Listen to this post

Cannabis consumers can be forgiven for feeling the need for a more liberal cannabis policy as they weather this seemingly unending campaign cycle.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently made clear how he would be voting personally on the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana. Posting on Truth Social, Trump stated:

As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November.

Amendment 3 would allow “adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption.” It would also allow medical marijuana treatment centers, as well as other state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and accessories. Amendment 3 would also establish possession limits for personal use – allowing possession of up to 3 ounces and up to an additional 5 grams of concentrate.

So, what does that mean for the country more broadly? It appears Trump is not just a fan personally. In the same post, he spoke more broadly about his personal views and gave insight as to how friendly his administration may be to those in the cannabis industry. Trump stated:

As President, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a Schedule 3 drug, and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies, and supporting states’ rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens.

In an interview, Trump doubled down.  He described medical marijuana as “amazing.” 

Indeed, Trump also seems to realize this is a political issue with substantial support from the American public. He has conceded that opposing marijuana legislation would be challenging, particularly in an election year.

Trump, who has historically touted a tough drug policy, certainly isn’t ready to sign off on carte blanche legalization though. He has made it clear that any legalization of marijuana should be done in a “safe way” with regulation and age restrictions. Trump also has expressed concerns about marijuana’s presence in public spaces, as well as potential safety issues. 

He was more coy about what he may do with regard to psychedelics. When psychedelics were mentioned in a recent interview, Trump was silent, choosing instead to laugh when interviewer Lex Friedman raised the idea that Congress would be better off if they took psychedelics. We can’t help but recognize the more libertarian view Trump is taking towards substances like marijuana. It’s hard to see how that is a negative sign about what a Trump administration may look like for those in the psychedelics industry.   

We doubt a second Trump administration would champion significant psychedelic reform, but if the first Trump administration is a guide then we also don’t think he would stand in the way of measured, science-based reform efforts. And that’s probably the biggest takeaway for psychedelic advocates trying to appeal to either candidate: Focus on the science and the medicinal benefits and not the recreational aspects. Marijuana may well prove a gateway drug when it comes to federal legalization of psychedelics, but we think the psychedelic industry would do well to move deliberately for the time being.

Listen to this post

We at Budding Trends have been optimistic, and then cautiously optimistic, that the legalization of psychedelics was close. This month, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration dealt a blow to our predictions. FDA decided not to approve Lykos Therapeutics, Inc.’s MDMA-assisted PTSD therapy at this time. Instead, FDA asked Lykos to further study the efficacy of the treatment. More specifically, FDA asked Lykos to conduct another Phase 3 trial to determine the drug’s efficacy and safety. Lykos intends to request reconsideration from FDA.

Some see this as a “huge blow to the field,” considering it a bellwether for other psychedelic drugs. Lykos’ CEO has called the decision “deeply disappointing” and stated that many of the requests from the agency “can be addressed with existing data, post-approval requirements or through reference to the scientific literature.” It is also, of course, disappointing to those individuals suffering from PTSD who may benefit from these treatments.

FDA’s Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee vote earlier this summer made things difficult for the FDA, which historically sides with its advisors. Ultimately, it appears the FDA determined “there are significant limitations to the data contained in the application that prevent the agency from concluding that this drug is safe and effective for the proposed indication.” But, the FDA also stated to NPR that it would “continue to encourage research and drug development that will further innovation for psychedelic treatments and other therapies.”

Others in the industry have more of a Lloyd Christmas outlook. This is not an outright denial of MDMA therapies, and it certainly is not a referendum on the psychedelics industry as a whole.

According to NPR, Dr. Mason Marks, law professor and senior fellow with Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation at Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center, didn’t see this as “any sign that progress is going to be slowed;” instead, he stated that “it might intensify because the other companies might see an opportunity to really get in there and compete.” Marks was concerned that the limitations of the trial could have required the FDA to impose so many restrictions that it would have been “impractical” for the treatment to reach its intended audience.

Doug Drysdale, CEO of Cybin – a psilocybin-based drug development company – stated that he thought the decision would just be a “delay,” believing that the program was “fixable” and would “likely lead to an approval at some point.” He went on to state that while the decision was “disappointing for patients,” there was “no real readthrough . . . to other psychedelic programs. What Lykos is doing is quite different and unique to them, and ultimately, the [Complete Response Letter] came because the NDA submission was just incomplete.”

The CEO Of LSD-focused MindMed, Rob Barrow, was likewise optimistic, positing that the FDA’s decision “reinforces the need for rigor and the highest quality studies and ethics and safety in these studies to ensure that, if we’re successful in illustrating p-value and clinical response, that we can make sure that transitions into a strong case for approval.”

Do we still think psychedelics likely are on the path to legalization in some form? Lykos’s bid to use psychedelics to treat PTSD was the furthest along to obtain FDA approval, but there are still other options. So, yes, we’re telling you there’s a chance

Listen to this post

2023 was a momentous year for psychedelics, and it’s not just because we at Budding Trends started writing about them. There were wins for the psychedelic industry at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as in the private sector, particularly for proponents of their potential medicinal and therapeutic uses.

The Food and Drug Administration issued its first-ever guidance providing considerations for those developing psychedelic drugs for the treatment of medical conditions. The guidance describes basic considerations for the drug development process, including trial conduct, data collection, subject safety and drug application requirements. When publishing the guidance the FDA said that,“[p]sychedelic drugs show initial promise as potential treatments for mood, anxiety and substance use disorders… By publishing this draft guidance, the FDA hopes to outline the challenges inherent in designing psychedelic drug development programs and provide information on how to address these challenges. The goal is to help researchers design studies that will yield interpretable results that will be capable of supporting future drug applications.”

In December, President Joe Biden signed into law the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) directing the Department of Defense to begin clinical trials exploring the therapeutic potential of certain psychedelics for active-duty military service members. Obtaining federal funding for research with the support of bipartisan lawmakers is a positive indication of what may be to come.   

The House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health held a hearing in November that focused on how psychedelics – including psilocybin and MDMA – can aid therapy for veterans facing mental health challenges. This was the first-ever congressional hearing on psychedelics. In her opening remarks, Rep. Marianette Miller-Meeks, a Republican congresswoman for Iowa and chair of the Subcommittee, said “psychedelic-assisted therapy is a groundbreaking clinical procedure that has the potential to transform the way we look at mental health care.” Rep. Julia Brownley, a Democratic congresswoman for California and the panel’s ranking member, made similar statements, saying “we are at the brink of a new era in which [psychedelics]—once stigmatize [sic] and misunderstood-are being examined for their potential to address mental health and addiction challenges.”

Federal courts weighed in as well. The Ninth Circuit kept alive a physician’s petition to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.

Momentum also continued at the state and local levels. Oregon opened its “first-of-its-kind legal market” for psilocybin, more widely known as magic mushrooms. The first licensed center opened in Eugene, Oregon, in June and at least 16 more service centers have opened since that time. It’s been reported that hundreds of people have used psilocybin legally in Oregon during that time. Hawaii’s Office of Wellness and Resilience announced the establishment of the Breakthrough Therapies Task Force, aimed at expanding therapeutic access to MDMT and psilocybin. In Colorado, Gov. Jared Polis signed a bill in May to “create a regulatory framework for legal psychedelics” under an initiative approved by voters in 2022. More specifically, the bill sets up regulations for the legalization law that focuses largely on regulations for using psychedelics in licensed healing centers under the guidance of facilitators. There’s been movement in other states as well, including in Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.  

The local jurisdictions of Eureka, California, Ferndale, Minnesota, Jefferson County, Washington, Portland, Maine, and Provincetown, Massachusetts all enacted psychedelic decriminalization laws this year.

It’s not just government that’s interested in psychedelics. We are seeing one of the first opportunities to legalize MDMA as a prescribed medicine. In December, the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder. If the NDA is approved, the DEA would then need to reschedule MDMA accordingly. If that happens, MDMA would be the first true psychedelic to obtain FDA approval.  Some sources say FDA approval could be obtained in late 2024.  

And the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation isn’t the only group that pushed forward with research, believing that psychedelics hold significant therapeutic potential. The American Medical Association published the results of a clinical trial this year that “suggest efficacy and safety” of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for treatment of bipolar II disorder.” A separate study by the same group “showed that people with major depression experience clinically significant sustained reduction in their symptoms after just one dose.”  Researchers from Johns Hopkins, Ohio State University and Unlimited Findings likewise published the results of a study that they say demonstrates “persisting reductions” in depression, anxiety, and alcohol misuse, as well as “increases in emotional regulation, spiritual wellbeing and extraversion” with the use of psilocybin. This is just a sampling of the many studies that published research this year.

It’s not all roses for industry advocates though. While proponents of the industry were excited about the bill passed by the California legislature to decriminalize possession of “naturally occurring psychedelics,” Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill in October. And there are certainly other detractors.  As The New York Times reported, the American Psychiatric Association urged caution, saying that treatments should be limited to research studies for the time being. The DEA is trying again to ban two psychedelics — 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC). The next trip around the sun will certainly encounter similar roadblocks.

Public opinion continues to be in favor of the use of psychedelic therapy for therapeutic and medicinal uses, though. And the mental health crisis facing our country is not going anywhere. As reported by USA Today, “[n]early 50,000 people died by suicide in 2022 and 5.8 million emergency department visits were linked to mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders in 2021.” While the data for 2023 has not been released, we doubt there will be much of a change. And we do know there is not enough funding or programming in place to combat the growing crisis. In the face of this landscape, we expect the momentum in favor of the psychedelic industry to continue – particularly as it relates to the push to use psychedelics for medicinal uses. We also think the industry will continue to see decriminalization at the local level and more widespread access in states that led the charge on cannabis, such as Colorado and California. 

2023 has been somewhat of a “renaissance” for psychedelics – it’s been one “that’s increasingly being shaped under a bipartisan framework, with Republicans frequently leading on the issue in Congress and state legislatures across the country.” Last year was a good one for supporters of psychedelics, and we predict 2024 will be a good trip for the industry, too.

Listen to this post

We told you it may be coming, though we were admittedly cynical about the ability to pass a bill funding psychedelic research given the current political landscape — a narrowly controlled Democratic Senate that is generally considered more conservative than the House and on the eve of an election year. But, it happened. Just before Christmas, President Joe Biden signed into law the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act to the tune of $886 billion. The NDAA passed through Congress with strong bipartisan support.

You may have read that the NDAA left out certain parts of the act that some in Congress claimed addressed “divisive social issues.” And it certainly left out certain provisions the cannabis industry would have liked to have seen included — including a separate section to create a medical cannabis pilot program for veterans. What you may not have realized, though, is what the NDAA did include, such as funding for psychedelic treatment studies for members of the U.S. military with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries. 

Admittedly, the psychedelic component of the NDAA is small. But it shouldn’t be discounted. The law requires that the Department of Defense establish a process under which military service members with PTSD or traumatic brain injuries can participate in clinical trials involving psychedelics, including psilocybin and MDMA, as well as any “qualified plant-based alternative therapies.” The 2024 NDAA devotes $10 million to these efforts, which is certainly not an insignificant sum. DOD is also allowed to partner with eligible state or federal agencies and academic institutions to carry out the clinical trials. This could significantly expand the scope of the contemplated studies.

Under the new law, DOD is on a time clock. DOD must facilitate the process within 180 days of enactment. There are also reporting requirements. The secretary of defense is required to provide a report within one year of enactment with information about the trial’s participation and findings, and the secretary must continue to report every subsequent year for three years.

The entire act — including those provisions related to psychedelics — had strong bipartisan support. The bill related to psychedelics was added to the legislation by Texas Republican Morgan Lutrell, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the NDAA Conference Committee, but co-sponsored by progressive Democrats Ro Khanna of California and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. For proponents of the psychedelic industry, a compromise between a Texas Republican and AOC could be seen as a positive step forward for future legislation — at least as it relates to funding research. We think that the country’s continued focus on and concern for mental health will pave the way for even more research for psychedelics.   

Finally, we’d be remiss not to point out what the bill’s passage does not mean. This doesn’t mean that psychedelics will be readily available to veterans, let alone the general public any time soon. Nor does it mean that psychedelics will be legalized. But it does show support for broadening what we know about the medical capabilities of psychedelics.   Stay tuned to this space in the coming days for our recap of 2023 in psychedelics and some predictions about the year ahead.

Listen to this post

As we’ve discussed, the federal government seems to be getting on board with the legal use of psychedelics. So are many states. While states across the country are moving towards expanding legal (or at least decriminalized) access to psychedelics, we doubt it will come as any surprise to those experienced in the cannabis industry that states in the West seem to be leading the charge.  

Prime Time: Colorado and Oregon Lead the Charge

Colorado and Oregon have already legalized the use of certain psychedelics. Oregon was the first state to implement a legal system to obtain and use psilocybin. Oregon Psilocybin Services began accepting applications for licensure (manufacturing, laboratory, service centers, and facilitators) on January 2, 2023, and, according to its latest report, it had issued licenses to six service centers with expectations to issue “many more licenses over the coming months.” Once again at the forefront of legalization, Colorado voters passed a ballot measure – Proposition 122 – that would allow professionals to offer certain psychedelics starting in 2025.

California Dreamin’

California apparently does not intend to get left behind. Earlier this month, the California Legislature narrowly approved a bill to decriminalize the possession of a limited set of “naturally occurring psychedelics,” including psilocybin, DMT, and mescaline (excluding peyote). To be clear, the bill does not fully legalize the use of psychedelics. Instead, it means that police could not arrest people who are in possession of or use certain psychedelics. As we’ve seen with the federal government, the growing belief that psychedelics could help combat the growing mental health crisis seems to be an important motivation behind passing the legislation. To that end, the new bill will also trigger a regulatory process to craft policy proposals for group therapeutic use of psychedelics. Gov. Gavin Newsome has until October 14 to approve or veto the bill. If approved, it would go into effect January 1, 2025.

Hawaii to Research Allowing a Little Aloha

Demonstrating the wide breadth of approaches we can expect to see, Hawaii is taking another path, albeit with a similar goal to California. Hawaii’s Office of Wellness and Resilience recently announced the establishment of the Breakthrough Therapies Task Force, “which aims to assist [Hawaii] in expanding therapeutic access to two key substances: MDMT… and psilocybin.” The task force will address questions relating to supply, licensing for guides and integration coaches, administrative needs, safety, access, and affordability of care. The task force – which is comprised of local physicians, psychiatrists, mental health professionals, and government partners – met for the first time on August 29. Indicating his support for and the basis behind the initiative, the governor’s office specifically referenced the long history of the use of psychedelic plants by indigenous cultures, as well as the research that “has shown that both psilocybin and MDMT have significant and unprecedented efficacy in the clinical treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), addiction, end-of-life anxiety in terminal patients, eating disorders, treatment resistant depression, and more.” The task force will complete a final report by the end of 2023. We’re looking forward to seeing what they have to say.

What’s Next?

The moves by California and Hawaii deepen our beliefs that we are going to continue to see movement towards providing the American public with access to psychedelics for mental health purposes. And it looks like that’s what voters want. UC Berkeley’s psychedelics survey recently confirmed that “[t]he majority of voters are comfortable with psychedelic therapy being used to treat those suffering from terminal illnesses (80%), veterans (69%), and people suffering from treatment resistant depression and anxiety (67%),” though fewer (44%) are comfortable with “the open access to psychedelic therapy for a anyone over the age of 21.” Nearly half of those surveyed would support open access to psychedelic therapy.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and the developments in these states represent important first steps. We have miles to go before we sleep, but if this budding trend continues, that sleep may be a little bit better in the future.

Listen to this post

Just as we did, the Food and Drug Administration has recognized the growing enthusiasm for exploring opportunities to use psychedelic medications to treat mental health disorders. In June, FDA issued for the first time draft guidance providing considerations for those developing psychedelic drugs for the treatment of medical conditions. The guidance explicitly focuses on “classic psychedelics,” which are “typically understood” as “5-HT2 agonists” like psilocybin and LSD, as well as entactogens or empathogens like MDMA. Has this put a wedge between psychedelics and cannabis?

The Nuts and Bolts of Psychedelic Research

In the guidance, FDA focuses on the “unusual characteristics” of psychedelic drugs – including the hypotheses that psychedelic drugs have “both rapid-onset and long-term benefits after only one or a few doses,” as well as the recognition that the development of psychedelic drugs in this manner is new and developing. The guidance addresses chemistry, manufacturing, and controls; nonclinical research; clinical pharmacology; and abuse potential.    

  • Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls: FDA makes clear that sponsors must provide sufficient chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information to ensure proper identification, quality, purity, and strength of the investigational drug substance and drug product. If plant material, algae, macroscopic fungi, or some combination is used, FDA refers readers to its Botanical Drug Development guidance.
  • Nonclinical: While FDA recommends that nonclinical programs for psychedelic drugs should follow recommendations outlined in the guidance Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals, FDA also recognizes that there are unique considerations for psychedelics.
    • Recognizing that prior clinical studies may provide sufficient information about the lack of safety concerns with human exposure, it may be reasonable for clinical studies with certain psychedelics to be initiated under an IND. FDA clarifies, however, that psychedelics without an adequate history of clinical exposure should not be tested in humans until the safety has been established in nonclinical studies, which should be used to support further development of the use of psychedelic drugs.  If the treatment effect is not durable and repeat dosing is expected, nonclinical studies should be provided to support chronic or chronic-intermittent dosing.  The particular treatment paradigm will dictate the number and types of nonclinical studies needed to support approval.
  • Clinical Pharmacology: FDA also addresses clinical programs, highlighting the importance of considering the unique properties of psychedelics and their clinical aspects. These aspects include, for instance, the effect of a high-fat meal on the pharmacokinetics of an oral psychedelic drug, drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, long-term exposure to 5-HT2B agonists, and known pharmacodynamic interactions. Additionally, FDA suggests that sponsors take appropriate steps to characterize the dose-response relationship.
  • Clinical: FDA suggests that just like other drugs, the substantial evidence standard applies to psychedelics. But it does highlight the following unique considerations that it recognizes may present challenges and offers some suggestions:
    • The use of a traditional placebo may be difficult for assessing adequacy for psychedelics. Functional unblinding may be inevitable given the “intense perceptual disturbances that can develop.”
    • Blinded researchers and questionnaires should be considered.
    • Complementary trial designs should be considered – including for example “a trial using a low, middle, and high dose without a placebo” with a “placebo-controlled trial.”
    • Particularly unique in this arena is the fact that “[m]any of the psychedelic drug development programs involve administering the investigational drug and then engaging in a psychological support or psychotherapy.”  This additional variable complicates the assessment of effectiveness and presents a challenge for future labeling.
    • Subjects receiving active treatment with psychedelics may remain in a vulnerable state for as long as 12 hours; accordingly, safety-monitoring should be implemented and FDA endeavors to provide additional guidance on this subject.
    • Clear, informed consent should be utilized.
    • Sponsors should address mitigation of adverse events or serious risks during the clinical studies.
  • Abuse Potential Assessment: According to FDA, because psychedelics act on the central nervous system and produce psychoactive effects, abuse potential should be evaluated during drug development. FDA also highlights that activities associated with investigations under an ID for Schedule I controlled substances must comply with applicable DEA regulations.

The Implications of the Draft Guidance on the Cannabis Industry

We previously asked whether the advancement of the psychedelic industry was a zero-sum proposition vis-à-vis the cannabis industry or whether we would see a rising tide phenomenon for both of the new therapies. FDA’s draft guidance on psychedelic research raises that question anew.

In January of this year, FDA issued final guidance for clinical research for the development of human drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. When we compare the two, the draft psychedelic guidance seems to further the perception – right or wrong – that the research on the medical benefits of psychedelics has been more clinical in nature. While the psychedelic guidance focuses largely on parameters for clinical studies, the cannabis guidance focuses much more extensively on sourcing the cannabis. Some sources have attributed the difference in perception to the fact that psychedelics have been shown in some initial studies to have clinical benefits, while cannabis became mainstream largely through legislation as opposed to clinical studies. 

There are certainly positive takeaways for the cannabis industry though. A review of the psychedelics guidelines highlights a concern with respect to psychedelics that we have not seen as much with cannabis – the purported “high potential” for abuse with psychedelics. Additionally, we think much of this guidance could help sponsors and researchers looking for new ways to use cannabis medically (see Medical Marijuana Research Act; Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act; VA Medicinal Cannabis Research Act of 2023). 

We’re bobbing on the surface, and time will tell whether the federal government advances psychedelics or cannabis more quickly as a therapeutic. We continue to think the psychedelic industry has the momentum, but it also faces new challenges that are all too familiar to the cannabis industry. We could have come so very far, but we suspect little will be accomplished in an election year. But stay tuned as we follow the progress of these novel therapies and the government’s acceptance of them, which we believe is a matter of when, not if.

Listen to this post

2024 was a banner year for cannabis lawmakers and business operators. From Kamala Harris advocating for marijuana reforms to California’s clash of titans between hemp and marijuana markets, there was no shortage of drama in the cannabis industry. Vice President Harris vocally championed marijuana legalization on various platforms, emphasizing its importance for social justice. Meanwhile, California’s hemp regulations sparked controversy in an already thriving marijuana market. Political figures and states continually reshaped the cannabis landscape. Even rapper Fat Joe met with the White House on cannabis reform… In this continually evolving industry, here’s a deep dive into the top 10 cannabis stories that made waves in 2024.

1. Does Kamala Harris Support Marijuana Legalization? Squaring Words with Actions in an Evolving Political Environment

Author: Whitt Steineker

As she did just prior to becoming the Democratic Party nominee for president, Vice President Kamala Harris has announced her support for legalizing adult-use marijuana use at the federal level. Just to remind you of the interesting times we are living in, the veep did so during a guest appearance on the sports podcast “All the Smoke.”

“I just think we have come to a point where we have to understand that we need to legalize it and stop criminalizing this behavior,” Harris said. Harris made a point to argue that her support of legalization was not new, saying that “I have felt for a long time we need to legalize it.”

I have no evidence or specific reason to believe that Harris doesn’t mean what she says, and her words should come as welcome news to advocates of adult-use marijuana. But as we consider the ferocity and motivation behind her position, I do think it’s worth noting (1) her reasons for supporting marijuana reform and (2) her prior statements and actions regarding marijuana. 

2. California Bans Most Hemp Products and Illuminates Battle Between Hemp and Marijuana Businesses

Author: Whitt Steineker

What if I told you that California of all places – where virtually any adult can purchase marijuana on demand – was trying to harsh the mellow of citizens trying to access certain hemp-derived products? On the next 30 for 30, “California Schemin’.”

Welcome to the next front of the battle between marijuana and hemp.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently announced “emergency” regulations that would ban products derived from industrial hemp that contain any intoxicating cannabinoids and set an minimum age of 21 years old to purchase hemp products.

3. Veep Urges DEA to Reschedule Marijuana “As Quickly as Possible”

Author: Whitt Steineker

In case you missed it, Fat Joe visited the White House late last week to discuss federal marijuana policy. 2024, man.

During a roundtable discussion with Mr. Joe (?), Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and several individuals who have received pardons from President Joe Biden for prior federal marijuana convictions, Vice President Kamala Harris “urged the Drug Enforcement Administration to work as quickly as possible on its review of whether to reschedule marijuana as a less-dangerous drug.”

The vice president, in direct terms, stated that it was “absurd” and “patently unfair” to keep the drug in the same highly restrictive tier as heroin and fentanyl. “Nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed,” Harris said, according to NPR, framing the issue of marijuana reform as a criminal justice issue that disproportionately hurts Black and Latino men.

As to timing, Harris reportedly said: “I cannot emphasize enough that they need to get to it as quickly as possible, and we need to have a resolution based on their findings and their assessment.”

4. Trump Expresses Support for Marijuana Reform, Coy on Psychedelics

Authors: Hilary Campbell, Whitt Steineker

Cannabis consumers can be forgiven for feeling the need for a more liberal cannabis policy as they weather this seemingly unending campaign cycle.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently made clear how he would be voting personally on the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana. Posting on Truth Social, Trump stated:

As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November.

Amendment 3 would allow “adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption.” It would also allow medical marijuana treatment centers, as well as other state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and accessories. Amendment 3 would also establish possession limits for personal use – allowing possession of up to 3 ounces and up to an additional 5 grams of concentrate.

5. Will Hemp Save the World, Before the Government Kills It?

Author: Whitt Steineker

There is a great line in the wonderful film Charlie Wilson’s War, where Charlie Wilson (played remarkably by the inimitable Tom Hanks) describes the successful, if relatively covert, involvement of the United States government in the Soviet-Afghan War: “These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world… and then we f***d up the endgame.”

With the next Farm Bill somewhere on the horizon, I believe we are approaching a similar moment for the future of hemp. I believe the future of hemp is glorious and that it can change the world. What will we do to the endgame?

This is an analysis about the current state of hemp and whether that industry will revolutionize the world before the government relegates it back to the ash heap of history. It just so happens to dovetail with my personal experience representing clients in connection with the hemp business.

6. Federal Appeals Court: Pay That Man His Money, Unless That Money Is Illegal Marijuana Money

Author: Whitt Steineker

Good news, bad news if you’re a cannabis operator that owes money to a creditor. But probably bad news for the rule of law.

A federal appellate court has ruled that a cannabis operator is obligated to repay his debts to an ex-business partner, but it raised questions about whether the money used to repay the debt could violate federal marijuana laws.

What does this mean for a cannabis operator and potential investors?

7. DEA Reschedules Rescheduling, and I’m Feeling a Little Like Charlie Brown Trying to Kick the Football

Author: Whitt Steineker

No, it’s not (just) a cruel play on words. Last week, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced that a much-anticipated public hearing on the proposal to reschedule marijuana would be moved from early December until the first quarter of 2025. I’m not sure I specifically predicted this, but it’s just about the most predictable thing ever. And it has a number of people thinking (wrongly in my opinion) that rescheduling may not even happen given the results of the recent elections.

Our friends at Marijuana Moment did a nice job laying out the facts:

After DEA Administrator Anne Millgram signed off on over two dozen witnesses to participate in the hearing on Monday, Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney issued a preliminary order on Thursday signaling that the information provided on those set to testify was insufficient and requesting additional details and potential availability for a formal hearing in January or February 2025.

8. Michigan Court Prohibits Sale of Illegal Marijuana in a Ruling Straight Out of “Duh” Magazine

Author: Whitt Steineker

Believe it or not, I actually spend a lot of time deciding whether something is worth taking the time to write about. Cannabis news is developing as rapidly as any area of the law, and there are only so many hours in a day. I’ll admit up front that this was a close call.

There could be some angle that I’m not quite getting that would allow for unlicensed marijuana sales in states that have adopted marijuana licensing regimes, but I’m leaning towards thinking this may be one of the silliest, most obvious cases I’ve seen in years (and I see some wild cases in this line of work).

9. Because I Got High: Settlement Reached in Terminated Hemp User’s Disability Bias Suit

Authors: Caroline Bradley-Kenney, Whitney Jackson

When can you rely on a positive drug test to terminate an employee? If the employee suggests a reason for a false positive, like hemp use, can you still side with the drug test? The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Fisher v. Airgas USA, LLC, et al. is instructive.

Blowing Smoke

In October 2019, Airgas hired Murray Fisher as an “operations technician.” A month later, doctors diagnosed him with liver cancer. In August 2020, doctors told Fisher that he needed surgery. Around that time, he requested accommodations for medical leave and for time off to attend doctors’ appointments. Airgas granted both requests.

Fisher had surgery and Airgas gave him eight weeks of medical leave. Fisher returned to work in October 2020. Due to ongoing pains, Fisher began taking a product called “Free Hemp” to offset symptoms.

In November 2020, Airgas selected Fisher for a random drug test. A contractor, HireRight, reported that Fisher’s sample was positive for “marijuana.” Fisher told Airgas he did not use marijuana and asked for a retest, explaining that his use of Free Hemp might have caused a false positive.

10. Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss? The Impact of a Second Trump Presidency on American Cannabis Policy

Author: Whitt Steineker

The title of this post comes, of course, from The Who’s classic track “Won’t Get Fooled Again.” This post analyzes whether there is cause for worry on the part of cannabis operators – both marijuana and hemp – under a second Trump presidency. So, I guess the first question is whether cannabis operators got fooled during the first Trump regime.

In my opinion, the short answer is no – in fact, marijuana operators were allowed to operate under policies similar to the Obama administration and the 2018 Farm Bill allowed for an explosion of the hemp industry. But the answer is also that the cannabis industry was complicated then and much more complicated now. With a new Farm Bill on the horizon – with a new Congress – and rescheduling hearings on marijuana scheduled early next year, along with the myriad issues sure to arise in the cannabis industry over the next four years, what will be the impact of a Trump presidency on critical cannabis questions? Let’s dive in.

Listen to this post

Well, our Matt Gaetz post was short lived. And, in hindsight, that should come as no surprise given the overwhelming opposition and allegations that continued to emerge. If you are a frequent reader of Budding Trends, however, you know we try to stay on top of the unending news cycle that is the cannabis industry and keep the masses up to speed. So, here we are again. Yesterday, the news broke that Gaetz withdrew his name, reportedly because the Trump administration concluded he would not have the votes to be confirmed. Little time passed before the new nominee was named. Enter former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Disclaimer: As we state in all posts that relate to politics, we strive to avoid any semblance of partisan commentary in this space and, because this is a cannabis law blog, aim to focus exclusively on how current events or legal developments impact the cannabis industry. This article is no different.

Back to how an Attorney General Bondi may affect the cannabis industry. The former prosecutor, who served as Florida’s head attorney from 2011-2019 before working for the Ballard Partners lobbying firm and then joining Trump’s legal defense team during his first impeachment trial in 2020, has not had the most pro-marijuana positions in her tenure. If we’re being honest, what we know isn’t going to make cannabis operators feel all warm and fuzzy, but at the same time, all hope shouldn’t be lost.

As Florida AG, Bondi Opposed 2014 Florida Amendment 2

Before Florida Amendment 2, which would have legalized medical marijuana in Florida, landed on the ballots in the 2014 election and then failed to receive the requisite votes, Bondi’s office challenged the legality of the ballot initiative. In their filings, Bondi argued the amendment would have made Florida “one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states, allowing use for limitless ‘other conditions’ specified by a physician.” While Bondi’s efforts then to keep the measure out of voters’ hands failed, the votes to pass the amendment weren’t enough.

Amendment 2 Passes in 2016, Without Bondi’s Opposition

Unlike in 2014, Bondi’s office did not formally challenge the 2016 amendment. Instead, her office simply stated that she was concerned the new law would expand the use of marijuana among Floridians, especially in the youth population. The 2016 Amendment 2 ended up receiving over 71% votes in favor of medical marijuana, giving birth to one of the more robust medical marijuana programs in the country.

Bondi Tried to Uphold Smoking Ban in Medical Cannabis Law But Lost

The legislation that originally enacted Amendment 2 banned smokable forms of marijuana. Lawyers, led by famed personal injury lawyer John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan, challenged the ban and succeeded. Bondi’s office mounted opposition, arguing that because “elected members of Florida’s legislature emphasized that the amendment was exclusively about medicine… smoking is antithetical to good medicine.” Ultimately, the Florida Legislature heeded the lower court’s conclusion on the issue and passed SB-182 in 2019 to legalize smokable forms of marijuana within Florida’s medical marijuana program.

Bondi Has a Strong Track Record Fighting the Opioid Crisis and Draws Praise from Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers

During Trump’s first four years in office, Bondi served on his Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis. She also has worked inside Florida to help stop the illegal use of prescription drugs and combat the fentanyl crisis. Kim Rivers, CEO of Trulieve, took to X to praise Bondi’s efforts in that respect and quelled concerns that Bondi would hinder cannabis reform, stating:

“I have always known her to be straight forward and very fair… She is passionate about ending the opioid crisis and did great work shutting down pill mills in Florida. She is an advocate for safe, regulated markets and I believe she will bring the same energy to end the fentanyl issues our country is facing.”

Based on the foregoing, while Bondi’s position on cannabis isn’t unambiguously pro or opposed, perhaps the cannabis industry can take some solace in the (likely) possibility that, if confirmed as attorney general, she will adopt a stance similar to that of President-elect Trump, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (nominee for new head of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), and others in the Trump administration on marijuana. At this point, all we can do is wait and see.


As always, stay tuned.

Listen to this post

No, it’s not (just) a cruel play on words. Last week, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced that a much-anticipated public hearing on the proposal to reschedule marijuana would be moved from early December until the first quarter of 2025. I’m not sure I specifically predicted this, but it’s just about the most predictable thing ever. And it has a number of people thinking (wrongly in my opinion) that rescheduling may not even happen given the results of the recent elections.

Our friends at Marijuana Moment did a nice job laying out the facts:

After DEA Administrator Anne Millgram signed off on over two dozen witnesses to participate in the hearing on Monday, Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney issued a preliminary order on Thursday signaling that the information provided on those set to testify was insufficient and requesting additional details and potential availability for a formal hearing in January or February 2025.

The reason being is that DEA’s list of hearing participants who were selected and sent to the ALJ’s office provided “no indication in the four corners of the document as to whether the ‘participants’ support or oppose the [notice of proposed rulemaking] or how the ‘participants’ satisfy the ‘interested person’ definition set forth in the regulations,” the judge’s order says.

The order from the DEA ALJ says that selected participants must provide such details by November 12. DEA is mandated to provide “its counsel(s) of record who will be appearing in these proceedings, as well as any known conflicts of interest that may require disclosure” on the same date.

This comes about seven months after the Justice Department formally proposed moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) following a scientific review. After a public comment period, which saw tens of thousands of people weigh in on the issue, a hearing was set for December 2 to gather additional expert input.

DEA has already made clear that it feels additional information is needed on a number of topics related to the scientific review into marijuana that led to the reclassification recommendation. Some view the scheduling of the hearing as more evidence of DEA skepticism.

Look, rescheduling marijuana was never going to be quick or come without hiccups and even setbacks. Paul Armentano, deputy director for NORML, said that “it’s always been a possibility that this process could drag out longer than many either anticipated or would like… The administrative process is cumbersome and, as we have seen historically, administrative challenges to marijuana’s Schedule I status take years to resolve,” he told Marijuana Moment.

A huge, unanswered, and probably unknowable question is whether the results of the elections last week will derail what appeared to be a fait accomplice just months ago. Anyone who tells you with absolute certainty what Donald Trump and the political appointees he tasks to run the DOJ, DEA, and FDA are going to do when it comes to federal cannabis policy is not a serious person.

Trump has expressed support for an adult-use marijuana regime in his home state of Florida (a ballot initiative that ultimately received just under the 60% threshold to become law), and we have previously written about how, during his first term, Trump was largely “cannabis ambivalent.”

It is perhaps understandable, though, to wonder if maybe a Republican administration may not move with the same sense of urgency during the rescheduling process. Or, a frightening thought for industry advocates, Trump could appoint a cannabis hardliner that affirmatively seeks to stop rescheduling. That would certainly lead to litigation that could last years.

Given the seemingly bipartisan popular support for rescheduling, the fact that the train is already starting down the tracks, and the fact that I believe Trump is unlikely to devote political capital to stopping rescheduling, I continue to believe that rescheduling is on the horizon, even if that horizon is a little further away than some may wish.

Listen to this post

The title of this post comes, of course, from The Who’s classic track “Won’t Get Fooled Again.” This post analyzes whether there is cause for worry on the part of cannabis operators – both marijuana and hemp – under a second Trump presidency. So, I guess the first question is whether cannabis operators got fooled during the first Trump regime.

In my opinion, the short answer is no – in fact, marijuana operators were allowed to operate under policies similar to the Obama administration and the 2018 Farm Bill allowed for an explosion of the hemp industry. But the answer is also that the cannabis industry was complicated then and much more complicated now. With a new Farm Bill on the horizon – with a new Congress – and rescheduling hearings on marijuana scheduled early next year, along with the myriad issues sure to arise in the cannabis industry over the next four years, what will be the impact of a Trump presidency on critical cannabis questions? Let’s dive in.

Leading up to the 2020 election, we predicted what a Trump presidency would mean for the cannabis industry:

The answer is far from clear given Trump and his administration’s drug policy decisions over the course of the president’s first term. These decisions range, on the one hand, from signing into law a bill federally legalizing hemp after decades of prohibition to, on the other hand, appointing a fierce opponent of cannabis legalization as U.S. attorney general. These decisions paint a potentially conflicting picture of the president, who once said all drugs should be legal, and his ongoing policy toward cannabis.

The answer to determining what a second-term Trump presidency would mean for cannabis legalization requires separating the president’s comments from his administration’s actions. The president has made conflicting comments on marijuana legalization throughout his presidency, but his administration has offered a steadier picture of where a second-term Trump presidency would lead. The short answer appears to be more of the same.

One of the Trump administration’s most significant cannabis developments to occur during his first term was signing the 2018 Farm Bill. This move legalized hemp creating a massive market for a crop that had been prohibited for more than 80 years as a federally controlled substance. Trump’s U.S. Department of Agriculture has further supported hemp by allocating significant resources into implementing the reform.

Although many industry advocates were troubled by then U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to rescind the Cole Memorandum — an Obama-era policy of non-federal interference with states who have legalized marijuana — the suspected effect of the rescission has not been realized. In fact, current Attorney General William Barr has said that he is not interested in disturbing “settled expectations” as it concerns the Cole Memorandum era policy, even though it is no longer in effect. Seeing as how there have not been any large-scale federal raids of state-level legal cannabis businesses, it seems reasonable to assume this policy of federal inaction toward state legalization will continue.

On the campaign trail, rather than directly addressing cannabis policy, Trump portrayed himself as the criminal justice reform candidate. He has focused his message around the First Step Act, which ushered in federal sentencing reforms for certain drug offenses.

Trump’s own comments, in public and private, offer a mixed bag toward his views on cannabis legalization. For instance, in 2018, when asked if he supported a bipartisan bill to allow states to set their own marijuana policies, the president said, “I really do.”  But this contrasts with comments the president made at an August 2020 campaign rally urging Republicans not to place marijuana legalization initiatives on state ballots out of concern that it would increase Democratic turnout in elections.

During his first term, Trump has shown himself to be not so much a cannabis ally as much as a cannabis ambivalent. The president likely doesn’t think cannabis should be illegal, but he also seems willing to use the issue as a cudgel to rally his base. A second Trump term would likely mean more of the same, a lukewarm and at times inconsistent policy toward cannabis.

Earlier this year, profiling a matchup between Trump and President (and then Democratic nominee) Joe Biden, we reiterated our initial analysis and noted:

[W]e believe the same spirit is as true today as ever regardless of the occupant of the White House. We opened this piece by noting that we stridently seek to avoid taking partisan positions, but we’re going to call a spade a spade. The American people support cannabis liberalization. Neither candidate Trump nor candidate Biden seem to personally view the issue as top of mind, but nor will either apparently stand in the way of liberalization.

So, in the end, maybe all of this discussion was for naught. Maybe the results will be the same regardless of who calls 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home on January 21, 2025. Maybe what really matters is who controls Congress, who controls the statehouses, and who controls the judicial branches that interpret the law.

We think that is probably about where we stand today. It’s noteworthy, but not necessarily dispositive, that then-candidate Trump recently expressed support for an amendment to the Florida Constitution that could have allowed for an adult-use marijuana regime. Posting on Truth Social, Trump stated:

As a Floridian, I will be voting YES on Amendment 3 this November.

The amendment, which would have allowed “adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption,” did not receive the requisite 60% of the vote to become law. Does Trump’s support of the Florida amendment signal his support of a nationwide policy of marijuana liberalization or does it reflect his view on an issue that he believes should be left to the states to determine? We shall soon see.

There are perhaps three more consequential developments for the cannabis industry in the coming months and years. First, who Trump chooses to run the agencies tasked with governing cannabis policy at the federal level – primarily, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration. Those regulators will have tremendous influence both on broad federal policies but also on day-to-day decisions regarding cannabis enforcement decisions.

Second, as we have written about extensively, the federal government is in the process of determining whether marijuana should be rescheduled from a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act to a Schedule III substance. The DEA hearing on the matter, originally scheduled for December 2, was recently pushed into early 2025. The consequences of the rescheduling decisions could be enormous, and there is no shortage of high-powered, well-heeled organizations expressing their opinions on the matter.

Third, Congress is due to pass a new Farm Bill. We predict that will occur after Trump is inaugurated and there is a Republican-controlled Senate. Although early proposals in House committees would have broadly outlawed non-industrial hemp, more recent proposals from (an albeit Democratic- controlled Senate) have pointed towards a policy of more closely regulating but not banning most hemp products. We recently put forth our own framework for how the marijuana and hemp industries can both win in the next Farm Bill, as we’re still hopeful legislators will consider that reasoned compromise.

Whenever there is a momentous change in the halls of government, there is the potential for momentous policy changes. That is certainly a possibility under the present circumstances, but if we were gambling persons (we are) we would bet that marijuana is rescheduled, that federal agencies continue a largely hands-off approach to enforcing state-legal marijuana programs, and that the Farm Bill allows for the continuation of a hemp program that includes certain products that produce psychoactive effects.

Stay tuned. We’re all over this.