The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced the legislation in a unanimous 46-0 vote July 21. The measure from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) is known as “Tyler’s Law,” after Tyler Shamash, a 19-year-old who died following a fentanyl ingestion in 2018 and was not tested for the drug when brought to the hospital for a suspected overdose.

The panel’s Subcommittee on Health previously approved the bill in June.

While the legislation, H.R. 2004, is largely focused on fentanyl, it states that within a year of passage the HHS secretary would need to complete a study to determine “how frequently hospital emergency departments test for fentanyl (in addition to testing for other substances such as amphetamines, phencyclidine, cocaine, opiates, and marijuana) when a patient is experiencing an overdose.”

The study would also need to look at costs associated with fentanyl testing, the potential benefits and risks of such testing and how it may impact patients’ experiences—including with respect to confidentiality and privacy protections and the patient-physician relationship.

Companion legislation was approved in January—but amended to remove references to marijuana and other drugs besides fentanyl.

The bill, which has 65 House cosponsors, states that within six months of completing the study, HHS would also need to issue guidance covering:

(1) Whether hospital emergency departments should implement fentanyl testing as a routine procedure for patients experiencing an overdose.

(2) How hospitals can ensure that clinicians in their hospital emergency departments are aware of which substances are being tested for in their routinely-administered drug tests, regardless of whether those tests screen for fentanyl.

(3) How the administration of fentanyl testing in hospital emergency departments may affect the future risk of overdose and general health outcomes.

“A simple drug test can mean the difference between life and death,” Lieu stated in a press release. “Tyler’s Law is a bipartisan and commonsense piece of legislation. It is a privilege to work with Tyler’s mom, Juli, to honor Tyler’s memory and fight so no other family is forced to undergo such devastating loss.”

The bill is expected to head next to the House floor after its approval by the committee.

Companion legislation in the Senate from Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) was approved by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in January—but not before being amended to remove the language that references marijuana and other drugs besides fentanyl.

Unlike the House bill, the HHS secretary would have three years to complete the study on hospital drug-testing under the amended Senate proposal.

In April, a pair of Republican senators filed a separate bill that would require the federal government to track the cost of hospitalization due to marijuana use.

The Marijuana Impact on Medicaid Act of 2026 from senators Ted Budd (R-NC) and Pete Ricketts (R-NE) would require the secretary of HHS to compile data on “Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program … that are attributable to costs incurred for providing medical assistance for inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services, and for services received at a hospital emergency room … related to marijuana use.”

The bill’s language is similar to two amendments Budd previously filed on the cannabis and hospitalization issue that didn’t end up being considered on the Senate floor.

Image via American Society of Addiction Medicine

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post House Advances Bill Scrutinizing How Hospitals Test Patients for Fentanyl appeared first on Filter.

Lt. Brandy A. Molinar of the Virginia State Police sent an internal email to law enforcement colleagues saying that “as of July 1, 2026, there are no Code of Virginia violations related to marijuana” and directing that any cannabis-related enforcement actions taken since the start of the month be reported to her.

The message, first reported by Virginia Scope, said that state officials could coordinate with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on any cases involving more than 5 pounds of marijuana.

Del. Wren M. Williams (R), who voted against legalization legislation this session, noted the police email in several social media posts, criticizing Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Delegates and Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) for allegedly “creating a one-year gap before new laws take effect.”

The dispute centers on when sections of the bill repealing prior marijuana penalties and replacing them with a new regulatory framework take effect. The budget legislation containing the overall cannabis reform repeals existing code criminalizing distribution and possession with intent to distribute as well as possession by people under the age of 21 without clearly specifying the effective dates for those changes.

Meanwhile, the new regulatory framework doesn’t come online until July 1, 2027—opening the door to questions about whether the state effectively legalized large-scale distribution and underage possession for a period of a year when the budget took effect at the beginning of July 2026.

The Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys (VACA) said that the way the legislation was drafted “invites an argument” about what cannabis laws are now in force, and Nate Green, the commonwealth’s attorney for Williamsburg-James City and a former VACA president, said legislative staff “created a word problem, and word problems go against prosecutors.”

“If it’s unclear, we lose. We only get to win when the words are clear,” Green said, adding that he though lawmakers might need to convene a special session to address the issue. “We are worried about it. We are trying to look at the language thoroughly and comprehensively to determine the best path forward.”

State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz, for his part, said in a social media post on July 8 that the agency would “continue to enforce existing laws, in line with the code of Virginia.”

Del. Paul Krizek (D), who sponsored the House version of standalone legislation to legalize adult-use marijuana sales this session that was later adopted into the enacted budget, said on July 9 that “the budget language passed by the General Assembly did not legalize cannabis possession by minors, did not legalize the distribution of cannabis to minors and did not eliminate Virginia’s criminal penalties protecting young people.”

“Virginia law continues to prohibit underage possession and unlawful distribution of cannabis,” he said. “The enactment clauses included in the budget did not change those protections.”

Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D), who led the push to legalize cannabis sales in the Senate this session, added that “unfortunately, misinformation spreads quickly, particularly when it involves complex legislation.”

“Virginians deserve an honest conversation about cannabis policy based on the facts and what the law actually says—not on inaccurate interpretation based on political opinion,” she stated. “The individuals peddling these falsehoods have never supported adult-use cannabis in our commonwealth, have never supported establishing a regulated marketplace that would address the harms of decades of cannabis prohibition and stood by while the illicit market flourished in our communities for years.”

Former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) criticized what he called “reckless governing” on the part of Democrats.

“Because far left Democrats chose to legislate drug policy through a budget bill instead of a real bill with real hearings, prosecutors across this Commonwealth are now uncertain whether they can even enforce the law against selling marijuana to a minor,” he stated. “I am calling on Governor Spanberger and the General Assembly to: immediately acknowledge this drafting failure and call a special session without delay to close this gap and restore certainty that distributing marijuana to a minor remains a crime in Virginia.”

Former Del. Tim Anderson (R) claimed in a social media post that “selling marijuana to kids is now legal thanks to the nitwits in Richmond who have no idea what they are doing,” referring to the state capital where the legislature meets.

The Virginia Code Commission on July 8 updated the state’s website that list statutes to say that current penalties will stay in effect until July 1, 2027.

Del. Marcus Simon (D), who chairs the Code Commission, said if the language in the bill was followed as written, “an absurd result would have happened.”

“The Division of Legislative Services recommended to the Code Commission that this was an obvious error and so we used our authority to correct this,” he told Cardinal News, saying that the edits are “a fairly routine thing.”

In late June, the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates adopted the governor’s proposed amendments to budget legislation containing provisions to legalize adult-use cannabis sales that they had given initial approval to previously. Because lawmakers accepted her suggested changes in full, the measure was immediately formally enacted into law and didn’t require any further action from the governor.

Spanberger in May vetoed a previous measure to legalize adult-use cannabis sales after lawmakers rejected her proposed amendments to the plan. She later negotiated with Aird and Krizek, who sponsored the earlier measure, on a compromise deal that was included in the budget legislation that passed.

The new plan differs significantly in several ways from the earlier legislation.

For example, it sets the launch date for recreational marijuana sales at July 1, 2027, which is what Spanberger proposed in contrast to the January 1 date in what lawmakers had passed.

It also sets the legal public marijuana possession and per-transaction purchase limit at 2 ounces, an increase from the current legal limit of 1 ounce. The legislation lawmakers passed earlier in 2026 would have allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 ounces.

The bill also cedes to Spanberger on language to increase a marijuana excise tax from 6 percent to 8 percent after two years of legal sales.

By way of compromise, the new agreement will make public consumption of marijuana punishable by a civil penalty of $250—a significant increase from the $25 in current law but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor the governor sought in her proposed changes to the previous bill.

Lawmakers passed the initial cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto.

Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments by saying the suggested changes came from states with adult-use markets.

Spanberger said in June that she was having “really productive” and “incredible” conversations with lawmakers about crafting a compromise approach to legalizing adult-use cannabis sales, and Marijuana Moment previously reported on the ongoing talks.

The governor, meanwhile, has tried to publicly explain her veto—including by saying it is her view that “taking a little bit longer” to launch the market is not something she sees as “negative” because it is more important to get the details right than to do it fast.

A recent survey found that bipartisan majorities of Virginia voters wanted Spanberger to sign the cannabis legislation into law, and that they specifically disagreed with her desire to slow the launch timeline for legal sales.

The governor recently acknowledged in a separate interview that “a lot of people are not pleased” with her veto of the cannabis legislation. “Friends and family are displeased as well,” she said.

Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets.

A spokesperson for Spanberger declined to name any other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment, however.

The governor separately sought to explain her veto in an earlier interview, reiterating that she supports launching a legal cannabis market but worried about what she called a “rushed timeline” and “far more stores across Virginia” than she thinks are appropriate.

Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis.

Marijuana regulators, including the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority (CCA), are conducting a survey to gather input from the public and stakeholders as they work to implement the state’s newly enacted law legalizing recreational cannabis sales.

Here are the key details of the new cannabis plan in the budget and how it compares to legislation that Spanberger vetoed—SB 542 and HB 642—as well as her previously proposed amendments to those measures:

* Adults will be able to purchase up to 2 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an  equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That will represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. Lawmakers previously proposed setting the amount at 2.5 ounces and the governor only wanted 2 ounces.

* Legal sales can begin on July 1, 2027. Lawmakers previously set the date for January 1, 2027, but the governor wanted it pushed back to July 1.

* There will be an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, and municipalities will be allowed to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. Starting on July 1, 2029, the state excise tax will increase to 8 percent, in line with the governor’s previously proposed amendments.

* Revenue will be distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund, early childhood education, the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services and public health initiatives. The earlier measure passed by lawmakers would have allocated specific percentages to each, but the new language doesn’t specify what portion of revenue will go to each program. The governor, in her amendments, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.” Her amendment also sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund.

* The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority will oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry, and will also take on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The body will be governed by a five-member board of directors appointed by the governor, whereas the bill previously passed by lawmakers contemplated a seven-member body with four appointed by the governor, two appointed by the speaker of the House and one appointed by the Senate Rules Committee.

* The definition of what constitutes a legal hemp product will be narrowed by removing a provision from current law that allows those containing more than 2 milligrams of total THC per package if they also have a ratio of CBD to THC that is 25:1 or more.

* Up to 350 retail marijuana stores will be allowed to be licensed to operate across the state, the same number that lawmakers had approved and greater than the 200 the governor had proposed.

* Local governments will not be able to opt of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area.

* Delivery services will be allowed.

* Serving sizes will be capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package.

* Public use of marijuana will be a civil violation punishable by a $250 fine. That is 10 times more than the $25 fine under current law, but less harsh than the class 4 criminal misdemeanor crime the governor had proposed. Possession of cannabis by people under the age of 21 will be punishable by a $25 fine and mandatory participation in a substance use treatment or education program or both. The governor had suggested treating underage possession as a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of driver’s licenses for at least six months.

* Existing medical cannabis operators can enter the adult-use market if they pay a $10 million licensing conversion fee.

* Cannabis businesses will have to establish labor peace agreements with workers.

* A legislative commission will be directed to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations. That provision was also included in the earlier legislation lawmakers passed but was suggested for deletion by the governor.

Image (cropped) via New York State Office of Cannabis Management

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Virginia State Law Appears to Have No Marijuana Penalties for the Next Year appeared first on Filter.

In 2022, federal agents found a Glock 9 mm handgun, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine in the home of Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani. While cooperating with the search, Hemani disclosed that he used marijuana about every other day. More than six months later, he was later charged with violating the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which among other restrictions bans anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from gun possession. The Supreme Court, which tends to favor Second Amendment protections, ruled that the Department of Justice cannot prosecute that charge.

“The Court’s decision is narrow,” reads the opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch. “It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms; [the Act’s] provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies; or whether the government could bring a prosecution under [this provision] accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous.”

Hunter Biden was convicted of the same federal gun possession violation in 2024, prior to receiving a pardon before his father Joe Biden left office.

The DOJ had relied on historical laws authorizing the government to disarm “habitual drunkards.”

Despite the Trump administration’s ostensible support of the Second Amendment, it has a mixed record of supporting gun rights. In this case, the DOJ had argued that prosecution was supported by historical laws authorizing the government to disarm “habitual drunkards.”

Gorsuch (who was appointed by President Donald Trump) wrote that Hemani’s case differed in a number of ways, including the increasing prevalence of regular marijuana use in the United States and the administration’s recent decision to move medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

“Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them; it helped fuel them,” Gorsuch wrote. “All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”

The DOJ hadn’t claimed that Hemani’s marijuana use was too problematic for him to safely own or operate a gun, or included any details about the nature of his use at all. The Court found this at odds with the “habitual drunkard” argument, noting that the DOJ’s position would be equally applicable “to a husband who regularly takes his wife’s prescription Ambien to sleep and a college student who routinely uses a friend’s Adderall to cram for exams.” Presumably when the justices expressed an openness to arguments about certain drugs that always render users dangerous, these weren’t the drugs they had in mind.

Image (cropped) via Federal Bureau of Investigation

The post Supreme Court Rejects Gun Ban for Certain People Using Certain Drugs appeared first on Filter.

The case, brought in May by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) and the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska, claims the officials will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

“Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” states the filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But on May 29, Murrill filed a motion saying that “Petitioner State of Louisiana respectfully moves under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), as applied through Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 20, to dismiss Louisiana as a petitioner in this proceeding.”

“This motion seeks dismissal of Louisiana only. Respondents do not oppose this motion,” it said. “Louisiana thus respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Louisiana only from this proceeding, with each party to bear its own costs.”

It is not clear why Murrill first joined, and then days later withdrew from, the case. Representatives from the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to Marijuana Moment’s request for comment for this story.

In late May the court consolidated the state attorneys generals’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier in May by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA).

Also in late May, a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance use professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation filed an additional lawsuit seeking to challenge the Trump administration’s marijuana rescheduling move.

In May, a House committee voted to block federal officials from taking further steps toward rescheduling.

Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as will any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. An administrative hearing scheduled for June will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for adult-use products.

“The AG Rescheduling Order violates the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 559, and section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811, exceeds the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the CSA, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” SAM and NDASA’s brief two-page petition challenging the rescheduling action claimed.

It was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner.

SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Trump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously.

Named defendants in both now-consolidated suits are the DOJ, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole.

On May 22 a federal judge dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, a House committee earlier in May voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling.

Read Louisiana’s motion to withdraw from the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below:

Image via Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Louisiana Abruptly Drops Out of DOJ Marijuana Rescheduling Lawsuit appeared first on Filter.

The filing from the attorneys general of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana claims that they will “show that this agency action fails to comport with the requirements” of federal law, “was improperly promulgated and was otherwise procedurally improper,” “exceeds or is inconsistent with pertinent authority,” and “ultimately, that this agency action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

“Petitioners thus ask that this Court declare unlawful and vacate this final agency action,” states the filing with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

On May 27, the court consolidated the state AGs’ complaint with a separate suit that was filed earlier in May by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA).

SAM and NDASA alleged in their earlier filing that they have been “aggrieved” by the federal cannabis reform.

“We welcome these legal challenges brought by the attorneys general, who are taking bold action to stop this illegal order,” SAM CEO Kevin Sabet stated in a press release. “Our coalition is growing as leaders around the country recognize that this unprecedented order will cause significant harm to public health and safety. We won’t rest until this dangerous action is reversed.”

SAM and NDASA alleged in their earlier filing that they have been “aggrieved” by the federal cannabis reform.

Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as will any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. An administrative hearing scheduled for June will consider broader cannabis rescheduling, including for adult-use products.

“The AG Rescheduling Order violates the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 to 559, and section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811, exceeds the statutory authority of the Attorney General under the CSA, and is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” SAM and NDASA’s brief two-page petition challenging the rescheduling action claimed.

A House committee recently voted to block further rescheduling actions.

It was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former US Attorney General William Barr, who led the DOJ during Trump’s first term in office, is a partner.

SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr’s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling after Trump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously.

Named defendants in both now-consolidated suits are the DOJ, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Blanche and DEA Administrator Terrance Cole.

On May 22 a federal judge dismissed separate litigation SAM brought to challenge a new Trump administration initiative to cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products each year for eligible Medicare patients.

Meanwhile, a House committee earlier in May voted to block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling.

Image via Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Three States Sue Trump’s DOJ to Stop “Unlawful” Marijuana Rescheduling appeared first on Filter.

“I continue to support the creation of a retail marijuana market,” Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) said in an interview with WRIC-TV on May 20, pointing to current state law that allows adults to possess and grow cannabis for personal use but provides them no place to legally purchase it. “But we need to do it with thoughtful, focused, implementable legislation.”

Lawmakers passed the cannabis sales bills in March, but the governor then suggested changes to the legalization proposal—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers. The legislature in April declined to take up the amendments during a one-day reconvened session, however, effectively rejecting them. Spanberger then issued a veto on May 19.

In the new interview, the governor said her proposed amendments were “extraordinarily important for our ability to implement cannabis retail market, to do it in a thoughtful, measured way that learns from the mistakes of other states.”

Spanberger has repeatedly responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets.

A spokesperson for Spanberger was not able to provide a list of other governors she talked to about cannabis in response to a question from Marijuana Moment, however.

In any case, Spanberger told WRIC that she wants to use other states’ experiences “to make sure that we are setting the market up to be a durable one” in Virginia.

“The notion that between July and January we would be able to build out all of the rules of the road for legal recreational marijuana market and have doors open to sales in January is a rushed timeframe and one that would not necessarily allow us to learn from the mistakes of other states who have spoken to the fact that a rushed timeline is challenged,” she argued.

The governor also expressed concerns that under the now-vetoed legislation’s provisions, the state would be “moving in place aggressively with far more stores across Virginia, without the ability for potential retailers to be able to grow in some level of expertise and make sure that the market is meeting the actual demand.”

“The gray area is not one that is long-term tenable,” Spanberger said.

Spanberger said lawmakers “chose not to entertain any of my amendments,” though it is the case that she sent them back an entire substitute rewrite of the legislation instead of proposing specific discrete changes they could consider individually.

“That is absolutely their prerogative, but it is also my prerogative as the chief executive of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the one who will be tasked with setting up a successful or unsuccessful marijuana market to ensure that we are getting it right. And it was their prerogative to reject and not even take under consideration any of my amendments, and so that puts us back in a place where we get to continue the conversation.”

“It’s important we have a retail marijuana market, because again, the gray area is not one that is long-term tenable, but we have to get it right,” she said. “I look forward to partnering with members of the General Assembly to do that, and I hope that they recognize that most important to me is to make sure that we get it right—set it up to be durable and successful, ensure the rules of the road are clear, that individuals who might be purchasing know what they are purchasing and what they are consuming, that it takes into consideration public health, and particularly the safety and health of our kids.”

“Those are my core priorities, and those will continue to be my core priorities as we are working on a bill that will pass and that I will ultimately and eventually sign,” Spanberger said.

Prior to vetoing the cannabis commerce bill, the governor did sign separate legislation to provide resentencing relief for people with cannabis convictions.

Personal marijuana possession and home cultivation of marijuana has been legal in Virginia since 2021, but then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis.

Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D) and Del. Paul Krizek (D), the sponsors of the legalization bills, had urged colleagues to vote against the governor’s amendments in April—even if that meant risking a veto from Spanberger when the legislation returned to her desk, which has now occurred.

Lawmakers will now have to start the push for reform over again with new bills in the 2027 session.

Here are the other key details of the cannabis bills—SB 542 and HB 642—as approved by lawmakers and with the governor’s suggested amendments:

* Lawmakers voted to allow adults to be able to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That would represent an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. The governor, however, wanted the amount increased to only 2 ounces.

* Under the legislature’s plan, legal sales could begin on January 1, 2027, but the governor proposed to push that back to July 1, 2027.

* Lawmakers voted to impose an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, while allowing municipalities to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. The governor’s plan was largely the same, though it would have increased the excise tax to 8 percent starting on July 1, 2029.

* Under the legislation as approved by lawmakers, revenue would have been distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund (30 percent), early childhood education (40 percent), the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services (25 percent) and public health initiatives (5 percent). The governor, however, wanted to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.”

* The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would have overseen licensing and regulation of the new industry, and would have also taken on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

* Local governments could not have opted out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area.

* Delivery services would have been allowed.

* Serving sizes would have been capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package.

* The governor proposed to make public marijuana use a class 4 criminal misdemeanor instead of civil violation punishable by a $25 fine as under current law. She also wanted to make possessing cannabis by people under the age of 21 a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of driver’s licenses for at least six months. Illegally selling or distributing 50 pounds or more of marijuana would have been a class 2 felony punishable by life in prison.

* The governor sought to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund.

* Existing medical cannabis operators could have entered the adult-use market if they pay a licensing conversion fee that was set at $10 million.

* Cannabis businesses would have had to establish labor peace agreements with workers.

* As passed by lawmakers, the bill would have directed a legislative commission to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations, but the governor proposed to remove that language.

A coalition of cannabis reform organizations sent the governor a letter earlier in May urging her not to veto the sales legalization legislation even though her amendments were rejected.

“Together, these bills address the real issues surrounding cannabis in the Commonwealth today: an already-existing, unregulated marijuana market operating openly across the state while consumers, communities, and law enforcement are left without the protections of a legal framework,” the groups wrote.

“Let’s be clear: these bills do not create a marijuana market in Virginia. That market already exists,” the letter said. “What these bills do is replace today’s predatory and unaccountable illicit operators with a regulated marketplace, enforceable rules, oversight, product safeguards, age verification, and the strict consumer safety standards already in use for Virginia medical cannabis.”

The letter was signed by Virginia NORML, Marijuana Justice, Virginia Cannabis Association, Marijuana Policy Project and other groups.

Separately, a coalition of hemp businesses that joined with a major alcohol retailer in asking Spanberger to veto the marijuana bill before she did so said the move presents an “opportunity” to craft better cannabis policy.

Meanwhile, the governor signed several other reform bills in April—including measures to protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals.

Image via New York State Department of Labor

The post Virginia Gov. Vetoes “Rushed” Launch of Retail Cannabis Market appeared first on Filter.

The legislation from Representative Gabe Firment (R) cleared the Senate Judiciary B Committee in a 3-2 vote on May 5, weeks after being passed by the House of Representatives.

HB 568, which could receive a Senate floor vote soon, applies to people who violate drug laws “while smoking, vaping, or otherwise abusing such controlled dangerous substance while on any property used for school purposes by any school, within two thousand feet of any such property, or while on a school bus.”

Firment told senators that his bill “strengthens enforcement of Louisiana drug-free school zone laws by creating a clear behavior-based offense, so that when someone is openly smoking or vaping illegal drug in the school zone, law enforcement can act and prosecutors can prove the case.”

“For marijuana, the bill establishes a clear and consistent penalty—up to a year in jail and $1,000 fine, ensuring that violations in school zones result in real, enforceable consequences,” he said.

“This is not justice. This is geography used as a trap.”

Kevin Caldwell, Southeast legislative manager for the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project, testified that “Louisiana already has serious penalties for drug offenses.”

“This bill would add a mandatory minimum jail sentence for public consumption—not distribution, not intent to sell—simply for being within 2,000 feet of the school,” he said. “This radius covers an enormous portion of most neighborhoods in our cities and towns.”

“This is not justice. This is geography used as a trap,” he said, adding that research has shown that “mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce drug use or drug trafficking.”

“What they do accomplish is well documented,” he continued. “They strip judges of discretion, they fill jails at taxpayers expense and they fall disproportionately on communities of Black and Brown Louisianans who live in denser urban neighborhoods where school zone radius covers virtually every street corner. Louisiana already incarcerates more people per capita than almost any jurisdiction on Earth. This bill would make that worse without making one single child safer.”

Facing questions from Democratic senators, Firment defended his bill, arguing that, “common sense tells us that the stiffer the penalty, the less inclined people are to participate in that behavior.”

“Mounds of data … suggest that this type of bill actually does not deter and that it does not lead to the outcome that you might be seeking.”

Senator Royce Duplessis (D) said that, “while I do believe your intent is to deter, I believe that there’s mounds of data … that will suggest that this type of bill actually does not deter and that it does not lead to the outcome that you might be seeking, no matter how good your intentions might be.”

A representative of Governor Jeff Landry’s (R) office appeared alongside Firment at the hearing in support of the legislation.

In 2021, then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed a bill decriminalizing marijuana by removing the threat of jail time for possessing up to 14 grams.

Meanwhile, the Louisiana Senate recently passed a bill to let patients with terminal and irreversible conditions use medical marijuana in hospitals.

The Senate separately approved legislation to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program, using opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin and ibogaine.

Another lawmaker also recently introduced a bill to create an adult-use marijuana legalization pilot program in the state, to determine whether the reform should eventually be expanded and permanently codified.

Rep. Candace Newell (D)—who has long championed legislation to end cannabis criminalization and filed a similar legal marijuana pilot program measure last session—is sponsoring what’s titled the “Adult-Use Cannabis Pilot Program Regulation and Enforcement Act.”

Getting the bill across the finish line could prove complicated in the conservative legislature, however. Newell’s earlier version of the pilot program legislation didn’t advance to enactment last year, and lawmakers that session also rejected other marijuana reform proposals such as one that would have established a tax system to prepare the eventual legalization of adult-use cannabis.

Photograph (cropped) by D. Reed via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Louisiana Advances Bill to Jail People Who Use Marijuana Near Campuses appeared first on Filter.

Though the 2026 Strategy does not mention the recent rescheduling of medical marijuana, nor the ongoing process to potentially reschedule non-medical marijuana, it makes many dubious claims about the plant’s risks and harms. This includes heavily conflating medical marijuana with high-potency THC as well as with synthetic cannabinoids, both regulated and unregulated.

For example, the ONDCP suggests that the public can better understand “some of the medical risks associated with cannabinoids” by looking to the FDA labeling for dronabinol (Marinol), a synthetic cannabinoid prescribed for severe nausea that hasn’t responded to other treatments.

“The label warns of neuropsychiatric adverse reactions, cardiovascular instability, seizures, substance use disorder, and paradoxical symptoms such as nausea and vomiting,” the Strategy states. “Reviewing these official warnings may help individuals better understand the potential dangers of medical or non-medical marijuana use.”

The Strategy also claims that marijuana legalization has been largely taken over by “Chinese criminal groups.”

The previous Strategy was released in May 2024, under the Biden administration. In that version the focus on marijuana was minimal, and largely related to racial disparities in the criminal-legal system. These have now been replaced by warnings about cancer, cognitive impairment, scromiting—”due to the associated screaming and vomiting”—fungal pathogens, pesticides, pediatric poisonings, money laundering, “poly-crime involving human trafficking of exploited laborers,” youth suicide and, above all, drug-induced psychosis.

“The varying legal status of marijuana across the United States notwithstanding, it remains a fact that there are Americans who are suffering from addiction and side effects of marijuana and its associated products such as psychoactive derivatives of hemp or other high-THC products, and they deserve help,” the Strategy states. “Cannabis-induced psychosis, if diagnosed and addressed early, may mitigate the potential impact on progression towards schizophrenia or other severe mental illness.”

Cannabis-induced psychosis is a narrative that dovetails conveniently with the administration’s “Treatment First” model for people trying to access housing services, but also with its ongoing fearmongering about youth substance use.

The Strategy leans heavily on misleading claims that adolescent marijuana use, “particularly of high-potency products,” leads to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. By contrast, the 195-page document says almost nothing about methamphetamine, which for years has been the go-to for scaring the public about drug-induced psychosis. Cocaine is mostly mentioned in the context of Coast Guard seizures.

“It is critically important to identify people who are experiencing psychosis for the first time, as it may be related to drug use,” the Strategy states. “Additionally, convergent evidence from multiple sources suggests that cannabis exposure increases the risk of psychosis, and the prevention of marijuana use could serve to reduce the prevalence of psychosis, in addition to reducing cannabis use disorder and other consequences.”

In 2019, New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell wrote a wildly irresponsible article cherry-picking data about youth schizophrenia prevalence to suggest that marijuana use was often the cause, and ever since that belief was brought into the mainstream lawmakers have made similar claims about marijuana without acknowledging that correlation is not causation. For example, the Strategy states that drug use is associated with suicide, and that in one study of toxicology reports from the suicide deaths of people under age 25 the most common substance detected was marijuana—”more than alcohol or any other drug.” In no way does this show that marijuana is associated with suicide.

Top image via California State Auditor. Inset graphic via the White House.

The post 2026 National Drug Control Strategy Is Very Concerned About Marijuana appeared first on Filter.

“Together, these bills address the real issues surrounding cannabis in the Commonwealth today: an already-existing, unregulated marijuana market operating openly across the state while consumers, communities, and law enforcement are left without the protections of a legal framework,” the groups wrote in a letter to Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) on May 4.

“Let’s be clear: these bills do not create a marijuana market in Virginia. That market already exists,” the letter says. “What these bills do is replace today’s predatory and unaccountable illicit operators with a regulated marketplace, enforceable rules, oversight, product safeguards, age verification, and the strict consumer safety standards already in use for Virginia medical cannabis.”

The letter is signed by Virginia NORML, Marijuana Justice, Virginia Cannabis Association, Marijuana Policy Project and other groups.

“Virginia did its homework. Experts were consulted. Stakeholders were heard …We respectfully urge you to allow the Commonwealth to move forward.”

It goes on to detail how the legislation lawmakers passed earlier in 2026, and which the governor requested amendments to, was informed by extensive study by state bodies, including the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, the Marijuana Legalization Work Group, the Cannabis Oversight Commission, the Joint Commission to Oversee the Transition of the Commonwealth into a Retail Cannabis Market and the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority.

“That matters because the bills before you reflect the lessons of that process,” says the letter, which was also signed by Jushi, Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Nolef Turns, Virginia Minority Cannabis Coalition and others. “They are not theoretical. They are solutions tailored to Virginia’s actual conditions. They respond to the widespread sale of unregulated intoxicating products, the lack of consumer protections, the absence of retail oversight, and the need for effective enforcement tools aimed at bad actors rather than responsible adults.”

“Virginia did its homework. Experts were consulted. Stakeholders were heard. Real problems were identified,” the groups wrote. “These bills deliver the real solutions Virginia demands. We respectfully urge you to allow the Commonwealth to move forward with a safer, smarter, and more accountable cannabis policy.”

Personal possession and home cultivation of marijuana have been legal in Virginia since 2021, but former Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) twice vetoed bills to provide consumers with a way to legally purchase regulated adult-use cannabis.

Spanberger suggested changes including delaying the start date by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties.

The House of Delegates and Senate approved legislation from Senator Lashrecse Aird (D) and Delegate Paul Krizek (D) that would establish a legal and regulated market for adult-use marijuana sales.

Spanberger then suggested changes to the cannabis commerce legalization measure—including delaying the start date for sales by six months, increasing taxes and instituting new criminal penalties for cannabis consumers.

That drew strong pushback from reform supporters, including the lawmakers who sponsored the legislation, and in April both chambers ultimately declined to adopt the governor’s amendments.

The bills are now back with Spanberger in their original form, and she has until May 23 to either sign or veto the legislation, or allow it to become law without her signature.

Spanberger, for her part, responded to criticism of her cannabis amendments from the bill sponsors and advocates by saying the suggested changes came after she spoke to the leaders of other states that have already implemented adult-use marijuana markets.

Here are the other key details of the cannabis bills—SB 542 and HB 642—as approved by lawmakers and with the governor’s suggested amendments:

* Lawmakers voted to allow adults to be able to purchase up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana in a single transaction, or up to an equivalent amount of other cannabis products as determined by regulators. That represents an increase from the limit in current law of 1 ounce. The governor, however, wants the amount increased to only 2 ounces.

* Under the legislature’s plan, legal sales could begin on January 1, 2027, but the governor is proposing to push that back to July 1, 2027.

* Lawmakers voted to impose an excise tax of 6 percent on cannabis sales as well as a 5.3 percent retail sales and use tax, while allowing municipalities to set an additional local tax of up to 3.5 percent. The governor’s plan is largely the same, though it would increase the excise tax to 8 percent starting on July 1, 2029.

* Under the legislation as approved by lawmakers, revenue would be distributed to the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund (30 percent), early childhood education (40 percent), the Department of Behavioral & Developmental Health Services (25 percent) and public health initiatives (5 percent). The governor, however, wants to put all revenue into the general fund while earmarking it “for purposes such as early childhood education, behavioral health, public health awareness, prevention, treatment, and recovery services, workforce development, reentry, indigent criminal defense, and targeted reinvestment in historically disadvantaged communities.”

* The Virginia Cannabis Control Authority would oversee licensing and regulation of the new industry, and would also take on oversight of hemp, which is currently under the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

* Local governments could not opt out of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in their area.

* Delivery services would be allowed.

* Serving sizes would be capped at 10 milligrams THC, with no more than 100 mg THC per package.

* The governor is proposing to make public marijuana use a class 4 criminal misdemeanor instead of civil violation punishable by a $25 fine as under current law. She also wants to make cannabis possession by people under the age of 21 a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable with a mandatory minimum fine of $500 or 50 hours of community service, as well as the suspension of drivers’ licenses for at least six months. Illegally selling or distributing 50 pounds or more of marijuana would be a class 2 felony punishable by life in prison.

* The governor is seeking to eliminate support for the Cannabis Equity Reinvestment Fund.

* Existing medical cannabis operators could enter the adult-use market if they pay a licensing conversion fee that is set at $10 million.

* Cannabis businesses would have to establish labor peace agreements with workers.

* As passed by lawmakers, the bill would have directed a legislative commission to study adding on-site consumption licenses and microbusiness cannabis event permits that would allow licensees to conduct sales at venues like farmers markets or pop-up locations, but the governor is proposing to remove that language.

Meanwhile, Spanberger also suggested significant amendments to separate legislation that would provide resentencing relief to people with prior marijuana convictions, but lawmakers rejected those changes.

The governor signed several other reform bills in April—including measures to protect the parental rights of marijuana consumers and allow patients to access medical cannabis in hospitals.

Photograph by Rick Proctor on Unsplash

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

LEAP was previously the fiscal sponsor of The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter. Filter‘s Editorial Independence Policy applies.

The post Virginia Governor Urged to Sign Adult-Use Marijuana Sales Bill appeared first on Filter.

The long-awaited hearing is slated to begin June 29, and to conclude by July 15. Anyone interested in participating must file a request with the DEA by May 28, and the agency will notify those who have been selected on June 22. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche will designate the administrative law judge to preside over the hearing, but has not yet done so.

The federal marijuana rescheduling hearing was previously set for January 2025, but was postponed by DEA Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney and had been in limbo until the April 23 DOJ announcement.

In addition to the Federal Register notice on the proposed rescheduling of medical marijuana, the DEA published a separate notice withdrawing its original rescheduling notice from May 2024, stating that it had “determined that the most expeditious manner of completing the rulemaking process in accordance with Federal law is to terminate the pending hearing proceedings and initiate new hearing proceedings.” 

A third, more substantive notice published April 28 pertains to licensing requirements. Any entities that want access to FDA-approved medical marijuana products will need to register with the DEA and become licensed to handle Schedule III controlled substances. State-licensed medical dispensaries will be able to apply using their existing credentials.

A new registration portal is set to go live April 29 at 9 am EST.

The agency stated that “the most effective and efficient” way to reconcile the changes with federal and international law is to fold state-level licensing systems into the DEA’s existing registration system. The agency has created a registration portal for state-licensed dispensaries seeking to handle Schedule III medical marijuana. It’s set to go live April 29 at 9 am EST. 

Applicants must pay a $794 fee, which will recur annually. The only available payment method is PayPal, but the DEA stated in the application that it plans to have additional options “in the coming weeks.”

To remain in compliance with the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and its restrictions around Schedule I substances, the DEA has been required to monopolize sales of all marijuana supplied for research purposes. It is not similarly required to monopolize the wholesale trade of “medicinal cannabis.”

However, citing the “Convention’s requirement that a government agency serve as the exclusive purchaser of cannabis production,” the DEA will establish a “purchase-and-resale mechanism” in which it buys marijuana crops from registered manufacturers and sells it back to them at the same price.

“Out of an abundance of caution, the Administrator clarifies that researchers who obtain marijuana or marijuana-derived products from a state licensee for use in scientific research shall incur no civil or criminal liability under the Controlled Substances Act solely by reason of having obtained such products from a state-licensed source rather than a separately DEA-registered bulk manufacturer,” the notice states. “The Administrator shall not treat the use of state-licensed marijuana products in federally registered research as a basis for adverse action.”

Image via Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs

The post DEA Begins Next Steps Following Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Order appeared first on Filter.