Author: toker

United States Cannabis Market Size & Forecast 2026–2034

Source link

MLK & Marijuana: How the Civil Rights Leader’s Work Informs the Push for Legal Pot

Martin Luther King Jr. might have turned 96 years old this month if he had not been felled by an assassin’s bullet on April 4, 1968. It is, of course, impossible to know what the United States would look like today if he had lived — or what he would think about the political dilemmas of our own time.

Yet there are certain obvious parallels between his time and ours. The country continues to be bitterly divided along political lines. And many activists and scholars argue that the racist power structure that King fought has re-congealed—this time in the guise of the “War on Drugs” and mass incarceration. His legacy, therefore, holds lessons for those now fighting for cannabis legalization.

Cycles of Repression and Revolution  

Foremost among those scholars is Michelle Alexander, author of the 2010 bestseller The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. Alexander takes a long view of the struggle for racial justice in the United States and paints a grim picture. She illustrates how many of the gains that King won in his life are being reversed after his death — this time in a new “race-neutral” guise that only serves to mask continued institutionalized racism.  

Alexander notes that in 1972, there were under 350,000 people in prisons and jails nationwide. Today there are 2 million. In fact, the US has the most people behind bars of any nation on Earth, in both per capita and absolute terms. This is certainly an irony for the country that touts itself as the “land of the free.” 

Among those 2 million people in prison are 40,000 who remain incarcerated in state or federal prisons on cannabis-related convictions— about half of them for marijuana offenses alone. When those waiting to see a judge in local jails are added in, the figure may approach 100,000 on any given day. And the racial disparity could not be more obvious. A 2013 American Civil Liberties Union report, Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests, crunched the national data. It found that black people are more than three times as likely as whites to be arrested for cannabis — despite consuming the plant at essentially similar rates.  

And this is not the first time the country has seen significant and hard-won racial progress being in large part (at least) reversed, with the same power structure re-establishing itself in new guise. Slavery was abolished in the aftermath of the Civil War. But, as Alexander quotes historian and early civil rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois, from his 1935 book Black Reconstruction in America, “The slave went free, stood a brief moment in the sun, then moved back again toward slavery.”

In the South under occupation by Union troops after the Civil War, black people for the first time voted, served on juries and held elected office — until the backlash came. In 1877, the federal troops were withdrawn. In subsequent years, without federal interference, Ku Klux Klan terror enforced legal apartheid in the southern states — the system known as Jim Crow. Blacks were often reduced to a state of near-slavery through share-cropping and were barred from the vote by systematic disenfranchisement.  

It wasn’t until nearly a century after the Civil War that this system would be challenged. In his book Why We Can’t Wait, an account of the 1963 Birmingham Campaign to desegregate Alabama’s biggest city, King wrote of “America’s third revolution — the Negro Revolution.” 

By King’s reckoning, the country’s first revolution had been the one we actually call “the Revolution” — the War of Independence, although it left the slave-owning aristocracy of the South thoroughly in place. The second was arguably far more revolutionary — the Civil War, in which the slave system was broken. King’s Civil Rights Movement was avowedly nonviolent, but it was still a revolution — the overturning of a power structure by physical as well as moral opposition.

Despite the violent backlash, both from the police and Ku Klux Klan terrorists, the campaign ultimately swayed the nation, resulting in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other landmark legislation that finally ended legal apartheid in America.

But the year of King’s assassination saw the country’s national political establishment embracing the backlash — exactly as in 1877. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Richard Nixon first adopted the rhetoric of a “War on Drugs” (although he would actually coin that phrase three years later, when the Controlled Substances Act was passed). And, in just barely coded terms, Nixon was promoting the rhetoric of racism.

In her book, Alexander quotes Nixon’s special counsel John Ehrlichman explicitly summing up the campaign strategy in his 1982 memoir, Witness To Power: The Nixon Years: “We’ll go after the racists.” Ehrlichman unabashedly wrote how throughout the 1968 race, “subliminal appeal to the anti-black voter was always present in Nixon’s statements and speeches.” 

Alexander did not mention, however, another quote attributed to Ehrlichman in which he just as explicitly made the connection between this subliminal racism and the anti-drug drumbeat. Journalist Dan Baum in the April 2016 edition of Harper’s recalls a quote he says he got from a 1994 interview with Ehrlichman: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people… by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

And the backlash was just beginning.

Birth of the New Jim Crow 

The new order would be consolidated over the next decade. In 1973, the same year the federal Drug Enforcement Administration was created, New York state’s Rockefeller Laws imposed the nation’s first mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. In 1977, New York decriminalized cannabis, overturning the harsh Rockefeller Laws where personal quantities of marijuana were concerned — but the draconian provisions for cocaine and heroin remained intact.

With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the “drug war” rhetoric was revived with a vengeance, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 imposed mandatory minimum sentences nationwide. Ten years later, an ACLU report would find that the law “devastated African American and low-income communities.” 

The 1986 law also instated the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine — as crack was flooding black communities and landing people with the far longer sentences. This was also reflected in public perceptions and media portrayals. In the early ’80s, powder cocaine was a status symbol for white yuppies. When crack hit the streets from New York to Los Angeles, it was immediately stigmatized by association with the criminal (read: black) underclass.

This period also saw the rapid militarization of police forces, and the War on Drugs, in Alexander’s words, went “from being a political slogan to an actual war.” The 1981 Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act started to erode the firewall that had existed between the armed forces and police since the end of Reconstruction.

The DEA joined with local police forces to instate Operation Pipeline, a program of traffic stops and vehicle searches that was protested by the ACLU as based on systematic “racial profiling.” 

This was enabled by a series of bad Supreme Court decisions — Terry vs Ohio in 1968, Florida vs. Bostick in 1991, Ohio vs. Robinette in 1996 — that dramatically eroded the Fourth Amendment. Alexander writes that these decisions enabled “consent searches” — in which the motorist (or pedestrian, or home resident) verbally consents to the search, but actually does so under police intimidation.

All-white juries were more likely to convict black people, of course — and prosecutors were still able to strike non-whites from serving as jurors despite the 1986 Supreme Court decision Batson v. Kentucky, which barred discrimination on the basis of race in jury selection. As Alexander writes, “the only thing that has changed is that prosecutors must come up with a race-neutral excuse for the strikes.” 

In a vicious cycle, mass incarceration itself served to entrench the system of mass incarceration. Convicted felons are excluded from juries in many states, and only Maine and Vermont allow prison inmates to vote (as most Western European countries do).

Nor did this system turn around when the Democrats returned to the White House. The Bill Clinton years saw a 60% drop in federal spending on public housing, and a 170% boost in prison spending up to $19 billion. Prison construction would finally begin leveling off in the 2000s, but the actual prison population broke new records in 2008, “with no end in sight.”

Alexander writes: “Ninety percent of those admitted to prison for drug offenses in many states were black or Latino, yet the mass incarceration of communities of color was explained in race-neutral terms, an adaptation to the needs and demands of the current political climate. The New Jim Crow was born.” 

And this was utterly out of proportion to any real threat posed by illegal drugs. In the 1980s, there were some 22,000 drunk driving deaths per year, among 100,000 alcohol-related deaths. In Alexander’s words: “The number of deaths related to all illegal drugs combined was tiny compared to the number of deaths caused by drunk driving.”

Among the numberless stories of police terror in the name of drug enforcement, one recounted by Alexander is that of Alberta Spruill—a 57-year-old Harlem woman who died of a heart attack in May 2003 after police officers broke down her door and threw a concussion grenade into her apartment. No drugs or any contraband were found in the apartment. The cops were acting on a bad tip from snitches snared on a marijuana rap. 

A Fourth Revolution? 

Thanks in large part to growing public consciousness, there certainly appears to have been some progress in the fight against the War on Drugs over the past decade. In 2009, following a hard-fought activist campaign, the Rockefeller Laws were finally overturned in New York. Eleven states have now legalized cannabis, and nearly all have at least some kind of provision for medical use of cannabis — significantly lifting the pressure on one federally controlled substance.

But even amid the progress, there are clear and frustrating signs that a mere change in the law isn’t enough. From New York City (where cannabis arrests have been de-emphasized by policy) to Colorado (where cannabis is now legal), overall arrests for pot are significantly reduced — but the stark racial disparity persists in those arrests that continue under various loopholes.

Michelle Alexander concludes with a litany of necessary legal reforms and then states that, ultimately, they are insufficient: “Mandatory drug sentencing laws must be rescinded. Marijuana ought to be legalized (and perhaps other drugs as well)… The list could go on, of course, but the point has been made. The central question for racial justice advocates is this: are we serious about ending the system of control, or not?” 

She quotes from Martin Luther King’s book of collected speeches, A Testament of Hope: “White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society. The comfortable, the entrenched, the privileged cannot continue to tremble at the prospect of change in the status quo.”

There are many other quotes from the great civil rights leader that shed equal light on the current impasse, in which the limitations of mere legal progress are becoming clear. In his April 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail, King justified his civil disobedience in these words: “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.”

This recalls both the relative impunity for white coke-snorters in the ’80s as black communities were militarized in the name of drug enforcement — and the white entrepreneurs now disproportionately getting rich off legal cannabis, while black users remain disproportionately criminalized.  

In Why We Can’t Wait, King wrote of how the country needed a “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged” — anticipating the current demands for drug war reparations, wedding legal cannabis to addressing the harms caused by prohibition and the related matrix of social injustice.

The notion that cannabis legalization is necessary but not sufficient recalls King’s 1967 report to the staff of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the main coordinating body of the civil rights campaign. 

In the “Report to SCLC Staff,” he noted how the 1965 Selma to Montgomery March culminated in passage of the Voting Rights Act later that year — a critical victory. Yet, he wrote: “We have moved from the era of civil rights to the era of human rights, an era where we are called upon to raise certain basic questions about the whole society. We have been in a reform movement… But after Selma and the voting rights bill, we moved into a new era, which must be the era of revolution. We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power.”

If cannabis legalization is to truly undo the social harms of prohibition, its advocates may be in for a similar reckoning in the coming period.

The post MLK & Marijuana: How the Civil Rights Leader’s Work Informs the Push for Legal Pot appeared first on Cannabis Now.

Source link

From Advocacy to Action: Ganjactivist.com Launches UpInYears.life for Cannabis Financial Empowerment.

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASENovember 6, 2025 From Advocacy to Action: Ganjactivist.com Debuts UpInYears.life for Cannabis Financial Empowerment Los Angeles, CA — November 6, 2025 — Ganjactivist.com, widely known for its advocacy, industry education, and cultural leadership in the global cannabis space, today announced the launch of UpInYears.life, a new financial services platform designed to…

The post From Advocacy to Action: Ganjactivist.com Launches UpInYears.life for Cannabis Financial Empowerment. first appeared on .

Source link

Fee-Free Cannabis Prescriptions: Reddit Patients Evaluate Dispensed's Subscription Model

Medical cannabis prescribing in Australia operates through competing business models. Some clinics charge consultation fees for each appointment. Others eliminate these fees entirely through subscription-based delivery systems. Reddit discussions across r/MedicalCannabisOz, r/MedicalCannabisAus, r/MMJ, and regional forums reveal how patients evaluate these different approaches.

Source link

Missouri Marijuana Businesses Fined For Bringing Clones Across State Lines In Violation Of Rules

“Some licensees believed they were permitted to bring in clones or tissue cultures as well as seeds on an ongoing basis.”

By Rebecca Rivas, Missouri Independent

At least seven marijuana cultivation facilities in Missouri have been fined over the last year for breaking what’s known in the industry as the “immaculate conception rule.”

Marijuana can’t pass over state lines because it’s still federally illegal, and state law mandates that all marijuana must be grown within the state.

However, there is one year after a licensee passes a commencement inspection when the state essentially closes its eyes and puts its hands over its ears on how a cultivation facility starts its inventory.

It’s called the immaculate conception rule, and six facilities were fined up to $500,000 from breaking it last year.

A spokesperson for the Missouri Division of Cannabis Regulation said regulators “discovered some licensees believed they were permitted to bring in clones or tissue cultures as well as seeds on an ongoing basis. However, this practice is a violation of seed-to-sale tracking regulations.”

To keep up with customers’ preferences and demand, these companies had been bringing in clones, or starter plants, and tissue cultures, which is a form of in-vitro propagation, of popular plant varieties from other states

“In lieu of penalties or other enforcement action, these violations were resolved for amounts ranging from $50,000 to $500,000, depending on the circumstances,” said Lisa Cox, spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, which oversees the cannabis regulation division.

The licensees that saw the biggest fines are major players in other states as well, including the companies behind Good Day Farm and High Profile.

The combined fee for four cultivation licenses representing Good Day Farm and Codes, which share management, was $347,495. The facilities are located in Columbia, Carrollton and Chaffee.

For High Profile, it was $500,000 at its O’Fallon cultivation facility.

Two smaller cultivators also saw fines of $20,000 and $50,000.

None of the licensees who were fined by the state returned The Independent’s request for comment.

The ‘mother plant’

Cultivation facilities in Missouri are approved to grow marijuana plants, and the harvest is sent to a manufacturing facility that then makes pre-rolls, edibles and other products.

Oftentimes, cultivators will develop “a mother plant” to collect clones, or cuttings, from the plant and put those into their own pots. Those are genetically identical to the plant that they’re cut from.

But where does the mother plant come from?

For a facility’s first year, the “rules and law are silent on how that occurs,” Cox said.

After that, the facilities can ask the state for permission to bring in seeds for “ongoing inventory needs,” she said, or get clones from other licensed cultivators located in Missouri.

But the state fined several licensees last year for not sticking to those rules, sending a clear message to all Missouri companies that they have to grow plants from seed or get starter plants from their competitors.

Ryan Schepers, instructor for St. Louis Community College’s cannabis program, said as a “plant nerd,” he doesn’t believe starting from seed is a necessarily difficult thing—or a bad thing for the industry’s innovation.

“I think a lot of the cultivation centers are set up to care for already established plants, and that would be a little bit of a challenge,” he said.

But it’s nothing the “well versed” plant growers working in the cultivation centers can’t handle, he said. The main challenge is the delay in production, he said. It will take about a month to six weeks for a cannabis plant to start to be well established, he said, but they’ll be “pretty hardy plants.”

“Clones are obviously much easier to deal with,” he said.

But tissue cultures involve a small amount of cells to get started, he said, and that process can take about as long as seed sprouting.

He understands that it’s difficult for companies to align the plant growth time with the need to keep up with trends in other states. If a product is selling really well in California, he said, “of course we’re going to try to get that same thing in Missouri.”

However, he said it can disincentivize cultivation centers from trying new things. For the sake of his students, he hopes the emphasis will shift to breeding and innovation.

“We, at St Louis Community College, really emphasize that our students be plant scientists who focus on cannabis,” he said.

Innovation can be difficult when the federal and state laws are rapidly changing, he added.

The Independent asked if the state would consider a variance for licensees to get clones in the future to keep up with popular varieties.

“The department was considering guidance from the DEA that indicated clones may no longer be considered marijuana under federal law due to low Delta 9 [THC] concentrations,” Cox said.

However, she said recent changes to federal law “may change the status of seeds and clones.” She was referring to restrictions on hemp that were passed as part of the federal spending package last year and will be effective in November.

“So the department will need to follow how federal guidance,” Cox said, “and interpretation develops over the next year before it makes any changes to rules or processes.”

This story was first published by Missouri Independent.

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

The post Missouri Marijuana Businesses Fined For Bringing Clones Across State Lines In Violation Of Rules appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

Source link

The Green Wave: Medical Cannabis Sweeps 40 States

A recent NCSL report highlights that 40 states, three territories, and Washington D.C. now permit medical cannabis, marking a pivotal shift in U.S. policy and healthcare. This widespread adoption is fueled by patient advocacy, growing scientific evidence, and evolving public opinion, leading to diversified product options for various conditions. Despite ongoing federal illegality, the strong state-level momentum for cannabis legalization suggests future federal reform is increasingly probable.

Hey there, ever feel like the world’s perception of cannabis is shifting faster than a perfectly rolled joint through a smoke session? Well, you’re not wrong! A recent report from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) just dropped some seriously fascinating numbers: as of June 26, 2025, a whopping 40 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia now permit the medical use of cannabis products. 

For decades, cannabis has been stuck in a legal and social limbo, often demonized despite its well-documented therapeutic potential. But clearly, things are changing, and pretty dramatically at that. We’re talking about a significant majority of the U.S. now offering some form of legal access to medical marijuana. This isn’t just a trend; it’s a monumental pivot in public policy and healthcare.

Why the Shift? It’s All About the Patients (and Science!)

So, what’s driving this widespread acceptance of medical cannabis laws? Honestly, it boils down to a few key factors:

• Patient Advocacy: Real people sharing real stories of relief from chronic pain, anxiety, epilepsy, and more. It’s hard to ignore the testimonials when they’re coming from your neighbors, friends, and family.
• Mounting Research: While federal prohibition has made large-scale research challenging, the studies that have emerged continue to highlight the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids like THC and CBD.
• Evolving Public Opinion: Simply put, more and more people understand that cannabis isn’t just about recreation. It’s about alleviating suffering. When your doctor recommends it, or you see it helping someone with a debilitating illness, your perspective naturally shifts.

It’s no longer a question of if cannabis has medical utility, but rather how best to integrate it safely and effectively into our healthcare system. The states that have adopted these programs aren’t just being rebellious; they’re responding to the needs of their citizens and the growing body of evidence.

What Does “Medical Cannabis” Really Mean?

When we talk about medical cannabis, it’s important to remember we’re not just talking about smoking flower, although that’s certainly an option for many. The market has diversified incredibly. Patients can access:

• Edibles: From gummies to chocolates, a discreet way to consume.
• Tinctures: Drops under the tongue for precise dosing.
• Topicals: Creams and balms for localized pain relief without psychoactive effects.
• Vapes: For quick onset and ease of use.
• Pills: Standardized doses for consistent effects.

Each product type offers unique benefits for different conditions and preferences. This variety allows doctors and patients to tailor treatment plans, making cannabis as medicine a highly personalized experience. Qualifying conditions vary by state, but commonly include cancer, chronic pain, PTSD, multiple sclerosis, and epilepsy.

The Road Ahead: Navigating Federal vs. State Waters

Despite this incredible state-level progress, we can’t forget the elephant in the room: cannabis remains federally illegal. This creates a fascinating (and sometimes frustrating) legal paradox where a substance is legal in most states for medical use but still considered a Schedule I drug by the feds. This conflict impacts everything from banking for cannabis businesses to interstate commerce and even medical research funding.

However, the trend is clear. With 40 states and counting on board, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the federal government to maintain its stance. The sheer momentum of state-level legalization for patient access and economic development suggests that federal reform, whether through rescheduling or full descheduling, is likely a matter of when, not if. This broad state-level adoption is putting immense pressure on Congress to catch up with the will of the people and the realities on the ground.

The expansion of medical cannabis programs across the U.S. is a testament to persistent advocacy, scientific discovery, and a public willing to challenge old stigmas. The future of cannabis as a legitimate medicine looks brighter than ever. Blaze one for the nation!

Source link

Wyld to Acquire Grön in Major Cannabis Industry Transaction

Wyld, one of the most largest cannabis edibles brand in North America, has announced the acquisition of Grön, a pioneering women-led edibles company known for its innovation, craftsmanship, and premium product portfolio. Both brands are available in Arizona. The transaction is expected to go into effect in Q1 2026, subject to regulatory approvals.

This combination of Wyld and Grön brings together two of the cannabis edibles category leaders with shared roots, shared standards, and a long-term vision for building the most trusted and complete edibles offering in the $4.8 Billion edibles marketplace.

“This acquisition is about scaling a brand that’s already winning,” said Aaron Morris, Founder and CEO of Wyld. “Grön has built exceptional products and a deeply trusted brand. Our goal is to support its continued growth by pairing Grön’s creativity and innovation with Wyld’s infrastructure, reach, and operational strength—without compromising what makes Grön special.”

Grön, together with Wyld and Good Tide now span the full spectrum of how consumers enjoy cannabis edibles—from real fruit gummies with bold candy flavors to chocolates, and rosin-based offerings. Each brand remains authentic to its own identity while collectively offering retailers and consumers more ways to meet diverse preferences and occasions. The focus remains on quality, consistency, and consumer excellence. There are no plans to change products, formulations, or brand identities, and no plans to introduce co-branded or “a Wyld company” packaging. Grön will continue to operate as Grön—same products, same quality, same creative DNA.

“Grön was built with purpose from day one, rooted in quality, creativity, and a deep respect for the people who choose our products,” said Christine Apple, Founder and CEO of Grön. “Joining forces with Wyld allows us to thoughtfully scale what we do best while staying true to who we are. We share the same values, the same standards, and the same commitment to making exceptional edibles, and together we’re expanding our ability to bring that experience to more consumers without losing our roots.”

Following the acquisition, the combined scale strengthens supply reliability, improves execution, and supports continued innovation across markets. The combined reach of the merged companies will provide more choice and better access to premium cannabis edibles for consumers. Wyld is currently available in Arizona, 15 other states and Canada, and found in approximately 7,500 retail locations throughout the regulated cannabis market. Grön currently has 75 different products available in Arizona, 8 other states and Canada and available in close to 4,500 retail locations. The combined organization will include approximately 1,400 employees, with roughly 1,100 team members at Wyld and 300 at Grön. Grön will continue to be brand-led, with its existing team guiding brand strategy, product innovation, and creative direction.

The deal between Grön and Wyld was facilitated by their trusted legal teams: Wyld was represented by Joseph Bailey of Perkins Coie, and Grön was represented by Bryan Meltzer and Anan Kahari of Feuerstein Kulick.

The post Wyld to Acquire Grön in Major Cannabis Industry Transaction appeared first on AZ Marijuana.

Source link

One Joint, No Gun? The ATF Is Rethinking That Rule

A new interim rule would end automatic firearm denials based on a single instance of marijuana use, aligning federal policy with recent court rulings and growing legal pressure.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has issued an interim final rule that could significantly narrow the federal ban on firearm possession for people who use cannabis or other controlled substances.

Under the proposed change, marijuana use would no longer automatically disqualify someone from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Instead, federal authorities would need evidence of regular or compulsive unlawful drug use over an extended period of time to trigger a prohibition under the Gun Control Act.

The rule, published Thursday in the Federal Register, revises the definition of an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” a category that has long been interpreted broadly to deny Second Amendment rights to anyone with a recent history of marijuana use.

Moving Away From One-Time Use

For decades, federal background checks relied on regulatory examples that allowed firearm denials based on a single drug-related incident within the past year. That included an admission of use, a failed drug test, or a lone misdemeanor drug conviction.

According to ATF data, nearly half of all firearm denials under the drug-user prohibition in fiscal year 2025 were based on such single-incident inferences.

The agency now says that approach no longer reflects how courts interpret the law.

“Such denials create unnecessary constitutional questions,” ATF wrote, acknowledging a growing disconnect between federal enforcement practices and appellate court rulings.

Under the revised rule, a person would be considered an unlawful user only if they regularly use a controlled substance over an extended period of time and in a manner not authorized by a licensed physician. Isolated or sporadic use would no longer qualify.

Courts Have Been Pushing Back

Federal courts have increasingly rejected blanket applications of the drug-user gun ban. Judges across multiple circuits have ruled that the statute requires a clear temporal link between firearm possession and ongoing drug use, not a single past incident.

In September, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal prohibition does not apply to medical cannabis patients who comply with state law. That case was brought by former Florida agriculture commissioner Nikki Fried, now a board member of NORML, along with several registered patients.

The issue is now headed to the highest level. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban itself.

The Justice Department has asked the court to uphold the law, arguing that people who use illegal drugs pose heightened risks. Meanwhile, attorneys general from 19 states and Washington, D.C. have filed briefs siding with the federal government, even though many of those states have legalized cannabis, Marijuana Moment reported.

What The Rule Does And Does Not Do

ATF officials emphasized that the change does not legalize drug use or eliminate the firearm prohibition altogether. Instead, it narrows its scope and removes regulatory examples that treated one-time use as proof of unlawful status.

The rule takes effect immediately but remains open for public comment through June 30, 2026. ATF said it may revisit the definition again after the Supreme Court issues its ruling in Hemani.

For now, the agency says the goal is clarity.

By removing automatic denials tied to isolated drug use, ATF argues that the revised rule better aligns federal regulations with decades of court precedent while reducing erroneous background check denials that could infringe on constitutional rights.

Editor’s note: High Times is reporting on a proposed federal rule change. This coverage is not an endorsement of gun ownership or firearm use. If you choose to own a firearm, prioritize safe storage, training, and keeping guns away from children and anyone at risk of harm.

Photo: Shutterstock

<p>The post One Joint, No Gun? The ATF Is Rethinking That Rule first appeared on High Times.</p>

Source link

Punjagutta police arrest five persons with MDMA and hydroponic cannabis

Source link