We’re proud to be celebrating 14 years in the game. Since 2010, we’ve been 100% locally owned and vertically integrated…
A recently published legal opinion, prepared by a team of attorneys, challenges the longstanding assertion by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that international drug treaties present a barrier to rescheduling marijuana within the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The legal experts, affiliated with Porter Wright LLP and Vicente LLP, argue that contrary to the DEA’s position, these treaties do not obstruct the placement of marijuana into Schedule III, a recommendation put forth by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The opinion contends that elevating marijuana to Schedule III not only aligns with the nation’s international obligations but also serves to advance broader public health and safety goals. Highlighting the failures of the war on drugs, particularly its disproportionate impact on communities of color, as well as the inherent risks associated with illicit markets, the opinion suggests that reclassifying marijuana would better safeguard public health, safety, and welfare compared to its current classifications under Schedules I or II.
In a direct rebuttal to the DEA’s stance articulated in a 2016 denial of a prior rescheduling petition, the legal memo emphasizes the flexibility embedded within existing international drug treaties. According to the document, these treaties afford member nations the latitude to adjust their drug scheduling frameworks in response to evolving scientific and medical evidence, even if such changes entail moving away from prohibitionist approaches.
Commissioned by the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform, a diverse alliance representing various cannabis-related businesses and advocacy groups, the legal opinion aims to challenge the narratives propagated by proponents of prohibition. Co-chair Adam Goers underscored the importance of disseminating the opinion publicly to dispel misconceptions, affirming that the nation’s treaty obligations do not present an insurmountable barrier to the rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) recently voiced concerns regarding treaty obligations that could impede the rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule III. In a letter addressed to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, Harris asserted that any reclassification of marijuana outside of Schedules I or II would violate the terms of the 1961 United Nations (UN) Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, commonly referred to as the Single Convention.
However, a coalition of 12 senators countered this argument in a separate correspondence to Milgram, highlighting the UN’s updated stance on global cannabis scheduling policies. These senators emphasized that other member states, such as Canada, have been permitted to legalize and regulate marijuana without facing repercussions. Encouraging the DEA to consider full legalization, the senators underscored the evolving interpretations of international drug treaties.
In support of their position, the authors of the legal opinion pointed to examples from Canada and Uruguay, where international drug treaties have not hindered the implementation of comprehensive regulatory frameworks for cannabis. These countries’ approaches, including full adult-use legalization, demonstrate that treaty obligations need not be viewed as barriers to progressive drug policies aimed at promoting public health and advancing scientific research.
The legal opinion also highlighted the DEA’s previous actions regarding Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical derived from marijuana containing purified CBD. Despite initially classifying CBD as a Schedule I controlled substance, the DEA adjusted its scheduling following FDA approval of Epidiolex, eventually descheduling the drug entirely after the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. This precedent, according to the opinion, provides a blueprint for rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III while ensuring compliance with treaty obligations.
Despite the DEA’s assertion of final authority over rescheduling decisions, the agency has yet to provide clarity on the status of its review process, prompting calls for transparent communication from lawmakers such as Rep. Earl Bluemauer (D-OR). As discussions around marijuana rescheduling continue, the legal opinion advocates for a clear and proactive approach consistent with past DEA precedents and evolving international drug policy norms.
In addition to asserting that drug treaties do not prohibit the reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III and that such a move aligns more closely with the spirit of international agreements, the legal opinion also contends that member countries retain sovereignty to act in accordance with their domestic constitutional frameworks, even if it means diverging from treaty obligations.
This aspect of international law holds particular significance in the context of existing adult-use marijuana markets legalized under U.S. state laws. The legal team argues that the treaties include exceptions when a party is constrained by constitutional limitations, emphasizing that enforcing treaty provisions to shut down state adult-use marijuana markets would encroach upon states’ core police powers protected under the U.S. Constitution.
The attorneys involved in crafting the opinion include Shane Pennington of Porter Wright, along with Shawn Hauser, Jason Adelstone of Vicente, and contributions from Brandon Adkins, also associated with Vicente. Pennington was among the first to highlight comments made by a senior legal advisor from the State Department during a United Nations drug commission session last October.
Patt Prugh, the primary counsel for the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, emphasized during the session that global drug conventions adopt a respectful stance toward member states’ domestic policies not directly linked to international concerns, suggesting that states’ obligations should be balanced against their duty to safeguard human rights.
Pennington and others view these remarks as potentially indicative of a significant shift in the U.S. interpretation of global drug treaty obligations amid the ongoing DEA rescheduling review. Pennington previously argued, alongside colleague Matt Zorn, that the provision of the Controlled Substances Act imposing treaty requirements on the rescheduling process may itself be unconstitutional.
In the event that the DEA maintains that drug treaties prohibit rescheduling below Schedule II, Pennington suggests that constitutional arguments could serve as the basis for challenging the agency’s decision in federal court. He notes that courts have recognized the obligation of the DEA to adhere to scientific and medical findings from the Department of Health and Human Services without compromising compliance with international treaties.
Furthermore, the authors underscore a legal distinction between a final order and a final rule in DEA rescheduling actions. They emphasize that a final rule entails a public participation process, including notice and comment periods and administrative hearings, leading to the issuance of a formal rule. This distinction is crucial in understanding the procedural aspects of DEA rescheduling decisions.
However, according to the opinion, if the DEA were to cite its treaty obligations, regardless of its decision on the scheduling, the agency could bypass the rulemaking process by issuing a final order.
Shane Pennington noted, “When DEA invokes the treaties and issues a final order like it did with Epidiolex, it can do so without public participation.” Shawn Hauser, a co-author of the opinion, stated that there is ongoing debate among various member states regarding the flexibility of the treaties in interpreting them to align with domestic laws.
Hauser emphasized that many member countries acknowledge the treaties’ allowance for certain latitude on various issues, including drug regulation for medicinal and research purposes. She suggested that this existing flexibility should suffice to justify moving marijuana to Schedule III, as she believes the U.S. has already indicated on the international stage.
However, Hauser predicted that as more member states adopt alternative approaches to prohibition, international drug treaties may need revision to better suit a post-drug-war era. She questioned whether existing treaties are flexible enough or whether updating them is necessary to accommodate modern drug policies.
Regardless, the legal opinion asserts that current treaties not only permit but also endorse rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III. It argues, “The DEA can clearly meet its obligations under the Treaties by controlling Marijuana in Schedule III and amending current regulations to meet Treaty reporting, quota, and other requirements.”
Since the news first emerged last August regarding the HHS rescheduling recommendation, advocates have been pushing to uncover more details about the review, including its legal and medical rationale. Last month, health officials released over 250 pages of medical review and related documents in response to numerous public records requests and a lawsuit, marking the federal government’s formal acknowledgment of the accepted medical benefits of marijuana.
However, it remains uncertain when the DEA will act on this advice. In recent comments to Marijuana Moment, a Biden administration official dismissed rumors of an imminent rescheduling decision. Prior to the release of the rescheduling-related documents, only a highly redacted version of the HHS rescheduling memo and a single page of the recommendation revealed last October were made public.
In other developments, a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general urged the DEA to proceed with federal marijuana rescheduling, emphasizing it as a “public safety imperative.” Conversely, 29 former U.S. attorneys called on the Biden administration to maintain cannabis in Schedule I.
Moreover, two GOP senators introduced legislation late last year to prevent federal agencies from rescheduling cannabis without congressional approval. Additionally, a coalition of 14 Republican congressional lawmakers urged the DEA to reject the top federal health agency’s recommendation to reschedule marijuana.
A recent poll found that approximately one-third of marijuana consumers would revert to the illicit market if cannabis were only available as an FDA-approved prescription drug. Another survey suggested that President Joe Biden could gain significant political advantages if marijuana is rescheduled under his administrative directive, though the final decision is beyond his direct control.
President Biden has highlighted his 2022 scheduling directive and issued a mass pardon for individuals convicted of federal marijuana possession offenses. Vice President Kamala Harris also referenced the administration’s efforts to reform federal marijuana laws in a new video aimed at young voters, although the video contained inaccuracies regarding current state marijuana laws. Harris previously cited the pardons as evidence of the administration’s commitment to delivering for Americans, particularly young and Black voters, who could be pivotal in Biden’s reelection bid this year.
In conclusion, the ongoing debate surrounding the rescheduling of marijuana underscores the complex interplay between domestic law, international treaties, and evolving societal attitudes. While legal opinions advocate for flexibility within treaty obligations to accommodate progressive drug policies, the final decision lies with the DEA. As stakeholders continue to advocate for various positions, the outcome will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of marijuana regulation in the United States and beyond.
Be sure to snag the right bouquet for you and/or your Valentine. Roses are a bit expected…
In a landmark study recently published, the efficacy of medical cannabis in ameliorating symptoms of depression has emerged as a beacon of hope for those grappling with this pervasive mental health condition. The findings present a compelling case for the viability of cannabis as a sustainable therapeutic avenue for chronic depression, underscoring the need for further exploration in this burgeoning field.
Conducted by researchers at LVR University Hospital in Essen, Germany, in collaboration with Algea Care, a pioneering cannabis telehealth platform in Europe, this seminal study, featured in the esteemed peer-reviewed journal Pharmacopsychiatry, illuminates a path toward transformative treatment modalities. The results elucidate a tangible improvement in depression symptoms among patients utilizing medical cannabis, with a notable reduction in the reported severity of their condition. Crucially, the study highlights the absence of severe side effects associated with medical cannabis use, reaffirming its safety profile and potential as a therapeutic agent.
According to Mayo Clinic, Major Depressive Disorder, also known as clinical depression, manifests as enduring feelings of sadness and a diminished interest in once-enjoyable activities. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2020 revealed that 18.4% of adults in the United States have received a diagnosis of depression, highlighting its widespread impact across various domains of life, from home to work and school. Although conventional treatments such as antidepressants and mood stabilizers are commonly prescribed, their efficacy is often limited. Many patients fail to respond adequately to these interventions, leaving a significant portion unable to attain remission from their depressive symptoms.
Drawing from a cohort of 59 patients afflicted with chronic depression, the study represents a concerted effort to address the limitations of traditional pharmacotherapy. With conventional treatments yielding limited success, and a substantial proportion of patients failing to achieve remission, the imperative for alternative therapeutic interventions has never been more pronounced. Against this backdrop, medical cannabis emerges as a promising frontier, offering a glimmer of hope to those ensnared by the relentless grip of depression.
Central to the study’s methodology was the anonymized evaluation of medical cannabis as a novel treatment modality for chronic depression. Patients, having exhausted traditional prescription medications without success, embarked on an 18-week journey of cannabis therapy, facilitated through vaporization of medical cannabis flowers. Through meticulous self-assessment, participants gauged the severity of their depression on a numerical scale, with striking improvements observed over the course of the study duration.
Noteworthy is the remarkable trajectory of symptom alleviation witnessed among study participants. Initial depression severity, quantified on a scale from 0 to 10, witnessed a discernible decline from an average score of 6.9 points to 3.8 points after 18 weeks of medical cannabis use. Notably, a subset of patients experienced a halving of depression severity within a mere six-week timeframe, attesting to the rapid onset of therapeutic effects conferred by medical cannabis.
In consonance with the study’s findings, the incidence of side effects associated with medical cannabis use was minimal, with the majority classified as mild and transient. Dry eyes, dry mouth, and increased appetite featured prominently among reported side effects, with a minority of patients reporting transient cognitive disturbances and gastrointestinal discomfort. Importantly, no serious adverse events, such as psychosis, were documented, affirming the safety and tolerability of medical cannabis as a therapeutic intervention for depression.
As the curtain falls on this epochal study, the clarion call for further research resounds with resounding urgency. Propelled by a commitment to scientific rigor, researchers advocate for prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, with an emphasis on expanding the study population to derive evidence-based recommendations for the integration of medical cannabis into depression therapeutics.
In echoing resonance with the study’s findings, Dr. Julian Wichmann, founder and CEO of Algea Care, lauds the results as “extremely promising and encouraging,” envisioning a future replete with expanded vistas of psychiatric care. With each revelation, the horizon expands, beckoning forth a realm where healing and restoration intertwine, empowered by the transformative potential of medical cannabis.
The conclusions of this study align with previous research investigating the therapeutic potential of medical cannabis in managing depression. For instance, a study published in the journal Psychiatry Research in 2022 conducted a comprehensive survey involving over 7,000 patients exhibiting symptoms of anxiety and/or depression. The results revealed sustained improvements in their conditions subsequent to cannabis use. Additionally, another study published last year in the journal Biomedicines highlighted the efficacy of prescribed cannabis products in mitigating various ailments among elderly patients. Notably, sustained utilization of these products correlated with noteworthy reductions in pain, depression, and reliance on opioids, underscoring the multifaceted benefits of cannabis-based interventions in geriatric healthcare.
In conclusion, this groundbreaking study emphasizes the promising role of medical cannabis in alleviating chronic depression symptoms, offering a beacon of hope for those resistant to traditional treatments. With its demonstrated efficacy and favorable safety profile, further research holds the key to unlocking its full therapeutic potential, paving the way for evidence-based integration into psychiatric care.
In a recent legal development, the Biden administration, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), has urged a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the cannabis industry, aiming to challenge the enforcement of marijuana prohibition against state-legal activities. The administration’s legal argument is multifaceted, touching on the ongoing process of cannabis rescheduling, the lack of standing for the industry to pursue the challenge, and the constitutional basis for federal intervention in intrastate marijuana activities. This article delves into the complexities of this legal showdown and the implications it holds for the burgeoning cannabis industry.
The Department of Justice has petitioned a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit initiated by the cannabis industry, aiming to impede the enforcement of marijuana prohibition within state-legal activities. Citing a nuanced perspective, the Justice Department asserts that the court should refrain from preempting a potential decision regarding the rescheduling of cannabis currently under consideration.
In a formal submission to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, attorneys representing Attorney General Merrick Garland articulated that Congress, in its wisdom, established an administrative framework for the rescheduling of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), as part of this structured mechanism, is presently evaluating a recommendation forwarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) advocating for the rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Highlighting the importance of respecting this ongoing administrative process, the Department of Justice underscored that the courts should refrain from disrupting or preempting its trajectory. The submission emphasizes the commitment to allowing the DEA’s careful consideration of the HHS recommendation before any legal interventions transpire.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has asserted that the cannabis businesses initiating the lawsuit lack the standing to pursue their challenge, emphasizing the absence of direct injury due to federal prosecution under prohibition policies. Notably, the DOJ underscores a decade-long congressional rider preventing the use of federal funds to intervene in state-legal medical cannabis laws.
While acknowledging that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) initially served legitimate government purposes, the plaintiffs argue its irrationality. They contend that Congress’s allowance for federal territories to enact marijuana legalization laws, coupled with restrictions on the Department of Justice’s spending to impede state medical marijuana laws, has rendered the CSA illogical. In response, the DOJ posits that these legislative choices aim to foster state and local experimentation with marijuana laws while directing federal law enforcement resources towards activities significantly impacting federal interests.
The government asserts that a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, known as Raich, sets a precedent negating the plaintiffs’ argument regarding the Commerce Clause’s application to bans on interstate marijuana commerce. Describing the case as a “transparent entreaty to overrule” Raich, the DOJ contends that federal regulation of intrastate marijuana activities is constitutional, as these activities substantially affect interstate commerce.
Addressing the plaintiffs’ claims of substantive due process violations, the DOJ maintains that no fundamental right exists to distribute, possess, or use marijuana. Consequently, the CSA is subject only to deferential rational basis review, which the DOJ argues it easily withstands. The motion to dismiss underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to demonstrate a substantial risk of future enforcement in a pre-enforcement challenge. Contrary to this requirement, the plaintiffs allege the government’s policy is non-prosecution for conduct complying with state marijuana laws, thus lacking substantial risk.
Even if the court sympathizes with the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Gonzales v. Raich holding, the DOJ invokes stare decisis, urging adherence to the precedent until overturned by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the motion asserts that the plaintiffs fail to provide evidence of a substantial risk of prosecution, and their allegations negate the existence of such a risk. Moreover, the DOJ underscores the Department of Justice’s policy of prosecutorial discretion, focusing federal law enforcement on conduct interfering with vital federal interests while relying on state and local authorities to address marijuana-related activity.
The submission emphasizes that a policy of prosecutorial discretion in federal marijuana cases, akin to the Obama-era Cole memo rescinded under the Trump administration, is deemed a judicious approach. In the broader legal challenge, the plaintiffs contend that sustaining prohibition within state markets is constitutionally unsound. They argue that this perpetuation poses undue public safety risks and impedes licensed marijuana businesses from accessing crucial financial services and tax deductions available to other industries.
In response to the DOJ’s recent filing, the plaintiffs expressed their anticipation of demonstrating standing before the Federal District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts. Their statement outlined the injury inflicted by the federal government’s ban on intrastate marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, and distribution. The lawsuit’s primary objective is to halt the enforcement of this allegedly unconstitutional ban, safeguarding the interests of the plaintiffs and others in similar circumstances. The plaintiffs asserted that the particulars in their complaint distinguish the case from Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 Supreme Court decision still relied upon by the government.
The government’s submission comes approximately a month after the Justice Department and the plaintiffs, comprising a coalition of marijuana businesses represented by prominent law firms, mutually agreed to seek an extension for the deadline to file initial briefs. Spearheaded by multi-state operator Verano Holdings Corp., Massachusetts-based cannabis businesses Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm, and Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers, the lawsuit challenges the federal ban on marijuana enacted through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Notably, the DOJ sought permission to submit a new 25-page memorandum, surpassing the standard 20-page limit, on Monday. The legal representation for the plaintiffs is provided by the law firms Boies Schiller Flexner and Lesser, Newman, Aleo & Nasser LLP. David Boies, the chairman of the former firm, has an extensive history of representing diverse clients, including the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore, and plaintiffs in a case pivotal to overturning California’s same-sex marriage ban.
The lawsuit contends that while Congress initially banned marijuana under the CSA to eliminate interstate commerce, the subsequent rise in state legalization indicates an abandonment of that mission by lawmakers and the executive branch. Describing the lingering federal criminal prohibition on intrastate marijuana as an unjustified vestige, the complaint argues that it harms the plaintiffs and adversely affects the communities they serve without rational purpose.
A recurring theme in the lawsuit is the financial plight faced by state-licensed marijuana businesses. Despite the federal government’s hands-off approach to cannabis in recent decades, these businesses grapple with unique challenges, including limited access to banking services, credit cards, and federal tax deductions under the IRS code 280E. The lawsuit underscores that this financial disadvantage, coupled with the reliance on cash transactions due to a lack of electronic payment options, heightens public safety risks, making state-regulated marijuana dispensaries vulnerable to robberies. The existing CSA ban is deemed an unconstitutional encroachment on state sovereignty, asserting that Congress lacks the authority to govern marijuana within intrastate commerce under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution.
The legal challenge delves into the historical trajectory of cannabis laws in the United States, highlighting that the recent policy shift towards prohibition follows over a century of permitted use and cultivation to varying extents. Examining the federal government’s rationale for marijuana prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as argued in the 2005 Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich concerning medical cannabis access for California patients, the plaintiffs assert that this justification no longer holds merit.
Companies argue that despite Congress annually renewing an appropriations rider preventing the Justice Department from intervening in state medical cannabis programs, the federal government’s inconsistent policies persist. The lawsuit contends that the initial federal crusade against cannabis has transformed into an ambiguous set of policies, some aimed at reducing federal interference with state marijuana regulation.
Emphasizing the federal government’s abandonment of the goal to eliminate marijuana from commerce, the complaint argues that Congress lacks a comprehensive, consistent, and rational approach to marijuana regulation. This inconsistency, described as a patchwork approach, provides no justifiable basis for Congress to regulate intrastate marijuana.
This sentiment aligns with the viewpoint expressed by conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 2021, criticizing the contradictory and unstable state-federal marijuana policy conflicts resulting from the federal government’s “half-in, half-out” approach.
Plaintiffs highlight the potential harm caused by the continued enforcement of the CSA, undermining state efforts to establish safe and regulated intrastate marijuana markets. The lawsuit draws attention to the adverse impact on low-income communities, citing the ban on intrastate marijuana commerce as a barrier to delivering cannabis products to public housing facilities in Massachusetts.
The lawsuit underscores the severe consequences of the prohibition for the industry, particularly small businesses that face challenges due to the lack of diversification and economies of scale. Josh Schiller, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm representing the plaintiffs, emphasizes the strategic decision to seek a legislative solution and simultaneously pursue a permanent change through the courts. The evolving ideological dynamics in the Supreme Court, characterized by a more “federalist” viewpoint, are seen as potentially bolstering their case.
The lawsuit aims to establish a new precedent allowing states, exclusively, to regulate and foster the growth of marijuana businesses under their regulations. Ascend Wellness Holdings, TerrAscend, Green Thumb Industries, Eminence Capital, and Poseidon Investment Management are acknowledged as foundational supporters of the legal action.
As the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) conducts a review into marijuana scheduling following the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommendation to move it from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA, the lawsuit contends that such rescheduling could address certain tax-related issues but wouldn’t legalize the plant or permit intrastate commerce.
The federal criminalization of safe, regulated marijuana commerce in states where it is legal is viewed as unjust, burdening legal operations, encouraging the production and sale of illegal, unregulated marijuana, and imposing discriminatory taxes. The lawsuit, grounded in the belief that cannabis should be subject to reasonable state regulation, challenges the federal government’s authority to prohibit intrastate cannabis commerce, citing outdated precedents and changed circumstances.
Plans to file the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of enforcing criminalization of intrastate marijuana activity were initially described by cannabis business executives last year. The seriousness and potential success of the legal action, spearheaded by a leading constitutional law firm, underscore its significance in prompting legislative action and cannabis banking reforms. The hope is that this legal challenge serves as a catalyst for congressional attention and action on the broader issue.
In a paradigm-shifting study, the potential positive aspects of regular cannabis use are brought to the forefront, challenging the conventional narrative surrounding its impact on mental health. This research delves into the realm of enhanced empathy and increased brain connectivity observed in regular cannabis users, providing a nuanced perspective on the substance’s effects.
Key Insights:
- Individuals who regularly use cannabis showcased an elevated level of emotional comprehension, specifically in grasping the emotions of others, in contrast to non-users.
- Cannabis users exhibited enhanced functional connectivity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), particularly with the left somatomotor cortex (SMC). This points towards a more profound empathic processing within the brain.
- The study’s outcomes defy conventional perspectives on the effects of cannabis, hinting at the possibility of positive influences on empathy and social interactions.
Source: Neuroscience News
In a captivating twist of events, a recent study has unveiled a potentially favorable aspect of regular cannabis use – an augmented grasp of others’ emotions and increased neural connectivity in empathy-related regions.
This research, comparing a sample of regular cannabis users to non-users, has the potential to reshape the discourse surrounding the impact of cannabis consumption on mental health and interpersonal dynamics.
Cannabis, often linked to negative mental health outcomes, might possess an unforeseen silver lining. Researchers discovered that regular users exhibit an enhanced ability for emotional comprehension, a pivotal aspect of cognitive empathy crucial for navigating human social interactions.
Conducted with 85 regular cannabis users and 51 non-users, the study utilized psychometric scoring of empathy subscales and resting-state functional MRI to delve into the underlying neural mechanisms, yielding striking results.
Regular cannabis users demonstrated significantly elevated scores in Emotional Comprehension compared to the control group, indicating a heightened proficiency in recognizing and understanding others’ emotions – a skill fundamental in forging and sustaining social bonds.
A closer examination of brain function via fMRI unveiled that this heightened emotional comprehension in cannabis users is correlated with increased functional connectivity (FC) in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).
The ACC, renowned for mediating empathic responses, showcased enhanced activity in cannabis users, with noteworthy heightened connectivity between the ACC and the left somatomotor cortex (SMC), critical areas for processing and understanding emotions.
These revelations challenge the conventional perception of cannabis as detrimental to mental health, suggesting that regular use might positively impact the brain’s empathic processing.
This holds profound implications for comprehending the social and psychological effects of cannabis.
The study’s outcomes also extend to broader implications for mental health and social interaction. Empathy, a pivotal element in social relationships, appears heightened in regular cannabis users, potentially explaining observed positive social behaviors, including increased prosocial behavior and reduced hostility.
Moreover, these findings could pave the way for innovative approaches to treating conditions marked by empathy deficits, such as specific personality disorders.
However, the study acknowledges its limitations. Researchers caution that the observed enhanced empathy and brain connectivity in cannabis users may be a pre-existing condition rather than a direct consequence of cannabis use.
Additionally, relying on self-reported data for cannabis consumption introduces potential biases. Future research, incorporating more objective measures of cannabis use and a balanced gender distribution, is imperative to further build on these findings.
Despite these constraints, the study represents a significant stride in comprehending the intricate effects of cannabis on the brain and behavior. By challenging prevailing negative perceptions, it suggests that under specific conditions, regular cannabis use may yield positive effects on mental health and social functioning.
In conclusion, this groundbreaking exploration opens avenues for further research into the therapeutic applications of cannabis. It disrupts conventional beliefs, proposing that regular cannabis use might enhance empathy and elevate social interactions. As the scientific community continues to unravel the multifaceted impacts of cannabis, this study lays the foundation for a more nuanced understanding of this widely used substance.
Regarding this news on cannabis, empathy, and brain connectivity research:
Original Research:
Empathy-related differences in the anterior cingulate functional connectivity of regular cannabis users when compared to controls by Víctor E. Olalde-Mathieu et al. in the Journal of Neuroscience Research.
Abstract:
Exploring how cannabis impacts the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a key player in empathic responses, this study delves into psychometric scores of empathy subscales. A comparison is drawn between a group of regular cannabis users (85 individuals) and non-consumers (51 individuals).
The findings reveal that users exhibit heightened Emotional Comprehension, a cognitive empathy trait centered on understanding the emotional states of others. Utilizing resting-state functional MRI in a smaller sample (users = 46, controls = 34), the study identifies increased functional connectivity (FC) of the ACC with the left somatomotor cortex (SMC) in users compared to controls.
These distinctions extend to the empathy core network, where users display greater within-network FC. The heightened FC observed in users aligns with emotional representational areas and empathy-related regions. Moreover, differences in psychometric scores suggest that users possess a more comprehensive empathic understanding.
These findings propose a potential link between cannabis use, enhanced comprehension of others’ affective states, and the altered functional brain organization of users. However, the study emphasizes the need for further research to explore this association, considering the potential influence of various other factors.
In a significant development, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently evaluating the classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This review comes on the heels of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publicly acknowledging the medicinal use of cannabis, adding a layer of complexity to the ongoing discourse surrounding U.S. and global drug policy.
Summary of Recent Events:
- President Biden, after emphasizing it during the campaign, initiated a federal review of marijuana scheduling in October 2022.
- In August 2023, Bloomberg News disclosed that the HHS recommended reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA, citing eight key factors.
- On January 3, 2024, the DEA confirmed its independent review of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, asserting “final authority” to Congress.
- Following litigation by lawyer Matthew Zorn, HHS released 250+ documents, confirming its recommendation, emphasizing cannabis’s accepted medical use and lower abuse potential compared to Schedule I and II substances.
- The DEA now holds the decision, conducting its five-factor test to make a recommendation.
A History Of Repeated Failed Attempts at Cannabis Rescheduling:
The debate over cannabis classification in the CSA is not new. NORML initiated the first rescheduling petition in 1972. In 1988, DEA Judge Francis Young supported rescheduling, declaring marijuana as one of the safest therapeutically active substances. However, in 1995, DEA director John Lawn overruled this decision, upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Subsequent rescheduling petitions, including one in 2016, were all denied by the DEA, asserting that cannabis does not meet the required five factors for rescheduling.
Despite past failures, there are notable differences this time. NORML’s deputy director, Paul Armentano, considers the current situation “unprecedented.” This rescheduling process was initiated by the current administration, a departure from previous third-party initiatives. Additionally, the process lacks transparency, with leaked information revealing details that would otherwise remain undisclosed until the DEA’s decision.
Armentano suggests two potential reasons for the leak. One possibility is that the Biden administration aims to signal its desire for DEA rescheduling but acknowledges historical reluctance. Alternatively, the leak could serve as political cover, allowing the administration to claim effort if the DEA rejects cannabis rescheduling, as it has done historically.
Potential Implications of DEA Rescheduling Cannabis:
If the DEA agrees with the HHS recommendation, significant policy, business, and consumer implications may arise. Cannabis rescheduling could eliminate its use as a basis for denying individual rights, impacting employment, public housing, and immigration. Federal drug testing laws and health insurance reimbursement policies for medical cannabis might be subject to amendments.
Business operations in the cannabis sector could become easier, with reduced restrictions on banking access and financial services, allowing state-licensed businesses standard tax deductions. Additionally, barriers to research and the development of new treatments may be lifted.
However, entering uncharted territory, NORML’s Paul Armentano highlights more questions than answers. Rescheduling a substance without FDA approval, especially to Schedule III, raises unprecedented challenges. It would also perpetuate the current conflict between state and federal laws, as 38 U.S. states already have some form of cannabis legislation.
Armentano advocates for de-scheduling cannabis, removing it from the CSA entirely, as the only path to real change. He cautions against expecting widespread change from rescheduling alone, emphasizing that it doesn’t bring about substantial shifts.
Global Implications of U.S. Cannabis Rescheduling:
International jurisdictions, especially those advancing reform bills, closely monitor the unfolding events in the U.S., recognizing its potential influence on global drug policy. Olivia Ewenike, a German cannabis legislation specialist, notes that a U.S. reassessment could destigmatize cannabis, impacting public opinion and potentially advancing legalization in Germany.
A policy shift in the U.S., a globally influential nation, might encourage lawmakers worldwide to reconsider drug policies. Ewenike emphasizes that even traditionally strict nations could be prompted to rethink and possibly decriminalize or legalize cannabis.
However, Ann Fordham, Executive Director of the International Drug Policy Consortium, warns that U.S. domestic rescheduling, particularly to Schedule III, may not address the long-standing harms of global cannabis prohibition. Advocates urge President Biden to fulfill his promise by completely removing cannabis from domestic schedules, emphasizing that Schedule III doesn’t equate to decriminalization or effectively address federal prohibition’s harms.
Likelihood of DEA Rescheduling Cannabis:
While the DEA’s decision on cannabis rescheduling remains uncertain, several sources suggest alignment with the HHS recommendation, supported by the FDA and NIDA. A Congressional Research Service report from last year deemed it “likely” that the DEA would follow suit. Six state governors urged President Biden to reschedule by the end of 2023 in a joint letter.
Acknowledging cannabis’s therapeutic benefits publicly for the first time adds significance, with experts like Fordham anticipating DEA acceptance of the recommendation. However, additional controls might be imposed to comply with international drug treaties, considering the DEA’s adherence to outdated “war on drugs” ideology.
Some argue that political considerations could play a substantial role, given drug policy’s tendency to align with political agendas rather than scientific evidence. Ewenike suggests that rescheduling might serve as a strategic move to appeal to progressive constituencies, particularly in the context of upcoming elections, indicating a high likelihood of cannabis rescheduling in the U.S.
Timeline for DEA Review Outcome:
The DEA’s decision won’t be immediate, with past petitions taking up to a decade to progress, and no obligation for an expedited process, according to Armentano. Once announced, a 60-day public comment period will follow, providing ample opportunity for opposition and potential litigation.
Armentano notes existing congressional displeasure with the DEA potentially altering marijuana scheduling, emphasizing the likelihood of resistance from politicians who have long opposed such changes in marijuana laws. Expecting a contentious process, he states that acceptance of bureaucratic agency-led changes won’t occur without a fight.
The potential rescheduling of cannabis by the DEA marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing evolution of drug policy. Balancing the intricacies of U.S. federal decisions with their global repercussions emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach that considers scientific evidence, public health, and international obligations. As stakeholders eagerly await the DEA’s decision, the broader implications on societal attitudes, legal frameworks, and global drug policy remain subjects of intense scrutiny and speculation.
In the realm of cannabis effects, the infamous “munchies” phenomenon has long been observed, but a recent breakthrough in research at Washington State University sheds light on the intricate mechanisms at play. Delving into the brains of mice exposed to vaporized cannabis sativa, scientists discovered a specific neural activity in the hypothalamus, a crucial region governing appetite. Published in Scientific Reports, this study not only deepens our understanding of how cannabis affects the brain but also holds promise for future therapeutic interventions targeting appetite disorders in cancer patients, individuals with anorexia, and potentially those struggling with obesity.
Employing advanced calcium imaging technology akin to a brain MRI, the researchers scrutinized the response of brain cells in mice exposed to cannabis vapor. Remarkably, the study uncovered the activation of neurons in the hypothalamus, specifically the Agouti Related Protein neurons, associated with the anticipation and consumption of palatable food. This activation was absent in the control group of unexposed mice.
Jon Davis, an assistant professor of neuroscience at WSU and the corresponding author, emphasized the significance of these findings, stating, “When the mice are given cannabis, neurons come on that typically are not active. There is something important happening in the hypothalamus after vapor cannabis.” The study marks a pioneering use of calcium imaging to explore brain reactions to food following cannabis exposure, setting it apart in the field of neuroscience research.
Crucially, the research identified the pivotal role of the cannabinoid-1 receptor, a well-known target of cannabis, in regulating the activity of Agouti Related Protein neurons. Employing a cutting-edge “chemogenetic” technique, acting as a molecular switch, researchers could manipulate these neurons. When deactivated, cannabis no longer induced an increase in appetite, providing a potential avenue for targeted therapeutic interventions.
This groundbreaking work builds upon earlier research from Davis’ lab, distinguishing itself by utilizing whole vaporized cannabis plant matter instead of isolated THC. This approach mirrors human cannabis consumption more closely. The study not only contributes to our understanding of the intricate dance between cannabis and appetite but also holds promise for developing more refined and targeted treatments for various appetite disorders.
Funding for this research was provided by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Program, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and through financial support from the state of Washington Initiative Measure No. 171.
In conclusion, the groundbreaking research on cannabis’s influence on specific hunger neurons in the brain opens new avenues for understanding appetite regulation. By identifying the activation of distinct brain cells and the role of the cannabinoid-1 receptor, researchers have unveiled a potential pathway for developing targeted therapeutics. This discovery not only sheds light on the intricate relationship between cannabis and appetite but also holds promise for addressing appetite disorders in various medical contexts, ranging from supporting cancer patients to managing conditions like anorexia. As science delves deeper into the complexities of cannabis’s effects, this study contributes valuable insights that could pave the way for refined treatments and enhance our understanding of the brain’s response to recreational cannabis use.
In a groundbreaking move, the U.S. government has unveiled a trove of documents shedding light on the ongoing evaluation of marijuana’s federal classification. For the first time, it officially confirms that health officials are urging the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to designate cannabis as a Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
The released 252 pages from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) assert that cannabis possesses a “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and exhibits a “potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II.”
The documentation highlights that over 30,000 healthcare professionals in 43 U.S. jurisdictions are authorized to recommend medical marijuana to more than six million registered patients for at least 15 medical conditions.
Attorney Matt Zorn, who obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, published the confirmation of the Schedule III recommendation on his On Drugs blog. The materials include a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram stating that “marijuana meets the findings for control in Schedule III.”
via Matt Zorn, On Drugs blog
The documents delve into the government’s eight-factor analysis for drug scheduling, emphasizing marijuana’s abuse potential, its accepted medical use, and its safety and risk of physical dependence compared to other substances.
On the subject of medical use, the review acknowledges the widespread legalization of medical marijuana across U.S. states, with some programs having been in place for several years. The memo discusses mixed findings on the effectiveness of marijuana for various medical
indications, highlighting a substantial evidence base for its use in treating pain conditions, particularly neuropathic pain.
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) review, however, did not find support for marijuana in treating epilepsy or anxiety. The agency also expressed reservations about the potential risks associated with using marijuana to treat PTSD, stating that adverse events might outweigh limited benefits.
While some evidence supports marijuana’s benefits for Crohn’s disease, the overall assessment suggests a credible scientific foundation for its therapeutic use in pain management, anorexia related to certain medical conditions, and nausea and vomiting (e.g., chemotherapy-induced).
“Taken together, the data support that a substantial number of [health care practitioners] have gained clinical experience with at least one specific medical use of marijuana under state-authorized programs.”
Despite not being an unequivocal endorsement of marijuana’s medical benefits, federal health officials asserted that none of the evidence identified safety concerns precluding its therapeutic use. The evaluation also concluded that the public health risks of marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse, including heroin, cocaine, and benzodiazepines.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) aligns with this analysis, as stated in the documents.
In response to the release, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), founder of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, sees this development as progress toward ending prohibition. The information disclosed provides a level of public transparency not seen before in the government’s rescheduling review.
In August, initial reports surfaced regarding the health agency’s recommendations for rescheduling marijuana. The prevailing belief centered on the likelihood of the HHS proposing a Schedule III classification, aligning it with substances such as ketamine and Tylenol with codeine. The recently released documents to Matt Zorn confirm this detail officially.
Should the DEA choose to adopt the HHS recommendation and move marijuana to Schedule III, it wouldn’t equate to broad legalization under federal law. However, it could wield significant influence by dismantling research barriers that have faced widespread criticism. Moreover, it might permit state-licensed cannabis businesses to access federal tax deductions currently restricted by IRS Code 280E.
It’s crucial to note that the ultimate decision on rescheduling lies with the DEA, a point reiterated in a recent letter to Congress. The DEA holds the authority to schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act, considering statutory, regulatory, and HHS’s scientific evaluations. The agency is currently in the process of conducting its review.
Responding to a letter from 31 bipartisan lawmakers led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, the DEA emphasized its commitment to evaluating the “merits” of legalization during the review. The lawmakers had raised concerns about the limitations of merely placing cannabis in Schedule III, rather than completely removing it from CSA control.
The timing of any rescheduling announcement remains uncertain, sparking speculation within the cannabis community. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) suggested in September that the DEA is likely to follow the HHS recommendation based on historical patterns.
Last year, the governors of six U.S. states—Colorado, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Louisiana—urged President Joe Biden to reschedule marijuana by year-end, emphasizing its alignment with a safe, regulated product. While opinions on recreational cannabis legalization may differ among governors, the consensus is that the cannabis industry is a permanent fixture, with states implementing robust regulations.
Colorado Governor Jared Polis expressed anticipation of the DEA expeditiously completing the review and moving marijuana to Schedule III. However, he emphasized the need for additional administrative and congressional actions to promote health, safety, and economic growth.
In contrast, six former DEA heads and five former White House drug czars voiced opposition to the HHS’s recommendation, presenting concerns about the potential impact on drug schedules and criminal penalties. However, attorneys general from a dozen states took a different stance on Friday, urging the DEA to proceed with rescheduling as a “public safety imperative.”
While some anticipate that a Schedule III classification would benefit state-legal marijuana markets, cautionary voices warn of potential risks to broader state-level legalization. The ongoing developments highlight the complex interplay between federal decisions and their ramifications on cannabis regulation.
We’re now accepting credit cards! Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and AmEx. The fees to use a credit card are…
