Rules Panel Forwards Nelson’s Cannabis Board Nomination

By Bethaney Lee

The Rules and Judiciary Committee on Friday forwarded the nomination for Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture Commissioner Positive Nelson to serve on the Cannabis Advisory Board, putting an end to the notion that the longtime cannabis activist had a potential conflict of interest.

Nelson, who was the primary sponsor of the Medical Cannabis Patient Care Act, which legalized medical cannabis in the territory, said his 16 years of advocacy has prepared him “to add tremendous value to the discussions, considerations and decisions for which the board is tasked.”

During Friday’s committee meeting, Sen. Myron Jackson said the conflict of interest the body identified before is now no longer relevant. In prior meetings, it had been explained that the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands states no member of the Legislature can be appointed to any office that has been created by the Legislature during or one year after the expiration of their term.

But should Nelson’s nomination be ratified, he plans to serve on the board and supports the enhanced legislation proposed by Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. that revises the Virgin Islands Cannabis Use Act.

“Senators, as you already know, no law is perfect. You are also quite acquainted with the laws of supply and demand,” Nelson said. “There has always been an appetite for cannabis use and this has only increased since modern science and research have proven what Bob Marley, Peter Tosh and the Ancients have known and professed for decades and millenniums.”

The nominee proposed that if locally cultivated cannabis was available for sale in a regulated market, with policies established by the Cannabis Advisory Board, it would be a win for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Nelson said it would improve the economy and perhaps enhance the territory’s human and environmental health.

Sen. Novelle Francis Jr. said he didn’t always support marijuana-related legislation, “but has since garnered an open mind and have had many discussions in respect to cannabis and the legalization of it. … Now, I am open to it.”

Nelson told senators, “The interest is way more than you may see publicly.” Cannabis users spread across the entire spectrum Nelson said and added that many individuals are “closet users” for fear of risking their jobs and reputations.

Nelson said he hopes the advisory board can set up cannabis use permits before the end of the year.

“It depends on how serious we are,” he said. “But there is a cookie-cutter footprint for us to model moving forward. We are not pioneers at this point.”

The committee also forwarded three additional bills to the Committee of the Whole and moved forward the nominations of Lois Hassel-Habtes to serve on the board of trustees of the University of the Virgin Islands.

Biden-Sanders Task Force Discusses Marijuana Legalization Recommendation For Former VP

By

 Kyle Jaeger 

• SHARE
• TWEET

Members of a criminal justice task force created to inform presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s campaign have been discussing marijuana legalization—a policy the former vice president continues to oppose.

Most of the group—which consists of advisors appointed by both Biden and former primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)—support ending cannabis prohibition, and advocates have held out hope that they would recommend that Biden adopt the policy platform in the run-up to the November election.

While some members have publicly talked about the issue since joining the task force, including Linn County, Iowa Supervisor Stacey Walker, who recently commented on the need for reform in light of racial disparities in marijuana criminalization, a new report from Politico appears to be the first confirmation that the group itself is actively considering a formal recommendation on the policy change.

“Multiple people said marijuana policy has been discussed on the criminal justice panel, one of the policy groups of the unity task force,” the outlet reported. “Sanders appointees have advocated for legalization. Some Biden appointees personally support legalizing pot and have debated putting the policy in the panel’s recommendations to the former vice president, according to two people familiar with its deliberations.”

A majority of panel members appointed from both camps have previously gone on record in favor of legalization. That includes Tennessee Sen. Raumesh Akbari (D), former federal prosecutor Chiraag Bains, former Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, former Attorney General Eric Holder, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Walker.

“There’s an opportunity to advance a really bold agenda on criminal justice,” Bains, a Sanders-appointee to the task force, said. “This is part of envisioning a completely different future, not returning to a pre-Trump era. I say that as someone who served proudly in the Obama administration. We just have to be much more aggressive about rooting out systemic racism and injustice in the legal system.”

Biden should “end the War on Drugs, including by legalizing marijuana,” he told Politico.

Walker, whose position on the issue has been lesser-known than other members, also talked about the need for reform during an interview with Little Village that was published on Wednesday. The Iowa official said he knows many white people, including those from prominent families in the state, who consume cannabis and travel to legalized states to obtain it without concern about potential criminal penalties.

“It is no secret that African Americans use marijuana as a substance, recreational substance, just as much as everybody else. I often say, I operate in professional spaces. I know most of my white professional friends in this state use marijuana,” he said. “They do it without ever, ever, ever thinking they will face some sort of legal consequence. It doesn’t even cross their mind. They talk about it openly.”

Watch Walker talk about racial injustices in cannabis criminalization below: 

“They don’t ever think about a legal consequences because it’s not real to them— because they can’t conceive of it because they’ve never faced a consequence,” he added. “We’ve just created a system that over-criminalizes people by their race and by their economic situation. That is not right. It is not fair. It’s an aberration of justice.”

He went on to say that decriminalizing cannabis would minimize police encounters that lead people, particularly from communities of color, to be incarcerated and enter the criminal legal system.

Biden has backed the modest reform of decriminalizing marijuana and said that people should be diverted to treatment instead of facing jail time for possessing drugs, but he’s declined to get on board with the majority of Americans, particularly Democrats, who embrace fully legalizing cannabis. He’s opted instead to draw the line at legalization for medical use, expunging prior records, allowing states to set their own policies and federal rescheduling.

Bains said earlier this month that decriminalization is not sufficient, as it “typically means that you don’t have a criminal penalty, but you could still be issued a civil fine. And then there are other kinds of consequences that could follow from that.”

“It’s still illegal conduct,” he said. “If possession of marijuana is just decriminalized and that is the hook for extensive police involvement in people’s lives, and if you haven’t addressed the underlying systemic problems in policing and the justice system overall, then people could continue to be stopped and searched and frisked and so forth.”

It’s not clear whether the task force will ultimately recommend that Biden adopt a pro-legalization platform—or if he would accept that recommendation even if they did. Pressed repeatedly on the issue, Biden has continued to argue that more research should be done before enacting broad reform.

He also recently indicated that his personal experience knowing individuals who consume cannabis has not convinced him that the plant should be legal for recreational use.

For what it’s worth, Sanders doesn’t seem especially optimistic that the former vice president will evolve further, declining in an April interview to list the policy among those from his own platform that he feels Biden will come around to.

That said, as President Trump’s reelection campaign pushes to frame the incumbent as the criminal justice reform candidate, there may be added pressure on Biden to align himself with more progressive policies such as legalization.

Here’s an overview of where members of the Biden-Sanders criminal justice task force stands on cannabis policy: 

Akbari, the Tennessee senator, has filed legislation to legalize marijuana in his state and he’s said the reform move is necessary both to promote social equity and to generate revenue that can be used to fund public schools.

Bains, who also serves as the director of legal strategies at Demos, has voiced support for Sanders’s cannabis legalization plan and emphasized the need for racial equity in the legal industry.

Justin Bamberg, a South Carolina lawmaker, has cosponsored legislation to decriminalize marijuana and legalize medical cannabis.

Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Right, backs legalization and has strongly condemned harsh criminalization policies for non-violent drug offenses.

Holder, the former top prosecutor in the U.S., has said that he’d vote in favor of legalizing marijuana if he was in Congress and claimed to have internally tried to convince the administration to reschedule cannabis.

Symone Sanders, senior advisor to Biden, doesn’t have a clear public stance on legalization, but she’s characterized Biden’s modest marijuana reform plan as being progressive.

Scott, a current member of the House, has cosponsored legislation that called for marijuana descheduling and reinvestments in communities harmed most by prohibition.

Walker’s views on the issue became clearer in the recent interview, where he stressed that cannabis laws have been enforced in a racially discriminatory manner.

District Attornery To Reduce, Dissmiss Past Marijuana Convictions

"Our office recognized the undue burden that these prior convictions can have on people's livelihood, both past and present."

By Press Release Desk, News Partner

(Shutterstock)

Press release from the County of Santa Cruz Office of the District Attorney:

Santa Cruz County District Attorney Jeffrey S. Rosell announced today that in recognition of the undue burden that prior marijuana convictions can have on people's lives has petitioned the Santa Cruz County Superior Court to reduce, dismiss and seal 1,169 marijuana cases involving 1,085 defendants pursuant to Proposition 64 and Assembly Bill 1793.

In November of 2016, California voters passed Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Proposition 64 legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults; created a system for regulating non-medical marijuana businesses; imposed taxes on the sale of marijuana; and changed the penalties for marijuana-related crimes. Prop 64 also permitted individuals who had previously been convicted of qualifying marijuana-related crimes that became lesser offenses, or non- crimes, to petition the court for resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or re-designation. Proposition 64 passed in Santa Cruz County with nearly 70% approval. 

With the legalization of marijuana in California, the District Attorney's Office recognized that a fundamental unfairness exists for people who are suffering the consequences of a criminal conviction for conduct that is currently legal. For many people, especially in communities hit hardest from the "war on drugs", these old arrests and convictions, in some cases for minor amounts of marijuana, still haunt members of our community as they fill out job applications or apply for housing or other benefits. This inequity needed to be remedied.

During the past year, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney's Office worked with the California Department of Justice, the Santa Cruz County Probation Department, and the Santa Cruz County Superior Court to identify all cases that qualify for relief. After a thorough review, the District Attorney's Office has elected to petition the court to dismiss all qualifying marijuana convictions dating back to 1969.

"Our office recognized the undue burden that these prior convictions can have on people's livelihood, both past and present. The decision to dismiss these cases provides much-needed relief to the non-violent people caught up in the 'war on drugs' and level the playing field for people convicted of crimes that are no longer crimes." said Rosell.

Federal Commission Pushes Expansion Of Marijuana And Psychedelics Research For Military Veterans

By Kyle Jaeger

A federal commission tasked with developing recommendations to improve mental health treatment for military veterans has reached a surprising conclusion: Congress and the executive branch need to promote research into the therapeutic potential of marijuana and psychedelics such as psilocybin mushrooms and MDMA.

Following months of meetings, the Creating Options for Veterans Expedited Recovery (COVER) Commission released its report in January. But despite the novelty of its drug policy findings, the document has gone largely unnoticed by reform advocates and the media. Chaired by presidential appointee Jake Leinenkugel, the panel determined that cannabis and psychedelics represent promising mental health treatment options for veterans that should be fully explored.

“Medical cannabis and psychedelic drugs may have uses in treating mental health issues among veterans; however, these substances are currently classified as Schedule 1 under the Controlled Substances Act, which precludes VA from conducting research on their efficacy,” the panel said.

The scheduling status of these substances has meant that the process of obtaining approval to research them is needlessly burdensome and that the supply of marijuana and other controlled drugs that’s available for studies is inadequate, the commission, members of which were appointed by congressional leaders and the president, found.

“The U.S. federal government’s policies have blocked externally valid, randomized clinical trials on the effects of cannabis,” the report says. “Scientists seeking to conduct research on cannabis must submit to an arduous application process that may last years. The research requires approval from multiple government agencies, including some with stated opposition to any therapeutic uses of cannabis.”

The panel further asserted that the Schedule I status of the drugs has effectively blocked VA from researching them at all, though that point has been disputed by advocates.

“Because VA is unable to conduct research into issues that are actively affecting veterans’ health care (medical cannabis) or issues that could dramatically affect veterans’ health care (medical psychedelics), VA is unable to explore possibilities such as whether medical psilocybin is effective in decreasing anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer. The opioid epidemic highlighted the need for third-party research into negative effects of treatment interventions and underscored that FDA approval alone does not reveal all of the potential negative consequences that can come about when a prescription treatment is made available to the public.”

Veterans across the U.S. are already using cannabis in compliance with state laws to treat a host of mental health conditions, the report states, and that “necessitates that VA better understand medical marijuana, and how it can benefit and harm patients who use it, so VA providers can better care for these veterans.”

Reform advocates and a growing group of bipartisan lawmakers have long argued that expanding research into the medical value of cannabis for veterans is an imperative—but what’s particularly striking about this commission’s report is that it explicitly acknowledges the potential of specific psychedelics as well. It notes that the “psychedelic research movement is gathering momentum” with investigations into how psilocybin and MDMA can impact conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder being carried out privately by universities and research institutes.

“Although the findings have limited generalizability due to sample size and homogeneity issues, studies have shown some promise for treating disorders for which available treatments are insufficient—mood, substance, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder—using psychedelics, including MDMA,” the COVER Commission report says.

To that end, the commission issued a recommendation: VA should “engage with other federal agencies, as appropriate, to research the potential short- and long-term risks, as well as benefits, of medical cannabis and psychedelic drugs.”

It also recommends that the executive and legislative branches require the National Institute On Drug Abuse to develop “strains of cannabis with THC levels equivalent to those being used by medical cannabis users in the states where medical cannabis is legal to ensure that research on medical cannabis use generates meaningful information on the related risks and benefits.”

That would address the fact that studies have shown that the marijuana that’s produced at the only federally authorized manufacturing facility is chemically more similar to hemp than cannabis sold in state-legal markets.

Further, VA physicians should be given “up-to-date information on research related to use of medical cannabis and psychedelics, including MDMA” and be better educated about “their ability to discuss the benefits and possible negative effects of medical cannabis with veterans in their care,” the report continues.

The panel said that there “are significant questions about the benefits and costs of using cannabis and psychedelics in treating mental health issues. The efficacy and safety of these types of treatments are unclear, but it is essential that VA engage in research to better understand them.”

“VA should engage with other federal agencies to conduct research into the positive and negative effects on veterans’ mental health of medical cannabis and psychedelics, including methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA),” a summary of the report states.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA), a longtime advocate for marijuana research for veterans who is sponsoring the VA Medicinal Cannabis Research Act, told Marijuana Moment that the commission’s report “shows exactly why my bill is so important.”

“The Department of Veterans Affairs acknowledges cannabis can be a valuable medical tool for our veterans,” he said. “We must pass the Medicinal Cannabis Research Act so the VA can finally conduct this critical research and get veterans the medicine they need.”

Correa’s medical marijuana research bill was approved by a House committee in March but has not yet been scheduled for floor action by Democratic leaders.

Based on testimony in past hearings, it’s unclear whether VA will be inclined to embrace the COVER Commission’s recommendations, as department officials have stood opposed to several modest marijuana reform bills that were discussed in committee last year. That included legislation to protect VA benefits for veterans who use marijuana, allow the department’s doctors to recommend medical cannabis and expand research into the plant’s therapeutic potential.

In any case, the commission’s report seems to reflect an evolved understanding of the policy changes that would be necessary to effectively investigate whether marijuana or certain psychedelics would be able to provide relief to veterans suffering from a wide range of mental health conditions. It was released three years after the panel was established as part of the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act.

Transcripts of commission meetings leading up to the report’s publication showed that members routinely participated in conversations about the limitations of mental health research opportunities for controlled substances under prohibition.

For example, Leinenkugel, the chairman, who has previously expressed interest in advancing VA studies into the medical benefits of marijuana for veterans, said during a hearing in July 2018 that he was “blown away” by the amount of research that’s been conducted on the subject in other countries such as the Canada and Israel.

“They, for some reason, found much more reason to take cannabis and cannabinoid oils to a further legal way for their veterans, not for recreation but for usage of the veterans,” he said. “It was a wake-up call for me personally.”

Col. Matthew Amidon, a member of the commission, told the chair that the panel “should remember also that there’s H.R. 5520, which is the 2017 Cannabis Research Act, which is a bill right now which we might want to refer to as we articulate a vision with cannabis bills.”

At another meeting, Leinenkugel said that “I think that our largest [veterans service organizations] have stated through their membership that over 90 percent of American Legion, which is two million strong, veterans are advocating that we at least take a look at research within the VA, which I don’t think we’re doing.”

“To me, that makes no sense. It’s a plant, it’s an herb. I’m not advocating for recreational use at all, but from this commission, we need to look at every variation of complementary type of care under what we had yesterday, whole health,” he said. “I know I’m editorializing a little bit, but I want to at least get it on the public record that these are things that I think we need to start taking a look at.”

All told, the conversations reflect a growing recognition that—despite ongoing federal prohibitions—there’s a need to promote research into controlled substances that hold therapeutic potential. And that’s not just coming from advocates, it’s coming from Trump appointees and military brass alike.

Now it’s up to Congress and the White House to follow through with the recommendations of the panel that the two branches created and appointed.

WHY CANNABIS BECAME ILLEGAL: The history of banning cannabis - Teeka Tiw...

THE TRUTH ABOUT MARIJUANA'S BIGGEST KEPT SECRET - Teeka Tiwari | London ...

Criminalization that never should have been: Cannabis

BY JUSTIN STREKAL,

Across the country, debates are taking place in living rooms, on television screens, and behind closed doors in Congress as to how to address the systemically disproportionate levels of police violence against black Americans. For some, these conversations have been happening for years, yet many other Americans are just now beginning to critically think about these issues for the first time. 

As the House debates ways to reform policing in the United States, it’s critical that we not only analyze the structures under which law enforcement operates, but also the extraordinary powers that they have been granted — powers that often provide them with the ability to interact with citizens whenever and wherever they please. 

One common pretext provided by police for these citizen interactions is that they suspect that someone has either used or is in possession of marijuana. That is why Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) has suggested the need to amend federal anti-marijuana laws during the recent hearing on policing practices. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking recently with Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler, Rep. Correa asked, “How do you think that the legalization of cannabis would help for social justice in this nation?”

Professor Butler’s answer was instructive. “We think it would help create equal justice under the law.” 

It’s further instructive to revisit how marijuana became illegal in America in the first place. In fact, our nation’s decades-long prohibition of marijuana was founded upon racism and bigotry. Look no further than the sentiments of its architect, Harry Anslinger, the founding Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, who declared: “[M]ost [marijuana consumers in the US] are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. … [M]arijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes. … Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” 

These racial biases were later exploited by the Nixon administration when it ramped up the drug war in 1970 and declared cannabis to be “public enemy #1.” As former Nixon adviser John Ehrlichman later acknowledged: “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

In short, the prohibition and criminalization of cannabis were, and still is, a racially motivated public policy response to personal behavior that is, at worst, a public health matter. But this should have never been a pretext for expanding police powers to search, incarcerate and arrest millions of American citizens.

ADVERTISEMENT

Annually, over 650,000 Americans are arrested for violating marijuana laws. According to an analysis of these arrests released earlier this year by the ACLU, “In every single state, Black people were more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession, and in some states, Black people were up to six, eight, or almost ten times more likely to be arrested. In 31 states, racial disparities were actually larger in 2018 than they were in 2010.” 

In New York City alone, an estimated 80 percent of those arrested for marijuana violations over the past decades were either Black or Latinx. In fact, marijuana enforcement was so egregious in the Empire State that lawmakers on two separate occasions had to pass legislation to decriminalize the substance and reign in police misconduct. And, even despite these changes, people of color continue to be disproportionately targeted by police — just in fewer numbers than before. 

But New York City is hardly unique. In many underprivileged communities, marijuana prohibition is routinely utilized by law enforcement as the pretext to shield police from punishment for misconduct. Take the case of Philando Castile, who was shot and killed by a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer in the case cited the smell of cannabis as his justification for the use of lethal force, stating, “I thought I was gonna die. And I thought if he’s, if he has the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana… what care does he give about me.” 

The Washington Post feature, entitled, “Marijuana really can be deadly, but not in the way you probably expect,” highlights numerous other incidences where suspected marijuana use was the key factor in police engagements that resulted in civilian murders. 

Since Congress classified the cannabis plant as an illicit Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, well over 20 million Americans have been subject to arrest for violating marijuana laws, and untold millions more who have been harassed under the pretense that they may have been in violation of the law. Entire communities have lost generations of citizens to cyclical poverty and incarceration due to the collateral consequences of having a cannabis-related conviction on their record. 

These consequences include the loss of access to higher education, the inability to qualify for government-subsidized housing, employment discrimination, the loss of child custody, homelessness, and more. In large part due to the modern War on Drugs, the United States’ prison population has skyrocketed by over 500 percent over the last 40 years, with nearly 2.3 million people incarcerated in the United States at the beginning of 2019. 

And the ramifications of this prohibition are not only isolated to US citizens. In fact,  cannabis possession violations are the second most common justification for a drug-related deportation infraction. In recent years, the criminalization of cannabis has become so intertwined with the immigration policy that the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services released a policy alert stating that immigrants seeking citizenship who use cannabis, even in states where it is legal under state law, may be denied citizenship due to their “lack of good moral character.”

In the days, weeks, and months ahead, I have no doubt that these debates over racially motivated policing and systemic racism will persist in living rooms, city council chambers, and within the halls of Congress. And make no mistake, marijuana policy reform alone will not undo all of the most egregious practices that have led to millions taking the streets crying out for justice and respect and dignity for black lives. But ending prohibition will help. Here’s why. 

It ends an 82-year-old racist stain upon the American criminal code that has enabled law enforcement to limit the freedom and dignity of otherwise law-abiding citizens. It abolishes certain abusive policing practices that law enforcement have never been granted in the first place. It ends a cruel and senseless policy that has been most egregiously used against those who are black, poor, and young — robbing them not only of their present but all too often their future as well. 

For those reasons, Congress must consider the repeal of federal cannabis prohibition in its ongoing legislative effort to bring about substantive policing reform in the United States. 

Attorney General Pressed On Rescheduling Drugs And Legalizing Marijuana By House Judiciary Chair

By

 Kyle Jaeger 

Two key House lawmakers sent a letter to the attorney general on Friday, condemning the recent expansion of Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) authority amid mass protests and criticizing the agency’s objectives as out of step with the movement to legalize marijuana and reschedule other drugs.

And on Monday, two other House members wrote a similar letter, urging that the broader authority policy allowing DEA to conduct covert surveillance of protestors and “enforce any federal crime committed as a result of the protests” be rescinded and suggesting that Congress reevaluate the types of policies the agency should be able to enforce, including drug prohibition.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) told Attorney General William Barr that the temporary expansion of DEA power, which was first reported by BuzzFeed, is unwarranted and their “narcotics interdiction tactics” are inappropriate to deal with protestors. Further, they said “DEA’s rigid refusal to consider, let alone adopt, even minor reform of the way it carries out business portends a further unnecessary escalation of this week’s protests.”

The letter notes racial disparities in the agency’s enforcement of drug laws, particularly for cannabis.

The administration’s “counterproductive focus on non-violent drug offenses is a plain reminder that the DEA is out of touch with the Nation’s shift from the drug war model to policies of substance abuse treatment, rescheduling drugs, legalizing marijuana, and reducing harsh drug sentences,” they said.

That line’s inclusion of “rescheduling drugs” is especially notable as it points to reforms that go beyond legalizing marijuana. It’s unclear what other drugs the lawmakers are referencing, but Nadler said in a 2018 radio interview that he’s in favor of legalizing and regulating “softer drugs” including but not limited to cannabis.

“From everything we have learned, people are going to do drugs,” he said at the time. “And certainly the softer drugs like marijuana, there’s no good reason at all that they cannot be legalized and regulated properly.”

The use of the plural “drugs” in his prior comments stands out, but again he declined to specify the substances he feels there is “no good reason” to continue prohibiting. Marijuana Moment reached out to Nadler and Bass for clarification on this latest letter, but representatives did not immediately respond.

There is not currently any pending legislation in Congress that would reclassify illicit drugs other than marijuana to less restrictive schedules.

In a separate letter, Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) told Barr that he should “rescind this temporary authorization permitting the DEA to conduct covert surveillance on protestors.”

Giving the agency this authority threatens to jeopardize the First Amendment rights of protestors, they said, and “this action makes it abundantly clear that Congress must reevaluate the policies of which the DEA is intended to enforce and the technologies that it has obtained to do so.”

The lawmakers, who serve as co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, pointed to the fact that simple marijuana possession can carry a punishment of up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine under federal law, and that’s despite the fact that a majority of states have legalized the plant in some form.

“This conflict between these laws creates circumstances in which DEA may perform vast arrest sweeps for an activity that is legal under state law where protest activity is taking place,” they said. “While marijuana use is illegal under federal law, there is no rational connection between violations of marijuana law and endangering the public through protest activity.”

“Moreover, it is not lost on us that the enforcement of federal marijuana laws is rooted in racial discrimination,” the letter continues. “The Nixon Administration also used drug enforcement as a mechanism to criminalize and suppress the civil rights movement quell civil unrest including protests in favor of civil rights. The DOJ must not make the same mistake as Americans take to the streets demanding justice for Black communities and an end to unconstitutional policing.”

Several top officials have similarly connected protests over racial injustice to the need for drug policy reform in recent days.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom described his states’s legalization of marijuana as a “civil rights” matter last week. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said that the passage of cannabis decriminalization legislation this year represents an example of how his state has addressed racial inequities that are inspiring mass protests

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) also recently said racial disparities in marijuana enforcement is an example of a systemic injustice that underlies the frustration of minority communities.

Last month, 12 House members introduced a resolution condemning police brutality and specifically noting the racial injustices of the war on drugs. It now has 160 cosponsors.

That measure came one week after 44 members of the House sent a letter to the Justice Department, calling for an independent investigation into a fatal police shooting of Taylor in a botched drug raid.

In New York, there’s a renewed push to pass a package of criminal justice reform legislation that includes a bill to legalize marijuana.

Your genes have a surprising impact on how marijuana affects you

By MARIA LORETO,

Studies have found links between genetics and the ways in which people react to marijuana. (© Issaro Prakalung | Dreamstime.com)

Marijuana is a widely used drug yet it remains unpredictable. Seasoned users can usually manage the effect that marijuana has on them, while also staying calm during an unpredictable high. For newcomers, however, it’s different; novice users usually can’t predict how the drug will affect them, whether it’ll lead to a paranoid high or giggle fest.

Science says your genes might play a part in how your body reacts to cannabis.

Cannabis functions by binding itself to the cannabinoid receptors in our bodies, which are located in our cells, containing our individual DNA. Mutations in CB1 or CB2 receptors can make you more vulnerable to different illnesses, such as Chron's disease or anorexia. These changes could also impact how your cells bind to different molecules including the ones in cannabis.

In a 2019 study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that a variable in the gene CHRNA2 could increase the risk of becoming addicted to cannabis. Cannabis addiction is something that's not all that understood, with many people doubting its existence. Symptoms of marijuana withdrawal include depression, irritability, a higher heart rate and more.

While this gene doesn’t indicate whether or not someone is a marijuana addict, it does increase the odds of these kinds of responses to heavy use of the drug.

All of this means that when sharing a bong or a joint with friends, a few of them can have slightly different reactions depending on several factors including their genome, personal experience with the drug and the strain they’re ingesting.

Genes are extremely complex. Although we’re born with some genetic mutations, other mutations can occur due to the things we’re exposed to throughout our lives, such as the foods we eat, the germs we interact with, our levels of stress, and more.

There’s a lot we don’t understand about cannabis and its impact on our genes, but there’s a lot of possibilities once you start playing around with these variables, hopefully resulting in more medicinal and recreational effects of the drug.