Connect with us

Politics

Granderson: Bring on the cannabis cafes, California. Our nation needs them

Published

on

Granderson: Bring on the cannabis cafes, California. Our nation needs them

More Americans now consume marijuana on a daily basis than drink alcohol every day, according to a recent study.

That’s welcome news for an industry that has been unfairly demonized by opportunistic politicians since the days of Nixon. The findings — based on data gathered between 1979 and 2022— are consistent with the wave of decriminalization under state laws, notably with California’s Proposition 215 back in 1996.

Opinion Columnist

LZ Granderson

LZ Granderson writes about culture, politics, sports and navigating life in America.

Advertisement

After the election that year, a law professor at Loyola was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying “this may be the baby boomers taking control.”

It wasn’t the boomers prevailing, but pragmatism.

About 1.3 million people in the U.S. are in state prisons. The most common reason for incarceration? Drug-related crimes. Given how much the country with the highest prison population loves pot, it makes sense to stop throwing people in jail for doing weed.

Advertisement

Today the only states where cannabis is totally illegal are Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina and Wyoming. Earlier this month President Biden announced plans to reclassify pot as a less dangerous drug.

In short: “Just say no” is dead. Long live “pass the dutchie ’pon the left-hand side.”

The next important step in having policy actually reflect society would be for Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign the “munchie bill” that’s likely to be headed his way soon.

Last year Assembly Bill 374 — which would make it legal for dispensaries to become cafes and offer food as well as host live events — passed the Assembly 66-9 and the Senate 33-3.

Surprisingly, Newsom vetoed the bipartisan bill in October, citing concerns about providing a smoke-free work environment for employees. That seems nonsensical, considering that it is already legal to consume marijuana in California dispensaries. AB 374 would have just made it possible to buy a bag of chips while you do it.

Advertisement

Marijuana cafes have existed in Amsterdam since the 1970s. Last summer I spent a few hours listening to music and eating homemade desserts at the first marijuana cafe in North America. Fittingly called New Amsterdam Cafe, the popular hangout opened in Vancouver in 1998 and is as chill as Issa Rae’s Hilltop Coffee.

However, vibes are not the only reasons Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) introduced AB 374. For him it’s also a matter of fairness and trying to level the playing field.

“Small businesses have to follow every rule, and yet you’re telling them they can’t adapt and innovate and offer something people want,” he said. “The ones who follow the rules should be able to offer an experience. People pay a lot to sit in a winery. We have cigar lounges. This is really no different.”

Despite law enforcement’s best efforts, illegal pot is estimated to have pulled in more than $8 billion in 2020 compared with $4 billion for legal. However, it’s the small-business owners who also have the burden of taxes, regulations and fines. All of which eats away at profits and businesses’ ability to grow. Haney said his proposal not only would allow small business owners to diversify their income stream, but also would encourage people to come out of their post-pandemic cocoons and socialize again.

California began liberating cannabis culture in 1996. It’s only right the state continues to correct a narrative that was born not from science but from President Nixon’s prejudice. It’s because of that cloud hanging over cannabis that advocates of decriminalization had to sweeten the deal for voters by promising a financial windfall for the state, which of course is why legal pot is ridiculously overtaxed.

Advertisement

Haney said he knows the cafes won’t solve all of the problems that dispensary owners face because of competition from the black market, but it would at least provide owners with more ways to make money. Haney said he worked with both Newsom’s office and the Department of Cannabis Control before reintroducing the bill. He said the new version, AB 1775, addresses the governor’s concern for the work environment, and it also has union support. It recently passed the Assembly 49-4 and is headed to the Senate.

My hope is that the munchie bill meets Newsom’s approval. With proper ventilation for employees and customers alike, marijuana cafes could provide local artists with new venues and add another branch of tourism.

“I’m one of the younger legislators, and I see how excited my friends are,” 42-year-old Haney told me. “I have a couple of colleagues who represent suburban districts and one came to me and said, ‘All the suburban moms are excited about your cannabis cafe bill.’ Post-pandemic, it’s been hard to get people to get out, and I think this just makes sense.”

It really does.

@LZGranderson

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

Published

on

Video: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

new video loaded: Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

transcript

transcript

Supreme Court May Allow States to Bar Transgender Athletes

The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

“It is undisputed that states may separate their sports teams based on sex in light of the real biological differences between males and females. States may equally apply that valid sex-based rule to biological males who self-identify as female. Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection.” “West Virginia argues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them to B.P.J. But Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone. And if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude her.” “Given that half the states are allowing it, allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there’s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate, while there’s still strong interest in other side?” “This court has held in cases like V.M.I. that in general, classification based on sex is impermissible because in general, men and women are simply situated. Where that’s not true is for the sorts of real, enduring, obvious differences that this court talked about in cases like V.M.I., the differences in reproductive biology. I don’t think the pseudoscience you’re suggesting has been baked.” “Well, it’s not pseudo. It’s good science.” “It’s not pseudoscience to say boys’ brain development happens at a different stage than girls does.” “Well, with all respect, I don’t think there’s any science anywhere that is suggested that these intellectual differences are traceable to biological differences.” “Can we avoid your whole similarly situated argument that you run because I don’t really like it that much either? And I’m not trying to prejudice anyone making that argument later. But I mean, I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don’t need to get into here.”

Advertisement
The Supreme Court heard two cases from West Virginia and Idaho on Tuesday. Both concerned barring the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports teams.

By Meg Felling

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation

Published

on

Venezuela releases multiple American citizens from prison following military operation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The interim government in Venezuela has released at least four U.S. citizens who were imprisoned under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime, Fox News confirmed.

The release marks the first known release of Americans in the South American country since the U.S. military completed an operation to capture authoritarian Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who is now facing federal drug trafficking charges in New York.

“We welcome the release of detained Americans in Venezuela,” a State Department official said Tuesday. “This is an important step in the right direction by the interim authorities.”

The release of American citizens was first reported by Bloomberg.

Advertisement

TRUMP SIGNS ORDER TO PROTECT VENEZUELA OIL REVENUE HELD IN US ACCOUNTS

Venezuelans celebrate after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country in Santiago, Chile, Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026. (Esteban Felix/AP Photo)

President Donald Trump said Saturday that Venezuela had begun releasing political prisoners.

“Venezuela has started the process, in a BIG WAY, of releasing their political prisoners,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Thank you! I hope those prisoners will remember how lucky they got that the USA came along and did what had to be done.”

Venezuela’s interim government has reported that 116 prisoners have been released, although only about 70 have been verified by the non-governmental organization Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón, according to Bloomberg.

Advertisement

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said prisoner releases would continue, according to the outlet.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FILES SEIZURE WARRANTS TARGETING SHIPS TIED TO VENEZUELAN OIL TRADE: REPORT

Nicolás Maduro is seen in handcuffs after landing at a Manhattan helipad, escorted by heavily armed federal agents as they make their way into an armored car en route to a Federal courthouse in Manhattan on January 5, 2026, in New York City (XNY/Star Max/GC Images via Getty Images)

The U.S. government issued a new security alert Saturday urging Americans in Venezuela to leave the country immediately, citing security concerns and limited ability to provide emergency assistance, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas said.

“U.S. citizens in Venezuela should leave the country immediately,” the embassy said in the alert.

Advertisement

The warning pointed to reports of armed groups operating on Venezuelan roads.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Venezuelan citizens in Cucuta, Colombia celebrate during a rally on the Colombia-Venezuela border after the confirmation of Nicolás Maduro’s capture in Caracas, on January 3, 2026. (Jair F. Coll/Getty Images)

Following the military operation, Trump suggested that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela for an extended period.

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” he said.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

Published

on

Lawsuits against ICE agents would be allowed under proposed California law

A week after a Minnesota woman was fatally shot by a federal immigration officer, California legislators moved forward a bill that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

A Senate committee passed Senate Bill 747 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would provide Californians with a stronger ability to take legal action against federal law enforcement agents over excessive use of force, unlawful home searches, interfering with a right to protest and other violations.

California law already allows such suits against state and local law enforcement officials.

Successful civil suits against federal officers over constitutional rights are less common.

Wiener, appearing before Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said his bill has taken on new urgency in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota, the 37-year-old mother of three who was shot while driving on a snowy Minneapolis street.

Advertisement

Good was shot by an agent in self-defense, said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who alleged that Good tried to use her car as a weapon to run over the immigration officer.

Good’s death outraged Democratic leaders across the country, who accuse federal officers of flouting laws in their efforts to deport thousands of undocumented immigrants. In New York, legislators are proposing legislation similar to the one proposed by Wiener that would allow state-level civil actions against federal officers.

George Retes Jr., a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who was kept in federal custody for three days in July, described his ordeal at Tuesday’s committee hearing, and how immigration officers swarmed him during a raid in Camarillo.

Retes, a contracted security guard at the farm that was raided, said he was brought to Port Hueneme Naval Base. Officials swabbed his cheek to obtain DNA, and then moved him to Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles. He was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, he said.

“I did not resist, I did not impede or assault any agent,” Retes said.”What happened to me that day was not a misunderstanding. It was a violation of the Constitution by the very people sworn to uphold it.”

Advertisement

He also accused Department of Homeland security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin of spreading false information about him to justify his detention. DHS said in a statement last year that Retes impeded their operation, which he denies.

Retes has filed a tort claim against the U.S. government, a process that is rarely successful, said his attorney, Anya Bidwell.

Lawsuits can also be brought through the Bivens doctrine, which refers to the 1971 Supreme Court ruling Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Agents that established that federal officials can be sued for monetary damages for constitutional violations. But in recent decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted the ability to sue under Bivens.

Wiener’s bill, if passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, would be retroactive to March 2025.

“We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE,” said Wiener at a news conference before the hearing. “We need the rule of law and we need accountability.”

Advertisement

Weiner is running for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

Representatives for law enforcement agencies appeared at Tuesday’s hearing to ask for amendments to ensure that the bill wouldn’t lead to weakened protections for state and local officials.

“We’re not opposed to the intent of the bill. We’re just concerned about the future and the unintended consequences for your California employees,” said David Mastagni, speaking on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, which represents more than 85,000 public safety members.

Wiener’s bill is the latest effort by the state Legislature to challenge President Trump’s immigration raids. Newsom last year signed legislation authored by Wiener that prohibits law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks, with some exceptions.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued last year to block the law, and a hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending