An attorney based in the U.K. is disrupting the centuries-long tradition of barristers wearing wigs made with horse hair. He wants lawyers in the country’s high courts to start donning vegan, hemp-based head coverings instead.

Samuel March first previewed the hemp wigs last year. He said that horsehair wigs that have been standard garb are outdated, and the cannabis-based version could serve as an animal-friendly and more environmentally sustainable vegan alternative to the status quo.

A closer look at the world's first plant-based barrister's wig, swapping horsehair for hemp… pic.twitter.com/jMK8WDuEMa

— Samuel March (@Sam_Oscar_March) March 6, 2021

As it stands, the hemp wig is in the “testing phase” for interested members. But he hopes it catches on.

“Hemp is a notoriously tough material so I do not anticipate there being any issues [with wear and tear], but there is always a risk where you’re the first in the world to try something,” March recently told The Telegraph. “Making them here [in the UK] on this scale and price point means my market is largely limited to vegan barristers, which is a small market—but one that I intend to keep selling to.”

Hemp & Hemp, the company March founded to supply the cannabis-based headwear, says on its website that it makes “the world’s first ever plant-based, vegan-friendly wigs for barristers.”

Intent to supply…

The world’s first plant-based wig for barristers is now available to order. It swaps horse hair for hemp and is 100% vegan friendly.

New website just dropped: https://t.co/brd2ihmdNR pic.twitter.com/brIXDLgFoG

— Samuel March (@Sam_Oscar_March) February 22, 2022

The U.K. government hasn’t been especially progressive when it comes to marijuana reform, but the country has embraced non-intoxicating hemp in varying forms over recent years.

March further recognized that hemp wigs aren’t for everyone, and he’s not trying to push it on barristers with reservations.

He said that upholding the longstanding legal tradition of wearing wigs in the first place should be made optional “for people who wear turbans, headscarves, have afro hair or any reason to feel uncomfortable dressing as a white man from the 18th century.”

I love my wig but they should be optional for people who wear turbans, headscarves, have afro hair or any reason to feel uncomfortable dressing as a white man from the 18th century. Not all barristers are eccentric white, male, privately educated former Cambridge drama students.

— Samuel March (@Sam_Oscar_March) February 24, 2022

“Not all barristers are eccentric white, male, privately educated former Cambridge drama students,” he said.

To that point, a black barrister recently criticized the “culturally insensitive” and “ridiculous” tradition of requiring lawyers to subscribe to an outmoded hair styling that requires donning horse-derived hair to appear in legal proceedings.

Leslie Thomas QC said that the wig mandate “represents and signifies the culturally insensitive climate”—an issue that came to the fore after another barrister, Michael Etienne, who has an afro, was threatened with disciplinary action if he chose not to cover it with a wig.

Quick response to some FAQs arising out of this:

🚭 No: Very sorry to disappoint those asking, but nothing in my hemp wig contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

✅ Yes: I do have intent to supply- but I need time. I’m keeping a list; reach out and I’ll keep you posted. https://t.co/f0h7Hdutp0

— Samuel March (@Sam_Oscar_March) February 27, 2021

Meanwhile, lawmakers and officials in other countries have similarly taken steps to normalize hemp.

Late last year, for example, Berlin’s public transit authority sought to take the stress out of holiday travel with promotional hemp-infused tickets that riders could eat.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), meanwhile, is sponsoring a project to develop hemp fiber insulation that’s designed to be better for the environment and public health than conventional preparations are.

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this week that it is awarding a Washington State-based company a $100,000 grant to support the development of sustainable bricks made from industrial hemp.

Bipartisan Majorities In Maryland Support Marijuana Legalization, Far Outpacing Biden’s Approval In New Poll

Photo courtesy of Twitter/Samuel March.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

More Americans think it’d be good if people switched to marijuana and drank less alcohol than think the substance substitution would be bad, according to a new poll.

When asked in the YouGov survey, twenty-seven percent agreed that it’d be ideal if people used more cannabis instead of booze, whereas 20 percent said that would be a bad idea.

However, most respondents (38 percent) said it would be neither good nor bad, and an additional 15 percent said they weren’t sure.

While there’s been ample discussion about the pros and cons of alcohol versus cannabis, advocates have been quick to point out that liquor is strongly associated with long-term health issues and people can die from alcohol poisoning.

In contrast, there are no recorded deaths attributed solely to a marijuana overdose—by the federal government’s own admission—and the plant’s compounds have been shown to be medically beneficial for a number of health conditions.

The demographic breakdown of the poll, which involved interviews with 10,412 Americans on February 28, found that Democrats were more likely to say that making the switch to marijuana from alcohol would be good (34 percent), compared to Republicans (18 percent) and independents (27 percent).

Would it be good or bad if the average American drank less alcohol and used more marijuana?

Good – 27%
Bad – 20%
Neither – 38% https://t.co/WClXigomly pic.twitter.com/sxYGoj7OgQ

— YouGov America (@YouGovAmerica) February 28, 2022

People aged 30-44 were the most likely to say cannabis substitution would be good (34 percent), whereas just 17 percent of those 65 and older said the same.

Regardless of public opinion, it does appear that states where cannabis is legalized for adult use are seeing a stronger trend toward marijuana sales over time.

For example, Massachusetts is officially collecting more tax revenue from marijuana than alcohol, state data released last month shows.

Illinois also saw cannabis taxes beat out booze for the first time last year, with the state collecting about $100 million more from adult-use marijuana than alcohol during 2021.

A 2019 report separately found that the number of drunk-driving accidents in Idaho decreased following the legalization of cannabis in neighboring Washington State.

Article On Bill Clinton’s CBD Comments Deleted Following Alleged Pressure From Former President’s Team

Photo courtesy of Pixabay.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

A U.S. sprinter who was suspended from competing in the 2021 summer Olympics over a positive marijuana test is challenging the recent decision to allow a Russian skater to continue to participate in this month’s winter games despite the discovery that she’d tested positive for a banned performance enhancement drug.

Sha’Carri Richardson’s suspension last year drove an international conversation about the global sports policy barring Olympians from using cannabis, and it’s even prompted a scientific review of the policy by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

But now the runner is openly questioning why she faced serious consequences when Russian skater Kamila Valieva, who helped her team bring home gold in one race and is considered the favorite for a separate race, is being allowed to compete even after testing positive for a banned substance.

Richardson said on Monday that she was confused by the seeming double standard. She said she wanted to “get a solid answer on the difference of her situation and mines.”

Can we get a solid answer on the difference of her situation and mines? My mother died and I can’t run and was also favored to place top 3. The only difference I see is I’m a black young lady. https://t.co/JtUfmp3F8L

— Sha’Carri Richardson (@itskerrii) February 14, 2022

“My mother died and I can’t run and was also favored to place top 3,” she wrote, referencing the personal circumstances that she said led her to use cannabis in a legal state last year. “The only difference I see is I’m a black young lady.”

“It’s all in the skin,” Richardson tweeted.

It’s all in the skin

— Sha’Carri Richardson (@itskerrii) February 14, 2022

It’s certainly a legitimate question, as black people have historically tended to be held a higher and more discriminatory standard, particularly as it concerns drugs.

Richardson also pointed out that cannabis is “not a performance enhancing drug.”

Btw THC definitely is not a performance enhance!!!!

— Sha’Carri Richardson (@itskerrii) February 14, 2022

The doping drug that Valieva tested positive for using, trimetazidine, is known to increase exercise duration and improve cardiac performance—effects that could ostensibly have helped her, for example, historically land the first quadruple jumps made by a woman in an Olympic event this month.

All of this said, there are also some other functional differences between the cases.

For one, Richardson’s suspension was a decision made by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which does operate in compliance with international athletics rules and has expressed sympathy for the situation but ultimately insisted that its hands were tied.

Valieva, meanwhile, was temporarily suspended by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) after the results of her positive doping test were disclosed. The test was conducted in December, so there are questions about the timing of the information’s release, but in any case, RUSADA later lifted the temporary suspension, only to be challenged by WADA, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Skating Union (ISU).

On Friday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)—an international body that resolves these types of Olympic disputes—released a statement rejecting the challenges, permitting Valieva to continue to participate. However, some penalties were imposed by IOC, such as the fact that there will be no medal ceremony held for her event if she finishes in the top three.

While Richardson said she felt that race may have played a factor in the two different outcomes, CAS said that the reason was principally related to the fact that the 15-year-old skater is a minor and therefore a “protected person” who is subject to a different standard under WADA code.

“The RUSADA Anti-Doping Rules and the WADC are silent with respect to provisional suspension imposed on protected persons, while these rules have specific provisions for different standards of evidence and for lower sanctions in the case of protected persons,” it said.

“The CAS Ad hoc Division was requested to determine the narrow issue as to whether a provisional suspension should be imposed on the athlete. It was not requested to rule on the merits of this case, nor to examine the legal consequences relating to the results of the team event in figure skating, as such issues will be examined in other proceedings,” it continued.

Richard Pound, the first president of WADA, told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview on Monday that “certainly, in the Olympics, there’s not a racial bias in anything that we do.”

“I think the key for the Russian is that she’s a minor,” he said.

Still, some U.S. sports commentators are taken aback by the CAS decision. But the details and ongoing questions about this case notwithstanding, it’s the latest example of how the intersection of drugs and sports is becoming a broader question.

Richardson, for her part, said last year that she’d feel “blessed and proud” if the attention her case raised would affect a policy change for other athletes. Even the White House and President Joe Biden himself weighed in on the case, with the president suggesting that there’s a question about whether the marijuana ban should “remain the rules.”

Pound commented on the extreme penalty for Richardson’s positive cannabis test, saying he doesn’t understand why regulators “didn’t just say, ‘sorry, about your mother, but for god’s sake, be careful with this stuff because it’s still on the list and you’re exposing yourself to the possible sanctions,” rather than outright suspend her.

In an earlier interview with Marijuana Moment last year, he said that the the U.S. bears much responsibility for the enactment of the cannabis ban.

Outside of international sports, domestic athletic organizations in the U.S. have started to adopt different policies with respect to marijuana.

For example, NFL’s drug testing policy already changed demonstrably in 2020 as part of a collective bargaining agreement.

NFL players no longer face the possibility of being suspended from games over positive tests for any drug—not just marijuana—under a collective bargaining agreement. Instead, they will face a fine. The threshold for what constitutes a positive THC test was also increased under the deal.

The NBA announced late last year that is extending its policy of not randomly drug testing players for marijuana through the 2021-2022 season. The association won’t be subjecting players to random drug testing for THC; however, they will continue to test “for cause” cases where players have histories of substance use.

In a similar vein, the MLB decided in 2019 to remove cannabis from the league’s list of banned substances. Baseball players can consume marijuana without risk of discipline, but officials clarified last year that they can’t work while under the influence and can’t enter into sponsorship contracts with cannabis businesses, at least for the time being.

Marijuana icon Snoop Dogg, who was featured at the Super Bowl halftime show on Sunday where an ad separate aired that indirectly supported legalization, argued that sports leagues need to stop testing players for marijuana and allow to them to use it as an alternative to prescription opioids.

IRS Official Clarifies That Medical Marijuana Is Not Tax-Deductible Under Federal Law After Misstatement

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.