemp loophole’ could slam that door shut,” VFW wrote. “A blanket ban on hemp cannabinoids would make it nearly impossible for researchers and VA hospitals to study these compounds legally. It would also hurt veteran-owned small businesses already playing by the rules. Critically, it would drive veterans looking for relief straight to black-market junk, making things riskier, not safer.”

On the other side of the debate, however, the National Sheriffs’ Association sent a letter urging lawmakers to let the ban on hemp THC products take effect as scheduled.

“This loophole was never intended to create a parallel, unregulated marketplace for intoxicating products, and it should be allowed to close rather than be renewed,” it said. “These products are marketed and sold without meaningful safeguards. Many intoxicating hemp products are available in gas stations, convenience stores, vape shops, and online with limited or no age verification, inconsistent product testing, and no standardized potency limits. Consumers often have no assurance regarding product safety or contaminants.”

The law enforcement letter also argues that hemp products are “easily accessible to minors,” saying that “sheriffs across the country continue to report concerns about these products finding their way into schools and communities.”

“Closing this loophole would not eliminate legal access to cannabis products where states have chosen to regulate them, it would simply end an unregulated shadow market that undermines public health and circumvents the very state-level frameworks that were designed to protect consumers,” the sheriffs’ letter said. We urge you to let this hemp provision expire and to support comprehensive regulation of intoxicating cannabinoid products.”

Earlier in the week, a bipartisan coalition of 35 state and territory attorneys general sent a letter calling on Congress not to reverse the hemp THC product ban, saying that lawmakers’ move to enact the forthcoming prohibition “protected consumers, provided much-needed regulatory clarity, and preserved legitimate industrial, agricultural, and nonintoxicating hemp markets.”

A number of lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have filed or are circulating a bills to prevent the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC drinks and other products.

In June, the House of Representatives passed its own version of a continuing resolution to keep federal agencies funded into December, but it did not have any provisions to alter the planned hemp product ban. As such, if the Senate passes its new provision it would then still need approval by the other chamber before being sent to the president.

Meanwhile, a number of lawmakers from both chambers and both parties have filed or are circulating a bills to prevent the scheduled federal recriminalization of hemp THC drinks and other products later in 2026. Until now, none of those proposals have gained traction with congressional leaders.

For example, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is circulating legislation that would delay a planned federal ban on hemp THC products and institute some regulations—including packaging requirements, testing rules and age limits.

Separately, Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), filed a lengthier proposal to prevent the federal recriminalization of hemp THC products and put in place a number of regulations for manufacturing, labeling, sales and taxation of hemp-derived products, including an age limit of 21.

A press release from the congressman’s office claimed that the White House supports the legislation, which is cosponsored by Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), but the administration has not specifically endorsed it despite generally calling for hemp regulations and backing a prior similar amendment filed by Barr.

Trump and White House officials have in recent weeks repeatedly pressed Congress to delay, alter or reverse the ban.

In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in June, for example, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said the Trump administration wants lawmakers to “ensure the fair treatment of hemp products”—specifically citing Barr’s earlier amendment to keep many hemp products legal while adding regulations and taxes.

In April, the president urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products.

The administration “welcomes the opportunity to work with the Congress to, at a minimum, update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products,” OMB separately said in June, “while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.”

Also in April, the president himself urged congressional lawmakers to again redefine hemp to avoid recriminalization of full-spectrum CBD products.

“I am calling on Congress to update the Law to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on, and that help them, while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose Health risks,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

“We must get this done RIGHT and FAST, especially for those who saw that CBD helps them,” he said. “Plus, I am told it will also help our GREAT FARMERS, who we love, and will always be there for.”

Industry advocates say that the law as enacted last year not only threatens to prohibit intoxicating and synthetic cannabinoid products but also stands to remove popular full-spectrum CBD products that many Americans use therapeutically from the market.

“ONE in FIVE adults used it in the past year, and many say it improved their chronic pain enormously,” the president said in his social media post, adding that hemp-derived CBD “has made a HUGE difference for so many people.”

He also referenced an initiative the administration launched in April to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients. The program being implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) focuses largely on CBD but also allows products to have up to 3 milligrams of total THC per serving. A federal judge granted the government’s motion to dismiss marijuana legalization opponents’ lawsuit challenging the initiative, but that is being appealed.

“In December, I signed a very important Executive Order calling for Research and Innovation for Hemp-derived CBD,” Trump said. “Our wonderful Dr. Mehmet Oz moved fast to follow the directive in the Executive Order, and launched a model for some Seniors earlier this month. But more must be done!”

“Please get it done, and SOON,” the president said in reference to a congressional fix for the broad recriminalization set to take effect in November. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America issued praise for Barr’s bipartisan hemp regulation bill, but said the measure’s tax provisions require “continued discussion.”

Hemp policy observers expect to see a Senate companion bill to Barr’s proposal filed soon, likely from Sens. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

Sheehy recently cited hemp legislation as an area where Republicans and Democrats can work together in an otherwise “hyperpartisan time.”

A new poll from NuggMD found that most cannabis consumers say that state-level hemp product bans that lawmakers are enacting in line with the planned federal recriminalization move are causing them to shift their purchases toward licensed marijuana businesses.

The National Restaurant Association recently sent a letter urging congressional leaders to delay the federal recriminalization of hemp THC beverages and replace it with a regulatory framework that “ensures consumer safety while meeting growing market demand” for the products as an alternative to alcohol.

Major retailer Target, meanwhile, recently moved to expand its sales of hemp THC drinks into more states.

Photograph by UK College of Agriculture, Food & Environment 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 Groups Press Congress Over Impending Hemp Ban appeared first on Filter.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve in the role on a permanent basis, answered senators’ written questions as part of the confirmation process—including queries about cannabis.

Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Broader rescheduling of cannabis, including for adult nonmedical use, is being considered through a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing that wrapped up testimony earlier in July.

Blanche dodged the question, saying he “will give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including DEA personnel.”

Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) asked why the department had “forgone the traditional notice-and-comment period and an administrative hearing required by the CSA for rescheduling” before adopting the partial rescheduling of marijuana for medical use.

“The Department of Justice delivered on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options,” Blanche wrote. “This rescheduling action allows for research on the safety and efficacy of this substance, ultimately providing patients with better care and doctors with more reliable information.”

When pressed about whether he supports further rescheduling of cannabis for adult use or reducing current penalties for possession and sales, Blanche dodged the question, saying he “will give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including DEA personnel,” if confirmed as attorney general.

Padilla also pressed the acting attorney general on whether he supports a Trump DOJ move directing federal prosecutors to begin enforcing laws against simple cannabis possession in places like national parks.

“As a general matter, I think it is important to empower our US Attorneys to enforce all laws as appropriate and in accordance with relevant facts and law to keep the American public safe,” Blanche replied, indicating he does not oppose prosecuting people in federal court for possessing marijuana in national parks.

Blanche was also asked about whether relief from the 280E tax penalty under rescheduling applies to businesses that hold licenses for both medical and adult-use cannabis.

“Section 280e of the Internal Revenue Code applies to businesses engaged in trafficking in controlled substances in schedule I or II,” he said, without directly answering Padilla’s question about how relief would apply to dual-licensed businesses if adult-use marijuana remains in Schedule I following the ongoing administrative hearing process.

The latest tracking poll shows cannabis consumers’ support for the Trump administration’s actions on the issue has declined—as most don’t believe rescheduling will be completed this year.

Blanche’s refusal to commit to broader rescheduling comes as the latest Marijuana Moment/NuggMD quarterly tracking poll shows cannabis consumers’ support for the Trump administration’s actions on the issue has declined in the months since the DOJ first announced it was moving forward with rescheduling—as most don’t believe it will be completed this year.

Blanche was also pressed about cannabis issues in 2025 during his confirmation process to become deputy attorney general. He said in response to a written question about marijuana rescheduling from Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) that he would “give the matter careful consideration after conferring with all relevant stakeholders, including [Drug Enforcement Administration] personnel.”

When asked about aligning federal and state marijuana laws, he said that “coordination between federal and state authorities is critically important,” but that he had “not had the opportunity to study this particular issue.”

“If confirmed, I will consult with the necessary stakeholders and give this matter careful consideration,” he said.

Welch also asked about Obama-era enforcement guidance that directed prosecutors to generally not interfere with state cannabis laws, which was rescinded during the first Trump administration.

“I have not had occasion to study this particular issue,” Blanche replied. “If confirmed … I think it is important to empower our US Attorneys, who we trust to follow the law and to follow Department rules.”

Meanwhile, the DEA, which has been charged with defending the rescheduling proposal during the administrative hearing, has focused testimony on the medical benefits of cannabis and its relative safety compared to alcohol and other substances—despite excluding reform supporters from participating in the proceedings.

The cannabis rescheduling move is also being challenged in court through a number of lawsuits from the drug-testing industry, a pharmaceutical corporation, legalization opponents and others.

In May, the House Appropriations Committee voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment, however, that they don’t expect the legislative effort to block rescheduling to succeed.

Photograph by Ndispensable via Unsplash

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 Trump AG Pick Dodges Question on Full Marijuana Rescheduling appeared first on Filter.

That shows how local governments that have refused to get on board with California’s legalization law, which voters approved 10 years ago, “benefit” the illicit market, the state’s top cannabis regulator told State Affairs, which obtained and first reported on the data.

The DCC has repeatedly argued that the current system of patchwork regulations—where localities are able to opt in or opt out of allowing certain types of licensed marijuana businesses from operating in their area—is a key factor keeping the state’s unregulated cannabis trade alive.

It creates barriers to access for adult consumers, while allowing unlicensed operators to function in a policy vacuum. The state established the Unified Cannabis Enforcement Taskforce (UCETF) in 2022 to coordinate multi-agency enforcement action against illicit-market growers, manufacturers and sellers.

The DCC Director said that “cannabis is used in every community, regardless of local rules,” and while localities can ban licensed shops, “they cannot eliminate consumer demand.”

According to data on enforcement activity spanning October 2022 to August 2025, the DCC found that 96.6 percent of unregulated marijuana seized by UCETF in unincorporated areas of the state was discovered in eight counties—almost all of which maintain local bans on licensed marijuana cultivators.

DCC Director Clint Kellum said that “cannabis is used in every community, regardless of local rules,” and while localities can ban licensed shops, “they cannot eliminate consumer demand.”

“When local governments deny consumers access to licensed retailers, the illicit market and organized crime benefit, while public health and safety is harmed,” he told State Affairs.

Kellum added that the department “will continue applying pressure to illegal operators, particularly when the activity involves organized crime, unlawful transportation and distribution, illegal manufacturing, diversion, threats to the licensed market, environmental harm, labor exploitation or conduct that crosses jurisdictional lines.”

DCC released the county-level data days after Governor Gavin Newsom (D) touted the state’s work seizing 63,000 pounds of unregulated cannabis valued at more than $104 million, while destroying more than 89,000 cannabis plants, from April to June.

All told, the multi-agency task force has seized over 841,000 pounds (or 420 tons, as the governor’s office went out of its way to note in a press release) since its establishment four years ago.

“Disrupting the illegal cannabis market is about more than seizing unlicensed products—it’s about taking on criminal networks, removing illegal firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and stopping activity that threatens public safety,” the governor said. “Through strong multiagency collaboration, California is making clear: if you threaten our communities, we will act.”

California’s two major-party general election gubernatorial candidates both support legalization.

Newsom is term-limited, but California’s two major-party general election gubernatorial candidates both support legalization. Republican Steve Hilton, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump, recently told Marijuana Moment that taxes and regulations on cannabis are “too high.”

Not all California Republicans are on board with the reform, however. The vice chair of the state Senate Budget Committee has floated the idea of putting a new initiative on the state ballot to “reverse” Proposition 64, for example, arguing that voters were misled and voicing concerns about the health impacts of marijuana use.

“We have seen significant negative consequences of this legalization, both here as well as in other states,” said the senator, speaking at a hearing at which lawmakers approved a bill to legalize marijuana dispensary drive-thru windows in California.

Meanwhile Democratic gubernatorial contender Xavier Becerra, who previously served in Congress and as California’s attorney general, facilitated a scientific review process during his time as health and human services secretary under the Biden administration, which ultimately resulted in a recommendation to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

California regulators recently adopted emergency rules changes for the state’s marijuana licensing process that are intended to make it easier for businesses to qualify for benefits in line with the Trump administration’s recent decision to move ahead with federally rescheduling medical cannabis. They also launched a new AI tool to help businesses identify marijuana-product packaging that may appeal to kids in violation of state rules.

California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects.

Separately, Newsom recently took credit for helping to lead the push for the state to legalize marijuana and discussed his own limited experience with using cannabis.

In October, however, the governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.”

Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics. In September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products.

Separately, the state attorney general has said Indigenous tribes cannot independently engage in marijuana commerce with licensed cannabis businesses without first obtaining their own commercial license from state officials.

California officials recently awarded nearly $30 million in grants for marijuana-focused academic research projects.

Photograph by CRYSTALWEED cannabis via Unsplash

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 In CA, 97 Percent of Seized Marijuana Is From Counties That Ban Growing appeared first on Filter.

Lt. Brandy A. Molinar of the Virginia State Police sent an internal email to law enforcement colleagues saying that “as of July 1, 2026, there are no Code of Virginia violations related to marijuana” and directing that any cannabis-related enforcement actions taken since the start of the month be reported to her.

The message, first reported by Virginia Scope, said that state officials could coordinate with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on any cases involving more than 5 pounds of marijuana.

Del. Wren M. Williams (R), who voted against legalization legislation this session, noted the police email in several social media posts, criticizing Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Delegates and Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) for allegedly “creating a one-year gap before new laws take effect.”

The dispute centers on when sections of the bill repealing prior marijuana penalties and replacing them with a new regulatory framework take effect. The budget legislation containing the overall cannabis reform repeals existing code criminalizing distribution and possession with intent to distribute as well as possession by people under the age of 21 without clearly specifying the effective dates for those changes.

Meanwhile, the new regulatory framework doesn’t come online until July 1, 2027—opening the door to questions about whether the state effectively legalized large-scale distribution and underage possession for a period of a year when the budget took effect at the beginning of July 2026.

The Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys (VACA) said that the way the legislation was drafted “invites an argument” about what cannabis laws are now in force, and Nate Green, the commonwealth’s attorney for Williamsburg-James City and a former VACA president, said legislative staff “created a word problem, and word problems go against prosecutors.”

“If it’s unclear, we lose. We only get to win when the words are clear,” Green said, adding that he though lawmakers might need to convene a special session to address the issue. “We are worried about it. We are trying to look at the language thoroughly and comprehensively to determine the best path forward.”

State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz, for his part, said in a social media post on July 8 that the agency would “continue to enforce existing laws, in line with the code of Virginia.”

Del. Paul Krizek (D), who sponsored the House version of standalone legislation to legalize adult-use marijuana sales this session that was later adopted into the enacted budget, said on July 9 that “the budget language passed by the General Assembly did not legalize cannabis possession by minors, did not legalize the distribution of cannabis to minors and did not eliminate Virginia’s criminal penalties protecting young people.”

“Virginia law continues to prohibit underage possession and unlawful distribution of cannabis,” he said. “The enactment clauses included in the budget did not change those protections.”

Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D), who led the push to legalize cannabis sales in the Senate this session, added that “unfortunately, misinformation spreads quickly, particularly when it involves complex legislation.”

“Virginians deserve an honest conversation about cannabis policy based on the facts and what the law actually says—not on inaccurate interpretation based on political opinion,” she stated. “The individuals peddling these falsehoods have never supported adult-use cannabis in our commonwealth, have never supported establishing a regulated marketplace that would address the harms of decades of cannabis prohibition and stood by while the illicit market flourished in our communities for years.”

Former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) criticized what he called “reckless governing” on the part of Democrats.

“Because far left Democrats chose to legislate drug policy through a budget bill instead of a real bill with real hearings, prosecutors across this Commonwealth are now uncertain whether they can even enforce the law against selling marijuana to a minor,” he stated. “I am calling on Governor Spanberger and the General Assembly to: immediately acknowledge this drafting failure and call a special session without delay to close this gap and restore certainty that distributing marijuana to a minor remains a crime in Virginia.”

Former Del. Tim Anderson (R) claimed in a social media post that “selling marijuana to kids is now legal thanks to the nitwits in Richmond who have no idea what they are doing,” referring to the state capital where the legislature meets.

The Virginia Code Commission on July 8 updated the state’s website that list statutes to say that current penalties will stay in effect until July 1, 2027.

Del. Marcus Simon (D), who chairs the Code Commission, said if the language in the bill was followed as written, “an absurd result would have happened.”

“The Division of Legislative Services recommended to the Code Commission that this was an obvious error and so we used our authority to correct this,” he told Cardinal News, saying that the edits are “a fairly routine thing.”

In late June, the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates adopted the governor’s proposed amendments to budget legislation containing provisions to legalize adult-use cannabis sales that they had given initial approval to previously. Because lawmakers accepted her suggested changes in full, the measure was immediately formally enacted into law and didn’t require any further action from the governor.

Spanberger in May vetoed a previous measure to legalize adult-use cannabis sales after lawmakers rejected her proposed amendments to the plan. She later negotiated with Aird and Krizek, who sponsored the earlier measure, on a compromise deal that was included in the budget legislation that passed.

The new plan differs significantly in several ways from the earlier legislation.

For example, it sets the launch date for recreational marijuana sales at July 1, 2027, which is what Spanberger proposed in contrast to the January 1 date in what lawmakers had passed.

It also sets the legal public marijuana possession and per-transaction purchase limit at 2 ounces, an increase from the current legal limit of 1 ounce. The legislation lawmakers passed earlier in 2026 would have allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces.

The bill also cedes to Spanberger on language to increase a marijuana excise tax from 6 percent to 8 percent after two years of legal sales.

By way of compromise, the new agreement will make public consumption of marijuana punishable by a civil penalty of $250—a significant increase from the $25 in current law but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor the governor sought in her proposed changes to the previous bill.

Lawmakers passed the initial cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto.

Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments by saying the suggested changes came from states with adult-use markets.

Spanberger said in June that she was having “really productive” and “incredible” conversations with lawmakers about crafting a compromise approach to legalizing adult-use cannabis sales, and Marijuana Moment previously reported on the ongoing talks.

The governor, meanwhile, has tried to publicly explain her veto—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast.

A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales.

The governor recently acknowledged in a separate interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said.

Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets.

A spokesperson for Spanberger declined to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment, however.

The governor separately sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate.

Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis.

Marijuana regulators, including the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority (CCA), are conducting a survey to gather input from the public and stakeholders as they work to implement the state’s newly enacted law legalizing recreational cannabis sales.

Here are the key details of the new cannabis plan in the budget and how it compares to legislation that Spanberger vetoed—SB 542 and HB 642—as well as her previously proposed amendments to those measures:

* Adults will be able to purchase up to 2 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an  equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That will represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. Lawmakers previously proposed setting the amount at 2.5 ounces and the governor only wanted 2 ounces.

* Legal sales can begin on July 1, 2027. Lawmakers previously set the date for January 1, 2027, but the governor wanted it pushed back to July 1.

* There will be an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, and municipalities will be allowed to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. Starting on July 1, 2029, the state excise tax will increase to 8 percent, in line with the governor’s previously proposed amendments.

* Revenue will be distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, early childhood education, the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services and public health initiatives. The earlier measure passed by lawmakers would have allocated specific percentages to each, but the new language doesn’t specify what portion of revenue will go to each program. The governor, in her amendments, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” Her amendment also sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund.

* The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority will oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry, and will also take on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The body will be governed by a five-member board of directors appointed by the governor, whereas the bill previously passed by lawmakers contemplated a seven-member body with four appointed by the governor, two appointed by the speaker of the House and one appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.

* The definition of what constitutes a legal hemp product will be narrowed by removing a provision from current law that allows those containing more than 2 milligrams of total THC per package if they also have a ratio of CBD to THC that is 25:1 or more.

* Up to 350 retail marijuana stores will be allowed to be licensed to operate across the state, the same number that lawmakers had approved and greater than the 200 the governor had proposed.

* Local governments will not be able to opt of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area.

* Delivery services will be allowed.

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

* Public use of marijuana will be a civil violation punishable by a $250 fine. That is 10 times more than the $25 fine under current law, but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor crime the governor had proposed. Possession of cannabis by people under the age of 21 will be punishable by a $25 fine and mandatory participation in a substance use treatment or education program or both. The governor had suggested treating underage possession as a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of driver’s licenses for at least six months.

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

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

* A legislative commission will 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. That provision was also included in the earlier legislation lawmakers passed but was suggested for deletion by the governor.

Image (cropped) via New York State Office of Cannabis Management

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 Virginia State Law Appears to Have No Marijuana Penalties for the Next Year appeared first on Filter.

While the proceedings were not livestreamed to the public in line with requests from Marijuana Moment, a congressman and others, Marijuana Moment spoke to several people who were in the room to get a sense of how the testimony is going.

According to those sources, DEA lawyer James J Schwartz began by noting that the government is formally the proponent of the proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III—noting that the hearing is “not about recreational use of marijuana,” and is about “regulation, not legalization.”

“All controlled substances are dangerous. However, controlled substances must be evaluated by risks they pose, balanced by medical benefits they provide.”

“The government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest marijuana is not dangerous. All controlled substances are dangerous,” he said. “However, controlled substances must be evaluated by risks they pose, balanced by medical benefits they provide.”

Dominic Chiapperino, who serves as director of the controlled substance staff with the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and is one of the DEA’s two witnesses, provided testimony about how federal health officials formed their recommendation in support of rescheduling cannabis.

They used a new two-part test that reform opponents have argued improperly departs from an earlier analysis—though the DEA lawyer said the hearing is not about that dispute—and Chiapperino said the new test is now considered “every time” a new analysis on a drug is undertaken.

The FDA official said the agency compared marijuana to alcohol, opioids and other substances when conducting its scheduling analysis, finding that day-to-day harms for marijuana were generally lower than all or most of those comparators.

Cannabis is tied to fewer overdose deaths than comparator substances, Chiapperino said, adding that when marijuana is mentioned in case reports involving deaths, the fatalities are usually attributed to secondary events like accidents or self-imposed harm. Marijuana’s potential for overdose deaths is “much lower” than other Schedule I drugs as well as Schedule II opioids, the FDA official said.

With respect to withdrawal for regular users, Chiapperino testified that cannabis has similar symptoms to those for tobacco, including irritability—but that alcohol has a “more several withdrawal syndrome” that can include seizure and death.

The DEA is in the “super-awkward position of arguing the opposite of what it’s been arguing for the last 50 years,” said the president of the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Also on June 29, lawyers for some of the anti-rescheduling parties had an opportunity to cross-examine Chiapperino.

Kevin Sabet, president and CEO of the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which was also invited to participate in the hearing, said in a video posted to social media that seeing the government argue on behalf of cannabis’s medical uses and relatively low harms is “surreal”—claiming that “they’re just lying through their teeth.”

The DEA is in the “super-awkward position of arguing the opposite of what it’s been arguing for the last 50 years, the opposite of what the science says, the opposite of where the evidence is,” he said, “which, of course, is that marijuana is more harmful, not less harmful than we thought it was—the government’s trying to argue the opposite.”

On June 30, other opponents of rescheduling will get a chance to cross-examine the FDA official—and the government’s second witness, Corey Burchman, a medical doctor from New Hampshire, will begin his testimony. The DEA previewed in a June 26 filing that he will provide testimony about how “medical marijuana provides a medical benefit to pain patients.”

On June 29, a DEA lawyer said during his opening remarks at the hearing that Burchman would “describe real-world impacts of treatment of pain with marijuana instead of opioids,” based on his experience with both, and will discuss how he has “personally transitioned patients from opioids to marijuana for their pain.”

The witness will also provide testimony on the differences between cannabis and opioids when it comes to withdrawal and overdose potential, he said.

The hearing is set to conclude no later than July 15.

Ahead of the hearing’s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been “shut out” of the process—criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings are not being livestreamed, despite officials’ vows of “transparency.”

DEA Administrator Terrance Cole invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing as designated participants—telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an “interested person” to participate because they are not “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.”

On June 25, Marijuana Moment sent requests to DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius and to Cole, the DEA administrator, requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request.

Rescheduling opponents who are participating in the hearing filed statements that week previewing the anti-marijuana arguments they intend to make during the proceedings.

The hearing is set to conclude no later than July 15.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by FDA from Schedule I of the CSA to Schedule III.

Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III.

A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled in 2025 amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection.

The rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts.

The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation.

Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts.

The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis.

The United States Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances.

Even the DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform.

The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers.

A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don’t believe that provision will be enacted into law.

Photograph (cropped) by Matthew Brodeur on Unsplash

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 DEA, FDA Testify on First Day of Hearing on Marijuana Rescheduling appeared first on Filter.

Under a previous decision by the DEA administrator, only opponents of the reform are being invited to participate.

“Pursuant to the Preliminary Order issued by this tribunal on June 18, 2026, the Designated Parties have timely submitted their availability for the hearing window,” DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Derek Julius wrote on June 24. “This tribunal has given due consideration to each Designated Party’s availability and has concluded that the following schedule will be best suited.”

The overall schedule for presentations by the parties is as follows:

* The Government: June 29, 2026
* National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA): July 2, 2026
* Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM): July 6, 2026
* DUID Victim Voices: July 7, 2026
* Kenneth Finn, M.D.: July 8, 2026
* Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI): July 10, 2026
* Phillip A. Drum, PharmD: July 13, 2026
* States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana (The States): July 14, 2026

The document goes on to provide a detailed day-by-day, hour-by-hour schedule for when the parties will present their cases and when the designated participants can cross-examine the government’s witness and vice versa.

“While this schedule is meant to serve as a detailed guide for the hearing, parties may conclude examinations early or forgo cross or redirect examinations,” Julis’s order says in a footnote.

The DEA is technically the proponent of the proposed marijuana rescheduling rule and will fill the role of defending it during the hearing.

“To the extent that a party concludes with its examination prior to the end of their scheduled time or forgoes examination, the hearing will proceed ahead of schedule to the next item for that day—provided that a Designated Party will not be required to begin its case-in-chief on a different date than the one assigned above,” it says. “The ALJ will make other scheduling advancement determinations on a day-to-day basis as needed.”

Meanwhile, the DEA is resisting a prohibitionist group’s request for an agency official to testify about the harms of marijuana during the hearing.

The DEA pharmacologist was previously an official witness for an earlier, subsequently cancelled hearing on marijuana rescheduling during the Biden administration. During that time, she submitted into the record a report that attempts to link cannabis consumption to psychosis, depression and impaired cognitive functioning.

The prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana is attempting to call her for testimony during the current proceedings, but the agency is resisting that.

The DEA is technically the proponent of the proposed marijuana rescheduling rule and will fill the role of defending it during the hearing, though some cannabis reform supporters are skeptical it will effectively do so, given the agency’s long history of defending strict prohibition.

The DEA’s seeming reluctance to ease the way for testimony from the official that might focus on the potential harms of cannabis could give reform supporters some comfort, however—though it remains to be seen how agency personnel it does put forth to partake in the hearing speak to marijuana’s effects and the need for federal scheduling reform.

The ALJ issued a preliminary order determining that “the hearing will not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcasted in any way.”

To that end, Marijuana Moment  sent a letter asking the DEA judge overseeing the proceedings to reconsider his decision to prohibit livestreaming of the hearing.

The ALJ earlier in June issued a preliminary order laying out rules and timelines for the marijuana rescheduling proceedings—simultaneously recognizing that “national public interest in this issue predicates towards a policy of transparency” while also determining that “the hearing will not be televised, livestreamed, or broadcasted in any way.”

As a result, people who wish to observe the historic cannabis reform process must attend in person in Arlington, Virginia, under the judge’s order.

In a letter sent to Julius on June 23, Marijuana Moment counsel Joseph A. Bondy noted that the DEA permitted livestreaming of an earlier, subsequently cancelled hearing process on the proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III that took place during the Biden administration.

“That prior determination was correct. The public-interest rationale for contemporaneous access has not diminished,” Bondy wrote. “If DEA believes safety, witness-management, or operational concerns now require a more restrictive access regime, those concerns should be identified and addressed through narrow conditions rather than a categorical ban.”

“Limited physical seating in Arlington is not a meaningful substitute for livestreaming,” he continued. “Marijuana Moment, like many members of the press and public who follow federal cannabis policy nationally, cannot rely on a handful of available seats as a practical means of observing and reporting on the hearing. That is precisely why DEA’s prior livestreaming directive mattered: it allowed those physically outside the courtroom to observe the proceeding without disrupting the hearing, burdening security, or conferring party status on anyone.”

Only opponents of the reform have been invited to take part, some of whom have filed litigation in an attempt to block it.

“In a proceeding of this public significance, and in light of DEA’s prior livestreaming directive, a public hearing is not meaningfully public if access depends on the happenstance of limited physical attendance,” Marijuana Moment’s attorney wrote to the DEA judge. “Delayed access to transcripts is no substitute for contemporaneous observation. The press reports events as they unfold. The public evaluates government action in real time. And in a proceeding of this magnitude, transparency is not a courtesy. It is a safeguard.”

The DEA announced on June 18 that it had selected participants for the marijuana rescheduling hearing—and only opponents of the reform have been invited to take part, some of whom have filed litigation in an attempt to block it. No reform supporters who expressed intent to participate were invited.

The hearing will is set to conclude no later than July 15.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), from Schedule I of the CSA to Schedule III.

Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the upcoming hearing will consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III.

In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, parties needed to file requests articulating their interest in the proceeding, the objections or issues they wish to be heard on and their position on those issues.

“The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances,” Blanche’s initial notice, filed in April, said.

The attorney general also selected an ALJ to oversee the proceedings.

“The ALJ’s authorities include the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues in the hearing or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the hearing; require parties to state their position in writing; sign and issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify; receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence; rule on procedural items; and take any action permitted by the presiding officer under DEA’s hearing procedures and the” Administrative Procedures Act, Blanche wrote.

The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court.

A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled in 2025 amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection.

The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general, marijuana legalization opponents and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation.

Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts.

The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move, explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. “The order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,” it says.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana under rescheduling. The revised section in question notably says that only “use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes” is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis.

The US Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said it plans to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances.

Even the DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform.

The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers.

A congressional committee recently voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling.

Photograph via Pix4Free/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 DEA Judge Sets Schedule for New Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing appeared first on Filter.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) appeared at a press conference on June 16, alongside legislators who sponsored bills she rejected earlier in 2026, to unveil a new compromise approach that they have agreed on.

“We have agreed to a proposal that will create a safe, legal and well-regulated cannabis marketplace here in the commonwealth of Virginia—with recreational sales beginning on July 1, 2027,” the governor said. “We will do it in a way that protects consumers, tamps down with the goal of eliminating the illicit market with clear enforcement and regulatory authority and creates a more competitive market for small businesses and farmers.”

“This is what good governing and collaboration looks like—bringing people together, listening carefully and focusing on solutions that are practical, enforceable and in the best interest of Virginians,” she said. “In the end, we all wanted to deliver a marketplace that the commonwealth could implement effectively for the long term. We have always had this same end goal—an end goal that has been years in the making—so I am proud to stand alongside these dedicated legislators and to be working alongside alongside them to deliver a marketplace built to last.”

Senator Lashrecse Aird (D), the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the previous cannabis measure Spanberger vetoed, said she believes the newly negotiated deal “strikes the right balance.”

“Virginians deserve to know that they are buying items that are accurately labeled, properly tested and sold in a secure environment,” she said. “This framework gives us a real path to move demand out of the illicit market and into a regulated system built around safety, accountability and consumer protection.”

“We have an obligation to make sure opportunity is not limited only to those who already have access to capital and political connections.”

Delegate Paul Krizek (D), who sponsored the House of Delegates version of the earlier marijuana legislation, said the goal is to “create a cannabis market that is responsible” and that gives small businesses “a real chance to succeed.”

“For decades, cannabis enforcement created real consequences for individuals, families and documented disproportionate impact to communities,” he said. “A legal marketplace should not lock those same communities out of the economic opportunity created by reform.”

“Part of the responsible legalization that we have before you today is recognizing that those past cannabis policies did not affect every community equally as we move into a legal marketplace,” Krizek said. “We have an obligation to make sure opportunity is not limited only to those who already have access to capital and political connections.”

The new plan differs significantly in several ways from the legislation that lawmakers passed earlier in 2026 and that the governor vetoed.

For example, it sets the launch date for adult-use marijuana sales at July 1, 2027, which is what Spanberger proposed, in contrast to the January 1 date in what lawmakers had passed.

It also sets the legal public marijuana possession and per-transaction purchase limit at 2 ounces, an increase from the current legal limit of 1 ounce. The legislation lawmakers passed earlier in 2026 would have allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces.

Public consumption of marijuana would be punishable by a civil penalty of $250—a significant increase from the current $25, but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor the governor sought.

The bill also cedes to Spanberger on language to increase a marijuana excise tax from 6 to 8 percent after two years of legal sales.

By way of compromise, the new agreement would make public consumption of marijuana punishable by a civil penalty of $250—a significant increase from the $25 in current law but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor the governor sought in her proposed changes to the previous bill. The penalty increase would not take effect until July 1, 2027, however, raising the possibility that lawmakers could pass legislation next session to rescind it.

Lawmakers passed the initial cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto.

Spanberger said earlier in June that she was having “really productive” and “incredible” conversations with lawmakers about crafting a compromise approach to legalizing adult-use cannabis sales, and Marijuana Moment previously reported on the ongoing talks.

Following Spanberger’s veto, top lawmakers were discussing the possibility of including provisions to legalize adult-use cannabis sales in budget legislation that they are due to pass by July 1.

The effort to keep the issue alive was a topic of discussion at the first meeting of the legislature’s Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Cannabis Retail Market since the governor’s move to kill the previous proposal to regulate adult-use marijuana sales.

Bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline.

The governor, meanwhile, tried publicly explain her veto—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast.

A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales.

The governor recently acknowledged in a separate interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said.

Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill’s sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets.

A spokesperson for Spanberger declined to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment, however.

The governor separately sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate.

Prior to vetoing the cannabis commerce bill, the governor did sign separate legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with past cannabis convictions.

Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation have been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis.

Aird and Krizek, the sponsors of the legalization bills, had urged colleagues to vote against the governor’s amendments—even if that meant risking a veto from Spanberger when the legislation returned to her desk.

Here are the key details of the new cannabis plan and how it compares to legislation that Spanberger vetoed—SB 542 and HB 642—as well as her previously proposed amendments to those measures:

* Adults would be able to purchase up to 2 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That would represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. Lawmakers previously proposed setting the amount at 2.5 ounces and the governor only wanted 2 ounces.

* Legal sales could begin on July 1, 2027. Lawmakers previously set the date for January 1, 2027, but the governor wanted it pushed back to July 1.

* There would be an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, and municipalities would be allowed to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. Starting on July 1, 2029, the state excise tax would increase to 8 percent, in line with the governor’s previously proposed amendments.

* Revenue would be distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, early childhood education, the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services and public health initiatives. The earlier measure passed by lawmakers would have allocated specific percentages to each, but the new language doesn’t specify what portion of revenue will go to each program. The governor, in her amendments, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” Her amendment also sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund.

* The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry, and would also take on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The body will be governed by a five-member board of directors appointed by the governor, whereas the bill previously passed by lawmakers contemplated a seven-member body with four appointed by the governor, two appointed by the speaker of the House and one appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.

* The definition of what constitutes a legal hemp product would be narrowed by removing a provision from current law that allows those containing more than 2 milligrams of total THC per package if they also have a ratio of CBD to THC that is 25:1 or more.

* Up to 350 retail marijuana stores would be allowed to be licensed to operate across the state, the same number that lawmakers had approved and greater than the 200 the governor had proposed.

* Local governments would not be able to 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.

* Public use of marijuana would be a civil violation punishable by a $250 fine. That is 10  times more than the $25 fine under current law, but less harsh than than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor crime the governor had proposed. Possession of cannabis by people under the age of 21 would be punishable by a $25 fine and mandatory participation in a substance use treatment or education program or both. The governor had suggested treating underage possession as a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers’ licenses for at least six months.

* 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. That provision was also included in the earlier legislation lawmakers passed, but was suggested for deletion by the governor.

Marijuana reform advocates cheered the fact that a legal sales deal is coming together, but they expressed concerns about some of the penalty increases in the bill.

“This compromise represents a meaningful step toward bringing Virginia’s cannabis laws in line with public opinion and moving the commonwealth closer to a marketplace that consumers have long demanded,” said JM Pedini, development director for the advocacy group NORML and executive director for Virginia NORML. “Although NORML has deep concerns about provisions in the bill to increase the civil penalty for public cannabis consumption, we are encouraged by other areas of broader agreement. This bill establishes a consumer-friendly regulated marketplace, improves public safety and provides clear rules for everyone involved.”

Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills this session—including measures to protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals.

The post Virginia Governor, Lawmakers Strike Deal to Legalize Marijuana Sales appeared first on Filter.

These expansions of existing state cannabis legalization laws are advancing as part of broader legislation addressing various aspects of marijuana regulatory programs that will change how licensed businesses operate within their markets.

But for everyday consumers, the possession limit increases mean they will be able to buy more marijuana when they go to the store and will be protected from potential criminal penalties for carrying certain amounts of cannabis.

Illinois lawmakers, for example, passed omnibus cannabis legislation earlier in June that would allow residents of the state who are over 21 years of age to possess up to 60 grams of marijuana flower—double the amount in current law. They will also be able to have up to 10 grams of cannabis concentrates and infused products with up to 1,000 mg of THC—also double the current limit.

Possession amounts for adult non-residents would also be doubled under the bill.

Aside from numerous other proposed changes to rules for marijuana and hemp businesses that are included in the legislation, SB 3222 would also allow people with convictions for possession of up to 60 grams of marijuana to have those records expunged—double the current cutoff, allowing only those with convictions for up to 30 grams to be eligible.

The bill cleared the Senate and House of Representatives and now awaits action from Governor JB Pritzker (D), who in 2019 signed the state’s marijuana legalization policy into law.

“Fortunately, legalization states are increasingly recognizing that low possession limits unnecessarily ensnare residents in the criminal justice system.”

In Vermont, lawmakers similarly approved a large-scale cannabis regulatory reform bill, S. 278, that doubles the current possession limit to up to 2 ounces of marijuana or 10 grams of hashish.

The measure was approved by both chambers of the legislature in May and is headed to the desk of Gov. Phil Scott (R), who in 2018 signed a bill to legalize marijuana possession and home cultivation, and then allowed subsequent legislation to legalize commercial cannabis sales to take effect without his signature in 2020.

In April, Massachusetts lawmakers passed, and Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed, a bill that broadly restructures how cannabis is regulated in the state. It includes a provision increasing the personal possession limit for marijuana from 1 to 2 ounces.

Colorado, which was among the first states to legalize marijuana in 2012, enacted legislation to double its legal cannabis possession limit from 1 ounce to 2 ounces in 2021.

Karen O’Keefe, state policies director for the Marijuana Policy Project, said the recent trend of states moving to let adults carry more cannabis without the fear of criminalization is a positive development.

“We applaud lawmakers for treating adults like adults when it comes to cannabis. A core purpose of legalization is to stop punishing adults for using a plant that is safer than alcohol,” she told Marijuana Moment. “Fortunately, legalization states are increasingly recognizing that low possession limits unnecessarily ensnare residents in the criminal justice system.”

“Restrictive possession limits also prevent consumers from buying in practical quantities,” O’Keefe said. “When cities and towns opt out of legal sales, it can be a long trek to the nearest dispensary. Raising possession limits allows adults to stock up responsibly, saving them time and money on gas.”

Photograph by Thought Catalog on Unsplash

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 Legal-Marijuana States Moving to Increase Possession Limits appeared first on Filter.

The case, brought in May by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) and the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska, claims the officials will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

“Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” states the filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But on May 29, Murrill filed a motion saying that “Petitioner State of Louisiana respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), as applied through Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 20, to dismiss Louisiana as a petitioner in this proceeding.”

“This motion seeks dismissal of Louisiana only. Respondents do not oppose this motion,” it said. “Louisiana thus respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Louisiana only from this proceeding, with each party to bear its own costs.”

It is not clear why Murrill first joined, and then days later withdrew from, the case. Representatives from the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment for this story.

In late May the court consolidated the state attorneys generals’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier in May by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA).

Also in late May, a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance use professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation filed an additional lawsuit seeking to challenge the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move.

In May, a House committee voted to block federal officials from taking further steps toward rescheduling.

Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as will any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. An administrative hearing scheduled for June will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for adult-use products.

“The AG Rescheduling Order violates the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 559, and section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811, exceeds the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the CSA, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” SAM and NDASA’s brief two-page petition challenging the rescheduling action claimed.

It was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner.

SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Trump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously.

Named defendants in both now-consolidated suits are the DOJ, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole.

On May 22 a federal judge dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, a House committee earlier in May voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling.

Read Louisiana’s motion to withdraw from the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below:

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 Louisiana Abruptly Drops Out of DOJ Marijuana Rescheduling Lawsuit appeared first on Filter.

The filing from the attorneys general of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana claims that they will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority,” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

“Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” states the filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

On May 27, the court consolidated the state AGs’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier in May by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA).

SAM and NDASA alleged in their earlier filing that they have been “aggrieved” by the federal cannabis reform.

“We welcome these legal challenges brought by the attorneys general, who are taking bold action to stop this illegal order,” SAM CEO Kevin Sabet stated in a press release. “Our coalition is growing as leaders around the country recognize that this unprecedented order will cause significant harm to public health and safety. We won’t rest until this dangerous action is reversed.”

SAM and NDASA alleged in their earlier filing that they have been “aggrieved” by the federal cannabis reform.

Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as will any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. An administrative hearing scheduled for June will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for adult-use products.

“The AG Rescheduling Order violates the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 559, and section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811, exceeds the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the CSA, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” SAM and NDASA’s brief two-page petition challenging the rescheduling action claimed.

A House committee recently voted to block further rescheduling actions.

It was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner.

SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Trump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously.

Named defendants in both now-consolidated suits are the DOJ, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole.

On May 22 a federal judge dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, a House committee earlier in May voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling.

Image via Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management

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 Three States Sue Trump’s DOJ to Stop “Unlawful” Marijuana Rescheduling appeared first on Filter.