Hemp

Opening Statement by National Drug Prevention Alliance – 11 Jan 2026:

This article, forwarded to NDPA by DWI’s Maggie Petito, is included in NDPA’s website to complete the contemporaneous picture around this extraordinary initiative by President Trump … it is noteworthy that the three main protagonists of this proposal were a CEO of a marijuana company which has donated $750,000 to the (presidential?) inauguration; a police sheriff who has become a supporter of legalising marijuana for recreational use (not just for medicinal use); and a long-term friend of the President in the Mar-a-Lago membership body. It has to be said that this whole episode smells of interest-led lobbying gaining what it wanted, rather than any research-based development of drug policy – this may be an uncharitable conclusion, but time will tell where the truth lies.

From: drug-watch-international –   On Behalf Of Maggie Petito –  Sent: 28 December 2025 
Subject: The Wall Street Journal’sPiece12-28-25

Paraphrasing an article by The Wall Street Journal’s Josh Dawsey, in a front-page story (included below) Maggie Petito informs on details of how  a concerted lobbying push by a cannabis CEO, a Florida sheriff and a Mar-a-Lago member helped persuade the president …

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

After a two-hour Oval Office debate about marijuana in December, President Trump overrode some on the religious right, White House aides and senior Republican lawmakers and decided to reschedule the green leaf as a lower-level drug.

Trump watched as Kim Rivers, the CEO of Trulieve, a Florida-based marijuana company, Gordon Smith, a Florida sheriff, and Howard Kessler, a Mar-a-Lago member and longtime Trump friend, argued the president should reschedule marijuana, according to people with knowledge of the meeting… The decision to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug followed an aggressive 18-month lobbying campaign by Rivers. The CEO and her company cut large checks to Trump’s political groups, attended at least three fundraisers, repeatedly raised the issue with White House aides and hired influential lobbyists. Rivers’s efforts delivered the marijuana industry one of its biggest victories. In addition to making medical research easier, the order is expected to eliminate tax burdens that have made profitability an uphill battle for many cannabis companies. Cannabis executives say the order will help normalize the business environment for marijuana sellers and improve access for buyers… Rivers first met with Trump on marijuana in summer 2024, when she cut a seven-figure check to a political group helping him, people familiar with the meeting said. Trump then supported a referendum allowing recreational marijuana in Florida… Rivers hired lobbyists close to Trump, including Brian Ballard and Nick Iarossi. The lobbyists pitched conservatives to write positive op-eds about the marijuana push, among other things, and generate support within the administration. White House officials described Rivers as particularly aggressive in making her case. Trulieve gave another $750,000 to the inauguration. After Trump indicated to Rivers and other donors at a New Jersey fundraiser this summer that he would follow through on rescheduling the drug, industry officials were hopeful. That fundraiser was billed at $1 million a guest… A follow-up meeting was scheduled, and Rivers asked Gordon Smith, the sheriff of Bradford County—a small county in northern Florida between Jacksonville and Tallahassee—to join her. She also brought two cancer survivors and a Duke University professor. Smith had introduced Trump at a rally about a decade ago and had become one of the first conservative sheriffs to endorse recreational marijuana use.

Inside the Oval Office, Trump talked with Kessler, a financial executive who has advocated for medical cannabis, and others about expensive properties in Palm Beach, donations to the White House ballroom and a golf course he wanted to renovate in Washington, Smith recalled. Trump gave opinions on appearances from daughter-in-law Lara Trump on Fox News and talked about Sylvester Stallone’s climbing trees and hurting his back… Trump reviewed polling on rescheduling and said he had heard from many people—including boxer Mike Tyson—that he should reschedule. He continually reiterated they were not legalizing it. Smith said Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads Medicaid and Medicare, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles also watched the debate… Smith’s brother, a military veteran, had been helped by medical marijuana, he said, and he believed it was safer than alcohol and other substances. The sheriff’s concern, he said, was fentanyl-laced marijuana that killed people. When Speaker Johnson called in, the president put him on the phone with the sheriff, who tried to persuade Johnson. `It’s a gateway drug,’ Johnson argued, according to the sheriff. Smith said Johnson was a `nice guy’ and he answered Johnson’s questions. Another person familiar with the meeting said Johnson cited studies and research. Oz argued for rescheduling as Schedule II, Smith and others said.  Johnson declined to comment through a spokesman.”

 Again from Dawsey: “…the order is expected to eliminate tax burdens that have made profitability an uphill battle for many cannabis companies. Cannabis executives say the order will help normalize the business environment for marijuana sellers and improve access for buyers.”

We do not have a fulsome roster of who or what these largesse-receiving “companies” are or do. “Normalizing” differing from “legalizing” loses its distinction when financial access for little known companies or rackets gain tax reductions and financial access, forbidden to similar rackets sometimes called vice or “businesses” and crypto/bitcoin’s opaque/unaccountable systems seeking false junctures with sound monetary structures. We do not know whose polling was applied. I do not check Trulieve’s financial statements.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE:  by Josh Dawsey       Dec. 27, 2025

How Trump Became the Unlikely Champion of Easing Marijuana Restrictions – Concerted lobbying push by a cannabis CEO, a Florida sheriff and a Mar-a-Lago member helped persuade the president

The president agreed to make marijuana a Schedule III drug. Evan Vucci/AP

President Trump decided to reschedule marijuana as a lower-level drug after an Oval Office debate, overriding some Republicans and religious right figures.

After a two-hour Oval Office debate about marijuana in December, President Trump overrode some on the religious right, White House aides and senior Republican lawmakers and decided to reschedule the green leaf as a lower-level drug.

Trump watched as Kim Rivers, the CEO of Trulieve, a Florida-based marijuana company, Gordon Smith, a Florida sheriff, and Howard Kessler, a Mar-a-Lago member and longtime Trump friend, argued the president should reschedule marijuana, according to people with knowledge of the meeting. It was time to open the door for medical research and improve access to cannabidiol products, they argued.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) on speakerphone urged the president against the decision and senior aides warned the move could be dangerous to some Americans.

After listening, Trump, a teetotaler who eschews alcohol and drugs, sided with the pro-marijuana camp and delivered the biggest softening of federal cannabis policy since U.S. states began legalizing recreational marijuana in 2012.

“It was a little surreal,” Rivers said in an interview. 

The decision to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug followed an aggressive 18-month lobbying campaign by Rivers. The CEO and her company cut large checks to Trump’s political groups, attended at least three fundraisers, repeatedly raised the issue with White House aides and hired influential lobbyists. 

Rivers’s efforts delivered the marijuana industry one of its biggest victories. In addition to making medical research easier, the order is expected to eliminate tax burdens that have made profitability an uphill battle for many cannabis companies. Cannabis executives say the order will help normalize the business environment for marijuana sellers and improve access for buyers.

“The president heard from many different people on this issue and ultimately felt it was the best policy and political decision to make for the country. On all issues, the president is the final decision maker,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Conservative and religious leaders, such as the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Ralph Reed, had asked the White House not to reclassify the drug, saying it could be a gateway to other drugs and didn’t fit with the president’s agenda. Reed and allies argued medical studies had not shown health or medicinal benefits. Heidi Overton, a top aide on the conservative domestic policy council, repeatedly weighed in against it, including in the meeting where Trump made the decision, people with knowledge of the meeting said. Through a spokeswoman, she declined to comment.

Some White House officials, including deputy chief of staff James Blair, told Trump that many Republicans were opposed, and aides showed him a letter signed by 22 senators urging against it, White House officials said.

“The only winners from rescheduling will be bad actors such as Communist China, while Americans will be left paying the bill,” the senators wrote.

Leavitt, the White House spokeswoman, said that “it’s Blair’s job to convey to the president what the Hill thinks, and what the politics are, on every issue.”

For many months, the policy seemed on hold. Rivers first met with Trump on marijuana in summer 2024, when she cut a seven-figure check to a political group helping him, people familiar with the meeting said. Trump then supported a referendum allowing recreational marijuana in Florida. Trump also said on the campaign trail that he would reschedule the drug, but it wasn’t in his first slate of executive orders. Some in the industry grew frustrated, believing Trump’s staff was stalling. 

Rivers hired lobbyists close to Trump, including Brian Ballard and Nick Iarossi. The lobbyists pitched conservatives to write positive op-eds about the marijuana push, among other things, and generate support within the administration. White House officials described Rivers as particularly aggressive in making her case. Trulieve gave another $750,000 to the inauguration.

After Trump indicated to Rivers and other donors at a New Jersey fundraiser this summer that he would follow through on rescheduling the drug, industry officials were hopeful. That fundraiser was billed at $1 million a guest. Behind the scenes, White House officials expressed frustration, people familiar with the matter said, and Trump waffled when publicly asked about rescheduling days later.

Rivers didn’t give up, and again came to a golf fundraiser for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) in November. She and Trump spoke briefly, and she asked for a White House meeting.

“When I’m there, it’s a natural conversation topic—he asks me about business and how things are going,” Rivers said of the fundraiser. “The president has been very consistent on this issue.”

Rivers’s efforts appeared to be bearing fruit when Trump invited her to the Oval Office to make her case. She was met in the Oval by Overton, who disagreed, and Trump didn’t make a final decision.

A follow-up meeting was scheduled, and Rivers asked Gordon Smith, the sheriff of Bradford County—a small county in northern Florida between Jacksonville and Tallahassee—to join her. She also brought two cancer survivors and a Duke University professor. Smith had introduced Trump at a rally about a decade ago and had become one of the first conservative sheriffs to endorse recreational marijuana use.

Inside the Oval Office, Trump talked with Kessler, a financial executive who has advocated for medical cannabis, and others about expensive properties in Palm Beach, donations to the White House ballroom and a golf course he wanted to renovate in Washington, Smith recalled. Trump gave opinions on appearances from daughter-in-law Lara Trump on Fox News and talked about Sylvester Stallone’s climbing trees and hurting his back.

Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers triumphed despite objections from some of those close to the president. Douglas R. Clifford/Zuma Press

“Some of the conversation was way above my pay grade,” Smith said. Kessler didn’t respond to requests for comment. 

Trump reviewed polling on rescheduling and said he had heard from many people—including boxer Mike Tyson—that he should reschedule. He continually reiterated they were not legalizing it. Smith said Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads Medicaid and Medicare, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles also watched the debate. Wiles left early. At one point, Trump zeroed in on Smith.

“He turned to me and said, ‘Sheriff, what do you think?’ ” Smith’s brother, a military veteran, had been helped by medical marijuana, he said, and he believed it was safer than alcohol and other substances. The sheriff’s concern, he said, was fentanyl-laced marijuana that killed people.

When Speaker Johnson called in, the president put him on the phone with the sheriff, who tried to persuade Johnson. “It’s a gateway drug,” Johnson argued, according to the sheriff. Smith said Johnson was a “nice guy” and he answered Johnson’s questions. Another person familiar with the meeting said Johnson cited studies and research. Oz argued for rescheduling as Schedule II, Smith and others said.  Johnson declined to comment through a spokesman. 

The president said Democrats should have rescheduled the drug “because it was really a Democratic issue.” The Biden administration started the process of reclassifying pot last year, but didn’t finish. After about two hours, Trump said he was going to reschedule the drug and said he wanted to post on Truth Social, the sheriff recalled. Trump said he wanted everyone on board.

“The lawyers and his staff, they started yelling, ‘No sir, you can’t yet; there’s a 30-day period, it’s gotta go through this and that,’ ” Smith said. “They had to stop him from posting.”

Trump then instructed the sheriff and staffers to go into another room and put together an executive order. Trump wanted to put the “real story of why we are doing this in the order,” Smith said.

“I was in awe of the whole thing,” he said.

Trump invited Smith to come back the next week and see him sign the order, but Smith said he couldn’t—he had to attend an execution in Florida that evening. Trump told others that Rivers had pushed him to do it, said people familiar with the matter.

Announcing the order from the White House podium on Dec. 18, Trump thanked Kessler, saying, “We have people begging for me to do this, people that are in great pain. I have probably received more phone calls on this, on doing what we’re doing.”

Source: www.drugwatch.org

 

by  Mark S. Gold M.D. – Addiction Outlook – Posted  

 

The change was made despite lack of evidence of medicinal benefits.

  • President Trump directed federal agencies to expedite the process of reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III.
  • Now what? Many actions are needed, including new research and protection of adolescents.
  • Placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis constituents are needed.

The most consequential shift in cannabis policy in more than 50 years is now happening. A December 2025 executive order from President Trump has directed the federal government to down-schedule cannabis from Schedule I (illegal) to Schedule III (a lawful drug designation with a lower level of harm than Schedules I or II) . This is despite the alarming lack of research evidence for medicinal cannabis.

Rescheduling cannabis will provide significant tax advantages to the industry, allowing billions in previously banned business expense deductions that could hugely boost marketing efforts, research, or both. The executive order (EO) does not explicitly recognize cannabis as medicine. It also does not set national standards for cannabis labeling, dosages, or youth protection, all of which are essential.

Whether you view the EO as long overdue or ill-advised, the key questions now are how this change will be implemented, who will control the downstream effects of cannabis, and whether public health experts or lobbyists seeking to accelerate commercial momentum will define what happens next.

Currently, any cannabis warning labels are inconsistent across states, often minimal, and frequently omit critical risks, such as mental health effects, breastfeeding harms, and other dangers stemming from high-potency cannabis products.

5 Examples of Warning Labels 
5 Examples of Warning Labels – THIS NEEDS A BORDER AND ENLARGEMENT AND ‘PACKAG?? – H
Source: Dr Mark Gold

The executive order simultaneously instructs federal agencies—particularly the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration—to expand, streamline, and lower barriers to cannabis/cannabinoid research.

Indeed, the now-history LSD-like Schedule I status of cannabis imposed hurdles to research. Nevertheless, considerable research has been done, even though a special license was necessary to use the drug in studies. However, rescheduling marijuana doesn’t guarantee adequate research funding, FDA approval for cannabis, THC, or CBD, or high-quality research.

What Drug Experts Say

Among the EO’s most vocal critics is Kevin Sabet, drug policy expert who served both Republican and Democratic administrations and now president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, who sees the order as devoid of public health wisdom. Sabet warns that rescheduling signals medical endorsement despite cannabis’s association with significant health risks, especially for young users. Sabet highlights that the EO moves cannabis from Schedule I (not legal) to Schedule III (controlled but legal), although the medicinal effects of cannabis have never been FDA-proven or approved.

Harvard’s Kevin Hill, M.D., supports rescheduling for improving research facilitation, arguing that current cannabis use lacks clinical guidance. He emphasizes funding as crucial for quality research. Hill ‘s position is pragmatic: Lack of scientific certainty is not a reason to avoid research—it’s the reason research is needed.

Hill also places responsibility for research funding on states and industry. Legal cannabis markets generate billions in revenue, yet only a fraction is reinvested in rigorous research, prevention, or treatment. Ethical stewardship, he argues, demands that those profiting from cannabis bear responsibility for understanding its risks and benefits.

Thirty percent of cannabis users, including adolescents, develop a substance use disorder, according to Mt Sinai School of Medicine’s Dr. Yasmin Hurd. She emphasizes the importance of pairing research expansion with clear regulations to avoid exacerbating risks linked with cannabis.

A crucial area for future research is safe and effective dosing of THC (the intoxicant in cannabis) amid imminently rising sales of high-potency products. Large-scale, longitudinal studies tracking neurodevelopmental outcomes in relation to timing and potency of cannabis exposure are essential.

At the same time, policymakers face a proliferation of unregulated intoxicating cannabinoids sold outside state-licensed cannabis systems. Products such as delta-8 and other synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoids are widely available in gas stations and convenience stores, often with minimal oversight. These products disproportionately attract youth, undermining consumer safety. Closing loopholes has become a public-health necessity.

Recognizing the Rising Risks

Some media reports suggest the EO was pushed through despite vociferous objections highlighting the risks of cannabis use among adolescents and young adults. The link between early-age cannabis exposure and increased risk of schizophrenia, mood disorders, and long-term functional impairment is no longer speculative. The disorders carry lifelong healthcare, social, and economic costs. Yet current data are insufficient to guide prevention efforts. Without guidelines, prevention efforts will remain reactive and politically vulnerable. Nowhere are the stakes higher than among adolescents and young adults.

One of the nation’s leading scientists and long-time vocal opponents of legalizing cannabis, Yale’s Deepak D’Souza, M.D., has focused on the increasing amount of cannabis, its increased potency, frequency of use, and duration of effects, causing severe consequences in young people. Cannabis and some of its constituents produce acute impairments in memory, attention, executive function, impulsivity and risk-taking behaviour, and psychomotor coordination, critical for driving a car. Nora Volkow, M.D., director of the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) has underscored the need for balanced research, acknowledging both benefits and risks of cannabis.

Dose is another urgent research priority, since higher THC concentrations are associated with increased risks of psychosis, cannabis use disorder, cardiovascular events, and cognitive impairment. More isn’t always better. A post-rescheduling agenda should include an investigation into minimum effective doses, upper safety thresholds, and the feasibility of reducing THC concentrations while preserving potential therapeutic effects.

Since rescheduling will be interpreted as an implicit medical endorsement, regardless of official intent, a national, evidence-based prevention strategy is needed, modeled on successful tobacco-control frameworks Such a strategy needs to include school-based education, clinician training, parental guidance, and public-health messaging that’s scientifically grounded rather than moralistic/alarmist.

Federal consumer protection agencies need to become empowered to monitor misleading cannabis advertising.

Finally, the integrity of emerging research depends on maintaining a firewall between scientific inquiry and commercial influence. Industry participation in research isn’t inherently problematic, but it must be governed by transparency, independent oversight, and conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Acceptance Without Complacency

The December 2025 executive order is now a reality. There is likely to be a huge cash infusion without regulation, causing a commercialization boom in cannabis, with the potential to harm our youth more than ever. Industry needs to step up and fund academic research.

Youth protection and guardrails are indispensable. A good start would be warning labels, funding of prevention efforts directed toward teens and young adults, and increasing NIDA’s funding for cannabis/THC/CBD translational research .

If cannabis products remain legal and available, consumers need clear, standardized warnings reflecting the best available evidence on cannabis use disorder and psychosis risk; impaired driving; memory effects; and adolescent brain vulnerability. Public health warnings should not be optional, nor diluted by marketing language implying medical endorsement where none exists.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/addiction-outlook/202512/marijuana-rescheduling-is-now-real

DAVE EVANS, LISKOWITZ V.  describes a significant victory re Vapes. The court upheld the Complaint for:

COUNT I:
DEFECTIVE DESIGN – NEW JERSEY PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT – N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 ET SEQ.

COUNT II:
PRODUCT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN (NEW JERSEY PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT – N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 ET SEQ.

III and VI were dismissed without prejudice

The order – -which runs to 30 pages – can be accessed hereby:

To access the full document: Click on the ‘Source’ link below, at the foot of this web page.

                                                                       *      *      *      *      *      *

In a first of its kind lawsuit in New Jersey, a victim of Big Cannabis is seeking to hold it accountable for the terrifying mental health disorder Plaintiff suffered after using intoxicating hemp cannabis products.

The plaintiff is an athletic professional. While training, Plaintiff began consuming intoxicating cannabis hemp products.

After a few months of use, Plaintiff became psychotic and suicidal, suffering from extreme delusions and paranoia, and was hospitalized.  After the hospitalization, the Plaintiff was discharged to Plaintiff’s parents, and they flew back to their home state for further treatment.

While traveling, the Plaintiff believed that they were being followed by the FBI and would be subject to arrest.  To protect the parents from arrest, Plaintiff sought the opportunity to flee.  While traveling home from the airport, the plaintiff jumped out of the back seat car window and ran across six lanes of traffic and, to the horror of the parents watching from the car, and jumped off a 135-foot bridge, landing head-first into a river.

Miraculously, Plaintiff survived, but Plaintiff’s injuries included a torn ACL, right shoulder dislocation, and extensive road rash.  Plaintiff subsequently received substance abuse and psychological treatment and stopped using hemp products.  Plaintiff and family are still recovering from this harrowing ordeal.

As established by decades of medical research and as recognized by the National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Academy of Sciences, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC), cannabis use is indelibly linked to the development of psychosis and other mental health disorders such as schizophrenia, suicidal ideation, and depression.

Despite the robust evidence, Big Cannabis refuses to warn consumers of the devastating potential side effects.  Worse, Big Cannabis actively and maliciously markets these products as safe, even medicinal.

We are in the midst of a gathering mental health epidemic caused by increasing use of cannabis, especially high-potency cannabis after years of Big Cannabis’s sophisticated and coordinated legalization efforts.  There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands who have been injured in a similar way to the Plaintiff.  Many, however, have failed to draw the connection between their cannabis use and their mental health disorders because the public relations arm of Big Cannabis has so effectively hidden and confused the association in an effort to realize extravagant profits.

This suit, drawing upon various consumer protection laws, seeks to hold the cannabis industry accountable for its lies and its failure to adequately warn an unsuspecting public of its products’ considerable and often devastating dangers.

The suit also seeks to raise awareness about the association between cannabis and mental health disorders so that those affected current or former users who have suffered at the hands of Big Cannabis can take action.

The case has survived a Motion to Dismiss

The Plaintiff is being represented in this matter by attorney David Evans whose office is in Flemington NJ . If you, or someone you know, has been affected by cannabis, Mr. Evans will be happy to discuss your potential claims.

Mr. Evans can be reached at 908-963-0254. (www.addictionslaw.com)

 

To access the full document:

  1. Click on the ‘Source’ link below.
  2. An image  – the front page of the full document will appear.
  3. Click on the image to open the full document.

Source:  ORDER.MO.DISS.6.18.2025 – Dave Evans

by Shane W. Varcoe , Director@dalgarnoinstitute.org.au – 23 May 2025

“I was talking to a tradesman in my home on Wednesday and he asked me what I did…. After explanation about Weed…. He said.. “I wen to a local doctor and just said I had trouble sleeping and can I have cannabis… got a script, no more questions asked.”  This is so utterly corrupt and it’s ubiquitous  now! ”    Shane W. Varcoe

Comment by Jo Baxter, DFA (Australia)

This is a very serious situation for the US and the world generally. Such a softening is akin to what the then Federal Health Minister, Sussan Ley did when she passed the law that allowed Medicinal Cannabis to be legalised in Australia. Now we are seeing a misuse of the ‘legal’ system with doctors overprescribing and not even consulting in person with patients to whom they prescribe the drug.

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 7:51 AM Herschel Baker <hmbaker1938@hotmail.com> wrote:

The evidence is in Cannabis must remain Schedule 1 Epidemiology of Cannabis Albert Stuart Reece, Gary Kenneth Hulse

https://shop.elsevier.com/books/epidemiology-of-cannabis/reece/978-0-443-13492-0

WASHINGTON, D.C. – During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 30, DEA administrator nominee Terrance Cole declined to commit to the proposed federal rescheduling of cannabis, leaving a critical policy question unresolved as the process transitions to new leadership under the Trump administration.

The popular and game-changing rescheduling proposal backed by Donald J. Trump to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) remains formally active but administratively paused by a DEA judge.

If enacted, rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would formally acknowledge the accepted medical use of cannabis under federal law. It would also allow for FDA-supervised research and development of cannabis-based drugs.

Although cannabis would still be classified as a controlled substance and remain under the oversight of the DEA and FDA, reclassifying it to Schedule III would significantly benefit legal cannabis businesses by changing how they are treated under federal tax law.

Specifically, it would exempt them from the limitations of Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which currently bars businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. Due to this restriction, legitimate cannabis companies paid over $1.8 billion more in federal taxes in 2022 than comparable non-cannabis businesses, according to data from Whitney Economics.

Reclassification would not federally legalize recreational cannabis, authorize interstate commerce, or override any state-level prohibitions.

Reclassification was initiated nearly three years ago during the Biden administration. Still, on January 13, 2025, one week before President Trump took office, the DEA’s Chief Administrative Law Judge cancelled a public hearing scheduled for January 21 and ordered parties to check back in with him in 90 days.

There is no statutory deadline for the DEA to complete the rescheduling process, so the current pause could extend indefinitely.

Cole, a longtime DEA official nominated to be administrator in February, told lawmakers on April 30 that reviewing the agency’s stalled administrative process to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would be “one of [his] first priorities.”

Though cannabis was not mentioned in Cole’s opening remarks, he emphasized a focus on combating the fentanyl crisis and leveraging his 30 years in law enforcement to address cartel-related threats. “It’s time to move forward,” he said of the stalled rescheduling process.

But when pressed by US Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) on whether he would ensure the proposed rescheduling is carried out, Cole would not commit. Here is a bit of back and forth between the two:

“I need to understand more where they are and look at the science behind it and listen to the experts and really understand where they are in the process,” Cole said.

Padilla, referencing the directive initiated in 2022, reiterated: “We know where we are. We know what the directive is: Get it to Schedule III. Are you committed to seeing it to fruition?”

Cole responded, “So, I don’t know. I haven’t seen that, sir.”

“So, you’re leaving the door open to changing course as to—?” Padilla asked.

“I’m leaving the door open to studying everything that’s been done so far, so I can make a determination, sir,” Cole said.

Padilla concluded the exchange by stating: “So, make myself a note here—no answer to that particular question.”

 

Source:  Shane W. Varcoe , Director@dalgarnoinstitute.org.au – 23 May 2025 

 

by Ben Stevens in Business of Cannabis EuropeCBDHemp  – April 17, 2025

It comes just days after Article 18 of Italy’s Security Bill, which equates industrial hemp (inflorescences) flower with high-THC cannabis, was forced through under emergency measures, decimating the industry.

One mild reprieve following this brutal crackdown was that it only banned CBD oils obtained from flowers, so those extracted from the leaves or stems would still be legal for over-the-counter sale.

However, with this latest ruling U-turn by the Court, which twice rejected this crackdown based on a lack of scientific evidence, the restriction now applies to all oral compositions of CBD extracted from the cannabis plant, regardless of whether the extract comes from flowers, leaves, or stalks.

Timeline of the CBD oil ban

  • 2020: The initial decree listing oral CBD as a narcotic was introduced by then-Health Minister Roberto Speranza. However, it was immediately suspended, pending input from scientific authorities, the Superior Health Council and Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), and never enforced.
  • August 2023: Under the new government led by Minister Orazio Schillaci, the 2020 decree was reinstated without new opinions from the relevant health bodies. This move triggered immediate legal challenges.
  • October 2023: The TAR issued a ruling blocking the enforcement of the decree, citing the lack of supporting scientific evidence and reinforcing the argument that CBD is non-psychoactive.
  • June 27, 2024: The Ministry of Health reissued the decree, now backed by new opinions from the ISS and the CSS, asserting that oral CBD may present health risks, particularly in relation to its potential interaction with THC.
  • September 11 & October 24, 2024: The TAR again suspended the decree, citing a scientific report by Professor Costantino Ciallella, a former forensic medicine director at La Sapienza University, who concluded that CBD does not cause psychophysical dependence and lacks psychoactive effects.

Court’s U-turn

In a ruling on April 16, 2025, the TAR ultimately rejected the appeal brought by hemp industry associations Canapa Sativa Italia, Giantec S.r.l., Biochimica Galloppa S.r.l., and Orti Castello.

Following the decision, Italy has effectively banned the sale of oral CBD products as food or supplements, limiting them to prescription-only medicines, dealing a final blow to an industry already on its knees.

In their challenge of the decree, issued on June 27, 2024, the associations argued that the classification was unjustified, economically damaging, and lacked scientific merit.

However, after twice rejecting the bill, the court sided with the Ministry, accepting its application of the precautionary principle, a European legal doctrine that allows preventive regulation when scientific uncertainty exists about potential health risks.

The Ministry based its decision on evaluations from Italy’s National Health Institute (ISS) and Higher Health Council (CSS), both of which raised concerns about the safety and regulatory oversight of CBD products derived from plant extracts.

These concerns included the potential for liver toxicity, psychiatric side effects, contamination with THC or synthetic cannabinoids, and discrepancies in product labelling.

The court emphasised that the ruling does not equate to listing pure CBD as a narcotic, nor does it affect products containing synthetic CBD.

“In light of uncertain but credible risks to public health, precautionary regulatory intervention is justified,” the judges wrote, citing the Ministry’s duty to protect consumers even in the absence of definitive scientific consensus.

Business of Cannabis will be exploring the rulings and their impact on the industry in the coming days. (They say)

Source: https://businessofcannabis.com/italys-hemp-industry-dealt-2nd-major-blow-as-cbd-oil-classified-as-narcotic/?

by  David G. Evans, Esq., Senior Counsel, Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL)

This item was collected by Dave Evans without any covering article.

To access the full array of documents:

  1. Click on the ‘Source’ links below.
  2. An image  – the front page of the full document will appear.
  3. Click on the image to open the full document.

 

  1. CDC.DELTA.8.DATED.9.14, 2021
  2. FDA.DELTA.8.WARNING
  3. FDA.HEMP.WARNING.LETTERS
  4. INTOXICATING HEMP PRODUCTS
  5. LETTER.HB.563.ROSSHEIM
  6. Rossheim – CV 6 7 24 pdf (1)
  7. Rossheim et al., 2022 Delta-8 THC Retail Availability, Price, and Minimum
  8. Rossheim et al., 2023 Delta-8, Delta-10, HHC, THC-O, THCP, and THCV What should we call these products_
  9. Rossheim et al., 2024 Derived psychoactive cannabis products and 4_20 specials An assessment of popular brands and retail price discounts in Fort Worth, Texas, 2023
  10. Rossheim et al., 2024 Types and Brands of Derived Psychoactive Cannabis Products an online retail assessment 2023

Source: David G. Evans, Esq., Senior Counsel, Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL)

Filed under: Cannabis/Marijuana,Hemp,USA :

Back to top of page

Powered by WordPress