Multiple improvements to the state’s medical program became law July 1, 2023.
The post Virginia: Changes to Medical Cannabis Laws Take Effect appeared first on NORML.
CANNABIS CONSUMPTION SPACES ARE NEEDED IN CALIFORNIA
While it’s legal for adults and medical patients to possess and grow marijuana in California, using it can be a problem. Unlike tobacco or alcohol, cannabis is illegal to consume in any public place – even in edible form. That leaves only private establishments and residences as places to enjoy a product made legal by California voters in 2016.
Smoking and vaping are even more problematic. Under current law, they are legal only where tobacco smoking is permitted. That rules out all private indoor meeting rooms, restaurants, clubs, hotels, convention centers, etc.; also any businesses with liquor permits. Some California cities have even gone so far as to pass “no-smoking” bans in multi-unit dwellings, effectively depriving private apartment residents of any legal place to inhale, even for medical purposes.
California cannabis consumers are accordingly in need of more legal spaces where they can socialize and partake. To this end, state law allows local governments to let licensed dispensaries open “consumption lounges,” where patrons can smoke or otherwise consume marijuana as in Amsterdam’s famous coffee shops. A score of such establishments have opened across California, with local approval and public safety measures in place.
PENDING BILLS WOULD BOLSTER CANNABIS LOUNGES, INDUSTRY
Under current law, such lounges can only serve cannabis and pre-packaged foods. Two bills currently in the state legislature, SB 285 by Sen. Ben Allen (Santa Monica) and AB 374 by Asm. Matt Haney (San Francisco), would authorize local governments to let licensed consumption lounges prepare and sell fresh food and beverages, as well as perhaps entertainment. Tell Your State Senator to Support AB 374 and Tell Your Assemblymember to Support SB 285.
Innocent as this change might appear, public health groups have voiced opposition on the spurious grounds that secondhand marijuana smoke is as dangerous as tobacco smoke, and would therefore expose workers to unacceptable health risks. Of course, it might well be asked why workers at cannabis lounges would object to smelling marijuana smoke in the first place; many might well welcome the opportunity. As in the case of commercial kitchens, workers can be protected by reasonable ventilation measures.
CANNABIS SMOKE IS NOT TOBACCO SMOKE
The scientific evidence is clear that marijuana smoke is not as dangerous as tobacco smoke. This might seem surprising, since marijuana and tobacco smoke share chemical similarities. Both are produced by the combustion of dried leaf, which produces numerous known carcinogens and toxins, such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, et al. Yet longitudinal studies of human subjects have found that marijuana smoking, unlike tobacco, does NOT cause lung or respiratory cancers, even in long-term heavy users. [“Cannabis Exposure and Lung Health”].
There are various explanations as to why this is so. First of all, marijuana users typically smoke far less than cigarette smokers – on the order of a half gram or two per day, versus twenty grams for one pack of cigarettes. Secondly, there are significant chemical differences between cannabinoids and nicotine: tobacco contains potent nicotine-related carcinogens not found in cannabis, while cannabinoids have distinctive anti-carcinogenic properties.[1] There may also be differences in how the two kinds of smoke are absorbed by the lungs. It is notable that the odor of marijuana typically clears the room the next day, while nicotine leaves a lingering, stale odor.
An exhaustive review of the health effects of marijuana by the National Academy of Sciences, accordingly found “no statistical association between cannabis smoking and the incidence of lung cancer.”[2] Other studies have failed to find evidence that cannabis smoking is a significant risk factor in emphysema[3] or cardiovascular disease.[4]
Given that first-hand smoking of marijuana doesn’t cause lung cancer or other serious tobacco-related diseases, it’s all the less likely that second-hand smoking does. This is not to deny that marijuana smoke can be irritating, especially to asthmatics and smoke-sensitive subjects. Chronic pot smoking has been linked to increased risk of bronchitis and infections. It’s therefore essential that non-smokers have the right to be protected from second-hand smoke of all kinds, and that consumption spaces be well insulated from neighbors.
Some anti-smoking purists have suggested that consumption lounges only serve edibles. However, edibles are not conducive to social use, since they require a lengthy time to take effect, and they are particularly likely to invite overdoses.
VAPORIZATION IS HARM REDUCTION
On the other hand, the hazards of smoke inhalation can be virtually eliminated by smokeless vaporizers and e-cigarettes. Vaporizers heat cannabis to a temperature below the point of combustion where smoke toxins and carcinogens form, producing an effectively smokeless stream of cannabinoid and terpenoid vapors. This effectively eliminates toxic particulates and gases, which derive from the 80% of the plant which doesn’t consist of active ingredients (THC and terpenoids).
Vaporizers come in two types. Herbal vaporizers heat raw leaf and buds to the point where they produce vapor but don’t burn and produce toxic compounds (about 180-200° C). Herbal vaporizers have been shown to eliminate virtually all of the carcinogens produced in marijuana smoke,[5] and have proven to be a “safe and effective” delivery method in medical cannabis studies.[6]
Vape pens or e-cigs produce vapor from concentrated cannabis oils, which are distilled to eliminate non-active constituents of the plant. Vape cartridges typically contain very high concentrations of THC (~80%+), but are designed to deliver it in modest dosages per puff like a regular joint. As a result, users obtain a moderate dose of THC and terpenoids with virtually no smoke contaminants. Vaping THC concentrate was shown to eliminate over 99.9% of the cancer risk of smoking in a lab study of e-cigs,[7]
It is important to note that the safety of vape concentrates depends on their purity. An epidemic of fatal EVALI lung disease was caused in 2019-20 by vape concentrates from the underground market which contained a toxic additive to make them vaporize better. No problems were reported with California-regulated vapes. Subsequent improvements in technology have since eliminated the need for additives. Most vape concentrates now consist of virtually pure cannabinoids and terpenoids.
Vaporizers have further advantages in reducing second-hand smoke. Unlike cigarettes and pipes, they emit vapor only while users inhale, eliminating the sidestream smoke generated by burning cigarettes. They likewise eliminate the need for lighters, matches, and ashtrays.
CONCLUSIONS
State-funded anti-tobacco groups have misinformed Californians that second-hand marijuana smoke and vapes pose the same harms as tobacco cigarettes. This notion is false. The scientific evidence clearly shows that marijuana is safer than tobacco, and vaporization is safer than smoking. Not a single epidemiological study has shown that second-hand marijuana smoke, much less vapor, is a workplace exposure hazard.
There is no reason that California cannot accommodate safe social consumption spaces for marijuana use while protecting non-users from unwanted smoke exposure. As in the case of commercial kitchens, which also produce smoke, workers can be protected by reasonable ventilation measures. Consumption lounges have a long history in Amsterdam as well as San Francisco, where the S.F. Cannabis Buyers’ Club offered over 10,000 medical patients a safe place to medicate and socialize in the days before Prop. 64.[8]
California NORML advocates the expansion of consumption spaces not only for consumers and medical users, but also visitors in search of a safe and friendly place to inhale.
See a List of Cannabis Consumption Lounges in California.
Also see: Cannabis Consumption Lounges: Mitigating Risks
Information about opening and operating a consumption lounge from Cal NORML board member and attorney Lauren Mendelsohn.
REFERENCES
[1] Melamede R. “Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic,” Harm Reduction Journal 21 (2005).
[2] National Academy of Sciences, The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids (2017), p. 143.
[3] Ware, M. “Cannabis and the Lung: No More Smoking Gun?” and Tashkin DP “Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung.” Ann Am Thorac Soc 2013; Vol. 10, Issue 3.
[4] Theerasuwipakorn N et al, “Cannabis and adverse cardiovascular events,” Toxicol Rep. 2023; 10: 537-43 10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.04.011;
Ravi D et al. “Association Between Marijuana Use and Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Outcomes,” Ann Intern Med. 2018 Feb 168(3): 187-94 10.7326/M17-1548.
[5] Gieringer D et al: “Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds,” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 4 (1) 2004.
[6] Abrams D et al, “Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study,” Clin. Pharm. & Ther. April 2007.
[7] Meehan-Atrash J et al., “Aerosol Gas-Phase Components from Cannabis E-Cigarettes and Dabbing: Mechanistic Insight and Quantitative Risk Analysis,” ACS Omega Sept 16, 2019.
[8] Feldman HW, Mandel J, “Providing medical marijuana: the importance of cannabis clubs,” J Psychoactive Drugs 1998 30(2) 179-86.
The post Blowing Smoke About Cannabis Consumption Lounges appeared first on CaNorml.org.
Highlights include legislative developments in CA, FL, ME, & PA.
The post State Policy Weekly Update 6/28/2023 appeared first on NORML.
UPDATES
7/5/23: Thanks to the excellent (as always) reporting by Marijuana Moment, some of these figures and tables have been revised from an earlier release.
California’s Attorney General has issued a second report on statewide expungements for marijuana crimes, reporting on county compliance through April 6, 2023 and finding that 206,052 of an estimated 227,650 potential resentencing/dismissals have happened statewide. That number is up from 197,205 in the March report, with 8,847 convictions sealed in 2023 and 21,598 still waiting to be sealed as of April.
Six counties (Alpine, Lake, Mono, San Luis Obispo, Siskiyou, and Shasta) were in full compliance as of April, according to the DOJ, with San Francisco and a few others nearly in compliance with only a few outstanding cases. San Diego brought its compliance rate up to 99.3% by sealing 1,506 cases this year so far; a remaining 190 have not been reported sealed. Los Angeles county had no reported sealed cases in 2023; it has 2,226 yet to be acted on.
Some other counties aren’t making much progress this year, notably Orange County with 4,052 convictions yet to be addressed by April, San Bernardino with 3,717, and Alameda with 2,080. Marked progress was seen in El Dorado, Kern, Madera, Napa, Riverside, Sacramento, and Sutter counties, with small gains in other counties. Imperial County brings up the rear with only 14.6% compliance, clearing only 258 of its potential 1,767 convictions, followed by Amador (31.1%), Marin (38.8%), Trinity (47.6%), San Joaquin (59.1%). Humboldt was only at 61% compliance, but has cleared 272 convictions this year. (See Table below).
Under state law, all counties must comply fully by July 1, 2023. The next quarterly AG’s report on compliance is due in September. The AG is also charged with informing the public about the new law and its progress.
County
Eligible Convictions
Sealed by Jan. 3
Sealed in 2023
Sealed by April 6
% Compliant
Remaining to be Sealed
Alpine
39
38
1
39
100.0
0
Lake
654
650
4
654
100.0
0
Mono
90
88
2
90
100.0
0
San Luis Obispo
1,229
1,220
9
1,229
100.0
0
Siskiyou
560
557
3
560
100.0
0
Shasta
2,022
1,994
27
2,021
100.0
1
San Francisco
7,804
6,506
1,294
7,800
99.9
4
Sonoma
3,303
3,296
0
3,296
99.8
7
Ventura
1,732
1,727
0
1,727
99.7
5
Merced
946
926
17
943
99.7
3
Monterey
1,797
1,772
14
1,786
99.4
11
San Diego
29,074
27,378
1,506
28,884
99.3
190
San Mateo
2,688
2,597
71
2,668
99.3
20
Santa Barbara
1,834
1,810
9
1,819
99.2
15
Riverside
8,164
6,766
1,317
8,083
99.0
81
Mendocino
1,468
1,453
0
1,453
99.0
15
Stanislaus
2,448
2,407
12
2,419
98.8
29
Inyo
225
203
19
222
98.7
3
Sierra
69
68
0
68
98.6
1
Tulare
2,665
2,589
34
2,623
98.4
42
Butte
1,448
1,237
187
1,424
98.3
24
Yuba
383
359
16
375
97.9
8
Yolo
846
802
24
826
97.6
20
San Benito
340
331
0
331
97.4
9
Los Angeles
70,097
67,871
0
67,871
96.8
2,226
Calaveras
338
326
1
327
96.7
11
Colusa
298
286
2
288
96.6
10
Tehama
1,020
975
0
975
95.6
45
Santa Cruz
1,552
1,381
99
1,480
95.4
72
Contra Costa
3,407
3,044
183
3,227
94.7
180
Solano
2,210
2,085
0
2,085
94.3
125
Mariposa
286
245
22
267
93.4
19
Fresno
3,575
3,183
121
3,304
92.4
271
Sutter
303
185
95
280
92.4
23
Santa Clara
10,193
9,377
3
9,380
92.0
813
Madera
1,052
472
493
965
91.7
87
Kern
3,832
2,568
843
3,411
89.0
421
Sacramento
6,755
5,158
828
5,986
88.6
769
El Dorado
1,047
506
408
914
87.3
133
Modoc
141
123
0
123
87.2
18
Glenn
381
321
3
324
85.0
57
Alameda
10,007
7,893
34
7,927
79.2
2,080
Tuolumne
593
468
1
469
79.1
124
Placer
1,430
1,089
20
1,109
77.6
321
Kings
698
384
138
522
74.8
176
Nevada
691
507
2
509
73.7
182
Orange
14,355
10,063
240
10,303
71.8
4,052
Napa
834
438
148
586
70.3
248
San Bernardino
11,121
7,138
266
7,404
66.6
3,717
Del Norte
358
225
6
231
64.5
127
Lassen
252
128
34
162
64.3
90
Plumas
187
115
0
115
61.5
72
Humboldt
1,658
739
272
1,011
61.0
647
San Joaquin
3,822
2,256
2
2,258
59.1
1,564
Trinity
658
304
9
313
47.6
345
Marin
608
236
0
236
38.8
372
Amador
296
91
1
92
31.1
204
Imperial
1,767
251
7
258
14.6
1,509
TOTAL
227,650
197,205
8,847
206,052
86 % AVG
21,598
4/23: As mandated by last year’s bill AB 1706 (Bonta), the DOJ has issued its first report on county-by-county compliance with sending their expungement data to DOJ.
The report is current through January 1 and shows that many counties still had not complied with the law by that date, or had only partially done so. The Last Prisoner Project has produced a map of the counties and their compliance rates, based on the DOJ report. It shows for example that as of January 1, Orange County was only 48% compliant, Alameda County only 56%, Marin 15%, and Humboldt only 14%. See LPP’s landing page on expungement
Under AB 1706, counties had until March 1, 2023 to send in their cases to be resentenced or cleared, but this is not reflected in the DOJ report, which only goes through January 1. The next DOJ report on county compliance is due in June, and DOJ has until July to actually clear past marijuana convictions, based on county data.
9/22: Asm. Mia Bonta’s bill AB 1706 to expedite clearing of marijuana records in California has been signed into law.
12/21: AG Bonta Pledges DOJ Help to Clear Past Marijuana Convictions in California
1/22: LA Times: California was supposed to clear cannabis convictions. Tens of thousands are still languishing
10/21: Why Is California Failing Thousands of People With Cannabis Records?
(The lede seems to say that a deadline has passed to clear records; in fact, as the article says further down, the courts still have no deadline to act.)
Marin County DA drops, reduces 500 cannabis cases
People with past marijuana convictions in Marin County can check their eligibility for expungement by reaching Marin’s Assistant District Attorney Otis Bruce at (415) 473-6450.
9/21: Los Angeles District Attorney to Vacate Some 60,000 Marijuana Convictions
6/21: California’s Expungement Battle: What’s Working & What’s Not in the Fight for Cannabis Record Clearance
In a statement provided to Ember, Attorney General Bonta noted that “too many Californians have been treated unfairly as a result of the many broken parts of our criminal justice system. They deserve more justice, more humanity, and a second chance.” He added that AB-1793 “is a bill that seeks to right a historic wrong,” and that he is “excited to play a role in seeing through as Attorney General.”
“The California Department of Justice and local agencies have been hard at work since the law’s passage in 2018, but there’s much still to be done,” he added. “As the People’s Attorney, I will do all I can to ensure all those with qualifying cannabis-related convictions have their records dismissed, sealed, or redesignated.”
Watch Cal NORML’s April 7, 2021 Zoom meeting with Alia Toran-Burrell, Associate Program Director, Criminal Justice at Code for America.
UPDATE 3/21: Code for America reports that half of California counties have used their Clear My Record tool, resulting in 140,000 past marijuana convictions identified as qualifying for being reduced or dismissed. In addition to the government-facing application, Clear My Record has also created a user-facing app that helps residents in 14 California counties find attorneys to help with the petition process to clear records. (Those counties are: Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Marin, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Ventura & Yolo. Cal NORML’s legal committee attorneys can also help with expungement processes.
Code for America recommends that someone who thinks they have an eligible conviction (to be automatically cleared) contact the DA or public defender in the county in which their conviction is to see whether their conviction has been identified by the DA to be automatically cleared. They’ll then have to confirm with that county court the status of that cleared conviction (i.e. has it already been cleared by the court, is it in the process of being cleared, etc.)
Thousand of marijuana convictions officially reduced, others dismissed in San Diego County
Excerpt: With the wave of a pen by a Superior Court judge, nearly 26,000 people with felony marijuana convictions on their records had them reduced to less-onerous misdemeanor convictions last month. In addition some 1,000 people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions had those cases completely dismissed. The moves came in a three-page order signed by San Diego Superior Court Judge Eugenia Eyherabide on Feb. 5.
While the charges have been altered it may take some time to update individual court records to reflect the changes and the court system is now working through those logistics. The Public Defender’s Office through its Fresh Start program can help people clearing their records, said Deputy Public Defender Kate Braner. Though Eyherabide’s order took effect immediately, the lag time to update individual records could cause problems for people who undergo background checks or license or checks for certain licenses that rely on scouring court records. That program can be contacted at Fresh.Start@sdcounty.gov.
A follow-up story from the same reporter found that of the 5000 cases eligible for resentencing or dismissal announced by the San Diego city attorney, only 500 have qualified for action.
UPDATE 1/21: Four years later, California courts are failing on key promise of marijuana legalization – Sacramento Bee Editorial Board
Excerpt: Today, thousands of Californians could still be rejected by an employer, denied a loan, disqualified from housing or deemed ineligible for public benefits because of marijuana convictions that remain on their records. Under state law, such convictions should have been removed.
Assembly Bill 1793, authored by Democrat Rob Bonta of Alameda, was designed to help affected Californians clear their records. The bill created an automatic expungement process that gave the state Department of Justice and local prosecutors until last July to reduce, dismiss or contest marijuana convictions.
Unfortunately, courts in most of California’s 58 counties — which must take the step of clearing old convictions before the process is complete — were given no such deadline and have not prioritized the issue. Now, as many as 113,000 residents may still have marijuana convictions on their record in the court system. This is an inexcusable failure by California’s justice system.
June 28, 2020 – Proposition 64 (the Adult Use of Marijuana Act or AUMA), which California voters passed in November 2016, allowed people with past marijuana convictions to petition the court for expungement or resentencing. AB 1793 (Bonta), to automatically expunge or resentence certain past marijuana crimes without requiring the filing of a petition, passed and was signed into law in 2018, and is codified as Ca Health & Safety Code 11361.9.
Under the new state law, the state Department of Justice identified past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant to Section 11361.8. The DOJ notified county District Attorneys of all cases in their jurisdiction that are eligible, and the prosecutors had until July 1, 2020 to review all cases and inform the court and the public defender’s office in their county that they are challenging a particular case.
The law states, “If the prosecution does not challenge the recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation by July 1, 2020, the court shall reduce or dismiss the conviction pursuant to Section 11361.8. The court shall notify the DOJ and the department shall modify the state summary criminal history information database accordingly….The DOJ shall post general information on its Internet Web site about the recall or dismissal of sentences, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation authorized in this section.”
HOW ARE COUNTIES COMPLYING?
Even before the state law took effect, SF District Attorney George Gascon announced in February 2019 he would release over 9,000 past marijuana convictions for resentencing or expungement. After Gascon challenged Los Angeles DA Jackie Lacey for re-election, she announced LA will move to expunge 66,000 past convictions.
In Santa Clara County, a judge has already signed off on more than 13,000 marijuana convictions, affecting more than 9,000 people, well more than the 3,068 cases released by DOJ. Santa Cruz county’s DA announced he would release 1,169 marijuana cases involving 1,085 defendants, fewer than the 2,187 DOJ-released number.
Cal NORML legal committee attorneys Bill Panzer and Omar Figueroa point out that some marijuana crimes are still being charged as felonies, or not expunged, under Health and Safety Codes 11366 [maintaining a place] & § 11366.5 [storing], along with Penal Code Sections 182 [conspiracy], and 32 [accessory after the fact], not to mention civil asset forfeiture over marijuana. The DOJ sent a supplemental list of marijuana cases under these codes plus PC 644 [attempted crime], citing People v. Medina, which says a court has discretion in resentencing marijuana conspiracy crimes (while refusing to do so for defendant Medina, who had prior convictions and pleaded guilty to possession 35 pounds for sale). Another case, People v. Boatright allowed resentencing for marijuana cultivation despite 4 grams of methamphetamine being found on the site.
Humboldt County‘s DA chose to include H&SC 11366 & 11366.5 violations in releasing cases to the court; however, she released only half the number cases identified by DOJ. By contrast, Mendocino‘s DA released three times as many cases as DOJ found, using his own computer program to find eligible cases.
The Orange County Register reported that the LA DA’s is challenging 2,142 convictions flagged by the DOJ. Under the law, the public defender’s office, upon receiving notice from the DA, shall “make a reasonable effort to notify the person whose resentencing or dismissal is being challenged.” If the prosecution does not challenge the recall or dismissal of sentence, “the court shall notify the department [of justice],” which “shall post general information on its Internet Web site about the recall or dismissal of sentences, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation authorized in this section.”
Contra Costa County, which released cases for resentencing in January, has set up an email address where people may write to find out if their case is among those sent to the court. Sonoma County says, “To find out if your record has been cleared, contact the Law Offices of the Sonoma County Public Defender or the Sonoma County Superior Court.” The DOJ says, “If you are looking for information regarding a past conviction and want to know if the prosecuting agency is reviewing your case, please contact either the district attorney’s office or the public defender’s office in the county of conviction.” You can also request your own criminal record.
Below is a table with the number of past convictions released to each county by the DOJ, with links to their status (as we know it).
DOJ Records Released 7/19
County
7,466
Alameda
37
Alpine
243
Amador
1,377
Butte
274
Calaveras
263
Colusa
2,568
Contra Costa
335
Del Norte
1,013
El Dorado
3,129
Fresno
319
Glenn
1,611
Humboldt
1,632
Imperial
211
Inyo
3,214
Kern
631
Kings
549
Lake
220
Lassen
57,341
Los Angeles
921
Madera
526
Marin
253
Mariposa
1,330
Mendocino
847
Merced
114
Modoc
136
Mono
1,482
Monterey
681
Napa
632
Nevada
12,303
Orange
1,354
Placer
164
Plumas
7,035
Riverside
5,408
Sacramento
280
San Benito
10,176
San Bernardino
1,266
San Diego
2,235
San Francisco
1,271
San Joaquin
7,785
San Luis Obispo
25,991
San Mateo
5,312
Santa Barbara
3,068
Santa Clara
2,187
Santa Cruz
1,781
Shasta
58
Sierra
537
Siskiyou
1,830
Solano
2,272
Sonoma
2,045
Stanislaus
279
Sutter
859
Tehama
558
Trinity
2,540
Tulare
476
Tuolumne
1,514
Ventura
760
Yolo
391
Yuba
191,090
TOTAL
The post Clearing of Past Marijuana Crimes Moves Forward Across California appeared first on CaNorml.org.
As of this Saturday, July 1st, those age 21 or older may begin legally growing personal use quantities of cannabis at home.
The post Connecticut: Law Change Permitting Adults to Home Cultivate Cannabis Takes Effect on Saturday appeared first on NORML.
Descheduling cannabis removes the threat of undue federal intrusion in existing state marijuana programs and respects America’s longstanding federalist principles allowing states to serve as “laboratories of Democracy.”
The post NORML Op-Ed: Cannabis Must Be Removed from the Controlled Substances Act to Resolve State/Federal Conflicts appeared first on NORML.
Beginning on July 1, those age 21 or older may legally possess up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis flower and/or 12 grams of cannabis concentrates.
The post Maryland: Adult-Use Marijuana Legalization Laws Take Effect Next Week appeared first on NORML.
Highlights include LA, ME, NV, NJ, PA, & VT.
The post State Policy Weekly Update 6/21/2023 appeared first on NORML.
Excess tax burdens imposed on state-legal cannabis businesses are destroying their profitability. These states are legislating change.
The post 280E is Harming Legal Cannabis Businesses; These States are Legislating Change appeared first on NORML.
“Interning with NORML provides me with the opportunity to engage in projects that closely align with my passion. I aspire to change the social stigmas surrounding marijuana and marijuana use. I also aspire to promote the therapeutic utility of cannabis.”
The post I’m Interning at NORML to Become a Better Advocate appeared first on NORML.