U.S. House Committee Advances Spending Bill That Would Block Cannabis Rescheduling
A House subcommittee has approved a spending bill that includes measures to block the Department of Justice from moving forward with cannabis rescheduling.
The Republican-led House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) and Related Agencies on July 15 approved a spending bill in a 9-6 vote that includes a provision that would prevent the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using funds to reschedule cannabis.
The move would further stall the process of reviewing cannabis initiated by former U.S. President Joe Biden, which current President Donald Trump appeared to support.
Section 607 of the spending bill stipulates that none of the funds available by this bill may be used by the DOJ to reschedule cannabis or to remove it from the schedules established under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Cannabis is currently listed in Schedule I of the CSA, along with other substances like heroin, ecstasy, and LSD. Rescheduling it to Schedule III, as has been proposed, would mean fewer restrictions on research, greater access to medical cannabis, and a reduced tax burden for cannabis businesses.
Today, despite being still federally illegal, 39 states have legalized cannabis for medical use, and 24 also for recreational purposes. Stalled Cannabis Rescheduling
The review of cannabis rescheduling started in 2022, when then-President Biden instructed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the DOJ to review the status of cannabis under the CSA.
In 2023, HHS recommended moving the substance from Schedule I to Schedule III. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) then opened a public comment window, receiving over 40,000 comments.
The U.S. attorney general, who is currently Pam Bondi, has the authority to schedule, reschedule, or deschedule drugs under the CSA. However, the attorney general usually delegates this authority to the DEA. But the agency's hearings related to the rescheduling of cannabis are currently stalled. Initially set to begin on January 21, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney postponed them. Since then, no dates for cannabis hearings have been set.
During his election campaign, Trump supported cannabis reform, but since he took office in January, little has been heard from him about it.
On Monday, The Marijuana Herald reported that Trump told two House lawmakers in a private meeting, 'We'll be moving forward soon,' referring to cannabis rescheduling. The quote originated from a staffer who was present, but the news site was unable to confirm it independently.
Last week, former football player and cannabis advocate Ricky Williams met with senior Trump officials at the White House to talk about the federal cannabis rescheduling process.
Meanwhile, yesterday, Trump signed a bill into law that will ban illicit fentanyl. The law also contains measures that ease restrictions on conducting research into Schedule I drugs, in which cannabis is included.
Separately, Congress is also moving to close a loophole opened by the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp. Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill, which includes a provision banning intoxicating hemp products that mimic cannabis effects, like delta-8 THC. However, the implementation of this measure would be delayed for one year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
Washington Post
37 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law.
