Ever since Colorado and Washington became the first two states to approve marijuana legalization initiatives in 2012, additional states have joined them in each biennial election that has followed. And 2020 could be a banner year for cannabis on the ballot.
There are at least 16 states where advocates believe marijuana measures could go before voters next year—some considering full-scale recreational legalization while others would focus on medical cannabis.
Some of these would be citizen-led voter initiatives where activists collect signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot, while others would be referendums that lawmakers place before voters.
“Since the first adult-use legalization ballot initiative victory in 2012, the marijuana reform movement has successfully maintained its momentum,” Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, said. “For four elections in a row there has been a legalization victory at the ballot box, and the upcoming election could deliver more victories in one day than ever before.”
Of course, not every initiated effort will end up securing enough funding, or formulating solid enough campaign plans, to collect sufficient signatures to qualify their measures for voters’ consideration on Election Day—but these are all states where activists or lawmakers have talked seriously about putting cannabis questions on ballots.
It’s not feasible to list every measure that activists took the modest trouble to initially file, and this overview looks primarily at efforts that seem most poised to advance. This post also doesn’t include the long list of states that might legalize marijuana through actions by lawmakers, as opposed to citizens via the ballot—which will be the focus of a separate piece.
In alphabetical order, here’s a comprehensive overview of the states where marijuana could be on the ballot in 2020.
Voters in Arizona narrowly rejected a marijuana legalization measure in 2016, thanks in part to sizable campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. In 2020, though, the state’s medical cannabis companies will be working to pass an initiative making marijuana legal for adults.
The effort, known as Smart & Safe Arizona, would allow people 21 and older to possess, consume, cultivate and purchase cannabis from licensed retailers. It would also create a pathway for individuals with prior convictions to have their records expunged, and it proposes using some tax revenue from legal sales to invest in communities disproportionately impacted by prohibition.
Dispensary chains MedMen, Harvest Health and Recreation and Curaleaf Holdings are helping to fund the campaign. Advocates must collect 237,645 valid signatures from voters by July 2 in order to put the measure on the ballot.
In 2016, Arkansas voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing patients to have legal access to medical cannabis. Now, activists are floating separate measures to more broadly end marijuana prohibition and expunge past records.
In order to place the measures on the ballot, Arkansans for Cannabis Reform must gather 89,151 signatures by July 3, including required minimums in at least 15 counties.
Under the legalization proposal, adults over 21 would be allowed to to possess up to four ounces of marijuana, two ounces of cannabis concentrate and edible products containing cannabis with THC content of 200 mg or less. They could also cultivate up to six cannabis seedlings and six cannabis flowering plants for personal use.
A system of legal and regulated sales would be created, with tax revenue funding the program’s implementation, public pre-kindergarten and after school programs as well as the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.
Under the separate expungements measure, people with certain prior marijuana convictions would be able to petition courts for relief, including release from incarceration, reduction of remaining sentences and restoration of voting rights.
Despite the advancement of marijuana legalization legislation through several General Assembly committees this year, lawmakers weren’t able to form the consensus needed to get a bill to the desk of supportive Gov. Ned Lamont (D).
But while Connecticut doesn’t have the initiative process where activists can collect signatures to place a question on the ballot, some elected officials have floated the idea of advancing a referendum that would let voters weigh in on ending prohibition.
Most activists would prefer that lawmakers go ahead and just pass a legalization bill—because running a public education campaign to ensure a ballot measure passes would be expensive at a time when resources are needed in other states. A general referendum question would also require subsequent implementation legislation, and even putting it on the ballot in time for 2020 would take a supermajority of 75 percent of legislators.
Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment to legalize medical cannabis in 2016. Now, a group called Make It Legal Florida is working to place a full-scale marijuana legalization measure on the key swing state’s 2020 presidential ballot.
The proposed amendment to the state constitution would allow adults 21 and over to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis. Existing medical marijuana dispensaries would be permitted to sell marijuana to adults. While the measure doesn’t mention a licensing system to establish separate recreational shops, lawmakers will likely enact detailed regulations should it pass, as they did with the prior medical cannabis measure.
The campaign is being backed by cannabis companies such as MedMen and Parallel (formerly known as Surterra Wellness).
A separate group, Regulate Florida, recently acknowledged that its lesser-funded effort wouldn’t be be able to successfully collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Idaho is one of only a handful of states in the U.S. that doesn’t even allow patients to access CBD medications with low-THC content. That could change, however, under a proposed medical marijuana ballot measure for which activists are currently collecting signatures.
The Idaho Cannabis Coalition’s proposal would let approved patients and their caregivers possess up to four ounces of marijuana. A system of licensed and regulated growers, processors, testers and retail dispensaries would be established.
Patients would not be allowed to grow their own medicine unless they qualify for a hardship exemption for those who have have a physical, financial or distance difficulty in acquiring marijuana at a dispensary. Those patients could grow up to six plants.
Organizers need to collect 55,057 valid signatures from voters in order to qualify the measure for the ballot.
In September, activists filed what they believe are more than enough signatures to qualify a medical cannabis measure for Mississippi’s 2020 ballot.
If the initiative is approved, patients with any of 22 conditions—including cancer, chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder—be allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis per 14-day period.
The secretary of state is expected to announce whether organizers collected a sufficient number of signatures for ballot access early in 2020.
Voters in the Show Me State approved a medical cannabis measure in 2018.
Now, activists are looking to expand on that with a broader marijuana legalization. Several different proposed measures to end cannabis prohibition have been filed with the secretary of state, but the campaigns at this point seem to be operating largely under the radar, so it remains to be seen whether any group will have the funding needed to mount a successful signature gathering drive.
Last year three separate medical cannabis measures ended up qualifying for the ballot, but two were rejected by voters.
Montana already has a medical cannabis program, and activists are looking to expand that to include legal adult use of marijuana in 2020.
The group New Approach Montana is currently in the process of drafting two separate legalization measures—one constitutional and one statutory.
The details of the proposals aren’t yet publicly available, but the statutory proposal will need roughly 25,500 valid voters signatures to qualify for ballot access, while the constitutional amendment would require nearly 51,000 signatures.
The national groups Marijuana Policy Project and New Approach PAC are backing the effort.
A separate group, MontanaCan, has already filed its own legalization proposal.
While legislative leaders in the Garden State, along with Gov. Phil Murphy (D), had hoped to simply pass a bill legalizing marijuana this year, the votes didn’t materialize. Instead, lawmakers decided to put the question of ending cannabis prohibition directly before voters.
Under the referendum adopted by the Senate and Assembly, the November 2020 ballot will contain a question that reads, “Do you approve amending the Constitution to legalize a controlled form of marijuana called cannabis?”
If the proposed constitutional amendment is approved, lawmakers would then get to work adopting regulations for the legal cannabis industry.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) put marijuana legalization language in his budget submission earlier this year but, despite support for the idea from leading lawmakers, disagreement over particulars such as how to spend tax revenue meant that the proposal didn’t get over the finish line.
Indications are that Cuomo and lawmakers will try the legislative route again in 2020, but the governor has floated the idea of referring the question to voters at the ballot box.
“The opposition Senate position is there is no state that has passed it without a referendum. It’s never been done just by the legislature,” he said in a radio interview this year. “I believe Jersey may be moving to a referendum also, but Massachusetts, et cetera, the legislature acted after a referendum. So that’s what the senators who oppose it say—they think it’s an overreach by the legislature.”
If lawmakers can’t agree on the details of legalization again this year, Cuomo may call skittish legislators’ bluff and seek to advance a cannabis referendum to fulfill what he has said is one of his top agenda items.
North Dakota voters approved a medical cannabis ballot measure in 2016 and two years later swiftly defeated a proposal to more broadly legalize marijuana.
But advocates may have another chance in 2020. While the unsuccessful 2018 measure contained no limits on the amount of cannabis people could possess or grow, the new initiative, written by the same group of activists, has robust regulations—including a ban on home cultivation.
Legalization supporters hope more voters will agree to the narrower proposal this time around.
There is also another proposed legalization measure vying to collect the 13,452 valid signatures needed for ballot access.
In 2015, Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected a marijuana legalization measure that even many longtime activists opposed due its proposed regulatory structure that would have granted control over cannabis cultivation to the very same group of wealthy individuals who paid to put it on the ballot.
Advocates have cited the Buckeye State as a potential target for another try in 2020, though no proposals have yet been filed.
Voters in number of communities throughout the state have in recent years approved measures to decriminalize marijuana possession on a local basis, indicating that there is public support for cannabis reform if placed on the state ballot again next year.
That said, Ohio is a large state, and qualifying initiatives there is very expensive, so any successful effort will likely need to have industry support.
Voters in Oklahoma shocked national observers by approving a medical cannabis ballot measure last year during a midterm primary election by a solid margin, even though demographics thought to be most supportive of marijuana reform tend to turn out in bigger numbers during general elections in presidential voting years.
Since then, people have flocked to the program, with nearly 5 percent of the state’s population registered as approved patients.
Now, seeing potential for expansion, activists are looking to follow up next year with a broader marijuana legalization initiative.
Backed by the national New Approach PAC, the new effort will have to collect 178,000 valid signatures from registered voters to qualify for ballot access.
Under the measure as initially filed, adults 21 and older would be allowed to possess, cultivate and purchase cannabis from licensed retailers. There would be a 15 percent excise tax on marijuana sales, revenue from which would cover implementation costs and fund schools, drug treatment programs and other public service programs.
Personal possession would be capped at one ounce and individuals could grow up to six plants. The proposal would also provide expungements for those with prior marijuana convictions.
Backers recently withdrew the initial measure, but plan to redraft it with feedback from the medical cannabis community, with a new version expected to be filed soon.
Lawmakers in Rhode Island have filed marijuana legalization bills for the last several sessions but they have never been brought to a vote. In 2019, Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) went so far as to put legalization language in her budget proposal, but it was removed by legislative leaders.
The governor has indicated she will make another attempt in 2020, but if that doesn’t pan out, lawmakers may consider putting the question to voters via a referendum.
In 2016, Raimondo said she is “open to” giving voters a chance to decide on legalization via a ballot question. And House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello (D), said that he was “considering the possibility of placing a non-binding referendum question on the ballot regarding the use of recreational marijuana.”
A bill for a marijuana referendum that was filed in 2018 never received a vote, but it’s an avenue the legislature might consider pursuing next year as legalization comes online in more nearby states.
Lawmakers in Nebraska have repeatedly rejected medical cannabis legislation. Frustrated with their colleagues’ unwillingness to change the law to let patient legally medicate, two senators in the state’s unicameral legislature are partnering with local and national advocacy groups to put the question directly to voters through a ballot initiative.
Under the proposed constitutional amendment, physicians or nurse practitioners would be able to issue recommendations to patients, who would then be allowed to “use, possess, access, and safely and discreetly produce an adequate supply of cannabis, cannabis preparations, products and materials, and cannabis-related equipment to alleviate diagnosed serious medical conditions without facing arrest, prosecution, or civil or criminal penalties.”
The measure would also provide for a system of legal and regulated cannabis distribution through dispensaries.
Organizers must collect valid signatures from roughly 122,000 voters in order to make the ballot.
The South Dakota secretary of state’s office certified this month that activists collected more than enough signatures to qualify a medical cannabis measure for the November 2020 ballot.
If approved, patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions would be allowed to possess and purchase up to three ounces of marijuana from a licensed dispensary with approval from their doctors. They could also grow at least three plants, or more if authorized by a physician.
A separate campaign led by a former federal prosecutor is currently collecting signatures in support of a proposed constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana for adult use.
That measure would allow adults 21 and older to possess and distribute up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to three cannabis plants. The state Department of Revenue would issue licenses for manufacturers, testing facilities and retailers.
South Dakota voters rejected medical cannabis ballot measures in 2006 and 2010, but advocates hope that the changing national and regional climate on marijuana reform means that voters will be more supportive this time around.
Non-Marijuana Initiatives On State Ballots
Activists in a few states are taking steps to bring broader drug policy reform questions to voters’ ballots in 2020.
A group called Decriminalize California is preparing to soon begin collecting signatures in support of a measure to legalize psilocybin mushrooms.
In Oregon, organizers are already collecting signatures to qualify separate initiatives to legalize the psychedelic fungus for therapeutic uses and to decriminalize all drugs while expanding funding for substance misuse treatment programs.
2020 Will Be A Big Year For Marijuana
While 2019 was a huge year for marijuana, 2020 is poised to be even more impactful.
Separate from the huge number of states where cannabis and drug policy reform questions could appear before voters on ballots, lawmakers in many states are expected to consider bills to legalize marijuana.
Meanwhile, advocates will push to expand on cannabis reform momentum in Congress, where this year a marijuana banking bill was approved by the full House of Representatives and legislation to federally legalize cannabis and fund programs to begin repairing the harms of the war on drugs advanced at the committee level.
And with presidential candidates increasingly embracing cannabis legalization and other far-reaching reforms, 2020 is poised to be the biggest year for marijuana yet.
“In 2020, hundreds of thousands of Americans will turn out to vote not for the top of the ticket, but for the rights of cannabis consumers in upwards of a dozen states,” said NORML Political Director Justin Strekal. “As we have seen in previous elections, marijuana initiatives increase voter turnout in nearly every demographic. With public support growing by the day, 2020 will be the biggest year yet for expanding the freedoms and liberties of cannabis consumers.”
Photo courtesy of Democracy Chronicles.
Missouri Marijuana Legalization Campaign In Jeopardy Due To Coronavirus
Coronavirus has dealt another blow to the marijuana reform movement. This time, activists in Missouri announced on Saturday that their effort to put a cannabis legalization measure on the ballot has “no practical way” of succeeding amid the pandemic.
In recent weeks, the outbreak of COVID-19 has resulted in business closures and increased calls for social distancing in states across the country. That has made mass signature gathering for drug policy reform measures virtually impossible.
“Unfortunately, while there is widespread support from Missourians to tax and regulate marijuana, there is currently no practical way during the COVID-19 outbreak to safely, publicly gather the 170,000 plus signatures needed over the remaining 6 weeks to put this on the Missouri ballot in 2020,” John Payne, campaign manager for Missourians for a New Approach, said.
He added that the group is still “exploring our options at this point” but if it ultimately cannot find a path to the ballot for this November, “our supporters from every corner of this state will be back next cycle to put this on the 2022 ballot and finally bring Missouri the benefits of a safe, adult-use marijuana program.”
A total of 160,199 valid signatures from registered voters are needed in order to qualify the measure for this year’s ballot, and the campaign says it has so far collected roughly 80,000—though it is unclear how many of those have been validated. Organizers have aimed to collect more than needed in case some submissions are not accepted.
In a separate email circulated to supporters earlier on Saturday, Dan Viets, coordinator for Missouri NORML and an advisory board member for Missourians for a New Approach, said the “status of the effort to legalize adult use of marijuana in Missouri this year is unclear.”
“No official decision has yet been made regarding whether to suspend the campaign,” he said. “If we do so, it is likely we will return to pursue this goal in 2022.”
“It is, of course, virtually impossible to effectively gather signatures on petitions given the response to the coronavirus pandemic. Gatherings of more than a very few people in any one place have been banned. Almost all colleges and universities have switched to online teaching. No large meetings, conferences, or other gatherings are taking place. We should know within a very short time whether the campaign will be continuing this year or not.”
The language of the campaign messages indicates that activists aren’t entirely throwing in the towel just yet. But that’s a change of tone compared to a message sent to key organizers earlier this month by Graham Boyd, director of the national New Approach PAC, which has been a chief funder of the Missouri effort.
Boyd wrote in the March 17 email obtained by Marijuana Moment that after “much deliberation, we’re making the very difficult, but ultimately unavoidable, decision to end our 2020 adult-use legalization effort in Missouri.”
“As you can imagine, the onset of the coronavirus situation has made that already difficult process essentially impossible,” he said at the time, adding that after discussing the issue with reform campaigns in other states, it “seems likely that the situation will get much worse in many more states before it gets better.”
Since then, organizers have worked to try to salvage the effort.
Activists officially started signature gathering for the Missouri campaign in January, and they were optimistic that voters in the state would embrace the reform move. The proposed initiative would allow adults 21 and older possess and purchase cannabis from licensed retailers and cultivate up to three plants for personal use.
Additionally, it would impose a 15 percent tax on marijuana sales, with revenue going toward veterans services, substance misuse treatment and infrastructure projects. Individuals with cannabis convictions would be empowered to petition for resentencing or expungements.
Boyd stressed in his email that cancelling the campaign would be a “temporary setback” and that it’s “clear from the work and polling we’ve done so far that voters in Missouri are ready to approve a marijuana legalization law.”
Beyond Missouri, coronavirus has already proven to be a formidable presence in 2020 politics, with multiple drug policy reform campaigns having been impacted by the public health crisis.
Activists in California recently released a video asking California officials to allow digital signatures for a petition to revise the state’s adult-use marijuana program. In Washington, D.C., advocates for a measure to decriminalize psychedelics similarly wrote to the mayor and local lawmakers, imploring them to accept online signatures for their ballot petition.
Another California campaign to legalize psilocybin mushrooms is struggling and asking for electronic signature gathering to qualify for the ballot. An effort to legalize medical cannabis in Nebraska is facing similar signature gathering challenges.
In Oregon, advocates for a measure to decriminalize drug possession and a separate initiative to legalize psilocybin for therapeutic purposes have suspended in-person campaign events amid the pandemic.
Arizona activists shared some more positive news this week, however, announcing that they have collected more than enough signatures to qualify for the state’s November ballot—though they have not yet been submitted to or verified by the state.
Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.
Scientists Sue DEA Over Alleged ‘Secret’ Document That Delayed Marijuana Research Expansion
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is finding itself in court over marijuana again after scientists filed a lawsuit against the agency, requesting “secret” documents that they allege DEA used to delay action on expanding cannabis research.
The Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) is behind the suit. It’s one of more than 30 organizations that have submitted applications to DEA to become licensed cannabis manufacturers for research purposes.
Some background should be noted: In 2016, DEA announced it would expand marijuana research by approving additional growers beyond the sole source that has existed for half a century at the University of Mississippi. But after more than three years, applicants heard silence, and SRI filed an initial lawsuit alleging that the agency was deliberately holding up the process. A court mandated that it take steps to make good on its promise, and that case was dropped after DEA provided a status update.
This month, DEA finally unveiled a revised rule change proposal that it said was necessary due to the high volume of applicants and to address potential complications related to international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. A public comment period is now open, after which point the agency says it will finally approve an unspecified number of additional growers.
But what really accounted for the delay?
According to the plaintiffs in this new suit, after DEA said it would accept more cultivators, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) secretly issued an opinion that interprets international treaty obligations as making it impossible to carry out the 2016 proposed rule while maintaining compliance.
The new revised rule aims to address the problem, in part by shifting jurisdiction over the cannabis to a single agency, DEA, which would purchase and technically own all of the cannabis grown by approved cultivators, and would then later sell the product directly to researchers.
That OLC document, which is not public, is the basis of SRI’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint. The case was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Wednesday and requests that the Justice Department be found guilty of unlawfully failing to make records available related to its interpretation of the Single Convention treaty, including the OLC opinion. It further states that DEA should release those documents and pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees.
Matt Zorn, an attorney working the case, told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview that it’s not clear what’s contained in the OLC opinion and that the uncertainty is “entirely the point” of the suit.
“I think we all know vaguely what it says—the subject matter of it—but we don’t know what it actually says,” he said. “That’s important because you need to know what that instruction was or what their interpretation of the law is to assess whether what they’re doing now is appropriate.”
The suit claims that SRI, “as a non-commercial company dedicated to advancing the state of medical care through clinical research, is directly harmed by this unlawful secrecy.”
“Because Defendants have failed to fully disclose their re-interpretation of federal law and treaty obligations as the law requires, Plaintiff lacks information necessary to protect its legal rights, including the right to have its application to manufacture marijuana for research processed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and the [Controlled Substances Act],” the filing states.
SRI’s research objective for cannabis is to determine potential therapeutic benefits for veterans suffering from conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. “While DEA’s unlawful and dilatory conduct harms the public generally, the secrecy and delay have been especially harmful to our nations’ veterans,” the suit says.
“We deserve not only to know the scientific truth about medical marijuana use, but candor from our government, which includes disclosure of the ‘secret law’ the agency continues to rely on as a basis to delay and ultimately revamp the process for researching and manufacturing marijuana in this country,” the filing says. “Plaintiff brings this FOIA action so can understand the legal basis—if there is one—for the government’s conduct surrounding the Growers Program.”
While SRI acknowledged that DEA last week announced its revised rule change proposal, the suit states that the explanation about how it arrived at its determination “leaves Plaintiff and the public in the dark with respect to several critical considerations.” For example, it alleges, the notice doesn’t account for how the Justice Department advised the agency on the matter and which parts of the amended proposal would make the action compliant with international treaties.
“The answer to these questions and others presumably lies in the undisclosed OLC Opinion and related records that animated DOJ’s decision to sideline the Growers Program and prompted DEA to embark on this notice-and-comment rulemaking in the first place… In sum, using a secret OLC Opinion interpreting the CSA and a 1961 international treaty, DEA delayed processing applications to cultivate marijuana for research and now proposes to radically revamp federal law through rulemaking—rules which will loom large over the future of medical marijuana research, manufacture, and distribution going forward.”
The plaintiffs argue that DEA violated federal statute that prohibits the creation of a “secret law.” The statute says that federal agencies must make records—including final opinions and policy interpretations not published in the Federal Register—public.
“To block the Growers Program, DOJ formulated—through the OLC Opinion and related records—and DEA adopted to an undisclosed interpretation of the Single Convention and federal law contrary to the view espoused and published by DEA in the August 2016 Policy Statement, and contrary to the view of the State Department,” it continues, apparently referencing a letter the State Department sent to a senator in response to questions about the role of international treaties as it concerns expanding cannabis cultivation facilities.
In that letter, the department said nothing about the Single Convention prevents member nations from increasing the number of such facilities. “If a party to the Single Convention issued multiple licenses for the cultivation of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes, that fact alone would not be a sufficient basis to conclude that the party was acting in contravention of the Convention,” it read.
Read the State Department’s responses on international treaties and marijuana below:
If the new lawsuit’s allegations prove accurate, it could help explain the role of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the anti-marijuana official who was reportedly involved in blocking research expansion.
The suit, which was first reported by Politico, goes on to say:
“For more than three years, Defendants relied on this undisclosed interpretation, contained in the OLC Opinion and related records, to make an end-run around the Administrative Procedure Act by unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying agency action on marijuana cultivation applications. The OLC Opinion has guided DEA’s actions—and its inaction… The government’s unlawful conduct under FOIA prevents Plaintiff and those similarly situated from timely and effectively vindicating legal rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, effectively rendering its protections and judicial review provisions meaningless.”
To resolve the issue, SRI said it wants DEA to be held accountable for violating federal law, release the documents and compensate them for the legal action. While this is a FOIA-related suit, the institute didn’t first seek the documents through a standard document request but instead filed the case under the law’s “Reading Room provision” that allows courts to force federal agencies to put records online, according to a Ninth Circuit ruling last year.
Sue Sisley, a researcher with SRI, told Marijuana Moment that the institute has generally had a good relationship with DEA over the years and doesn’t expect that it would unduly deny their application in retaliation for the institute’s repeated legal actions against the agency.
“I couldn’t fathom that that would happen, but I hope that the merits of our application are so clear that it would carry us forward,” she said. However, these licensing agreements are “not always a merit-based process so it is possible that if politics get deeply involved here that there could be a situation where licenses are awarded to friends of the government. We’re still praying that there is some merit-based system.”
Researchers and lawmakers have made clear that the current availability of federally authorized cannabis for research raises questions about the accuracy of tests that rely on it, as the quality is insufficient. As of now, there’s only one facility at the University of Mississippi that’s authorized to grow cannabis for researchers. The products developed at the university have been widely criticized by scientists and lawmakers. A study indicated that the facility’s cannabis is chemically more similar to hemp than marijuana available in state-legal markets.
“If adopted, these proposed rules would radically overhaul how medical marijuana manufacture and research will proceed in this country,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Better supply is needed for better research, and better research is needed not only because millions use medical marijuana every day, but also to facilitate informed policymaking at the federal and state levels, including legislation and drug scheduling decisions.”
Read the full lawsuit against DEA below:
Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.
First Legal Marijuana Home Deliveries Begin In Colorado
For the first time, people in Colorado will be able to legally have marijuana products delivered directly to their homes starting on Friday.
The launch of the limited program focused on medical cannabis patients comes one week after the dispensary chain Native Roots announced that its Boulder location The Dandelion had received the state’s first marijuana delivery license. And while the license wasn’t related to the coronavirus outbreak, the timing is opportune, as officials have increasingly cautioned against leaving home to avoid catching or spreading the virus.
The delivery service will be limited to patients living in either Boulder or Superior. They must also be registered with the dispensary, and those who are not already signed up must do so in-person for the time being—though Native Roots said it is “looking into a compliant, remote solution for patient registration.”
Native Roots said there is a $100 minimum purchase, and they’re encouraging patients to pay with a debit card rather than cash, presumably because drivers could be targets of burglaries if they’re transporting large amounts of cash or because of concerns that money changing hands could further the spread of COVID-19.
Cannabis delivery services are a new feature of Colorado’s legal marijuana program. Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed legislation last year allowing the option, though individuals jurisdictions must proactively opt-in, so as of now that number of cities permitting deliveries is limited. Native Roots said it’s been engaging with local governments about the issue for months.
Deliveries for recreational cannabis consumers won’t begin until January 2021 under the law.
As more businesses shutter as a result of the pandemic, there’s growing demand for alternative means of obtaining marijuana products, and several states have taken steps to address that concern by encouraging deliveries and curbside pickup, for example.
For patients and reform advocates, that represents an ideal solution compared to closing dispensaries altogether. Numerous legal states have categorized cannabis shops as essential services that are exempt from mandates to close down. And according to a poll released this week, a majority of Americans agree with that decision.
But while the market remains largely operational in the midst of this health crisis, reform advocates across the U.S. are feeling the impact and struggling to continue campaign activities, including in-person signature gathering.
Campaigns to change state marijuana programs, legalize psilocybin mushrooms, legalize psilocybin for therapeutic purposes, legalize medical and recreational cannabis, decriminalize psychedelics and broadly decriminalize drug possession have all faced challenges amid the pandemic, and several have implored officials to allow electronic signature gathering to overcome the barrier.
An exception to this appears to be Arizona, where activists recently said they’ve collected more than enough signatures at this point to qualify for the state’s November ballot.
Photo courtesy of Philip Steffan.