This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
As a result, the DEA has been encouraged for over a decade to expand the pool of federally licensed cannabis producers — a move that the agency has largely resisted. In 2016, the agency appeared to reconsider its longstanding policy, and publicly stated for the first time that it would consider additional applicants.
In August 2016, the US Drug Enforcement Administration announced in the US Federal Register that the agency was “adopting a new policy that is designed to increase the number of entities registered under the Controlled Substances Act to grow (manufacture) marijuana to supply legitimate researchers in the United States.”
As the result of a lawsuit, DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner in 2007 ruled that expanding the pool of federally licensed providers would be “in the public interest.” The agency ultimately rejected her decision.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) response to an attorney’s letter seeking advice and guidance on how a physician could administer psilocybin to a terminally ill patient without incurring liability under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). By Allison Campbell.
Isa Perez (Head of Business Development at Meadow) moderates the Update from Local Regulators Panel with Joe Devlin (Sacramento Cannabis Policy and Enforcement), Cat Packer (Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation), and Nicole Elliot ( San Francisco Office of Cannabis). Photo Credit: Kandid Kush.
Later that year, Doblin sued the DEA for the first time. MAPS hired Sylvia Thyssen as our first employee , celebrated the 50th anniversary of LSD , outlined perspectives on drug policy , and worked toward facilitating a pilot study for medical marijuana. Lyle Craker, Ph.D.,
Both paths are complex processes in which scientific, medical, policy and political forces have influence. There are other avenues Congress can take besides rescheduling marijuana to ameliorate the seeming breakdown in federalism brought about by federal marijuana policy. It was not a policy priority of the Obama administration.
Cory Gardner (R) of Colorado and Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts, that would allow states to write their own marijuana policies, remove marijuana from the list in the CSA, and decriminalize it federally. That is the federal policy.” Joe’s latest policy stances on marijuana. Legalize medical marijuana.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 14,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content