If plaintiffs in two far-reaching lawsuits being heard in federal courts this week have their way, marijuana will no longer be classified under the U.S.’s most restrictive category, and the federal government will have to rescind a policy that treats cannabidiol as a Schedule I drug even when it is derived from legal hemp.
On Wednesday, a federal district court judge in Manhattan will hear oral arguments in a case alleging that cannabis is improperly classified under the most restrictive category of Schedule I, which is supposed to be reserved for drugs with no medical value.
Plaintiffs in the case include former NFL player Marvin Washington and a 12-year-old girl who treats epilepsy with medical cannabis.
And on Thursday, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will convene in San Francisco to hear a separate case challenging a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) move that advocates say oversteps the agency’s authority.
That dispute centers on a Federal Register notice DEA filed in late 2016 creating a new drug category code for marijuana extracts. The Hemp Industries Association and individual businesses are suing the government, claiming that the action puts in jeopardy farmers and researchers who are growing and processing legally grown hemp in accordance with provisions of the congressionally approved Farm Bill.
The Wednesday hearing, in the broader case about cannabis’s Schedule I status, concerns a Justice Department motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The case’s impact “will not necessarily be immediate,” Joseph Bondy, an attorney in the case, told Marijuana Moment in an interview. No matter who wins, it will likely be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
But the Justice Department might find itself having to begin compiling documents for discovery and preparing officials for depositions in the case very soon.
Presiding Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein has a “track record of ruling very, very quickly after the argument,” Bondy said, meaning that he may officially reject the government’s motion to dismiss as soon as Wednesday.
The judge is giving the case “prioritized attention,” the New York Times reported.
While the Justice Department will almost certainly seek to prevent U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions from having to testify in the case, Bondy said he might have to anyway.
“He’s been so vocal, and rescinded the Cole Memo and put all these things in place himself,” he said in the interview. “He wasn’t the passive repository of the Controlled Substances Act. This is going to unfold well if we just get over this hurdle. The whole landscape has shifted and it really favors us.”
And even if the plaintiffs ultimately lose, or the case proceeds slowly, its impact will still be “powerful,” Bondy predicted, saying it will likely lead to “additional fallout” in terms of emboldening policymakers to change cannabis laws legislatively.
Several similar lawsuits challenging how the federal government treats marijuana have been unsuccessful, but advocates believe that the shifting political climate surrounding the issue puts them in a better position for a favorable ruling this time.
“We might not have been able to do this 10 or 15 years ago,” Bondy told the Times. “But the climate is very different now.”
The two federal cannabis lawsuits represent an escalation in tactics as legalization advocates continue to gain momentum.
“This is a perfect a storm of cannabis legalization support and its growing momentum,” Nelson Guerrero, co-founder of the Cannabis Cultural Association and plaintiff in case being heard on Wednesday, told Marijuana Moment in a statement. “As activists, we must use every avenue possible to move the needle forward to ultimately end cannabis prohibition – whether it’s in the courts, on the streets, or through the media.”
Mexican Government Officials Visit Canada To Learn About Marijuana Legalization
The office of Mexican President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced on Friday that key members of his incoming cabinet will discuss marijuana legalization with Canadian government officials on a visit to the country next week.
As part of the trip by seven secretaries-designate, officials from the two nations will meet about issues such as human rights, inclusive governance and “regulation of cannabis use,” a press release from López Obrador’s transition team said.
Among those taking the trip north will be Olga Sánchez Cordero, the likely next interior secretary of Mexico, who has previously said she would encourage the new president to legalize marijuana and pursue broader drug policy reforms.
Canada’s marijuana legalization law went into effect this week.
López Obrador will be sworn in as president on December 1.
Canadian Lawmaker Vapes Marijuana And Doesn’t Care What Anyone Thinks
A Canadian member of Parliament openly consumes marijuana, something he says will be completely normal and not at all noteworthy soon in light of the country’s new legalization law that went into effect this week.
“Just as someone might have a glass of wine or a scotch on a Friday night, I would turn to my vaporizer,” MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said in an interview with CBC news.
But it’s not all about getting high for fun and relaxation for the member of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s party. He also consumes cannabis medicinally.
“I have Crohn’s, so sometimes I turn to it for that reason as well,” he said.
Within a matter of years, though, no one will care whether lawmakers toke up, Erskine-Smith believes.
“Five years from now, no one will be interested in this question because we’ll all recognize we’re responsible adults, and this is far less harmful than alcohol, far less harmful than tobacco,” he said. “And we should use it responsibly, yes, because there are potential harms.”
“Certainly Canadians are capable of doing this because we’ve been doing it for decades.”
On that point, Erskine-Smith acknowledged that he too has been consuming cannabis before prohibition officially lifted on Wednesday.
“It would be sort of silly for me to stop now, wouldn’t it?” he asked.
MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith says he enjoys cannabis, and that five years from now, no one will care to ask him about it. pic.twitter.com/L7U3N46EwW
— CBC News: The National (@CBCTheNational) October 18, 2018
Photo courtesy of Cannabis Culture.
Missouri Campaign Finance Records Show Medical Marijuana Ballot Battle Heating Up
New quarterly campaign finance documents from Missouri medical marijuana ballot committees, covering activity from July 1 to September 30, show some coalescing of support for one of three measures on the ballot, while a recently created committee that opposes all of the medical cannabis options has yet to report any financial support.
Here’s what the fundraising and expenditures for the key committees behind each of the three proposed measures look like:
(Note: only those committees with major activity in Q3 are displayed)
Missouri has one of the most confusing sets of marijuana ballot options to ever go before voters in any state, with two proposed constitutional amendments and one proposed statutory measure to choose from. Each option was sponsored by a separate committee that actively attacked the others in the months leading up to qualifying this summer to get on the ballot, with hostile campaign tactics continuing since then—including lawsuits and opposition research into the personal finances of advocates.
In the last few months, two additional organizations entered the fray. One is the only ballot committee that opposes both of the amendments and the proposition. Citizens for SAFE Medicine registered on September 20, and did not report any financial contributions or expenditures on its October 15 report. Judy Brooks, listed as Treasurer of the organization, is also a founder of Jefferson City’s Council For Drug Free Youth.
The other is “Patients Against Bradshaw Amendment Formally Known As Find The Cures Political Action Committee.” The committee, which registered August 27, opposes Amendment 3 and supports Amendment 2. It raised $1,441 cash from five donors, and has spent $447 of that on campaigning.
Its verbose name is a reference to Dr. Brad Bradshaw, the main financial contributor to Find the Cures, a committee that registered in September 2015 to support the measure now designated as Amendment 3. Between October 2017 and June 2018, he provided loans to Find the Cures to the tune of $1.2 million. The committee spent over $800,000 of that to hire a signature collection firm to get on the ballot.
Bradshaw’s measure would, among other things, create a research center that many suspect he intends to run himself. It had already come under fire from Missouri NORML, which backs New Approach Missouri and its preferred proposal, Amendment 2. Find the Cures had already raised $1,556,705 in the first half of 2018 (much of that in the loans from Bradshaw), but started the most recent quarter with just $79 in the bank. From July through September, the committee took in another $209,111, with $186,121 of that in the form of additional loans from Bradshaw. It spent $164,739 on advertising and campaign staff, leaving $44,451 cash on hand for the remaining weeks before the election.
Under Amendment 2, doctors would be allowed to recommend medical cannabis for any condition they feel it is needed. Registered patients and caregivers would be permitted to grow up to six marijuana plants and purchase up to four ounces from dispensaries per month. Medical cannabis sales at dispensaries would be taxed at four percent. As previously reported by Marijuana Moment, the St. Louis chapter of the NAACP, Freedom Incorporated and the St. Louis American newspaper support Amendment 2. It also recently garnered an endorsement from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
New Approach Missouri was the most active committee in terms of continuing to raise and spend funds in quarter three of 2018. The group, which had already raised $1,057,263 for the election, took in another $256,924 cash and $15,368 worth of in-kind contributions. They spent $229,122 in the quarter, for events, legal fees, database management, media creation and public affairs in support of Amendment 2. One employee has been paid a total of $116,180 over the course of the campaign. They had $39,878 in the bank at the end of September.
Long-time political action committee Show-Me Cannabis Regulation, which has been around for seven years, had little activity last quarter, bringing in $350 and spending $72, leaving $2,250 on hand. It has however seemingly thrown its support behind New Approach Missouri, providing $5,000 in in-kind support to the committee.
Here’s a chart using a logarithmic scale that includes more of the committees, even those with relatively paltry finances:
(Note: scale is logarithmic in order to depict smaller committees)
Missourians for Patient Care, which supports Proposition C, had little money activity in the most recent reporting period, suggesting that it is perhaps stepping back from active campaigning at this point. The group had raised a whopping $1,393,360 in 2018, but had only $31,077 left on hand at the beginning of July. In the last three months, it brought in $115 and reported no expenses.
One additional committee that formed, “Missouri Medical Marijuana,” that supported “medical marijuana measure,” has terminated its operations.
On Election Day, we will see whether the millions of dollars spent result in Missouri voters enacting one of more of the cannabis ballot proposals.