Minnesota House lawmakers have voted to legalize the regulated therapeutic use of psilocybin for adults 21 and older.

The reform was added to broader health policy legislation via an amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives that was adopted by a vote of 114-15 on Thursday. The amended legislation now heads to the Senate for consideration.

The psilocybin provisions that are advancing are similar to those of a standalone bill that was approved earlier this year by the House Health Finance and Policy Committee, though that legislation had also contained language to reschedule the psychedelic under state statute, which is not part of the new amendment.

Rep. Andy Smith (DFL), who sponsored both the new amendment and the standalone bill, said on the floor that “psilocybin has shown, through a lot of wonderful research, an incredible ability to help those who are struggling with a wide variety of mental health concerns— from depression to addiction recovery, as well as PTSD, especially in veterans or public safety officers and those who have experienced a traumatic event, as well as assault survivors.”

Rep. Max Rymer (R) cited a recent psychedelics executive order signed by President Donald Trump, saying that the state legislation could help make Minnesota eligible to receive some federal funds that are being made available to support research on the issue.

“The way that I look at this amendment is it creates an offering for people to not get hooked, necessarily, into drugs on an ongoing basis, but actually use a therapeutic like this to almost rewire their brain,” he said. “The testimony that we heard firsthand, from especially a lot of our veterans, was that this was life-changing.”

Rep. Nolan West (R) said that the availability of federal funds for psychedelic research is “one of the biggest reasons to do this today.”

“Many states are in no way ready to utilize that money. So by being early, we can have a program that will help many people with severe conditions, and we’ll have it paid for by the federal government,” he said. “That money is going to be spent, and  it might as well be spent benefiting Minnesotans.”

“If you talk to a lot of veterans, or really anybody who has had this experience in this space, on how it’s helped them, it’s a unique intervention that fundamentally improves brain function and can address things unlike anything we’ve seen,” West said.

Smith also filed a similar measure last year that did not ultimately advance to enactment. He has said the legislation was informed by recommendations from a state psychedelics task force that was formed under a separate law he sponsored.

Under the current legislation, qualified patients 21 and older could receive psilocybin-assisted therapy in an approved private residence or at a licensed treatment facility.

A registered facilitator would need to administer the psychedelic. To start, the program would need to involve licensing 20 to 50 facilitators, with at least three approved testing facilities for psilocybin. No more than 1,000 patients could participate in the psychedelic therapy for the first three years of the law’s implementation.

“There are 1,000 Minnesotans right now who feel lost, who feel like potentially, that their life is over, that they can’t function,” Smith said ahead of the most recent vote. “Probably not all 1,000 will find this drug helpful, but a lot of them will, and it will lead them to a better life than they thought is possible right now.”

The Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) would be responsible for overseeing the program and establishing rules, and a new Psychedelic Medicine Advisory Committee would be established.

Psilocybin sessions would involve “preparation” with a patient-facilitator consultation, “administration” where patients would receive the psychedelic and “integration” where patients would work with professionals to process the therapeutic experience.

Kurtis Hanna, who worked as a volunteer lobbyist to pass prior legislation to establish the state’s psychedelics task force, told Marijuana Moment that he’s “extremely happy” about the latest development.

“I couldn’t have predicted that, three years later, the movement would gain this much support,” Hanna, who serves as board president for the Psychedelic Access Project, said. “Advocating for cannabis law reform over the past 17 years was difficult—we narrowly passed medical cannabis in 2014 and adult-use legalization in 2023—so it’s notable and encouraging that psychedelic law reform is resonating differently.”

Separately, the Senate Finance Committee earlier this week adopted an amendment directing OCM to “regularly analyze the availability of federal programs to provide funds to support state efforts to establish a psilocybin therapeutic use program for individuals aged 21 and older who have qualifying medical conditions to access and use psilocybin under medical supervision.”

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Meanwhile in Minnesota, the state’s first government-run marijuana retailer recently opened its doors, marking another milestone in the state’s adult-use cannabis program.

Last September, Minnesota officials granted the state’s first-ever marijuana event organizer license, allowing adults to buy and consume cannabis products on-site at a festival. The first non-tribal marijuana shops opened for sales to adults 21 and older earlier that month.

Also last year, the Minnesota city of Eden Prairie sought suggestions from residents on what to name a new, government-branded cannabis gummy product to be sold at municipal liquor stores.

Minnesota’s House of Representatives circulated a poll at last year’s State Fair that asked attendees about the idea of allowing localities to enact bans on marijuana businesses within their borders. Most respondents who have an opinion on the issue agree with the policy, despite it not currently being a part of the state’s cannabis laws.

Ahead of the enactment of legalization in Minnesota, lawmakers’ separate State Fair polls found majority support for the reform.

The governor has also selected a top cannabis regulator for the state who will oversee the adult-use market rollout. Last June, OCM issued the state’s first recreational marijuana license for a cultivation microbusiness.

OCM said at the time that it’s taking further steps to build up in the industry and create opportunities to entrepreneurs, including opening a new licensing window for cannabis testing facilities, accepting the first applications for marijuana event licenses and verifying more social equity status requests.

Separately, after Minnesota lawmakers passed a bill to end the criminalization of bong water containing trace amount of drugs, the governor signed the measure into law last May.

The change addresses an existing policy that had allowed law enforcement to treat quantities of bong water greater than four ounces as equivalent to the pure, uncut version of whatever drug the device was used to consume.

Meanwhile, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) said in December that the state is “exploring” how to respond to an impending federal ban on hemp THC products, which would be “very disruptive” to a “thriving industry.”

Read the full psilocybin amendment adopted by the Minnesota House below:

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia/Workman.

The post Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Bill To Legalize Psilocybin Therapy appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

An Idaho medical marijuana campaign has announced that it turned in more than 150,000 signatures for a proposed legalization initiative it wants to qualify for the state’s November ballot.

The Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho (NMAI) announced on Wednesday that it submitted the petitions ahead of last week’s deadline. County clerks across the state now have until June 30 to verify the signatures and report to the secretary of state’s office.

Amanda Watson, a spokesperson for the group, said that the petitions come from all 44 of the state’s counties and are the result of a “rigorous signature gathering effort that stretched to every corner of Idaho.”

“During the work our teams did on the ground to reach Idahoans and obtain the necessary signatures (and well beyond), we were moved and inspired by the many individuals who expressed support, shared their stories and reiterated their appreciation for the democratic process that allows for their voice to be heard through a citizen-led effort,” she said.

“This milestone belongs to the tens of thousands of Idahoans who signed,” Watson said. “Together, we have moved the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act one step closer to the ballot and one step closer to a decision made by the people of Idaho themselves. Now we await the count, and the chance to bring this issue before voters in November.”

At this stage, it’s unclear how many signatures the campaign has collected to far are valid and whether activists have met a separate requirement for regional distribution of petitions.

To be certified for the ballot, the team needs to submit signatures from at least 6 percent of registered voters as of the state’s last general election, which currently amounts to 70,725. They also need to meet that 6 percent threshold in at least 18 of the state’s 35 legislative districts.

While NMAI has pursued ballot access, Idaho lawmakers have pushed back. Both the Senate and House of Representatives passed a resolution this session urging voters to “reject” the medical marijuana petition.

The measure, sponsored by the Senate State Affairs Committee, claims that cannabis legalization in other states has led to a host of harms, including “increased cartel activity, development of black market marijuana production, human trafficking, and increased crime rates” as well as “increased rates of serious health issues,” environmental harms and “safety concerns on job sites.”

It argues that the marijuana initiative would not only increase costs to the state but that its list of approved medical conditions is “so broad that almost anyone could qualify.”

“The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act lacks safeguards to such an extent that it would effectively legalize widespread recreational use of marijuana,” the resolution claims. “The legalization of marijuana would have devastating impacts on Idaho children and their families… The Legislature urges the citizens of Idaho to reject any effort to bring the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act to the ballot.”

A statement of purpose filed with the legislation says it “addresses the devastating impact that legalizing marijuana has had on other states” and “identifies the significant problems” with the ballot initiative.

Contrary to the claims made about marijuana reform in the legislative resolution, advocates often point to data showing that legalizing and regulating cannabis diminishes the size of the illegal market and has not led to increases in youth use.

Meanwhile, NMAI recently released an analysis showing that Idaho could see more than $100 million worth of medical marijuana sold on an annual basis and up to $28 million in new yearly revenue for state coffers if voters  approve the legalization initiative.

The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act, which NMAI unveiled last October, would provide patients with qualifying conditions access to marijuana from a limited number of dispensaries and provide a regulatory framework for the market.

Here are the main provisions of the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act:

• Health practitioners would be able to recommend medical cannabis to patients with conditions that include, but are not limited to, cancer, anxiety and acute pain.
• Medical marijuana patients or their designated caregiver could purchase up to 113 grams of smokeable cannabis, or 20 grams of THC extract for vaping, per month.
• The state would be start by issuing three vertically integrated cannabis business licenses, after which point it could license up to six total.
• Marijuana would be reclassified under state law as a Schedule II, rather than Schedule I, controlled substance.
• State and local law enforcement would be barred from assisting in federal drug enforcement activities related to the state-legal cannabis program.
• There would be anti-discrimination protections for those who use or sell marijuana in compliance from state law, preventing adverse actions by employers, landlords and educational institutions.
• It does not appear that there would be any equity-centered reforms, nor would the initiative provide for a home grow option.

“We believe Idahoans deserve access to legal, compassionate, natural care right here at home,” NMAI’s website says. “Our mission is to give patients a legal pathway to natural medicine that can ease suffering and restore dignity without the fear of addiction.”

“The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act is our first step forward. It creates a safe, tightly regulated medical program that allows qualified Idahoans to seek medical cannabis treatment with a valid diagnosis from a healthcare provider,” it says. “It supports Idaho agriculture, generates tax revenue to reinvest locally, and ensures that patients can find natural relief.”

The campaign in February also released the results of a statewide poll showing that 83 percent of likely voters back medical cannabis legalization, including 74 percent of Republicans, 95 percent of Democrats and 92 percent of independents.

Asked how they would vote if the current medical cannabis legalization does appear on the November ballot, 76 percent of respondents said “yes.” Of that cohort, 50 percent said they would “definitively” vote yes, and just 21 percent said they’d vote “no.”

After the medical cannabis initiative was unveiled last year, a separate campaign that launched in 2024, Kind Idaho, told supporters that it would be suspending its own signature gathering for a ballot initiative to legalize the personal possession and cultivation of marijuana by adults.

Kind Idaho previously introduced medical marijuana ballot measures intended to go before voters in both the 2022 and 2024 elections, but the efforts proved unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, voters this year will see a different kind of proposal on the ballot: A constitutional amendment that the legislature approved to make it so only lawmakers could legalize marijuana or other controlled substances.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Legislators separately held a hearing last year to discuss a bill to enact medical cannabis legalization legislatively, but there hasn’t been meaningful action on the issue in the months since.

Separately, a bill from Rep. Bruce Skaug (R) last year would have set a $420 mandatory minimum fine for cannabis possession, removing judges’ discretion to apply lower penalties. Skaug said the bill, which ultimately stalled in committee, would send the message that Idaho is tough on marijuana.

House lawmakers also passed a bill to ban marijuana advertisements, though the Senate later defeated the measure.

The post Idaho Medical Marijuana Campaign Turns In 150,000 Signatures For Legalization Ballot Measure appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

A Louisiana Senate panel has advanced a bill to allow patients with terminal and irreversible conditions to use medical marijuana in hospitals.

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee approved the legislation, SB 270 from Sen. Katrina Jackson-Andrews (D), with amendments, in a voice vote on Wednesday.

“This bill was brought at the request of constituents who believe that therapeutic medical marijuana, which is already legal in this state, should be offered in hospitals when patients are terminally ill or otherwise in need the comfort of this medicine,” Jackson-Andrews said ahead of the vote.

Under the proposal, hospitals would have to create written guidelines allowing covered patients to consume medical cannabis on-site in forms other than smoking or vaping.

Under an amendment adopted by the panel, emergency or outpatient departments would be exempted from the policy. The revised legislation also clarifies that patients and primary caregivers are responsible for acquiring and administering medical marijuana, which must be “stored securely at all times in a locked container provided by the patient.”

Health care professionals and staff would be prohibited from “administering, storing, retrieving, or assisting the patient with the medical marijuana,” the text says.

The amendment, which the sponsor worked on with help from the Louisiana Hospital Association, also allows hospitals to opt out of the policy if federal officials take action against any healthcare facility in the state over medical cannabis use, rather than only allowing those that were specifically targeted to stop complying.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Meanwhile in Louisiana, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee last week approved a bill to create a psychedelic-assisted therapy pilot program, using opioid settlement dollars to fund clinical trials aimed at developing alternative treatments such as psilocybin and ibogaine.

Lawmakers are also considering a bill to create an adult-use marijuana legalization pilot program in the state to determine whether the reform should eventually be expanded and permanently codified.

The post Louisiana Senators Approve Bill To Allow Medical Marijuana Use In Hospitals For Terminally Ill Patients appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

The National Rifle Association (NRA)–arguably the most influential gun rights lobbying group in the U.S.—has joined top drug policy reform organizations and other interests in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to declare the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana consumers unconstitutional.

In one of the latest amici briefs to be filed ahead of oral arguments in a case before the court, U.S. vs. Hemani, NRA called on justices to uphold a lower court ruling that found the federal statute known as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.

The filing came amid other new filings from leading reform groups NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA).

Central to the arguments from NRA and the drug policy organizations is that, based on separate Supreme Court precedent on gun restrictions, barring marijuana users from buying or possessing firearms lacks historical analogues consistent with the nation’s founding and is inconsistent with the increasing social acceptance of marijuana as states continue to legalize if for medical or recreational purposes.

“To justify firearms prohibition for marijuana users when they are not intoxicated, the government must prove that the ban is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” NRA said. “That tradition supports restrictions on the use of firearms while intoxicated, but it does not support disarming individuals when they are sober merely because they sometimes use intoxicants.”

“Throughout American history, legislatures recognized that intoxication could temporarily increase the danger of firearms misuse. But they did not respond by entirely disarming people based on their status as users,” the brief filed alongside other Second Amendment groups said. “Instead, historical intoxication laws regulated conduct: restricting the carrying, discharge, or purchase of firearms only while a person was intoxicated and only for as long as that condition lasted. The historical record thus reflects a consistent tradition of narrow, situational restrictions rather than categorical disarmament.”

“Bereft of relevant support, the government elides the historical tradition of ‘firearm regulation,’ and instead offers strained analogies to civil-commitment laws for alcoholics who could not manage their affairs and to vagrancy laws that detained people in forced labor for loafing, juggling, or wearing the clothes of the opposite sex,” the brief states. “The government also cites surety laws, but those laws undermine its case because they required an individualized judicial finding of dangerousness.”

“Besides contradicting the specific American historical tradition about regulating firearms and intoxicants, the prosecution of Hemani for marijuana use violates a broader rule: individual disarmament must be based on dangerousness. Yet the government has made no serious effort to establish a connection between marijuana use and dangerousness. Rather than focusing on marijuana, it discusses drugs in the abstract and relies primarily on violent incidents involving methamphetamine, heroin, tranquilizers, quaaludes, and PCP.”

“This Court should hold 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Hemani because the government failed to demonstrate that disarming him based on marijuana use is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” NRA concluded. “The judgment below should be affirmed.”

Relatedly, last year NRA’s lobbying arm said that court decisions calling into question the constitutionality of the federal government’s ban on gun ownership by marijuana consumers had “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that’s impacted Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

NORML, for its part, said in its brief on the current case that the Second Amendment “protects ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’” and cannabis consumers “are plainly among ‘the people’ to be afforded its protection.”

“They are not aliens, enemy combatants, or some constitutionally excluded caste,” it says. “They are ordinary citizens and residents, many of them veterans, workers, parents, and medical patients, who happen also to consume a plant that Congress still places in Schedule I, but partially protects and promotes in interstate commerce by means of spending appropriations measures.”

Justice determined in an earlier ruling that gun laws must be rooted in historical precedent going back to the founding principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. And both NORML and DPA seized on that point in their respective briefs.

“The closest historical analogues concern temporary restrictions on carrying or firing a weapon while actually intoxicated,” NORML said. “Those laws did not impose a continuing disability on persons who drank alcohol or used other intoxicants, and they certainly did not strip those persons of their right to possess arms in their homes.”

The organization went further, noting that cannabis itself “underscores the historical mismatch at the heart of this case.”

“Hemp was a familiar and ubiquitous commodity from the colonial period through Reconstruction: colonial governments affirmatively promoted—and in Virginia required—its cultivation; members of the Founding generation grew it; and by the nineteenth century cannabis preparations were widely used medicinally and recognized in standard pharmaceutical compendia,” it said. “Yet neither the Founding era nor Reconstruction produced any tradition of disarming cannabis users as a class, or treating mere cannabis use as a proxy for dangerousness sufficient to justify categorical deprivation of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Additionally, NORML said modern policy “underscores the irrationality of applying § 922(g)(3) categorically to cannabis users, as a “substantial majority of States now authorize the medical use of cannabis, and many also permit adult-use possession under comprehensive regulatory regimes.”

“These widespread legislative judgments reflect the reality that cannabis use is both common and socially normalized, rather than a marker of dangerousness sufficient to justify the permanent deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right,” it said. “Congress itself has repeatedly reinforced that accommodation by prohibiting the Department of Justice from using appropriated funds to interfere with States’ implementation of medical-cannabis laws.”

“Historically, going back 400 years, cannabis in and of itself has not been viewed a harmful plant or a threat,” it continued. “Only since the 1930s and beyond with its Schedule I designation under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 has it been so relegated–which has been acknowledged as being for political reasons.”

“Cannabis users are among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms the Second Amendment protects. For centuries, Americans cultivated, consumed, and prescribed cannabis without any suggestion that doing so warranted the loss of firearms rights. State-authorized medical cannabis patients continue to do so today, under regimes Congress has repeatedly chosen to protect. The historical analogues the government identifies concern temporary restrictions on carrying or discharging weapons while actively intoxicated, or disarmament of persons adjudged dangerous—not blanket bans on all users of a disfavored substance. Section 922(g)(3), as applied here, is a modern, statusbased firearm prohibition of unprecedented breadth. It is not consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

DPA, for its part, said in a brief that the Constitution’s “prohibition on vague laws protects the separation of powers by ensuring that Congress, rather than police, prosecutors, or judges, defines what conduct is criminal.”

“It also protects ordinary people by requiring a criminal law to be sufficiently definite to provide notice of what the law prohibits,” it said. “The statute at issue here, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (the Statute), violates this precept because it prohibits an ‘unlawful user’ of ‘any controlled substance’ from possessing a firearm, without defining the quantity, frequency, or timing of the use that triggers its application.”

“The Government disagrees. It reasons that, if this Court reads certain terms into the Statute, then that modified version of § 922(g)(3) is not unconstitutionally vague, as applied to Mr. Hemani,” it said. “It argues, without relevant authority, that the Statute operates as a “temporary” disarmament that reaches only ‘habitual’ drug users. The Government’s interpretation does not remotely reflect the Statute’s capacious reach.”

“In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. Congress is the only branch that has the power to enact federal criminal laws. Allowing this prosecution to proceed under § 922(g)(3) as applied here would require this Court to supply the limiting principle Congress omitted and to decide when the Statute applies and to whom. That approach only furthers the inequitable, selective criminalization of drug use. It has little, if anything, to do with regulating firearms. This Court should affirm.”

Further, the statute that’s being contested holds “the potential to ensnare tens of millions of Americans. The potential consequences are dire: A gun owner with no prior criminal history who experiments with marijuana can suddenly—without any individualized determination of dangerousness—be stripped of their constitutional right to possess a firearm, be subject to felony penalties and, depending on their domicile, be prohibited from voting in elections due to the collateral consequences of a felony conviction.”

“In a nation where marijuana consumption is as common as alcohol use, it cannot be the law that any American who uses marijuana forfeits their constitutional right to firearm possession,” the brief states, adding that the “Government attempts to defend § 922(g)(3) by implicitly relying on the assumption that drug use meaningfully correlates with dangerousness. Those claims are not supported by sound data.”

“Whatever its policy aims, § 922(g)(3) does not condition criminal liability on any finding of dangerousness, impairment, or misuse of a firearm,” it said. “The Government’s attempt to justify the Statute by reference to generalized correlations asks this Court to supply limiting principles that Congress did not enact. This Court’s vagueness doctrine forbids that exercise.”

“The notion that a person may be vaguely labeled as an ‘unlawful user’ and subsequently deprived of a fundamental liberty is irrational. Nor is it rooted in any equitable historical tradition of the United States,” the brief concludes. “The Statute operates as an unbounded, indiscriminate deprivation of fundamental liberties and should not be tolerated.”

In addition to NORML and DPA, several gun rights groups joined the chorus with their own amici briefs opposing the firearm ban for cannabis consumers this week.

In an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on Thursday, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), Second Amendment Law Center (2ALC), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MGOC) identified a number of legal issues with the underlying federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

Because the court selected U.S. vs. Hemani instead of other more marijuana-specific cases challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban, the amici called it an “exceptionally poor vehicle to decide such an important question.”

More recently, the Firearms Policy Coalition, National Association for Gun Rights and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association submitted briefs in the case. Also, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer (NACDL) and Center for Human Liberty filed briefs urging the court to find the current ban unconstitutional.

All of these amici briefs were filed days after ACLU attorneys representing Hemani made the case that the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana consumers is nonsensical and unconstitutional—and that it’s made all the more confounding by the fact that Trump directed the expeditious finalization of a rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Hermani proceedings on March 2.

In the background, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) recently moved to loosen rules that bar people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs from being able to lawfully purchase and possess guns by making it so fewer people would be affected.

The interim final rule from ATF seeks to update the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under an existing policy that has been interpreted to deny Second Amendment rights to people who have used illegal substances a single time within the past year.

Last month, meanwhile, attorneys general for 19 states and Washington, D.C. filed their own brief siding with the federal government in the Hemani case, insisting that justices should maintain the current § 922(g)(3) statute.

Several other briefs were also submitted last month for the case, which was granted cert in October. Firearm control groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, Second Amendment Law Scholars, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Global Action on Gun Violence have told the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s ruling in the matter, for example. A coalition of history and law professors also submitted a brief.

Also last month, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief, urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents recently obtained by Marijuana Moment show.

The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute.

With respect to Hemani, in a separate August filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In seeking the court’s grant of cert, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him the FBI’s radar.

If justices declare 922(g)(3) constitutional, such a ruling could could mean government wins in the remaining cases. The high court recently denied a petition for cert in U.S. v. Cooper, while leaving pending decisions on U.S. v. Daniels and U.S. v. Sam.

The court also recently denied a petition for cert in another gun and marijuana case, U.S. v. Baxter, but that wasn’t especially surprising as both DOJ and the defendants advised against further pursing the matter after a lower court reinstated his conviction for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.

Meanwhile, in recent interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers.

Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last year sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that the current statute banning “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.

In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.

As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the firearms prohibition.

In another ruling, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.

The Third Circuit separately said in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to particular defendants.

A federal court in October agreed to delay proceedings in a years-long Florida-based case challenging the constitutionality of the ban on gun ownership by people who use medical marijuana, with the Justice Department arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision to take up Hemani warrants a stay in the lower court.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Last year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.

A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled in 2024 that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.

DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

In 2023, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana.

Recently a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.

As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

The official said that while people who already own firearms aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”

Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said last year that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.

The post NRA Joins Marijuana Groups Urging Supreme Court To Overturn Ban On Gun Ownership By Cannabis Consumers As Unconstitutional appeared first on Marijuana Moment.