Drugs

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares55 Views

    US overdose deaths decreased in 2023 – will Trump continue this trend?

    by

    The Biden administration saw unprecedented levels of US opioid overdose fatalities, but those deaths are now declining faster than they have in decades – progress a second Trump administration could continue or threaten, experts say.The number of overdose deaths in the US declined for the first time in five years in 2023, and have continued to decline more rapidly this year, according to provisional data.Some of the decline may have resulted from Biden administration efforts to expand access to harm-reduction services, especially the overdose-reversal drug naloxone, which received over-the-counter approval for the first time last year. Public health experts worry that the second Trump administration will gut access to healthcare, including addiction treatment.The president-elect’s legacy on opioids is complicated. When Trump first took office, he inherited a rapidly escalating overdose crisis. Opioid overdose deaths more than doubled during the Obama administration,according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The three most recent presidential administrations have all failed to quell escalating opioid overdose deaths, which nearly doubled again during the Trump and Biden administrations, dipping slightly in 2018 but overall jumping by 62% during Trump’s first term in 2020. Under Biden, deaths increased by 19% from 2020 to 2022, to 81,806, before declining by 2% last year.At times, the Trump administration seemed to work against itself when it came to the crisis. For example, Trump repeatedly attempted to gut funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, although Congress blocked his efforts. Similarly, Trump was frequently in disputes with Congress over attempts to repeal elements of the Affordable Care Act and its expansions to Medicaid, which funds treatment for 40% of adults with opioid use disorder.Still, experts contacted by the Guardian within and outside the first Trump administration credit the president-elect for putting unprecedented focus on the crisis.Trump signed an executive order in 2017 forming the Presidential Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis. Bertha Madras, a professor in Harvard’s psychiatry department who served on the commission, said it wasn’t until Trump “established the commission that a significant integrated national response materialized”.Adm Brett Giroir, who served as an assistant secretary in Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services, says that he was given the authority to head up an unofficial “opioids cabinet … which met every week at the White House under Kellyanne Conway to make sure every department was working on this crisis”.Others praise Trump for supporting harm-reduction efforts, despite past opposition from his party.“President Trump publicly supported syringe services programs, a first for a Republican president,” said Jerome Adams, who served as surgeon general under Trump. Indeed, the Trump administration in some ways paved the way for the Biden administration’s response to the crisis. Access to naloxone expanded significantly under Trump, and even more under Biden.But despite these efforts, the number of US overdose deaths climbed for the majority of Trump’s first term. Giroir and Madras both attribute the huge overdose spike in 2020 to the Covid-19 pandemic, which overwhelmed the healthcare system and increased depression and suicide.Andrew Kolodny, medical director for the Opioid Policy Research Collaborative at Brandeis University, says the administration should have done more.“The first time around, President Trump did an excellent job of calling attention to the opioid crisis and designating it as a public health emergency,” he conceded, but he also said the then president failed to take sufficient action or establish a long-term plan.While the Trump administration allocated unprecedented amounts of funding to combat the crisis, Kolodny said the impact was limited, because states were usually given funds in the form of one- or two-year grants.“That’s not really adequate for building out a treatment system that doesn’t exist yet,” Kolodny said. “If you were to hire a whole bunch of staff, what would you do if you don’t get that appropriation the next year? Do you lay everybody off?”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionExperts disagree on whether the administration spent too much of that funding on law and border enforcement, rather than treatment. Giroir supported harm-reduction and treatment expansion during his time under Trump, and is proud of his efforts to remove red tape and increase access to the opioid-cessation drug buprenorphine. Still, he says, “enforcement has to dominate the discussion”, because treatment is less effective than preventing addiction in the first place.Other experts say that criminalization only exacerbates the crisis.“Under Trump’s previous administration, they federally criminalized all fentanyl-related substances in 2018 – and overdose deaths increased from 67,367 that year to 70,630 and 93,331 in 2019 and 2020 respectively,” said Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.Kolodny didn’t necessarily agree that criminalization drove the overdose increases, but he did say “the balance should be different” when it comes to prioritizing treatment over law enforcement. He said the best way to immediately reduce the overdose death count would be to make treatment “basically free” and overall easier to access than fentanyl.“[People with opioid use disorder] are not out there using fentanyl because it’s so much fun. If they don’t use, they’re gonna be very, very sick … People can really feel like they’re gonna die,” he said.It’s hard to predict how Trump will tackle the overdose crisis the second time around. He avoided the topic during his recent presidential campaign, and instead focused on inaccurate talking points about immigrants trafficking drugs across the border. He also falsely claimed he had never wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But a Republican-controlled Congress could cut ACA subsidies and Medicaid.Frederique worries that Trump will continue prioritizing drug arrests during his second term, but said during his first term “he also dedicated billions of dollars toward research, education, prevention and treatment. We are committed to supporting the Trump administration’s previous efforts to advocate for health approaches such as increasing access to treatment and naloxone.” More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares117 Views

      in US Politics

      Portland’s first ranked-choice vote elects progressive outsider as mayor

      by

      In 2022 it appeared the political winds in Portland, Oregon, one of the US’s most progressive cities, were beginning to shift. Residents who had grown frustrated over the city’s approach to homelessness rejected the incumbent, Jo Ann Hardesty – the first Black woman to serve on the city council – in favor of the “law-and-order” Democrat Rene Gonzalez, who pledged to back an expanded police force and “clean up” Portland.But this month, as swaths of the US electorate moved to the right, the Pacific north-west city took a markedly different approach. Residents elected the most diverse city council in Portland history, opting for more progressives, and rejected Gonzalez as mayoral candidate. Instead, they chose Keith Wilson, a businessperson who has never before held office and has promised to end unsheltered homelessness in a year.Wilson had large leads over his competitors in the election, the first in which the city used ranked-choice voting and in the latest results was leading the second place candidate 60% to 40%.The most conservative candidates for mayor and the county board, who took hardline stances, lost, Richard Clucas, a political science professor at Portland State University, pointed out.“Both were defeated significantly because Portland remains a very progressive city despite what people may have heard elsewhere,” Clucas said.The results came as the city was in the midst of what officials have described as a “once-in-a-generation” change to its government system and major voting reforms. This month, for the first time ever, Portland used ranked-choice voting to elect a mayor and a larger, more representative city council. The new officials will have different roles as Portland moves from a commission form of government to one overseen by a city administrator.Voters approved the overhaul two years ago – the same year Gonzalez won – as the city of 630,000 people grappled with a declining downtown, rising homelessness, a fentanyl crisis, growing public drug use and a sluggish recovery from the pandemic. Voters appeared to take out their dissatisfaction with crime, homelessness and drug use on Hardesty, the most progressive member of city council, said Ben Gaskins, a political science professor Lewis & Clark College in Portland.Some have speculated the city was beginning to recoil from its progressive values, particularly after voters in the county ousted the progressive district attorney for a challenger endorsed by police groups. That came shortly after Oregon moved to reintroduce criminal penalties for the possession of hard drugs, in effect scrapping the state’s groundbreaking drug decriminalization law.Claims the city is turning away from progressivism are significantly overstated, Gaskins said – instead, the shifts indicate an electorate that is more focused on tactical concerns rather than ideological ones.Gonzalez was widely considered a frontrunner in this year’s mayoral race. Calling it a “make-or-break election”, the commissioner said that as mayor he would add hundreds of officers to city streets and stop “enabling the humanitarian crisis on our streets by ending the distribution of tents and drug kits”.Wilson, who serves as the chief executive of a trucking company and founded a non-profit to expand shelter capacity and ultimately end homelessness, made the issue the center of his campaign, pledging to reform the city’s approach to alleviating the crisis. He insisted the issue could be addressed with “care and compassion”, the Oregonian reported, and said he would increase the number of night-time walk-in emergency shelters available in churches and community centers.That approach appealed to city voters, Clucas said, over harsher remedies. “They don’t simply want a crackdown, arrests and other things; they want to find some way to compassionately address it.”At a debate in October, Wilson said he would give city leaders an F for their efforts to address homelessness, according to the Oregonian. “Letting people suffer and die on our streets is unacceptable … I believe that every person in Portland deserves a bed every night,” he said.The progressive Carmen Rubio, a city council member, was also a frontrunner in the race. But she lost endorsements after reporting from the Oregonian revealed that she had received about 150 parking and traffic violations since 2004, many of which she failed to pay for months and years, and that she had her license suspended multiple times.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGonzalez’s campaign was hurt by reporting from the Willamette Week that showed the “public safety champion” had also received seven speeding tickets between 1998 and 2013, and had his license suspended twice.Wilson was once considered a long-shot candidate, but he was probably bolstered by the city’s new ranked-choice voting system, experts said.His position as a businessperson coming from outside the political system allowed him to be a “compromise candidate”, Gaskins said. Wilson fit the gap of someone who is progressive but still represents a change to the status quo, he said.“I think the fact Keith Wilson was able to win shows Portland wants someone who is clearly on the left but who is focused on policy solutions and getting things done versus just being the most ideologically pure candidate in the race,” he said.“He is a candidate of this particular moment.”In an acceptance speech last week, Wilson pledged to build trust and take advantage of a “transformative opportunity”.“It’s time to end unsheltered homelessness and open drug use, and it’s time to restore public safety in Portland,” he said. “Voters aren’t interested in pointing fingers. They just want us to get things done.”Along with Wilson, residents also elected 12 city councillors, nearly half of whom are people of color, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported – a remarkable shift given that just seven years ago, only two people of color had ever been elected to city government. At least four of the new councillors identify as LGBTQ+, the outlet reported, and five received endorsements from the Democratic Socialists of America chapter in Portland. More

    • 150 Shares108 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A once-in-a-generation change’: Oregon’s biggest city prepares for monumental overhaul of government

      by

      When voters in Portland, Oregon, head to the polls next month, they will be tasked not only with selecting new leaders, but also the implementation of a monumental overhaul of the city’s government.Two years ago, residents moved to fundamentally alter their local government structure and adopted what experts have described as some of the most “expansive voting reforms” undertaken by a major US city in recent decades. Come November, the city will use ranked-choice voting to elect a mayor and a larger, more representative city council as Portland moves from a commission form of government to one overseen by a city administrator.The shake-up comes after challenging years for Portland in which the city of 630,000 grappled with a declining downtown, rising homelessness, a fentanyl crisis, growing public drug use and the continued economic impacts of the pandemic years.While some news coverage has portrayed the shift as Portlanders rejecting the city’s historically progressive values, those involved with the project counter that residents are embracing democratic reforms that will lead to a more equitable government better equipped to solve the city’s problems.“It was really clear that this system was, as operated, very inequitable,” said Jenny Lee, managing director of Building Power for Communities of Color, a non-profit that was a key proponent of the effort.“And the challenges in governing are going to be felt the most by those who already have been marginalized in our political system.”Now the city waits to see what the “once-in-a-generation” change will mean for its future.Since 1913, Portland has used a commission form of government. The commission consisted of five people elected citywide and who were responsible for passing policies and also acting as administrators in charge of city departments.The system was briefly popular in other major US cities, but then largely abandoned, said Richard Clucas, a political science professor at Portland State University.“Most cities who adopted that form of government realized there were problems with it,” he said. “Someone may be good as a legislator but it doesn’t make them good as an administrator.”View image in fullscreenAnd Portland’s system had long failed to adequately represent different demographics in the city, Lee said. The city’s elected officials historically have been white men from more affluent areas where residents are more likely to have a higher income and own their homes, according to the Sightline Institute. In 2017, only two people of color had ever been elected to the city council.Under the charter system, simple decisions – such as where to put a bike lane – were politicized, said Shoshanah Oppenheim, the charter transition project manager.“It was based on the political tide,” said Oppenheim, who is also a senior adviser in the city administrator’s office.For more than a century, Portlanders rejected attempts to reform the commission system, but that changed when the 10-year review of the city charter coincided with upheaval and challenges of the pandemic years.The pandemic exacerbated the existing limitations of the city’s form of government, according to a report from Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation chronicling Portland’s reforms.Meanwhile, Portland was the site of widespread racial justice protests and an ensuing federal crackdown, the city’s economic recovery from the pandemic was slow, and residents grew increasingly disillusioned with their leaders’ ability to make meaningful progress tackling homelessness and drug abuse.Those challenges created an opportunity to have meaningful conversations about elections and government, Lee said.Clucas echoed that sentiment: “I think the public was looking and happy to take on some sort of change.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCommunity leaders had spent years educating themselves about electoral reform, and saw an opportunity to create change in the city, the report stated.With support from community organizations and local activists, the commission brought a measure before voters that would make key changes to the city’s system, allowing voters to rank local candidates in order of preference, expand the city council from five to 12 representatives elected from four newly created districts, and move to a system of government overseen by a professional city administrator.Despite criticism about the complexity of the measure and opposition from political leaders and the business community, 58% of voters approved the package of reforms proposed by the commission.Although the timing coincided with major changes and social issues, Lee said the reforms were not reactionary and instead an example of Portland being willing to try new things, which ties into Oregon’s long history of democratic reforms aimed at making government more participatory.“It was a message about change, but it was definitely a hopeful one,” she said. “It was always about these changes will make our government more effective and equitable.”The city has spent the last two years preparing for a project unlike anything Portland has seen before,Oppenheim said. “We had a really short timeline … It’s been an all-hands-on-deck approach,” she said. “There is no playbook. We are making it up as we go along.”Next month, voters will decided among more than 100 candidates for 12 council seats and 19 candidates for mayor. A recent poll from the Oregonian suggested a once-longshot candidate, whose campaign has focused on ending homelessness, is well positioned to win.In a poll of roughly 300 voters from early October, before election packets were sent out, two-thirds responded that they understood how voting works very well or somewhat well. People tend to understand the system right away given that they rank things every day, Oppenheim said.The city has also developed a voter education program to inform residents about the changes and trained operators on its information line how to explain ranked-choice voting.The hope is that voters will feel the increased power of their vote, Lee said. “Every vote has a lot of power. Your constituents’ voices really matter. Their second- and third-choice rankings actually really matter.”After the election, the other major test comes next year when Portland’s new government takes the reins. “We want to be ready on day one so all the city business can continue,” Oppenheim said.“Portlanders have huge expectations for change and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do things better,” Oppenheim said. “They want a more representative government. We have it in our power to deliver that.” More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Widow of Beau Biden testifies about finding gun in Hunter Biden’s truck

      by

      The widow of Hunter Biden’s brother told jurors in his federal gun trial about the moment she found the gun in his truck, describing how she put it into a leather pouch, stuffed it into a shopping bag and tossed it into a trash can outside a market near her home.“I panicked, and I wanted to get rid of them,” she testified about finding the gun and ammunition in the vehicle’s console in October 2018. “I didn’t want him to hurt himself, and I didn’t want my kids to find it and hurt themselves.”The purchase of the Colt revolver by Hunter Biden – and Hallie Biden’s disposal of it – are the fulcrum of the case against him. Federal prosecutors say the president’s son was in the throes of a drug addiction when he bought the gun. He has been charged with three felonies: lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user, and illegally having the gun for 11 days.Hunter Biden, who has pleaded not guilty, has said the justice department is bending to political pressure from Republicans.Hallie Biden, who had a brief romantic relationship with Hunter after Beau Biden died in 2015, testified that from the time Hunter returned to Delaware from a 2018 trip to California until she threw his gun away, she did not see him using drugs. That time period included the day he bought the weapon.Much of her testimony focused on 23 October 2018 – 11 days after he bought the gun and when she threw it away. Hunter was staying with her and seemed exhausted, she said. Asked by the prosecutor if it appeared that Hunter was using drugs around then, she said: “He could have been.”As Hunter slept in her home, Hallie Biden went to check his car. She said she was hoping to help him get or stay sober, free of both alcohol and cocaine. She said she found the remnants of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia. She also found the gun Hunter purchased in a box with a broken lock that kept it from fully closing. There was ammunition too, she said.Hallie said she considered hiding the gun but thought her kids might find it, so she decided to throw it away.“I realize it was a stupid idea now, but I was panicking,” she said.Hunter Biden watched expressionless from the courtroom during her testimony. She told jurors that she found crack cocaine at her home and saw him using it. She was with him occasionally when he saw drug dealers. Prosecutor Leo Wise asked Hallie about her own 2018 trip to California, where she visited Hunter at the Roosevelt Hotel in Los Angeles, and asked her whether she was also using drugs.“Yes, I was,” she said.“And who introduced you to it?’”“Hunter did,” Hallie said as Hunter rested his face on his hand and looked down.“It was a terrible experience that I went through, and I’m embarrassed and ashamed, and I regret that period of my life,” she said.Hallie testified she stopped using drugs in August 2018, but that Hunter continued smoking crack cocaine.Much of the prosecution’s case has been dedicated to highlighting the seriousness of his drug addiction and showcasing to jurors moments with ex-girlfriends, infidelity and crack pipes – judgment lapses they believe prove he was actively using when he checked “no” on the form. Prosecutors say the evidence is necessary to show his state of mind when he bought the gun.Surveillance footage played for jurors showed Hallie digging around in the trash can for the gun. It was not there. She asked store officials if someone had taken out the trash.Hallie said Hunter told her to file a police report because the gun was registered in his name. She called the police while she was still at the store.Jurors have also heard from the gun store clerk, who testified about how he walked Hunter Biden through a few options before he settled on the $900 gun. The clerk then watched as the customer filled out the firearms transaction record, a required document for the purchase of a gun, and saw him check off “no” to the question of whether he was “an unlawful user of or addicted to” marijuana, stimulants, narcotics or any other controlled substance.“Everything he bought, he ultimately decided on,” Gordon Cleveland, the clerk, told jurors.Cleveland said he saw Biden sign the form, which includes a warning about the consequences of submitting false information.In his cross-examination Thursday, defense attorney Abbe Lowell pointed out that some of the questions on the form are in the present tense, such as “are you an unlawful user of or addicted to” drugs. He has suggested Hunter Biden did not believe he had an active drug problem.The proceedings are unfolding after the collapse of a plea deal that would have resolved the gun charge and a separate tax case, and spared the Biden family the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election.If convicted, Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison, though first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum, and it is unclear whether the judge would give him time behind bars. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida’s other big November vote: will the state legalize weed?

      by

      The push to legalize recreational marijuana in Florida ramped up this week. Campaigners bankrolled by dominant players in the cannabis and CBD marketplace launched a $5m advertising blitz in support of a ballot measure in November’s election that has so far been overshadowed by publicity for the one on abortion rights.Four commercials featuring retired military personnel, business owners, law enforcement officers and regular citizens began appearing on television, radio and the internet, leaning in heavily to themes campaigners believe will appeal to the 60% of voters amendment 3 needs to pass.And while the financial backers of the Smart & Safe Florida political advocacy committee, most prominently Trulieve, a major operator of marijuana dispensaries, stand to harvest far greater profits if the Vote Yes campaign is successful, there is little to no organized resistance.Florida’s Republican party passed a resolution opposing it, and the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, says he is concerned about the smell. But outside of that, nobody has yet set up any group or campaign to counter the tens of millions of dollars and corporate might invested by Trulieve and its allies, a coalition of other invested industry partners.“Nobody is selling ‘no’. They don’t make any money selling no,” said John Michael Pierobon, vice-chair of the Tobacco Free Partnership of Broward county.“The big wealth transfer is from the poor people that are going to be smoking pot, because the temptation is there, to the rich people that own the pot companies. It’s all about corporate greed.”Pierobon said it was difficult to effectively counter the arguments promoted by Smart & Safe Florida with such a “lopsided” platform.View image in fullscreen“I’m just a private citizen. I volunteer with these organizations, who are really just community groups,” he said.“I don’t have the Republican party behind me, I don’t have the Democratic party, I don’t have anybody, so I just have to speak and hopefully influence people to make informed decisions.”Pierobon takes issue with many of the assertions put forward by the yes campaigners. In one of their advertisements, called Freedom, a retired army colonel and Vietnam war veteran heralds the “billions of dollars” that would be raised in revenue and sales taxes, and money and time suddenly available to law enforcement “to focus on serious crime”.A Florida financial impact analysis predicts an almost $200m annual windfall.“In Colorado, they’re regretting they passed it because it actually cost them more money than they thought,” Pierobon said. “They talk about money for law enforcement, well we know there are more car fatalities in states that have legalized marijuana, they’re the hidden costs. It costs money to come out to more fatal car crashes, investigate them and write the reports.”Before producing the advertisements, Smart & Safe Florida had already spent substantial funds on its arguments to get the amendment on the ballot in the first place. Its adoption was opposed at the Florida supreme court by the Republican state attorney general, Ashley Moody, in the same way as amendment 4, the abortion measure. Moody lost both challenges.“I don’t think this is a partisan issue, and I don’t think the decision will be made by politicians at party meetings,” Morgan Hill, spokesperson for Smart & Safe Florida, said, referring to the Florida Republican party’s declaration of opposition.“It’ll be made by the voters at the ballot box in November, and I think a really good example of how bipartisan marijuana is, as an issue in the state of Florida, is 2016, when medical marijuana was on the ballot that passed with 71.3% support.”Hill also said that the “way medical marijuana was both implemented and regulated” in Florida “is a really good roadmap”.“Other states that haven’t had medical [marijuana] had a little bit of a harder time when it comes to the implementation process [of recreational marijuana]. We kind of already have a state program set up for that,” Hill added.The proposed Florida amendment would make it the 26th state to approve marijuana for recreational use, and seeks to place production and distribution solely in the hands of professional, regulated operators such as Trulieve, and their networks. Growing marijuana independently would still be illegal, and individuals could possess no more than three ounces for personal use.As in almost all other states where voters said yes, campaigners are resting heavily on “safety” arguments, including how legalization will lead to a reduction or elimination of street drugs, often produced by cartels and laced potentially with fentanyl or other toxins.View image in fullscreen“The state’s own economic analysis shows 1.8 million people in Florida are accessing marijuana on the illicit market, more than double those who are getting it from medical marijuana cards,” Hill said.“When that many people are accessing a product in a market that’s not regulated, that’s really dangerous, especially when we know that market is often tainted.”Polling so far, all conducted before this week’s advert drop, indicates that voters’ minds are far from made up. Florida Atlantic University found last month that only 47% of voters said they would vote yes, with another 18% undecided.Also unknown is what effect this week’s proposal by the justice department to reclassify marijuana from a schedule I drug, the same level as heroin, to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act will have on the process in Florida. Joe Biden said he was committed to “reversing longstanding inequities”, but the move would not legalize marijuana nationally or wrest control from states’ jurisdiction.The political analyst Jeff Brandes, a Republican former state senator and founder of the Florida Policy Project, said he expected the amendment would pass.“You’re going to see the Republicans coming out, saying, ‘don’t turn Florida into Colorado or other states’, but it’s largely tempered because so many states have now implemented adult use of marijuana, and I can’t see that argument winning today,” he said.“Most Republicans, quietly and once they’re able to vote their own mind in the privacy of the voting booth, will vote to support it.”Brandes also said the measure had, understandably, taken a back seat to the other big policy amendment in November’s ballot.“The Republican party cares much more about the abortion issue than it does about the marijuana issue,” he said.“Ultimately, it’s not a question of if Florida’s going to have adult use, it’s a question of when. In the meantime, we can either perpetuate the illegal drug cartels and the black market, or we can bring people into the light of day and create a legal pathway for people to make adult decisions.” More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden poised to loosen restrictions on marijuana, but some say it’s not enough

      by

      The US government appears poised to announce next year the most sweeping changes in decades to how it handles marijuana, the psychoactive drug dozens of states allow to be sold from storefronts, but which federal law considers among the most dangerous substances.Evidence suggests that Joe Biden’s administration, responding to a policy the president announced last year, is working on moving marijuana to schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), a change from its current listing on the maximally restrictive schedule I. That would lessen the tax burden on businesses selling the drug in states where it is legal, and potentially change how police agencies view enforcement of marijuana laws.“If it’s going to be finalized at schedule III, it’s going to be the moment that the industry really is able to turn the corner and we begin to see the growth in the cannabis space amongst the legal operators that we’ve been waiting on for so long,” said David Culver, senior vice-president of public affairs for the US Cannabis Council, a trade group.But other marijuana legalization advocates regard changing its classification as a half-measure that would do nothing to resolve conflicts between state and federal laws that emerged after weed legalization picked up speed a decade ago.Marijuana faces the same federal restrictions as drugs like heroin and ecstasy under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), but 38 states have approved its use for medical conditions, and 24 states and the District of Columbia allow adults to also consume it recreationally. That conflict has complicated the marijuana industry in states where it is legal, particularly when it comes to access to banking services, and Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Norml), said rescheduling the drug would not resolve that.“Classifying it as schedule III would make every existing state cannabis law that’s currently inconsistent with federal law as equally inconsistent going forward. So, it doesn’t solve any of the problems before it,” he told the Guardian.“It needs to be descheduled for logistical reasons, for practical reasons, because we have a system right now where the majority of states are choosing to regulate marijuana as a legal commodity through their own state-specific systems, and that act is not permitted for any substance that is in the CSA. That is only permitted for substances that are not scheduled.”Last month, Gallup released a survey that found 70% of Americans think marijuana use should be legal, a record number.Biden does not appear ready to go that far. In his statement announcing marijuana reform, which was released about a month before last year’s midterm elections, the president pardoned all people convicted of simple marijuana possession federally, and also kicked off the review of the drug’s classification under the CSA.That process is typically a bureaucratic affair, in which the Department of Health and Human Services reviews the substance and sends its findings to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which then decides whether to change its classification. Yet signs have already emerged that marijuana is being treated like no drug before it.On 30 August, the US health and human services secretary, Xavier Becerra, announced on X that his department had completed its review, an unusual public status update for a process that is typically opaque. And his account made the post at 4.20pm, a number of great significance in cannabis culture.Becerra did not specify what his department had recommended, but Bloomberg News obtained a letter from HHS to the DEA that recommended marijuana be put on schedule III, alongside drugs like ketamine and anabolic steroids.Tahir Johnson, a board member at Minority Cannabis Business Association who is planning to open a dispensary in New Jersey next month, said rescheduling would help his business by lessening its tax burden. Federal law currently prohibits marijuana businesses from deducting their expenses from their income, meaning they sometimes pay tax rates upwards of 80%.“It will help all cannabis businesses. But, I think especially for minority businesses, where capital and finances are tight, being able to alleviate that is certainly meaningful,” said Johnson.Armentano also expects a rescheduling could help Biden’s reputation with the voters who make up the Democratic coalition, as well as people outside his base. Gallup found 87% of Democrats think marijuana should be legal, along with 55% of Republicans and 64% of people older than 55.“It behooves the president to have this core base passionate about something that he’s doing to try to address the enthusiasm gap that he seems to have now,” he said.Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalizing the drug, argued dropping pot to a lower CSA schedule would harm public health.“It’s going to ramp up commercialization, it’s going to ramp up the marketing and the glamorization of marijuana,” Sabet said. “It’s going to do that both in a practical way with this deducting expenses, and it’s going to do so in a global way, by just sending the message that this is harmless.”Until marijuana is legalized federally, it will still be up to Congress to resolve the conflicts between state and federal law, and progress there has been slow. A bill to allow cannabis businesses access to more financial services, known as the Safer Banking Act, has been passed by the House of Representatives six times, and is currently working its way through the Senate.Starting in 1972, groups including Norml have petitioned the DEA and HHS to reschedule marijuana, to no avail. Armentano said the stage appears to be set for political considerations to finally get federal agencies to back down, at least partially.“Frankly, if this petition is successful, and the DEA reverses 50 years of precedent, then it just speaks to the fact that all along this process has simply been a political one,” he said. More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Cannabis firms are cut off from the US financial system, but relief is in sight

      by

      Imagine that you run a perfectly legal business but are unable to open a simple checking account at a national bank. Believe it or not, that’s the case right now for anyone licensed to sell cannabis in the US. Given the size of the cannabis industry, it’s pretty shocking. But it may be about to change.In the US, 38 states have legalized marijuana for medical use and 23 of them have legalized it for recreational purposes, including three territories and the District of Columbia. An additional eight states have decriminalized its use. Both red and blue states with legalized marijuana laws have collected $15bn in tax revenue between 2014 and 2022, with $3.77bn in tax revenue attributed to 2022 alone.Meanwhile, if you run a cannabis business – one that sells, distributes, manufactures or in some cases serves the industry, you’re not allowed to be a normal business.Meta, Facebook’s parent, only allows “limited” CBD and hemp advertising. Cannabis companies can’t run TV or radio commercials for their products. They are not allowed to conduct any campaigns outside their state as interstate commerce is forbidden. In Ohio – like other states – they can’t run a billboard campaign without prior approval of the state’s board of pharmacy. Many localities have zoning laws that prohibit them from operating. Many insurance carriers are reluctant to serve the industry as do a number of the country’s largest payroll service providers.Cannabis businesses are not allowed to deduct rent, payroll or other expenses that other businesses can write off. They regularly face expanded business licensing requirements. They can’t take advantage of the federal bankruptcy rules. They can’t trademark their products.And then there’s banking. Cannabis businesses can only choose from about 200 independent and community banks. I don’t mean to throw shade on these organizations, because many of them are excellent. But they oftentimes don’t offer online banking, international access, wire transfer, investment options, financial stability and other capabilities of a larger institution. When it comes to the cannabis industry, federally chartered banks like Wells Fargo, PNC Bank, JP Morgan Chase, TD Bank and Key Bank are not playing ball. Because of this, many cannabis businesses receive fewer financial services and have been forced to retain an uncomfortable level of cash, making themselves exposed to theft and crime. The banking industry realizes this but resists.Why is this? Because cannabis is still considered to be an illegal controlled substance, subject to very strict federal laws and, because it’s illegal at the federal level, many large corporations, such as banks, insurance companies and payroll services, remain spooked.It’s no surprise that, despite all the growth, many in the cannabis industry are struggling to make profits. But there’s potentially good news on the horizon. Finally, the federal government may allow banks with federal charters to do business with those in the cannabis industry.At the end of last month the Senate committee on banking, housing and urban affairs moved forward with the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (Safer) Banking Act, which allows banks to conduct business with cannabis companies. The House already passed a similar act, so the Senate committee’s approval is a big deal.“This legislation will help make our communities and small businesses safer by giving legal cannabis businesses access to traditional financial institutions, including bank accounts and small business loans,” the bill’s sponsors said in a joint statement. “It also prevents federal bank regulators from ordering a bank or credit union to close an account based on reputational risk.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStill, significant hurdles exist. There remain a number of representatives in both the House and Senate who oppose the bill.“This legislation also compromises the integrity of the United States banking system by giving banks government approval to participate in illegal activity, setting a dangerous new precedent,” some Republican senators said recently in a joint statement. “Allowing banking access to a Schedule I drug sets a dangerous legal precedent and will help facilitate money laundering for drug cartels.” This opposition, combined with a leadership void in the House, could derail progress of the bill for the foreseeable future.But I’m more optimistic. The bill is not going so far as to legalize marijuana, so that should appease some of its opponents. And given the strong bipartisan support received in both the Senate and House for the Safer Banking Act, I don’t believe it’s an overreach to expect passage … eventually. When? Who knows.In the meantime, those in the industry must wait. And fight. And deal with restrictions that few other legitimate companies have to face. It’s tough enough running any business. But for those in this game, it’s a whole new level altogether. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Lab test confirms white powder found at White House is cocaine

      by

      A formal laboratory test of a white powder found in a “highly-trafficked” area of the White House has been confirmed as cocaine, NBC News reported on Wednesday, citing an unnamed official with knowledge of the investigation.A Secret Service review of visitor logs and surveillance cameras will seek to determine how the cocaine, described as being in a small, zippered bag, came to be in the executive mansion.On Sunday, the discovery prompted an evacuation of the White House. A preliminary field test by the DC fire department indicated the substance was cocaine.“We have a yellow bar saying cocaine hydrochloride,” a radio dispatch from the White House said.Initial reports said the cocaine was found in a reference library, but later reports said it was in “a work area” of the West Wing, which is attached to the mansion that houses the president and his family, the Oval Office, the cabinet room, the press briefing room and offices for staff.CBS News, citing law enforcement sources, reported that the cocaine was found in a facility used by White House staff and guests to store phones. The Secret Service indicated it was found by officers during “routine patrols”.The number of people who use the area could make it difficult to determine who was responsible for the substance, NBC said. By Wednesday afternoon, no one had claimed responsibility.The discovery of the drug prompted widespread speculation. Joe Biden and his family were not in residence at the time.The first family, including the president’s son Hunter Biden, who described his battle with addiction in a recent autobiography, returned to the residence on Tuesday.Rightwing commentators sprang into action, insinuating that Hunter Biden was likely linked to the cocaine find. That prompted Chris Jackson, a Tennessee election commissioner and longtime Democratic operative, to say on Twitter he hoped Biden “sues the hell out of everyone suggesting this”. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden reduces sentences of 31 people convicted of nonviolent drug offences

      by

      President Joe Biden has ordered the federal prison sentences of 31 people to be reduced, punishments which were given to them after nonviolent drug-related convictions.In an announcement released on Friday, the White House revealed that those whose sentences were commuted would be under home confinement until a 30 June expiration date for their respective punishments. The plan is for them to then be on supervised release, with the duration of that based on their original sentence.Among those with commuted sentences were a handful of women and men who were convicted of drug possession in Iowa, Indiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii and Texas. Most of the convictions involved methamphetamine. Others involved cocaine, heroin and marijuana.Others on the list released Friday hailed from California, Louisiana, Missouri, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Illinois, Tennessee, Ohio and Illinois. Those given commuted sentences will not have to pay the remainder of their fines, which range from $5,000 to $20,000, the White House’s statement said.“These individuals, who have been successfully serving sentences on home confinement, have demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation, including by securing employment and advancing their education. Many would have received a lower sentence if they were charged with the same offense today, due to changes in the law, including the bipartisan First Step Act,” the White House’s statement added.The First Step Act is a 2018 bipartisan prison and sentencing reform bill that Donald Trump signed during his presidency which seeks to expand rehabilitative opportunities for people completing their incarceration.In addition to increasing credits for time already spent in custody awaiting the resolution of cases as well as for good conduct in federal prison, the act reduces mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related crimes. It also officially bans a number of correctional practices, including the shackling of pregnant women.The White House on Friday also announced the release of an “evidence-informed, multi-year Alternatives, Rehabilitation, and Re-entry strategic plan”.The plan seeks to strengthen public safety by reducing unnecessary criminal justice interactions so police officers can focus on fighting crime, supporting rehabilitation during incarceration and facilitating a successful return to their communities, the White House said.It went on to lay out a variety of ways the plan aims to support people in the federal justice system, including expanding healthcare access, securing access to safe and affordable housing, enhancing educational opportunities and improving access to food and subsistence benefits.The plan additionally calls for job opportunities and access to business capital, as well as strengthening access to banking and other financial services. It also promises to reduce voting barriers for those who are eligible.Biden last October pardoned thousands of people who had been convicted in federal court of simple marijuana possession, saying: “Sending people to prison for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit.“It’s time we right these wrongs,” Biden said at the time of those pardons. More