Connect with us

Politics

Here’s What The DEA Told Agents About Cannabis Enforcement This Week

Published

on

Officials with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) aren’t allowed to mess with businesses that sell certain cannabis products, the agency clarified to personnel in an internal directive on Tuesday.

However, the directive went on to assert the continuing validity of an earlier Federal Register notice that claimed cannabis extracts—including products that “contain only one cannabinoid” such as cannabidiol (CBD)—fall under Schedule I and are thus banned.

The new directive issued this week states: “Products and materials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the [Controlled Substances Act] definition of marijuana (such as sterilized seeds, oil or cake made from the seeds, and mature stalks) are not controlled under the CSA” and, thus, “[s]uch products may accordingly be sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States without restriction under the CSA or its implementing regulations.”

“The mere presence of cannabinoids is not itself dispositive as to whether a substance is within the scope of the CSA; the dispositive question is whether the substance falls within the CSA definition of marijuana.”

Yet the agency also maintained the legitimacy of its recently clarified ban on cannabinoids, including CBD—whether its extracted from marijuana or hemp.

The DEA said it decided to issue the directive “[i]n response to various inquiries.” It seems people have had some questions about the agency’s seemingly contradictory positions.

The legal confusion over the DEA’s enforcement authority on hemp goes back to a 2004 Ninth Circuit Court ruling. In essence, the court sided with the Hemp Industries Association that the DEA had overreached its authority with respect to hemp products. Even though hemp may contain trace amounts of THC, hemp products are not included in the CSA—and, therefore, the agency is not permitted to regulate the industrial crop, the court ruled.

The DEA acknowledged as much in its new directive.

Eric Steenstra, president of the advocacy group Vote Hemp, told Marijuana Moment in an email that this concession was “the result of a negotiated settlement with the Hemp Industries Association.”

The fact that the DEA is insisting CBD and other cannabinoids remain illegal, no matter the source, gets into another contradictory policy matter: the 2014 Farm Bill.

While the DEA’s New Drug Code rule with respect to cannabis extracts was upheld in a different Ninth Circuit Court ruling last month, the agricultural law lets states authorize the growing of hemp containing trace amounts of THC under pilot programs. Further, the court determined that the Farm Bill’s hemp provision “preempts” the CSA.

As cannabis attorney Daniel Shortt wrote in a recent blog post, the court stated “that when the Industrial Hemp portions of the Farm Bill conflict with the CSA, the Farm Bill prevails.”

There’s been significant debate and confusion over the accurate interpretation of the DEA’s policy with regard to CBD and hemp. The DEA, for its part, seems to acknowledge that in its new directive.

The most promising prospect of clarification or reform on the issue could come from a bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is calling on the federal government to remove hemp from the list of federally banned substances. He has already announced plans to insert hemp legalization language into this year’s version of the Farm Bill.

For now, DEA says that hemp products can be legally imported into and exported out of the U.S., even if current law doesn’t allow for legal hemp cultivation by American farmers.

“[A]ny product that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines to be made from the cannabis plant but which falls outside the CSA definition of marijuana may be imported into the United States without restriction under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” the new notice reads. “The same considerations apply to exports of such products from the United States, provided further that it is lawful to import such products under the laws of the country of destination.”

Mitch McConnell Steps Up Hemp Legalization Push With Legislative Move

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!

Kyle Jaeger is an LA-based contributor to Marijuana Moment. His work has also appeared in High Times, VICE, and attn.

Politics

Watch: Senator’s Spot-On Impression Of Mitch McConnell Talking About Marijuana

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was apparently taken aback when he heard that the red state of Utah is likely to legalize medical marijuana in November.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) said in an interview on Wednesday that the exchange took place during  Senate’s tax reform debate earlier this year, and he executed a pretty uncanny impression of McConnell in the retelling.

Asked by Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call to share his favorite story about McConnell, Gardner said the two struck up a conversation on the Senate floor about marijuana and small business tax issues.

At the time, the Colorado senator was pushing an amendment to undo the provision in federal tax law known as 280E that prevents marijuana businesses from writing normal expenses off of their returns.

Gardner pressed McConnell on the issue, telling him that “47-plus states have legalized some form of marijuana, medical marijuana, CBD… Even Utah is most likely gonna legalize medical marijuana this year.”

“And McConnell looks at me and he goes, ‘Utah?’ And just this terrified look. Right as he says that, [Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)] walks up, and Mitch looks at Orrin, and he says, ‘Orrin, is Utah really gonna legalize marijuana?'”

Then, looking at his feet, hands folded, the Mormon senator from Utah deadpanned: “First tea, then coffee, and now this.”

“It was just hysterical,” Gardner said.

You can watch the full Roll Call interview here.

Though McConnell isn’t quite the face of cannabis reform in Congress, he’s taken a leadership role in the fight to legalize industrial hemp—successfully securing a provision to accomplish just that in the Senate-passed version of the Farm Bill, which is now being reconciled with a proposal from the House that contains no hemp language.

Gardner, meanwhile, has embraced reforms sought by the legal cannabis industry in the years since Colorado became the first state to end marijuana prohibition in 2012.

Win Or Lose At The Polls, Medical Marijuana Is Coming To Utah Under New Deal

Photo courtesy of RollCall.

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
Continue Reading

Politics

Man Sends Marijuana Samples To Feds… To Make A Legal Point

Published

on

Mailing numerous cannabinoid samples to U.S. courts and the Department of Justice was a key part of one man’s convoluted lawsuit strategy against the federal government that relied on an obscure Confederate-era statute, court filings show.

Checkmate, feds.

Oh, right. This requires some explanation. So, it’s not entirely clear what the end-game in this case was meant to be, but the essential facts are as follows: a man named Jeffrey Nathan Schirripa filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the government failed to hold up its end of a contract that, in a roundabout way, he attempted to force upon it.

Schirripa first sent cannabinoid samples to the Justice Department and a U.S. district court in 2015 to lay the groundwork for a theoretical “contract” between himself and the government, according to the filings. But the court “dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Then, in an apparent effort to “prove the existence” of a contract, Schirripa attached unspecified parts of marijuana to 18 copies of a confidential petition for rehearing this year. Schirripa seemed to believe that he was creating “subject matter jurisdiction,” a necessary component of an implied unilateral contract that he said the government violated.

The court did not agree that unsolicited mailings of controlled substances constituted the relevant subject matter in an implied contract, though. On Monday, it filed this order:

“The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit these 18 documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for appropriate disposition or alternate action within the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The judges explained that the specific U.S. statute that Schirripa used as the basis of his subject matter claim was enacted in 1861, and it was exclusively designed to “weaken the Confederate States by authorizing the President to seize property aiding the Confederacy in its insurrection.” In other words, it didn’t apply here.

In his petition for rehearing, Schirripa included a flow chart visualizing of his intended logic.

It starts with the fact that he sent prototypes of “neuroprotecting antioxidants” to members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Schirripa admits that sending the “gifted” substances directly violated the Controlled Substances Act. So far, so good.

But from there, the petitioner seems to suggest that in both possible scenarios he presents—that the law can be enforced against him for mailing a controlled substance or that it can’t and so the cannabinoids are therefore “subject to prize/capture”—he’s proven to be an “interested party,” thereby validating his claim that the government breached an implied unilateral contract.

hilarious the hangover GIF

“I don’t fully understand the Schirripa’s flow chart, but it appears to be a boot-strap version a catch-22 for the court—the type of argument that you might figure out while high,” Dennis Crouch, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, wrote in a blog post about the case.

The court seemed to agree. The statutes upon which Schirripa rested his contract theory “have no relation to any contract theory or any government bid or procurement practice,” the judges ruled in their denial of his rehearing. “The Court of Federal Claims thoroughly considered Mr. Schirripa’s arguments and theories, and fully explained their inapplicability.”

The appeals process might not have worked out, but it’s hard to imagine that Schirripa will be totally deterred. This marks his third appeal on “related actions” since 2014, court documents show. The legal logic of an implied unilateral contract didn’t hold up this time, but Schirripa—who has described himself as “the world’s most qualified expert in the realm of Cannabinoid Reform”—seems to be nothing if not tenacious.

Thousands Respond To FDA’s Marijuana Rescheduling Comment Request

Photo courtesy of Nicholas C. Morton.

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
Continue Reading

Politics

Marijuana And Other Drugs Should Be Legalized, Likely Next House Judiciary Chair Says

Published

on

A Democratic lawmaker who many political observers believe will likely be the next chairman of the powerful U.S. House Judiciary Committee implied in an interview on Wednesday that he supports legalizing other currently illicit drugs in addition to marijuana.

“From everything we have learned, people are going to do drugs. And certainly the softer drugs like marijuana, there’s no good reason at all that they cannot be legalized and regulated properly,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said.

“The major effect of the war on drugs has been to fill our prisons with huge numbers of people to no great effect except to waste money and to ruin lives.”

In the comments, which Nadler made during an interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, the congressman did not specify with substances he believes should be legalized, but his use of the pluralized phrase “softer drugs like marijuana” and the word “they” suggests his anti-prohibition views extend beyond just cannabis.

There is no precise definition of what constitutes a “soft drug” as compared to a “hard drug,” but some analysts categorize substances like LSD, psilocybin and MDMA in the former category in light of their lack of addictive potential.

Nadler is currently the top ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies involved in drug enforcement and prosecution. If Democrats take control of the House in the midterm elections, as many poll watchers predict, he would likely ascend to the panel’s chairmanship and have the power to bring marijuana and other drug reform bills up for a vote.

Also in the radio interview, Nadler called the war on drugs an “abject failure” that is “not succeeding in reducing crime or doing anything else.”

“We ought to look at drugs as a public health issue.”

The comments came shortly after another key Democrat, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), released an eight-page memo to fellow party members laying out a step-by-step strategy for how they can accomplish federal marijuana legalization in 2019 if they take control of one or both chambers of Congress. The plan includes a hearing on marijuana descheduling before the Judiciary Committee.

When it comes to marijuana, Nadler sees it as “far less damaging than nicotine to people’s health and we should probably regulate it similarly,” he said in the interview, adding that its current restrictive Schedule I status “doesn’t make any sense.”

Congressman Issues ‘Blueprint To Legalize Marijuana’ For Democratic House In 2019

Photo courtesy of David.

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Stay Up To The Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox


Support Marijuana Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox