Connect with us

News

Marijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time

Published

on

Marijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time

Michael Stonebarger sorts young cannabis plants at a marijuana farm in Grandview, Mo., in 2022. President Trump set the process in motion to ease federal restrictions on marijuana. But his order doesn’t automatically revoke laws targeting marijuana, which remains illegal to transport over state lines.

Charlie Riedel/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Charlie Riedel/AP

President Trump’s long-anticipated executive order to loosen U.S. restrictions on marijuana promises to bring immediate relief for cannabis businesses — but only in some respects. And although rescheduling it as a lower-risk drug is touted as opening a new era for cannabis research, experts say it’s not as simple as flipping a light switch.

“It’s hard to see the big headlines of, ‘Marijuana rescheduled to [Schedule] III; marijuana research will open,’” says Gillian Schauer, executive director of the nonpartisan Cannabis Regulators Association, which includes agencies from 46 states. “You know, those things are not true as of now.”

That’s because on its own, Trump’s Dec. 18 order isn’t enough to rewrite federal drug policy that has stood for more than 50 years.

Advertisement

“The Controlled Substances Act [of 1970] does not grant any president the authority to unilaterally reschedule a drug,” Schauer says. Such changes are historically made through either a rulemaking process, or an act of Congress.

Many details will shape how the administration enacts Trump’s order, affecting the timeline and scope for easing marijuana restrictions. But when it does happen, rescheduling won’t automatically revoke federal laws targeting marijuana, and interstate marijuana commerce would remain illegal, Schauer says.

It’s not yet known how other policies might change.

“We don’t know what will happen to federal drug testing requirements,” Schauer says, until agencies issue guidance.

Here’s a rundown of other key questions raised by the rescheduling order:

Advertisement

The time frame depends on which path the DOJ takes

Trump’s order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III” of the Controlled Substances Act “in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law … “

The directive evokes the process that started under former President Joe Biden. Under his administration, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department advanced a proposal to reclassify pot from Schedule I, meaning it has no medical use and a high potential for abuse, to the lower-risk Schedule III, which includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

The Trump administration could resume the process that was already underway under Biden. But the new executive order’s mention of the Controlled Substances Act’s Section 811 hints at a potential shortcut.

“That allows the attorney general to move a drug to whatever schedule they deem is best, without going through the usual steps that are needed to reschedule a drug,” Schauer says.

The streamlined process was meant to ensure the U.S. can do things such as complying with international drug treaty obligations. But a historic precedent also links it to cannabis: In 2018, it was used to schedule the CBD epilepsy drug Epidiolex, months after it became the first U.S.-authorized purified medicine derived from marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule V, the least restrictive schedule.

Advertisement
President Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

President Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

Evan Vucci/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Evan Vucci/AP

Advertisement

Will the DOJ call for public comment?

The Trump administration’s approach to administrative hearings and public comment periods would also help determine the pace of rescheduling.

“I would anticipate, if they use that [expedited] option, that we would not see a comment period,” shortening the process, Schauer explains.

But rescheduling could take longer if the Justice Department follows the traditional, and lengthy, notice-and-comment process.

Again, Bondi has options that could speed things up. She could choose to issue a final rule after a public comment period, for instance, or do so without a comment period.

Advertisement

“Some of the calculation for that may be on the legal end,” Schauer says. Noting that some anti-marijuana groups are vowing to file legal challenges to block rescheduling, she adds that the DOJ will likely have to balance Trump’s call for expedience with the need to defend its actions in court.

If the rule is published for comment, interest would likely be intense: In 2024, the DEA’s earlier proposed rescheduling rule for marijuana attracted more than 43,000 comments.

Cannabis firms would get tax relief, but credit cards remain forbidden

Sam Brill, CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate dispensary company, says rescheduling could bring a cascade of positive changes to his industry. But one benefit could come immediately, he says.

“The biggest thing that happens overnight is the 280E, the restrictive punitive tax code that is set on us,” would no longer apply to marijuana businesses, he says.

Like other businesses, Brill’s company is obligated to pay taxes on income. But because their core product is a Schedule I drug, the IRS says that under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, they’re blocked from claiming common tax deductions, exposing them to a higher effective tax rate.

Advertisement

Section 280E “does not allow us to basically deduct normal expenses that everyone else can deduct,” Brill says. “I can’t deduct the rent for my stores, the cost of my employees in those stores, my interest expense.”

Brill says that some cannabis companies, including his, say 280E should not apply to them — but the IRS disagrees. As a result, Brill says, his company sets aside a large reserve fund in case the IRS comes after them.

“For 2024 alone, the value of this reserve” was about $38 million, Brill says, “which includes interest and penalties.”

Brill hopes marijuana’s changing status might also eventually lead to other restrictions falling, especially the inability of cannabis operations to accept credit cards. Most financial institutions refuse to provide basic banking services to state-authorized marijuana businesses, due to potential liability.

“The lack of the use of a credit card is really one of the biggest challenges for customers,” he says. Citing the importance of payday, Brill says: “For us, Friday by far is the biggest day every single week because this is a cash business.”

Advertisement

Medical research 

Scientists welcomed news in 2023 that the Biden administration was moving toward reclassifying marijuana, and Trump says his move will boost medical research. But both then and now, there are caveats.

One benefit of the new rules is that they wouldn’t require marijuana researchers to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, and they would also ease rigorous laboratory regulations.

“You have very stringent requirements, for example, for storage and security and reporting all of these things,” neuroscientist Staci Gruber, of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and Harvard Medical School, told NPR last year.

But another obstacle promises to be more stubborn: finding marijuana to study. The U.S. requires researchers to obtain marijuana from a handful of sources, which is itself an improvement over decades in which they were compelled to use one facility based at the University of Mississippi.

And, as Schauer notes, federal rules about sourcing marijuana have been decided separately from the controlled substances schedule.

Advertisement

“This does a little to make research easier,” Schauer says of the current rescheduling effort. “But there’s a lot that will still be challenging in researching cannabis unless we see a lot of agency policies change and adjust.”

News

Trump does not have to turn over presidential records, Justice Department says

Published

on

Trump does not have to turn over presidential records, Justice Department says

The Justice Department has issued a legal opinion arguing that President Donald Trump does not have to turn over his presidential records to the National Archives at the end of his administration.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 requires presidential documents be sent to the National Archives and Records Administration. In an opinion released Thursday, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel found the law “is unconstitutional for two independent but interlocking reasons.”

Advertisement

It exceeds Congress’ powers and it does so at the expense of the autonomy of the presidency, T. Elliot Gaiser wrote in the opinion, noting that Congress can’t order the papers of Supreme Court justices to be sent to the archives.

The president “need not further comply with its dictates.”

If the Trump administration chooses to follow the opinion from the office, which offers legal advice to the executive branch but does not set law, he could face outside legal challenges should he violate the Presidential Records Act in the future.

The determination is a signal that the president will not turn over his documents to the archives. Trump was accused violating the Presidential Records Act by refusing to turn over documents he kept after leaving office following his first term.

According to federal prosecutors, Trump willfully retained national defense documents at his private home in Mar-a-Lago, obstructed justice and concealed materials, including a classified military map reportedly shown to unauthorized individuals. The case was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon in 2024 before he won re-election.

Advertisement

A memo by the special prosecutor’s office later released found that the president kept a document that was previously accessible by only a few people at his home.

“Trump had in his possession some highly sensitive documents — the type of documents that only presidents and officials with the most sensitive authority have,” the memo said.

Trump has long argued he did nothing wrong. Shortly after he took office, he dismissed the head of the National Archives, following through on a vow to change the leadership atop the agency, which was involved in the criminal case against him.

The office of legal counsel serves as a quasi-judicial office within the executive branch. It was once involved in the George W. Bush- era memos authorizing the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding against terrorism suspects.

Axios first reported details of the opinion. Gaiser, who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, was part of Trump’s 2020 campaign team, and was named in testimony before the Jan. 6 committee in which former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany named him as someone she “really trusted on the matters of election integrity.”

Advertisement

McEnany said that Gaiser advised that the vice president had a “substantive” role to play in the election certification process, the type of view which gave Trump supporters hope that Mike Pence could overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Responding to written questions during his nomination process, Gaiser declined to discuss his views in detail, and wrote that his “ethical duties as an attorney include a duty of confidentiality regarding the advice I provided to a former client.”

The Presidential Records Act, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 following the Watergate scandal, requires official records of the president and vice president, created or received after January 1981, to be made public, and for the National Archives to manage a president’s records after the individual leaves office.

The act requires that the president “take all practical steps” to keep presidential records separate from personal records, and it allows the president — once the archivist weighs in — to dispose of records that no longer have “administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value.”

The act also states that presidential records are automatically transferred into the legal custody of the archivist as soon as the president leaves office.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: 4.6-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Northern California

Published

on

Map: 4.6-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Northern California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 4 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “light,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A light, 4.6-magnitude earthquake struck in Northern California on Thursday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 1:41 a.m. Pacific time about 1 mile southeast of Boulder Creek, Calif., data from the agency shows.

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 5.1.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Thursday, April 2 at 5:41 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Thursday, April 2 at 6:11 a.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Appeals court rejects HUD homelessness overhaul saying it would be “disastrous”

Published

on

Appeals court rejects HUD homelessness overhaul saying it would be “disastrous”

Tents are lined up on Skid Row Thursday, July 25, 2024, in Los Angeles.

Jae C. Hong/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jae C. Hong/AP

A federal appeals court late Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s push to impose new conditions on homelessness funding, saying implementing them “would be immediately destabilizing and disastrous.” The ruling upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction, the latest rebuke to a major shift that advocates warn would push 170,000 people in federally subsidized housing back into homelessness. That would include many who are disabled, elderly and veterans.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development wants to slash money for permanent housing and shift it to transitional programs that require sobriety, mental health treatment and other conditions. HUD Secretary Scott Turner has said this would nudge people toward self-sufficiency. The agency did not say whether it would appeal the ruling, but said in a statement that it “remains committed to reforming the misguided ‘Housing First’ approach that for years funded the self-serving homeless industrial complex, rewarded activists, and ignored solutions.”

The change in how to spend nearly $4 billion dollars a year would upend two decades of bipartisan federal policy, an approach the appeals court ruling said “has proven effective.”

Advertisement

The mere threat of losing funding as this case plays out has already had “serious real-world harm,” the ruling noted. Citing evidence from plaintiffs, it said multiple local homeless services providers had stopped accepting new clients, and “stopped referring new clients to certain permanent housing programs … because of the planned [funding] cuts.”

A coalition of non-profit homelessness advocacy groups, local governments and mostly Democratic-led states brought the legal challenge, arguing the last-minute overhaul announced last fall was unlawful.

“We are relieved,” the coalition said in a statement, and “remain dedicated to protecting proven solutions to homelessness.”

Continue Reading

Trending