The DEA has rescinded a 2023 directive which previously ordered a pharmaceutical company to shutter operations after they were found to have helped perpetuate the nationwide opioid crisis.

Morris & Dickson, a multi-billion dollar Big Pharma giant which has been in business since 1841 will be permitted to continue selling drugs to Americans as per the result of a settlement reached with the DEA on Wednesday. This comes just under a year after the pharmaceutical wholesaler had their license revoked for continuing to produce and distribute suspicious shipments of controlled substances for years after a judge recommended their license be revoked for “cavalier disregard” of controlled substance laws. They also failed to report thousands of shipments of hydrocodone and oxycodone to the DEA. 

“Of all the cases I handled as an administrative law judge for the DEA, Morris & Dickson’s violations were the most blatant and egregious,” Judge Charles Dorman told the Associated Press. “In addition, I saw no real acceptance of responsibility for their violations.”

According to the DEA, Morris & Dickson will pay a $19 million fine and submit to heightened reporting requirements for five years as well as forfeit one of their two DEA Certificates of Registration, but they will be permitted to continue producing controlled substances from schedule two to five of the Controlled Substances Act. They also admitted all wrongdoing for their past actions.

“Drug distributors like Morris & Dickson have a responsibility to protect the safety and health of customers and maintain effective controls against diversion of highly addictive controlled substances. At the height of the opioid crisis, Morris & Dickson failed to uphold that responsibility, and turned a blind eye as thousands of unusually large orders for hydrocodone and oxycodone went out the door,” said DEA spokesperson Katherine Pfaff. “Today, Morris & Dickson takes an important first step by admitting wrongdoing and paying for its misconduct, and today’s settlement will ensure that such irresponsible practices will not continue in the future.”

Morris and Dickson’s legal wrongdoing came to light as the result of an Associated Press investigation in 2023 which not only found that the nation’s fourth largest drug distributor was playing it fast and loose with dangerous opioids, but also that the four-year delay in DEA action may have been the result of the so-to-speak “revolving door” between public entities and private companies which can lead to biased decision making at the government level.

In the case of Morris and Dickson one such DEA employee, Louis Milione, spent 21 years working with the DEA in the Office of Diversion Control before retiring in 2017. After that, the Associated Press found that Milione became a consultant for the companies he was previously a regulator of, including Morris and Dickson, who hired him on a $3 million contract to essentially save their ability to produce and supply painkillers after the DEA accused the company of turning a blind eye to large suspicious orders of opioids. 

Milione advocated for Morris & Dickson in court to little or no avail as the judge presiding over the case wrote a long scathing 159-page report recommending Morris and Dickson have their license revoked. According to the Associated Press, it was not until four years later when the AP asked the DEA to comment on their investigation into Morris and Dickson that the DEA finally followed through on what the judge recommended and revoked their license, only to reinstate it with this recent order less than a year later.

“If the DEA had issued its order in a timely manner, one could then credibly believe that its second-in-command was not involved despite an obvious conflict of interest,” said Craig Holman, an ethics expert at the watchdog group Public Citizen in Washington to the Associated Press in 2023. “The mere fact that its action has been delayed four years just raises red flags. It casts the entire process under grave suspicion.”

Morris & Dickson released a brief statement on their website regarding the DEA’s decision to reverse the original license revocation, choosing to give a very general thank you to the DEA rather than going into specifics about the case.

“Morris & Dickson wants to thank the DEA for their recognition of our extensive efforts over the past five years to expand and improve our compliance system for suspicious order monitoring. We appreciate the DEA’s collaboration with us on our shared commitment to patient safety, and we are pleased that the DEA’s actions acknowledge both our current state-of-the-art compliance program and our commitment to continued enhancements into the future,” Morris & Dickson said.

The post DEA Allows Big Pharma Giant that Helped Fuel Opioid Crisis To Continue Operating appeared first on High Times.

The post DEA Allows Big Pharma Giant that Helped Fuel Opioid Crisis To Continue Operating appeared first on Paradise Found.

This year is shaping up to potentially be one of the most historic when it comes to cannabis, as U.S. advocates and consumers alike await the final decision from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on whether it will reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substance.

After the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made its recommendation to the DEA in December 2023, the collective excitement for a final decision is palpable. There has even been a recent wave of rumors that the White House could make an announcement about the pending review in the coming days, though a Biden administration official denied any pending announcements for the upcoming week.

As the wait continues, a number of advocates and legislators are arguing that simply moving cannabis to another category is not enough and pushing to deschedule cannabis entirely. Among those leaders is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who appeared on The Late Show earlier this week to discuss her stance.

Leading the Push to Deschedule Cannabis

After a segment focusing on the economy and inflation, host Stephen Colbert pivoted to address a letter from last week led by Warren and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), along with nine other Democrats including U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) among others. 

The letter urges the DEA and Biden administration to deschedule cannabis altogether, recognizing that rescheduling to Schedule III would be a “significant step forward” but would not resolve the “worst harms of the current system.”

“Thus, the DEA should deschedule marijuana altogether. Marijuana’s placement in the CSA has had a devastating impact on our communities and is increasingly out of step with state law and public opinion,” the legislators said in the letter dated Jan. 30.

“Last week you, Sen. Fetterman, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Sanders sent a letter to the DEA asking for marijuana to be descheduled. How is that different?” Colbert posed. “Two part question — How is that different from legalization, and are you high right now?”

After laughs from the audience, Warren said that cannabis legalization would be possible with a “functional Congress,” adding that this is “not the world we live in.” Descheduling, she argued, is an alternative that doesn’t require Congressional approval.

“Right now marijuana is scheduled, it’s called, as a drug by the DEA at the same risk as heroin,” Warren said. “And that means not only is it illegal, you can’t even do research on it. It’s, so no — and what we’re saying in this letter is, ‘Guys get with it,’ at the DEA. It’s not 1954. More than half of all states have legalized marijuana.”

Research on cannabis is still possible with its current scheduling, though it has historically come with a number of obstacles that have been long criticized as barriers to opening up more cannabis-related studies.

Descheduling vs. Rescheduling Cannabis

Descheduling cannabis would effectively remove its status as a controlled substance, thereby removing criminal penalties and essentially legalizing it. Congress would still be needed to establish a regulatory framework, and it would likely be treated similar to alcohol, with states allowed to form their own cannabis laws. Federal law and regulation could also play a part to some degree.

Rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would keep it as a controlled substance, and it would not federally legalize cannabis or allow states to facilitate their own markets. It would, however, remove research barriers and allow cannabis businesses licensed by the state to take federal tax deductions, which is currently not allowed.

While rescheduling alone would not enable the shift, many have also expressed concern that moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would open the door for Big Pharma to seize the market.

“The idea is to say, at the federal level, instead of creating this conflict, which is causing all kinds of problems—we’ve got problems with banking laws and problems in tax laws—you just say deschedule,” Warren said. “And look, we need some restrictions. Of course, let’s treat it like alcohol. We need to deschedule it, join the 21st century and let’s make marijuana legal. It shouldn’t be that hard.”

The declaration was met with applause, followed by Colbert’s jest, “I want to point out you didn’t answer my second question.” Warren exchanged a grin back to the host as Colbert ended the segment.

The full clip can be viewed here.

The post Sen. Elizabeth Warren Advocates for Cannabis Descheduling on ‘The Late Show’ appeared first on High Times.

The post Sen. Elizabeth Warren Advocates for Cannabis Descheduling on ‘The Late Show’ appeared first on Paradise Found.

In a historic move Friday, officials from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said in documents that they support reclassifying cannabis as a Schedule III substance. This would make medical cannabis and the research supporting it legal at the federal level but still heavily regulated like hormone replacement therapy or ketamine.

The 252-page document recommended to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that cannabis should be reclassified from a Schedule I to Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The documents start with a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, which reads that “marijuana meets the findings for control in Schedule III.”

The FDA’s Eight Factor Analysis (which are always the same) found cannabis “has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “is not an immediate precursor of another controlled substance.”

Under section 21 U.S.C. 811(b) of the CSA, the eight factors that are determinative of control of the drug are the following: 

1. Its actual or relative potential for abuse. 
2. Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known. 
3. The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance. 
4. Its history and current pattern of abuse. 
5. The scope, duration, and significance of abuse. 
6. What, if any, risk there is to public health. 
7. Its psychic or physiological dependence liability. 
8. Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled.

Clearly cannabis has been deemed to have medical value, and the documents note that  43 U.S. jurisdictions are authorized to recommend the medical use of cannabis.

It marks the first time that the FDA has recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) place cannabis in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Medical and adult-use cannabis laws across America are generally based on laws at the state and local levels, and they’ve always existed in discord with federal law.

Keep in mind that Schedule III drugs are still heavily regulated and need prescriptions: Tylenol 3’s, ketamine, anabolic steroids, or testosterone. Schedule III substances are defined as drugs with a “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence,” with less abuse potential than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs, but more than Schedule IV. Under Schedule III, Internal Revenue Code 280E (IRC 280E) would no longer apply to cannabis businesses, so you’d see things like tax deductions. Rescheduling to Schedule III, however, will not legalize state-level cannabis programs.

Cannabis Industry Reacts

Several organizations and cannabis companies sent statements to High Times. The National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR) applauded the historic acknowledgement that a federal agency has recommended cannabis be reclassified. The NCR announced that they have been instrumental in advocating for and informing the heads of the HHS in a memo, and the DEA in an open letter, as to the scientific facts and medical value of cannabis meriting its reclassification to at least Schedule III.

They acknowledged, however, the limitations of the authority of HHS and DOJ when it comes to the CSA and urged the DEA to follow the scientific findings of HHS and the FDA in this process. 

“A move to Schedule III would mean 280E no longer applies to regulated cannabis companies,” Saphira Galoob, Executive Director of the National Cannabis Roundtable, told High Times in an email. “Not only does this reduce the extreme tax burden currently faced by the industry, but it allows them to take advantage of critical tax credits on things like payroll and other routine businesses costs regularly used by other legal entities. Cannabis companies continue to face issues with access to capital and banking services, resulting in cash intense operations. The ability to reinvest more of their revenues in their operations, instead of a majority of all revenue going to taxes, will be extremely impactful for the regulated cannabis industry—particularly small and minority operators.”

Other active players in the industry reacted as well, acknowledging both the pros and cons of Schedule III.

“Health officials’ recommendation for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is a pivotal moment for our industry,” Wurk CEO Deborah Saneman told High Times. “The relentless efforts of the cannabis sector to destigmatize the plant have played a crucial role in challenging the long-standing unjust classification of cannabis. Despite facing various challenges, the cannabis industry has demonstrated resilience, adapting swiftly while upholding exceptional standards. As a leading player in the industry, Wurk remains committed to sustaining our position as the most dependable payroll, HR, and time-keeping platform in the market.” 

“The recommendation to reclassify cannabis to a Schedule III substance is progress towards undoing generations of cannabis prohibition and a significant step in recognizing the plant’s medicinal and societal benefits,” Socrates Rosenfeld, co-founder and CEO of Jane Technologies, told High Times. “While this reclassification is not a ‘perfect’ solution, we will continue our mission until there is legal access around the world—and everyone in prison for cannabis is free. Still, this moment in history should be celebrated, and the end of cannabis prohibition has never felt closer to becoming a reality.” 

“As the son of a convicted cannabis smuggler,  reading the full report from HHS (akin to a confession) that finally said the hard part out loud regarding the cannabis plants medicinal and societal value left me feeling both vindicated and excited for the future of cannabis reform,” Brady Cobb, a Washington, D.C. lobbyist and CEO of Sunburn Cannabis told High Times. “This is a groundbreaking step forward in the 70 plus year fight to end the ill fated war on the cannabis plant, and I eagerly await the DEA’s ruling to hopefully reschedule cannabis to schedule III. If that happens, this budding market will finally have a chance to operate in the sunshine with access to banking, U.S. financial services,  much needed tax reform and this move would serve as a springboard to much needed criminal justice reforms as well.”

How it Happened

Last October 6, 2022, President Biden directed federal agencies to expeditiously consider reclassifying cannabis from the most restrictive category on the CSA schedule. Several organizations and businesses provided feedback on the FDA’s recent move.

The move was partly spurred by attorney Matthew C. Zorn, who sued the federal officials after using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain the rescheduling memo. He’s done it before: In 2019, Dr. Sue Sisley of the Scottsdale Research Institute sued the DEA for blocking medical cannabis research. Two Texas-based attorneys, Shane Pennington and Zorn, took the case pro bono. NORML wrote that the DEA is essentially monopolizing cannabis research. Since cannabis is still illegal at the federal level, the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA, and the DEA have only allowed one man—Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly at the University of Mississippi—to grow cannabis for clinical studies. 

On Aug. 29, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended to the DEA that cannabis be reclassified from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III.

Schedule III would change everything, especially in terms of opening up the doors to cannabis research. Zorn first published the documents on his On Drugs blog on Friday. Before Friday, a highly redacted clip of the documents released to Zorn were released a month ago with a single page of it last October.

The industry grappled with the pros and cons Schedule III would bring as pressure mounts on the DEA to act on the recommendations from the HHS and FDA.

The post FDA Officials Recommend Reclassifying Pot Under Schedule III, How That Changes Everything appeared first on High Times.

The post FDA Officials Recommend Reclassifying Pot Under Schedule III, How That Changes Everything appeared first on Paradise Found.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has made its position on psilocybin and psilocin, two psychedelic compounds produced by “magic” mushrooms, fairly clear as states across the U.S. have begun softening regulations on their therapeutic use. 

Though it may seem contradictory under the current medicinal usage and continued scientific findings showing the potential benefits of psilocybin use under the supervision of a therapist, under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the compounds — like cannabis — are classified as Schedule I substances, deeming “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.”

Though at the start of 2024, the DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section Chief Terrence Boos confirmed that mushroom spores, or the reproductive organ of mushrooms — similar to seeds, containing the genetic information needed for new mushrooms to grow and reproduce — are in fact not considered controlled substances under the CSA.

The kicker? The spores must not contain psilocybin, psilocin or any other controlled substances under the CSA. So long as individuals do not actually let spores to germinate, allowing them to eventually grow into fungi containing controlled compounds, the DEA stated they are not classified as controlled substances, according to a response dated Jan. 2, 2024 clarifying the status.

Breakthrough Leaving a Number of Unanswered Questions

“If the mushroom spores (or any other material) do not contain psilocybin or psilocin (or any other controlled substance or listed chemical), the material is considered not controlled under the CSA,” the response reads, as first reported by Kight on Cannabis. “However, if at any time the material contains a controlled substance such as psilocybin or psilocin (for example, upon germination), the material would be considered a controlled substance under the CSA.“

While this may seem like a given, in that spores on their own do not contain forbidden compounds, the DEA confirmation still acts as a pivotal moment pertaining to the broader conversations surrounding natural psychedelics, like magic mushrooms.

As psilocybin and psilocin have increased in mainstream popularity, many have questioned the legality of selling and using spore kits, with some even being convicted for possessing and selling these materials for public use, as noted by Kight in his report.

It’s possible that sale of these kits may ramp up as the DEA confirmed its position, though the DEA also did not explicitly state that the sale of spore kits is lawful. Making matters even more complicated, some states explicitly prohibit the sale and use of spores on their own.

Kight noted that the distinction ultimately lies in whether these kits are considered “drug paraphernalia,” which largely depends on how consumers use spore kits and how sellers market them. Drug paraphernalia includes “equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing… [or] producing” a controlled substance. 

Therefore, marketing a spore kit as a means to grow magic mushrooms, or even the act of purchasing a kit with the intent to grow mushrooms containing psilocybin or psilocin, could cause the seller or the user to be open to prosecution.

Kight calls the DEA response a “positive clarification of a long-debated issue,” while cautioning readers around the widespread use and sale of spore kits: “At a minimum, buyers and sellers should understand the legal issues with a lawyer, and act accordingly,” Kight writes.

The DEA recently clarified a similar issue pertaining to cannabis, in that cannabis is still a federally prohibited substance while the seeds used to produce the cannabis plant are not, so long as they do not exceed 0.3% THC by dry weight. Seeds falling under that threshold are classified as federally legal hemp, per the 2018 Hemp Bill, as confirmed by Boos in a January 2022 letter.

Rescheduling and DEA’s Continued Interest in Psychedelic Mushrooms

While cannabis is currently in the midst of potentially being reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA, it appears that psilocybin and related compounds aren’t set to follow suit any time soon. 

In December 2023, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a motion for a rehearing of an earlier court decision in which lawyers for a Washington State doctor inquired about rescheduling psilocybin under the CSA. 

Lawyers had asked the panel to revisit the ruling, specifically to address their argument that federal statute requires a referral to the FDA to conduct a “scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation.” The court ultimately ordered a remand back to the DEA, effectively denying the rehearing request.

Still, it appears that the DEA is continuing to research the potential benefits behind psilocybin, along with a handful of other banned substances. 

A DEA notice posted earlier this month noted a request for 20,000 grams of psilocybin in its 2024 aggregate production quotas, which was previously established in October at 8,000 grams and increased later to 15,000 grams. The DEA also requested 24,000 grams of psilocin, unchanged from its November 2023 amount.

“There has been a significant increase in the use of schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substances for research and clinical trial purposes,” the DEA wrote. “DEA has received and subsequently approved new registration applications for Schedule I researchers and new applications for registration from manufacturers to grow, synthesize, extract, and prepare dosage forms containing specific Schedule I hallucinogenic substances for research and clinical trial purposes.”

The post DEA Response Clarifies Psychedelic Mushroom Spores Are Legal Before Germination appeared first on High Times.

The post DEA Response Clarifies Psychedelic Mushroom Spores Are Legal Before Germination appeared first on Paradise Found.

In an email response sent to Rod Kight of Kight Law Office PC on Feb. 13, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) stated that because delta-9-THCO and delta-8-THCO are synthetic and are not found naturally in cannabis, they do not count as hemp, and are therefore controlled substances.

Kight’s letter was originally sent in August 2022 (and a follow-up email sent last week on Feb. 7) with a request for the status of THC acetate ester (THCO) under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Terrence L. Boos, Chief Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section Diversion Control Division penned the response, and clarified the agency’s stance on delta products. “The only substances of which the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is aware of the THC acetate ester are delta-9-THCO (delta-9-THC acetate ester) and delta-8-THCO (delta-8-THC acetate ester),” Boos said. “The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reviewed the CSA and its implementing regulations with regard to the control status of these substances.”

Boos explained that the CSA classifies “tetrahydrocannabinols,” or THC, as “naturally contained in a plant of the genus Cannabis (cannabis plant), as well as synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the cannabis plant and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity to those substances contained in the plant.”

Because of this definition, neither delta-9-THCO or delta-8-THCO are considered to be hemp by the DEA. “Delta-9-THCO and delta-8-THCO do not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore do not fall under the definition of hemp,” wrote Boos.

He added that delta-9-THCO and delta-8-THCO have “similar chemical structures and pharmacological activities to those contained in the cannabis plant,” and thus meet the definition of “tetrahydrocannabinols,” which the agency classifies in Schedule I. He also included the molecular structure of delta-9-THCO and delta-8-THCO for reference at the end of the letter.

In a written statement from Michelle Bodian, a partner at Vicente Sederberg, Bodian explained what this news could mean for the industry. “While the latest statement from DEA does not clarify the legal status of all novel hemp derived cannabinoids, it does clarify that DEA believes Delta-9THCO and Delta-8THCO are controlled substances,” said Michelle Bodian, Partner at Vicente Sederberg. “Hopefully, there is Congressional action soon to address the legality of all hemp derived cannabinoids, so the industry is not left with a patchwork of law, regulation, policy and now, letter statements.”

While the government has been silent on a definitive course of action in regard to regulating delta products, state legislators have been left to take action on their own.

Delta-8 products were banned in New York in May 2021. Ohio created new rules to govern delta-8 products in June 2021, including production and sales. A new law introduced in Michigan in July 2021 also created regulations that limited the sale of delta-8 products to only cannabis businesses that were licensed by the Michigan Marijuana Regulatory Agency. Later in November 2021, a Texas judge issued a temporary injunction that removed delta-8 from the state’s list of Schedule I substances.

In May 2022, governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent out warning letters to businesses selling delta-8 products. “The FDA is very concerned about the growing popularity of delta-8 THC products being sold online and in stores nationwide,” said FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock. “These products often include claims that they treat or alleviate the side effects related to a wide variety of diseases or medical disorders, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, nausea, and anxiety.”

In the most recent string of delta-related news, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong recently announced that his office was suing five retailers selling cannabis without a license, specifically in relation to delta-8 THC. “Cannabis products in Connecticut cannot be sold by unlicensed retailers and must meet rigorous testing and packaging requirements. Period,” said Tong in a statement. “Any unlicensed Connecticut retailer selling delta-8 THC products that purport to contain high levels of THC is breaking the law and may be subject to both criminal and civil penalties.”

The post DEA States that Delta-9-THCO, Delta-8-THCO Are Not Hemp appeared first on High Times.

The post DEA States that Delta-9-THCO, Delta-8-THCO Are Not Hemp appeared first on Paradise Found.

A Clark County, Nevada judge ruled on Wednesday that the state pharmacy board does not have the authority to regulate cannabis and cannabis derivatives under state law and ordered the agency to remove marijuana from the state’s list of controlled substances. In the decision, Clark County District Court Judge Joe Hardy wrote that if the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy “designates a substance as a ‘controlled substance’ but the designation falls outside the authority delegated by the ​​Legislature, the designation is invalid.”

The ruling stems from a case brought against the pharmacy board by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLUNV) on behalf of Antoine Poole and the Cannabis Equity and Inclusion Community, an organization that assists entrepreneurs in launching businesses in Nevada’s legal cannabis industry. ACLUNV attorneys argued that the Schedule 1 classification of cannabis was unconstitutional because voters had legalized medical marijuana with the passage of a constitutional amendment in 1998. Last month, Hardy ruled that the Schedule 1 classification was unconstitutional.

“The constitutional right to use marijuana upon the advice of a physician does establish that marijuana has an accepted medical use and treatment in the United States,” Hardy ruled in a September decision cited by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The new ruling this week is focused on the pharmacy board’s authority to regulate cannabis. ACLUNV attorneys argued that despite the legalization of medical marijuana and the availability of regulated medicinal cannabis in Nevada since 2000, the pharmacy board continued to list cannabis similarly to illicit substances including heroin and methamphetamine. Lawyers for the pharmacy board countered that the listing was warranted because of the continued listing of marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance under federal law, an assertion rejected by the plaintiffs’ counsel.

“The notion that a state agency is able to engage in unlawful actions because it’s happening at the federal government – it’s just not the way it works,” Athar Haseebullah, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada (ACLU), said on July 15 after the first hearing in the case. “They don’t work for the feds. We didn’t sue the DEA here. We sued the State Board of Pharmacy because this is a state action.”

In his ruling, Hardy wrote that “the Board exceeded its authority when it placed, or failed to remove marijuana, cannabis, and cannabis derivatives on its list as Schedule I substances.”

Advocates Applaud Nevada Judge’s Ruling

After the ruling, ACLUNV noted that the decision means the pharmacy board does not have the authority to regulate cannabis under any schedule. Legal director Chris Peterson praised the judge’s ruling, saying that there has “been an ongoing inconsistency with how Nevada categorizes cannabis.” 

“For some people, it’s a medicine or a good time on a Friday night, and for some people it was a felony,” Peterson said in a statement from the civil rights organization. “We’re glad that we’ve now resolved this inconsistency to prevent further injustice, and we’ll continue our work to ensure that the promise of cannabis decriminalization is realized in Nevada.”

Shawn Hauser, a partner at the cannabis and psychedelics law firm Vicente Sederberg LLP, said that Hardy’s ruling “is a positive development in cannabis reform, in line with recognition by federal lawmakers and the public that cannabis has known medicinal value, can be safely regulated, and is not properly classified as a schedule 1 controlled substance that has no accepted medical use.” 

“Like Colorado, Nevada legalized cannabis through its constitution and developed a robust state regulatory system governing cannabis businesses,” Hauser said. “This case is important precedent confirming that state agencies cannot take action in conflict with state constitutional and statutory provisions, despite the illegality of cannabis under federal law.”

Ashley Dodson, the president and co-founder of Cannabis Equity and Inclusion Community, said that the court’s ruling on Wednesday will help foster social equity in Nevada’s regulated cannabis industry.

“Cannabis has been legal in Nevada for decades, but that hasn’t stopped law enforcement from treating Black and Brown people like criminals. We’re grateful for the ACLU of Nevada for taking this case on and for Judge Hardy for hearing it with fairness and dignity,” Dodson said in a statement. “As far as social equity is concerned, we’ve seen businesses act strategically to keep Black and Brown people out of the unlicensed market by preventing pathways to ownership. CEIC is hopeful that as the last loopholes allowing for the criminalization of cannabis fall by the wayside, we can get back to our original mission of assisting the communities harmed the most by the failed War on Drugs find a way into the industry.”

The post Nevada Judge Orders Cannabis Removed From State’s List of Controlled Substances appeared first on High Times.

The post Nevada Judge Orders Cannabis Removed From State’s List of Controlled Substances appeared first on Paradise Found.