Skip to content
Drug Policy Watch™
Latest Tracking drug policy in all 50 states and Congress, updated every morning. See all ›

News Archive

Stories that have rotated off the News page since July 22, 2026, when our page history begins.

39 stories. Archive last built November 10, 2026.

Each story appears exactly as it last ran, with the dates it was on the News page. We have not updated these since, except where a dated note says so. Events have moved on in many of them; for where things stand now, read the current news and the state briefs. Corrections are logged on the Corrections page.

All archived stories, newest first

New Mexico Department of Health, proposed rule 7.35.3 NMAC · hearing October 2, 2026

In News from October 9, 2026 to November 9, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

New Mexico wrote a psilocybin law with no prescriber gate, and the draft rules are building one

What it says. On October 2, 2026 the New Mexico Department of Health held a public hearing in Santa Fe on proposed rule 7.35.3 NMAC, the patient, clinician, facilitator, healing center and educational program rules for the Medical Psilocybin Program created by the Medical Psilocybin Act (Senate Bill 219 of 2025). The Act allows psilocybin "in an approved setting to treat qualified medical conditions," removes psilocybin and psilocin from the state schedule "for purposes of qualified medical treatment," creates an advisory board and a "medical psilocybin treatment equity fund" for patients who meet income limits, and tells the department to implement the program "by December 31, 2027." The department's own FAQ sets the goal of "enrolling the first patients by the end of December 2026" and lists four qualifying conditions: treatment resistant depression, post traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders and end of life care. The Act defines a clinician as "an approved health care provider licensed in New Mexico who holds a permit from the department." The draft rule adds a layer the Act does not mention. A certifying clinician is "a clinician who holds a state of New Mexico controlled substances number," must attest to an in-person examination within the previous six months, or a telemedicine evaluation backed by records or a consultation from a clinician who did one, and the department then reviews the application "within 30 calendar days"; enrollment "shall expire two years after the initial date of enrollment." For sessions outside a healing center, which the rule says "may include a patient's residence," the application must carry "proof of ownership" of the property "or a signed, written statement from the owner of such property acknowledging that the owner understands that persons will be participating in the medical psilocybin program on the premises." Written comments had to arrive by the close of the hearing, and the hearing record the department posted holds 51 of them, including from MAPS, the Psychedelic Bar Association's New Mexico Working Group and Firefighters for Plant Medicine; the two provisions the comments return to most are the property owner statement and the certifying clinician requirement. The statute contains no controlled substances number, no in-person examination and no property owner. The rule's effective date is still printed as xx/xx/2026, and the department had not adopted it as of this update.

Why it matters. The good part first, and it is a big one. New Mexico is the first state to build psilocybin as a medical program by statute, with an equity fund so a patient who cannot pay is not locked out, and the department is working a year ahead of its own deadline. Now read where the rules came from. The legislature said a clinician is a licensed provider with a department permit. The draft rule reaches for the medical cannabis template instead: a controlled substances number, an in-person exam, a 30 day state review of a decision the clinician has already made, and a fresh application every two years. For a substance the Act took off the state schedule for exactly this use, the gate is the prescriber's paperwork. Then the property clause. A homeowner can host their own session. A renter needs the landlord's signature, and the landlord learns why. Two classes of patient, sorted by deed, in a program whose statute put an equity fund at its centre. None of this is in the law the legislature passed. All of it is in the rule the department wrote, and the comment window closed the day of the hearing. That is where fences get built now: not in the bill, where the vote is public, but in the rulemaking after the bill, where fifty one people showed up and most of the state did not know there was a door. What to watch is the final rule, and whether it answers the record or files the draft as written.
U.S. Treasury and IRS, 2026-2027 Priority Guidance Plan · September 29, 2026

In News from October 9, 2026 to November 9, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

The 280E tax break is on Treasury's list with no date, and it fits through the same two doors

What it says. On September 29, 2026 the Treasury Department and the IRS released the 2026-2027 Priority Guidance Plan, the list of guidance projects the two agencies say "will be the focus of our efforts during the plan year," which runs October 1, 2026 to September 30, 2027. The plan holds 121 projects. Item 9 under "Other Priorities" reads, in full, "Guidance under ยง280E." The plan says of itself that it "does not provide any deadline for completing the projects." Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code denies ordinary business deductions to any trade or business trafficking in a Schedule I or II controlled substance. The April 28, 2026 rescheduling rule (91 FR 22714) said that "holders of state medical marijuana licenses will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E," that "nothing in this rule constitutes a determination regarding federal tax liability," and that the Administrator "encourages the Secretary of the Treasury to consider providing retrospective relief from Section 280E liability for taxable years in which a state licensee operated under a state medical marijuana license." Five days before the rule published, on April 23, Treasury and the IRS announced that guidance was coming: rescheduling "generally removes section 280E as a bar to claiming deductions and credits" for a business that no longer traffics in Schedule I or II substances; for a business with mixed activities, 280E "applies only to those activities related to trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances," with expenses apportioned; and a transition rule would apply rescheduling to "a business's full taxable year" that includes the order's effective date. The April release gave no date and the September plan gives none. Marijuana outside an FDA approved product or a state medical license, including adult use product, stays in Schedule I, and 280E still applies to it in full. In Congress, the No Deductions for Marijuana Businesses Act (S. 471, introduced by Senator Lankford with Senator Ricketts, and H.R. 1447, introduced by Representative Arrington with six cosponsors) would rewrite section 280E to keep the disallowance for marijuana whatever its schedule; both bills sit in committee.

Why it matters. Say the good part. Treasury put the relief in writing in April, the transition rule covers a full taxable year rather than splitting the year at the order's date, and the project is now on the official list for the year ahead. That is more than the industry had in March. Now read the door. Section 280E is the reason a licensed cannabis business is taxed on something close to its gross margin instead of its profit: rent, payroll and marketing are not deductible when the product is in Schedule I. Relief from that lands on the medical license holder. The adult use operator next door, same plant, same payroll, keeps paying. The operator holding both licenses apportions its expenses between the two, which is an accounting job a one license grower does not have on staff. So the tax code now sorts the market the way the April rule sorted the schedule: by paperwork, not by plant. And the sorting has no date on it. A cost advantage that is measured in whole tax years will be settled by when item 9 on a list of 121 reaches the top, while a bill in each chamber, each with cosponsors, waits in committee to put the wall back for everyone. Watch three things: the guidance itself, whether it reaches back to earlier years, which the rule only encourages, and whether anyone in Congress moves S. 471 or H.R. 1447 out of committee. The plant is not getting a tax break. The license is.
Federal Register, 91 FR 60338 · September 23, 2026

In News from October 9, 2026 to November 5, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Five psilocybin cousins are headed for Schedule I on a resemblance test, and the window to object closes October 23

What it says. On September 23, 2026 the Drug Enforcement Administration published a notice of proposed rulemaking (91 FR 60338, Docket No. DEA1715) to place five tryptamine hallucinogens, 4-OH-DiPT, 5-MeO-AMT, 5-MeO-MiPT, 5-MeO-DET and DiPT, "including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers," in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Comments were due October 23, 2026, which was also the deadline to request a hearing under 21 CFR 1308.44; both have passed. This is the second attempt. DEA proposed the same placement on January 14, 2022 (87 FR 2376). That notice drew 589 comments and four requests for a hearing, DEA convened a hearing in response on July 6, 2022, and on July 27, 2022 (87 FR 45076) it withdrew the proposal and cancelled the hearing before it opened, saying "upon further consideration" it would ask HHS for an updated scientific evaluation. It requested that on November 16, 2023 and received it on April 2, 2026, recommending Schedule I. The pharmacology finding is a resemblance test: "based on available pharmacology information the five tryptamines are expected to have significant overlap in effects with schedule I hallucinogenic substances such as DMT, psilocybin, and others." The notice finds the five "have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," are "not legally marketed in any country," and that "legitimate drug channels are limited to research conducted with the drugs," while "FDA is not aware of any diversion from research or legitimate manufacturing activities." The abuse record it cites is 65 poison center exposure cases in roughly two decades, with tachycardia, hallucinations, agitation and hypertension among the effects reported; the notice dates that span two ways, 2000 to 2021 in one passage and January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2021 in another. It reports one death, a 5-MeO-AMT case in 2004 in which alcohol and the antidepressant bupropion were also present, and says that "No single-substance exposure cases involving the five tryptamines resulted in death." Law enforcement first encountered the five between 2003 and 2009, the user population is "commonly comprised of young adults," and the products are "generally purchased from internet-based companies." If finalized, anyone who handles the five, including anyone who engages in research with them, would need a Schedule I registration. The Administrator certifies the rule "will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." Status, October 24, 2026: the comment and hearing request period closed on October 23, 2026, and the Federal Register shows no extension or later notice in Docket No. DEA1715. We will update this story when DEA reports what it received.

Why it matters. Two good things first. This is formal rulemaking, "on the record after opportunity for a hearing," so a comment is not a suggestion dropped in a box, it is part of a record the agency has to answer, and anyone may ask for the hearing. And the last round shows what participation does: in 2022, 589 comments and four hearing requests put the proposal in front of a hearing, and DEA withdrew the whole thing before the hearing opened and spent four years going back to HHS. Now read the test. The five are going into Schedule I not on a record of harm at scale, the notice counts 65 poison center cases in about twenty years, one death with other substances present, and no diversion from research, but because their effects are expected to resemble psilocybin. Resemblance is the fence here. Schedule I is the shelf that makes research require a Schedule I registration, so the people best placed to find out what these molecules actually do are the ones the rule makes it hardest to be. Keeping untested tryptamines sold by internet shops away from young adults is right, and the notice is right to say so. The question for the docket is whether the shelf reserved for no accepted medical use is the right shelf for five compounds whose own notice says the only legitimate channel is research. Put the two dockets side by side. The same fortnight, FDA opened a request for information on how to run ibogaine trials, under an executive order that tells HHS to speed psychedelic treatments. The molecule a sponsor can characterize and carry through an investigational application gets a fast lane. The cousin nobody owns gets Schedule I on a pharmacology expectation. That is the shape, and it has a date on it: comments and hearing requests close October 23.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-26-108623 · released September 23, 2026

In News from September 28, 2026 to October 26, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

The agency that decides what is a drug has no written procedure for deciding

What it says. The Government Accountability Office published a review of how the Drug Enforcement Administration schedules drugs, GAO-26-108623, released September 23, 2026. Of the 208 substances DEA took scheduling action on from 2020 through 2025, DEA considered the Department of Health and Human Services evaluation for all 95 where one was required, and its final decision matched the HHS recommendation for all 84 substances that had a published final rule by December 31, 2025. GAO also found that DEA has no policies identifying roles, responsibilities, and procedures for scheduling, and that FDA, which prepares the scientific and medical evaluation, has no policies specifying how its staff conduct evaluations or develop recommendations. GAO made three recommendations: that the DEA Administrator develop scheduling policies and procedures, that the FDA Commissioner do the same for evaluations and recommendations, and that FDA and the National Institutes of Health update the memorandum of understanding that governs their part of the work.

Why it matters. Start with the good part, because it is real. Eighty-four final rules and eighty-four matches with the science agency is what the Controlled Substances Act was written to produce: a scheduling decision that follows the medical evaluation rather than the politics of the year. That record is worth more than most of what gets said about DEA. Now read the second finding against the first. The same agency reached those eighty-four decisions with no written rule for who does the analysis, how the eight statutory factors get weighed, or how the HHS evaluation is supposed to figure in the final call. A process with no written method is a process that lives in the discretion of whoever holds it that year, and discretion is the raw material of enclosure. Consider where that discretion now sits. The marijuana rescheduling rule, left in force for now when the D.C. Circuit declined to freeze it, puts the plant in Schedule III only inside an FDA approved product or under a state medical license and leaves every other form in Schedule I, so the line between a lawful medicine and a felony runs straight through the procedures GAO says do not exist. A large operator with regulatory counsel can live inside an unwritten rule; it hires the people who know how the building works. A patient, a small grower, a state regulator asking for guidance and getting none, cannot. The commons argument here is not that DEA got the science wrong. It is that a decision this consequential has to be made by a method the public can read, and GAO has just confirmed there is none to read. The fix is the least exotic thing in drug policy: write it down.
Primary source: GAO-26-108623 ↗
N.C. Advisory Council on Cannabis · September 18, 2026

In News from September 23, 2026 to October 26, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The subcommittee met on October 16 and October 23, 2026. Its minutes record no vote and say its report will set out the leading sales models with their pros and cons, not a single recommendation. Nothing has been adopted. See the North Carolina brief (link).

North Carolina is drafting a market where the state owns every store, and the farmer is still barred from the counter

What it says. On September 18, 2026 the Market and Regulatory Subcommittee of the North Carolina Advisory Council on Cannabis took up a two page document titled "Cannabis Licensing Draft Recommendations," marked in its own header "FOR DISCUSSION ONLY." It describes a "Hybrid NC ABC liquor/Quebec cannabis model" in which "The state exclusively controls the retail channel while private businesses remain responsible for cultivation, manufacturing/processing, and wholesale distribution." The structure is three tiers: Tier 1 produce, private licensed businesses that grow, process, package and label; Tier 2 distribute, licensed independent wholesalers who purchase from Tier 1 and supply the state retail system; Tier 3 retail, a "State-controlled cannabis retail system." Tier 1 would carry several licenses rather than one, including a "Craft Farm Cannabis License (A small-scale license specifically designed for NC farmers and small cannabis businesses.)" Tier 2 is offered as three options: private wholesalers, a state central cannabis warehouse "analogous to the NC ABC warehouse," or a hybrid. Tier 3 would create a North Carolina Cannabis Control Commission or assign retail control to an existing state entity, with a retail corporation "analogous to Québec's SQDC," and states the objective as "bringing consumers into and keeping them in the legal market without encouraging cannabis consumption." Listed elements include "Protect the 3-Tier system from vertical integration," "Statewide product approval," and "State-controlled does not have to mean state-set pricing." The document closes with eight questions for discussion and has not been adopted. The council was created by Executive Order No. 16 under Governor Josh Stein. The subcommittee meets again on October 16, 2026, and the full council on September 29 and November 17.

Why it matters. Two things are true here at once, and a watchdog that can only say one of them is not worth reading. The first: a state owned counter is not the ordinary enclosure, and we should not pretend it is. There is no private licensee collecting a toll on every unit forever, no investor class buying a permanent statutory seat, and the margin goes to the public rather than to a shareholder. Set that against the alcohol wholesaler structure being written into federal hemp policy right now and the difference is real. The draft's craft farm license and its explicit instruction to protect the system from vertical integration aim at exactly the consolidation we track week after week. Say the good part plainly. The second: look at the shape that survives the swap. The farmer who grows the plant still cannot sell it to the person who wants it. Separation is the entire point of a three tier system, and moving the top tier from a private wholesaler to a state agency changes who collects, not whether someone collects, and not whether the grower is allowed to reach a customer. Then read the line that does the quiet work: "Statewide product approval." A state that approves products is a state that can decline to approve them, and the product most likely to be declined by a centralized warehouse is the cheap, unbranded, small batch one that is inconvenient to stock. North Carolina's own ABC system is the stated model, and that system already decides what reaches a shelf. The tell is in the questions the draft asks itself. Question five asks how to structure the craft farm license "so small farmers can participate without creating regulatory loopholes." The small farmer enters the document as a compliance risk to be managed rather than as the person the market is for. Whether this ends as a commons or as a state monopoly with a craft label on it turns entirely on how those eight questions get answered, and they are being answered in subcommittee meetings that almost nobody attends. The next one is October 16, and the council takes public comment.
Fourth Circuit, No. 26-1691 · argued September 18, 2026

In News from September 27, 2026 to October 9, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

The DEA called its HHC rule inconsequential to the industry, and the industry took it to a federal appeals court

What it says. On Friday, September 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in Richmond in Bluestar Operations, LLC v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, No. 26-1691, before Chief Judge Diaz, Judge Quattlebaum and Judge Heytens. The court's own calendar describes the case in one line: "ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Challenge to DEA action interpreting hemp-derived HHC as a Schedule I controlled substance." The action under review is a final rule published May 4, 2026 (91 FR 23913, Docket No. DEA-1632), signed April 22, 2026 by Administrator Terrance C. Cole, which adds hexahydrocannabinol to the Schedule I hallucinogen list at 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(115) with its own drug code, 7220. The rule says HHC "is a synthetic substance that is structurally related to tetrahydrocannabinols" and was already controlled under the general tetrahydrocannabinols code, and it states the agency's reading of the 2018 farm bill in one sentence: "tetrahydrocannabinols produced through chemical conversion, even when hemp derived are considered synthetically produced for purposes of the CSA, do not qualify as 'tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp.'" The agency skipped notice and comment, calling the listing "a minor or merely technical amendment in which the public is not particularly interested" and "insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and public," and made it effective the day it published. The rule traces its origin to a June 9, 2025 letter from the United Nations Secretariat, after the Commission on Narcotic Drugs added HHC to Schedule II of the 1971 Convention in March 2025, and to a December 3, 2025 letter from HHS concurring in the listing. The argument was livestreamed. No decision has issued. Sourcing note: we have read the rule and the court's argument calendar; we have not reviewed the briefs or the argument recording, and we do not characterize how the panel received either side.

Why it matters. Say the defensible part first. HHC is made in a lab from hemp extract, it is intoxicating, and a rule that says a lab-made intoxicant is not the plant is not wrong about the chemistry. Keeping converted cannabinoids out of an unregulated gas station market is a legitimate goal, and we have said so about the age limits and the December 11 cliff. Now read what the agency wrote about its own rule. It said the listing was inconsequential to the industry and to the public, so inconsequential that nobody needed to be asked, and then a member of that industry petitioned for review and a federal circuit gave the question a courtroom, a livestream and three judges. Those two facts cannot both be true. The sentence that matters is not the one about HHC. It is the one about "chemical conversion," because that sentence reaches every converted cannabinoid on every shelf, delta-8 included, and it arrived as a treaty housekeeping item rather than through the process Congress wrote for deciding what the plant is. That is the enclosure move in its purest form: the definition of a public plant gets settled in a chain of letters between Vienna, HHS and the DEA, published as a technical amendment, and the people who grow, sell or use it find out when the rule is already in effect. Congress has since taken up the same question in section 781 and the December 11 deadline, and whatever one thinks of the answer, a statute debated in the open is the right venue for it. What the Fourth Circuit decides about standing and about the reach of the "in hemp" exemption will tell us whether an agency can settle the definition by memo. If it can, the meaning of hemp belongs to whoever writes the next letter.
Nebraska Supreme Court, 322 Neb. 161 and 322 Neb. 297 · September 4 and September 11, 2026

In News from September 16, 2026 to October 9, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Two unanimous rulings in eight days, and Nebraska's medical cannabis vote stands

What it says. On September 4, 2026, in Kuehn v. Evnen (No. S-24-901), the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a Lancaster County ruling that the two 2024 medical cannabis initiative petitions had enough valid signatures. Each petition needed 86,499 signatures. The Secretary of State certified 89,962 on the Legalization Petition and 89,856 on the Regulatory Petition, then joined the challenge as a cross-appellant, represented by the Attorney General's office. To knock either measure off the books, the challengers had to disqualify at least 3,464 signatures on one petition and 3,358 on the other. After a trial, the district court found 711 and 826 signatures had lost their presumption of validity, most of them tied to one circulator and to notarization errors, leaving 89,251 and 89,030 valid signatures, and the Supreme Court held that a notary's error on one page does not void every page that notary handled. Chief Justice Funke wrote for the court. On September 11, in Kuehn v. Pillen (No. S-25-503), the same court, again through the Chief Justice and with the five participating justices joining, affirmed the dismissal of a second suit that asked the court to declare both laws preempted by federal law. The plaintiff conceded he had suffered no injury in fact and argued taxpayer standing instead. The court held that the incidental cost of implementing a statute is not an "illegal expenditure of public funds," that recognizing standing on that theory "would allow almost any taxpayer to challenge the constitutionality of almost any statute," and that federal preemption is not automatically a "matter of great public concern." The dismissal is without prejudice.

Why it matters. Read the caption on the first case before you read the holding. The defendant is the Secretary of State, the officer whose job was to certify the petitions, and he certified them and then crossed the aisle to argue his own certification was wrong, with the Attorney General's office as his counsel. That is the pattern to watch, and it is not a Nebraska pattern. When voters put a plant back in their own hands, the fight does not end at the ballot box; it moves into the machinery, where the tools are signature audits, notary technicalities, standing doctrine, and the federal Supremacy Clause, and where the side with a public payroll can keep going after the volunteers have gone home. What the court did this month was refuse two of those tools. It would not throw out whole petition pages over one notary's mistake, and it would not let a claim with no injury behind it ride into court on the theory that any state employee's time is a taxpayer's harm. The second holding reaches well past cannabis: it closes a door that could have been used against any voter initiative in the state. None of this puts medicine on a shelf. The Medical Cannabis Commission has licensed cultivators and is still writing fee rules, and the without-prejudice dismissal means the preemption argument can come back the day someone with an actual injury is found to carry it. But for now the record reads the way the ballot read: the voters wrote a law, the state's own officers tried to unwrite it, and the state's highest court, twice, said the vote stands.
Ninth Circuit, Nos. 24-3481 and 24-7196 · cert. petition No. 26-343, filed September 10, 2026; response now due December 4, 2026

In News from September 23, 2026 to November 2, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

A petition asks the Supreme Court who is allowed to hold a license, and the circuits do not agree

What it says. On January 2, 2026 a Ninth Circuit panel (Judges Rawlinson, Bress, and Bumatay, opinion by Judge Bress) decided two consolidated appeals, Nos. 24-3481 and 24-7196, and affirmed the dismissal of both. The plaintiff is Kenneth Gay, a Michigan resident and majority owner of Peridot Tree, Inc., a California corporation, and Peridot Tree WA, Inc., a Washington corporation. Washington has required six months of state residency for a cannabis license since 2015 (RCW 69.50.331(1)(b)) and reserves retail licenses for social equity applicants under criteria that require a 51 percent controlling interest held by someone who has resided in the state for six months (WAC 314-55-570(2)). Sacramento's Cannabis Opportunity Reinvestment and Equity program reserved ten storefront permits for two classifications that both require current or former Sacramento residency, out of a city ordinance cap of 40 permits, of which 30 had already been granted. Washington's board notified Peridot on September 17, 2023 that its application would not be considered because it failed the residency qualification. The panel held that the dormant Commerce Clause does not reach these schemes at all, writing that it declined "to extend the dormant Commerce Clause to interstate commerce in a drug market that Congress has declared illegal." The opinion catalogues the split it is joining: the First Circuit in Northeast Patients Group, 45 F.4th 542, struck down Maine's residency rule over a dissent, and the Second Circuit in Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Bd., 152 F.4th 47 (2d Cir. 2025), held New York's residency preference violated the clause, also over a dissent. The Fourth Circuit in Jensen v. Maryland Cannabis Admin., 151 F.4th 169 (4th Cir. 2025), decided on other grounds and expressly did not reach the question. A petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to resolve the split was filed on September 10, 2026, and is docketed as No. 26-343, Peridot Tree WA, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board; the response was due October 15, 2026, and on October 5, 2026 the Clerk granted a motion extending that date to December 4, 2026. We read the Ninth Circuit opinion in full and quote it directly, and we read the Supreme Court docket on September 22 and again on October 6, 2026.

Why it matters. Strip away the doctrine and the question is simply this: in a market a state has already chosen to open, who is allowed through the gate? Residency rules exist for a reason worth defending out loud. They were written so that the people a drug war fell hardest on, in the census tracts the enforcement maps actually mark, would get first claim on the licenses rather than watching outside capital arrive and take them. That is a real answer to a real injury, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. Now look at what sits underneath the residency rule, because that is the part nobody is litigating. Sacramento capped storefront permits at 40. Thirty were already gone. Ten were left, and all ten were reserved. A preference layered on top of a hard cap is not a door, it is a queue of fixed length, and whoever is standing in it when the music stops owns that city's retail market permanently. Read the split that way and neither outcome frees the plant. Strike the residency rules and the caps stay exactly where they are, with capital now free to cross state lines and buy into them. Uphold the residency rules and the caps stay too, held by owners who happened to live in the right place first. Either way the scarce thing is the license, the license is scarce because a statute made it scarce, and the value flows to whoever holds one. The Ninth Circuit was candid about what its rule protects, and it is not the plant: it is a state's power to decide who profits from a market the federal government still calls a crime. The question worth putting to the Court, and to every legislature drafting one of these systems, is the one no party has briefed. Why is the number of licenses fixed at all?
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-1759 · September 10, 2026

In News from September 16, 2026 to October 9, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

A state license, a signed contract, a $31.8 million verdict, and a federal court that says the deal was a felony

What it says. On September 10, 2026, in Hello Farms Licensing MI, LLC v. GR Vending MI, LLC, a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed a $31.8 million jury verdict won by a Michigan licensed marijuana grower. In November 2020, GR Vending MI and CURA MI, which the opinion identifies as "both subsidiaries of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc.," signed an output contract to buy Hello Farms' entire 2020 and 2021 harvests, with a $2.2 million deposit; the 2020 crop came in at about 16,300 pounds and passed testing. GR Vending took the first shipment of roughly 2,000 pounds and, "by January 2021, the price of marijuana was in freefall. So GR Vending refused to accept any more deliveries." Hello Farms sued in Michigan state court in February 2021; the case was removed to federal court on diversity. A jury found breach and awarded $31.8 million, and the district judge, calling it "a close call," declined to void the contract as illegal. The panel, in an opinion by Judge Nalbandian joined by Judge Siler, with Judge Hermandorfer concurring in all but one subsection, held that "federal courts cannot enforce agreements to commit federal crimes," that "on the face of the contract, the parties promised to commit felonies," and that this is true "whether we view the contract as encompassing recreational marijuana or limited to medical marijuana." The court held the April 2026 rescheduling rule "isn't a safe harbor," because a contract illegal when made is not cured by a later change in the law and the rule "wouldn't, by itself, legalize the parties' transaction." It added that the appropriations rider protecting state medical programs "doesn't legalize marijuana or provide immunity from prosecution," and that "Congress knows how to legalize conduct, but it chose a different route." The court acknowledged Hello Farms "may understandably view this outcome as a windfall for Defendants."

Why it matters. Strip the case to its bones and this is what it says: a farmer with a state license grew a crop under a signed contract, the buyer walked away when the price fell, a jury of the buyer's neighbors said pay, and a federal court said the farmer never had a contract at all, because the thing he grew is a federal felony. Every sentence of that is true at once, and that is the whole problem with a market that is legal in the state and illegal in the nation: the contradiction does not fall on everyone equally. Ask who can use it. The party that gets to invoke federal illegality is the party that wants out of a deal, and the party that can afford to take a case from a state courthouse to a federal appeals court is, as a rule, the larger one. Here the buyers were subsidiaries of one of the largest multistate operators on the continent, the same company whose hostile bid for Aurora we are tracking below, and the rule they won is now the law in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The court is careful to say this is not a policy choice; it is applying a rule as old as Continental Wall Paper, and pointing at Congress, which it notes has considered legalizing marijuana and "each time it has decided not to." Fair enough. But look at the shape of what Congress built by not acting. Rescheduling, the court says plainly, does not fix this. The medical rider does not fix this. What fixes it is the one thing every fenced market is missing: an ordinary, enforceable right to be paid for what you grew. Until that exists, every small licensed grower in a legal state is extending credit on a handshake to a counterparty who knows the courthouse door is closed, and the bigger the counterparty, the better it knows it.
U.S. Census Bureau, Quarterly Summary of State and Local Government Tax Revenue · September 10, 2026

In News from September 16, 2026 to October 6, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Thirty states, three and a half billion dollars a year, counted by the same government that still calls the product a crime

What it says. On September 10, 2026 the Census Bureau published an America Counts analysis of its cannabis excise tax data. Thirty states and the District of Columbia collected an estimated $3.55 billion in cannabis excise taxes between July 2025 and June 2026, up 15.7 percent from $3.06 billion in fiscal year 2022, the first year the Bureau tracked it. When collection began in 2021, 19 states and D.C. levied the tax; 11 more have entered since, Alabama last, with medical-only sales starting May 20, 2026. California's cut of the cultivation tax on July 1, 2022 drove its revenue from $878.56 million in fiscal 2022 to $528.23 million the next year, enough to pull the national total down before other states filled the gap. Washington and Montana collect more than $50 per resident, on retail excise rates of 37 and 20 percent; Alaska collects more than $30 per resident with no retail tax at all, relying on a $50 per ounce cultivation levy. Minnesota raised its rate from 10 to 15 percent, issued 324 new licenses in 2025, and more than doubled collections to $34.44 million. The Bureau notes that states "aim to generate revenue without driving prices so high that consumers turn to illegal markets."

Why it matters. Put this story next to the one above it. The Sixth Circuit says a marijuana contract is a felony that no federal court will touch. The Census Bureau, an arm of the same federal government, publishes a tidy table of the $3.55 billion that thirty states collected on those same felonies last year, and says the numbers keep growing. Both are accurate. That is the country we live in. The number matters for a reason beyond irony: once a state books three and a half billion dollars, the plant has a constituency inside the treasury, and treasuries are not sentimental. They will defend the revenue against federal prohibition, which is good, and they will also defend it against anything that lowers the price, which is where the commons gets fenced from the inside. Watch the tax design, because it decides who survives. A retail excise at 37 percent is a tax on the buyer that a large chain can absorb through volume and a corner shop cannot. A cultivation tax by the ounce, Alaska's model, is a tax on the field, and California learned in one fiscal year what that does to legal growers when the price falls. A rate that rises from 10 to 15 percent in the same year a state hands out 324 new licenses is a state betting that scale will pay for its own squeeze. None of these are arguments against taxing the product; a legal market should carry its costs. They are a reminder that a tax code is a fence with a gate, and the gate is set at whatever size of operator the state has decided it can live with.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-26-107498 · released September 8, 2026

In News from September 12, 2026 to October 9, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Seven years of reform talk, and the banking number has not moved

What it says. The Government Accountability Office published a report on access to banking for cannabis businesses, GAO-26-107498, dated August 7, 2026 and publicly released September 8, 2026. It finds that roughly 1,000 banks and credit unions filed cannabis related suspicious activity reports in 2024, a figure essentially flat since 2019. It identifies the cost of Bank Secrecy Act compliance as the binding constraint on institutions that might otherwise serve the industry, and notes that card networks still decline to process cannabis purchases.

Why it matters. This is the quietest important number in drug policy. Through seven years of reform bills, a rescheduling proceeding, three presidential administrations and a great deal of confident talk about the industry going mainstream, the count of institutions willing to bank it has not meaningfully changed. Cash-only is first a safety problem: a dispensary holding the day's receipts is a target, and the people who get hurt are the staff, not the shareholders. But look at what a flat number does over time. When compliance costs are high and fixed, they are trivial for a large operator and disqualifying for a small one, so the shortage of banks does not distribute its pain evenly. It quietly sorts the market, favoring whoever can carry a compliance department, which is the same sorting that license caps do, and the same sorting that a three tier distribution system does, and the same sorting that an FDA approval does. Different mechanisms, one direction. This is why we say the fence is not one wall. The remedy here is not exotic and does not require anyone to like cannabis: a clear supervisory safe harbor would let a small credit union in a legal state serve a licensed local business without betting its charter. That it has not happened in seven years, while every other piece of the regulatory structure moved, is itself the finding.
H.R. 6500, signed into law · September 2, 2026

In News from September 12, 2026 to September 28, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

The hemp delay is law, and the switch they left on is the one that cannot see the tank

What it says. On September 2, 2026, the President signed H.R. 6500, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, which funds the federal government through December 11, 2026. The Senate passed it 90 to 6 at 3:37 in the morning on August 8 (roll call vote 228, one senator voting present and three not voting). The House agreed to the Senate amendments 370 to 48 on September 1 (roll call 286), on a motion to suspend the rules; the House Clerk still lists the vehicle by its original title, the AGOA Extension Act, an African trade measure. Section 2019 of Division B is one sentence long and reads in full: "Until December 11, 2026, the amendments made by section 781 of division B of Public Law 119-37 (7 U.S.C. 1639o note) shall only apply with respect to products described in paragraphs (1)(C)(ii)(I) and (1)(C)(iv)(I) of section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1639o) (as amended by such section 781)." The law does not say what those two subclauses contain. We looked them up on August 2 when the text was first released, and the enacted version is word for word the same: they are the "not capable of being naturally produced" test, and only that test. The tests that go to sleep until December 11 are the one asking whether a cannabinoid was synthesized or manufactured outside the plant, and the quantity caps.

Why it matters. The coverage called this a reprieve for hemp. Read which switch stayed on. The surviving test asks whether nature is capable of making that kind of molecule anywhere, ever, and delta-8 occurs in the plant in traces, so a delta-8 gummy assembled entirely in a vessel out of CBD and acid passes it. What actually loses federal hemp status on November 12 is the narrower set: cannabinoids the plant cannot make at all. The test that could tell a field from a chemical plant, the one asking how a batch was made, is the test Congress switched off. It had three tools already passed into law and it kept the one that cannot see the tank. Be precise about the other half too, because the precision is what makes this hold up: with the quantity caps asleep, raw THCA flower also survives to December 11. Then read the calendar, because that is the part almost nobody is saying out loud. December 11 is not a hemp date. It is the day the money runs out. Congress has just moved the hemp question onto the same desk, in the same week, as every other thing that gets traded in a year end package, which is the single worst place for a small farmer to be standing and the single best place for anyone who can afford a lobbyist. Every month the date slides, the operators who can carry lawyers, lobbyists, and inventory they cannot legally sell keep standing, and the small ones close anyway. The safety case for age limits, testing, and keeping engineered intoxicants away from minors is real, and we say so every time. This law does none of that. It moves a date, and it moves it toward the people who are paid to be in the room in December.
Office of the Governor of California · September 2, 2026

In News from September 12, 2026 to September 28, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The governor's release reports the hemp figures for Alcoholic Beverage Control licensees ("Among Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) licensees, 99.33% are following the law by not selling illegal hemp products"). This story described them as sweeps of retail shelves in general. The numbers are as the state reported them; the group they describe is narrower than our wording. This is logged on the Corrections page (link).

California counted the shelves, and the compliance rate is the number to read

What it says. On September 2, 2026 the California governor's office reported the results of two statewide enforcement sweeps of retail shelves. On hemp: 23,667 site visits, 158 violations, a 99.3 percent compliance rate, and 7,403 products removed. On kratom and 7-OH: 8,038 site visits, 181 violations, a 97.75 percent compliance rate, and 7,888 products removed. The two sweeps together account for 15,291 products pulled from California stores.

Why it matters. Two readings, and the state published both of them in the same release. The first is that enforcement of an age gate and a product standard is real and it works, and we support it: intoxicating products should not be sold to minors, and a store that ignores the rule should lose the product. The second reading is the one that will be left out of every speech made about this between now and December. A sweep that finds 158 violations in 23,667 visits is not describing an epidemic. It is describing a market that follows the rule it is given, 99.3 percent of the time, when someone bothers to write a rule and send an inspector. Hold onto that number, because the federal argument arriving this autumn is that hemp cannot be regulated and therefore must be banned, and the largest state in the country just published its own evidence that it can be regulated and mostly already is. The other detail worth holding: 158 violations produced 7,403 removed products, which means the problem is concentrated in a small number of stores, not spread across the market. That is what a targeted enforcement problem looks like, and a targeted problem does not need a national ban to solve it. It needs inspectors, which cost money, which is a choice, not a law of nature.
Federal Register, 91 FR 54948 · August 26, 2026

In News from September 12, 2026 to September 27, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Three lab-made analogues went to Schedule I, and the plant compound did not

What it says. On August 26, 2026 the DEA published a temporary scheduling order, docket DEA-1644, placing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16 into Schedule I on a finding that the action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety. The order is effective August 26, 2026 until August 26, 2028. On the same day, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health at HHS extended to September 10 the comment period on its request for information about the threshold for the separate action that would place 7-OH (7-hydroxymitragynine) above a specified threshold into Schedule I. That separate action has not issued. The notices of intent filed July 1 and published July 6 said an order could issue on or after August 5, 2026, and as of today none has published. So the three named analogues are federally controlled and 7-OH itself is not.

Why it matters. A number of outlets wrote that the DEA banned 7-OH. It did not, and the distinction is not a technicality, it is the whole story. If you sell, buy, possess, or advise on these products, the legal line today runs between three specific laboratory molecules and the compound that occurs in a leaf, and getting that wrong is how a person ends up charged for something that was never scheduled. Correct the record before you act on it. Then hold the pattern up to the light. The move that is easy to defend is the one that happened: three engineered molecules, no traditional use, sold at a checkout counter with no dosing standard, temporarily controlled. The move still sitting in a docket is the harder one, because 7-OH is made by the kratom plant, which people in Southeast Asia have used for generations and which people here use to stay off stronger things. Watch what a Schedule I placement does to a plant compound. It does not end the molecule. It routes it, out of the leaf and the shop and into a pharmaceutical pipeline where the price of entry is an approval only a company with capital can buy. We keep asking the same question and it keeps being the right one: does this protect families, capture a market, or both? The comment period on the 7-OH threshold closed September 10 and the order on 7-OH itself has still not issued, which means the answer is not settled and the record the public built is now in the agency's hands.
Company release and SEC filing · August 18, 2026

In News from September 12, 2026 to September 23, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The December 1 deadline no longer applies. Our current story reports Curaleaf's offer, dated October 6, 2026, as expiring December 4, and on November 3, 2026 Aurora announced an agreement to be acquired by Organigram instead. Current story: (link).

A hostile bid for a company that said no, and the map gets smaller again

What it says. On August 18, 2026 Curaleaf Holdings formally commenced a take-over bid for Aurora Cannabis and took it directly to Aurora shareholders, after announcing its intention on August 11 and after Aurora's board declined to engage and formed a special committee. The offer, in the company's own words, carries a "total implied consideration of US$4.00 per Aurora common share, comprised of 0.3463 of a Curaleaf subordinate voting share plus US$0.75 in cash," based on Curaleaf's closing price of US$9.39 on August 10, 2026. Curaleaf describes that as a 45 percent premium to Aurora's 30 day volume weighted average price of US$2.75. The bid carries a Cap Price of US$5.00 and a Cap VWAP Price of C$17.05, and no financing or due diligence condition. It states that "the Offer will remain open for acceptance until 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) on December 1, 2026." Curaleaf filed the offer materials with the SEC, and filed a further 8-K on August 25, 2026, dated August 24, attaching a release responding to Aurora.

Why it matters. A hostile bid is the clearest picture the industry ever gives you of what it thinks it is worth, because it is the one moment a buyer has to put a number on paper and hand it to strangers. The number here, after years of talk about an industry on the verge, is four dollars a share with no financing condition, for one of the largest licensed producers on the continent. Read past the premium. The interesting figure is not 45 percent, it is the cash: 75 cents of the four dollars. The rest is paper, which is how a company keeps buying through a downturn when cash is the thing nobody has, and it means Aurora shareholders are being asked to take on Curaleaf's risk rather than exit it. The structural read is the one we keep coming back to. Every license is a door, and in a capped market the doors do not multiply, they change hands, and they change hands toward whoever still has access to capital when everyone else is out. Aurora's board said no and the buyer went around it to the shareholders. That is legal and ordinary and it is also exactly how a market with a hundred operators becomes a market with a dozen. December 1 is the deadline, twelve weeks out, and it lands ten days before the federal funding date that now carries the hemp question too. Watch the regulators in every state and province where a license would transfer, because approval of a transfer is the last place the public still has a seat.
H.R. 10079, 119th Congress · August 10, 2026

In News from September 12, 2026 to September 28, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

A bill that regulates the drink instead of banning the plant, and hands the shelf to the wholesalers

What it says. On August 10, 2026, Rep. Beth Van Duyne of Texas introduced the Beverage Regulatory Parity Act, H.R. 10079, "To provide for the regulation of hemp-derived beverages, and for other purposes," with Rep. Greg Landsman of Ohio as the sole cosponsor. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in addition, to the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill would bring hemp derived THC beverages under the Food and Drug Administration and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and run them through the same three tier structure that governs alcohol, with producers, wholesalers, and retailers held in separate licensed layers. It sets a purchase age of 21, caps a serving at 5 milligrams of THC, imposes an excise tax of 8 cents per milligram of THC, and defines a hemp derived beverage as one containing no synthetically derived cannabinoids, which keeps them out of the regulated lane without a separate prohibition.

Why it matters. This is the first serious answer to the November and December cliffs that is not simply a ban, and that alone makes it worth reading closely. The age gate at 21, a serving cap, and a real testing and labeling authority are the things we have said belong in any honest hemp bill, and they belong there whether or not the rest of the bill is good. So say the good part plainly: keeping engineered intoxicants away from minors is right. Now look at the structure underneath. The three tier system is not a neutral safety design. It is the most successful and most durable enclosure in American consumer law, built after Prohibition to guarantee that nobody reaches a customer without paying a middle layer that exists because a statute says it exists. Written into hemp, it means the farmer who grows the plant is barred by law from selling the drink to the person who wants it, and a licensed wholesaler collects on every unit forever. Price it out: 8 cents a milligram on a 5 milligram serving is 40 cents of federal excise before anyone has been paid, on a product a farmer could make for pennies. Watch who has been applauding. Alcohol wholesalers and convenience store trade groups came out for regulation over a ban within weeks, and they are not wrong that regulation beats prohibition. They are also bidding for a permanent statutory seat at a table the plant's growers will not be allowed to sit at. That is the trade on offer: your product stays legal, and someone else owns the road to the customer.
National Academies · meetings running through 2026 and 2027

In News from August 3, 2026 to September 23, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

The rules for who keeps their job are being written behind a closed door

What it says. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has opened a project titled "Meeting of Experts: Discussion of Cannabis Use and Operational Fitness Policy for Pilots and Air Traffic Controllers" (project CHPP-HCPH-25-02), sponsored by the Department of Transportation and listed as in progress. The statement of task says the Academies will host and plan a four-part expert meeting series "to enhance the FAA's understanding of the impact of both recent and cumulative cannabis use on key functions for pilots and air traffic controllers," and that the discussions "will help inform the FAA on approaches they might take to evaluate, update, or refine their current policies for cannabis use, particularly for determining when individuals are fit for duty." Named topics include initial and ongoing screening, monitoring for cognitive functioning, and the duration and variability of impairment after cannabis use. The Academies describe a meeting of experts as a convening of a small number of selected experts acting in their individual capacities rather than as a committee. Two lines on the project page do the most work: "These meetings are not open to the public, and no product will be generated."

Why it matters. Nobody sensible wants an impaired pilot. Fitness-for-duty standards for people who hold hundreds of lives in their hands are exactly the kind of rule a government should write carefully, and the science on how long cannabis impairs someone is genuinely unsettled, which is the honest reason to convene experts at all. Hold that. Then look at the architecture. Four meetings, closed to the public, experts appearing as individuals so no committee has to reach a record, and no published product at the end. Whatever emerges will shape whether a controller in a legal state can be fired for a weekend, and none of it will have a transcript the public can read. We have now watched this shape twice in six weeks: a rescheduling hearing where only opponents got a seat, and a sewer-monitoring program with no privacy section. The pattern is not that the government is doing something indefensible. It is that the defensible thing keeps getting decided where the affected people cannot see it. Note the phrase "cumulative cannabis use" too. That is not asking whether someone is impaired at the controls, it is asking what they did on their own time.
U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee · August 2, 2026

In News from August 3, 2026 to September 12, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: This provision became law. H.R. 6500 was signed on September 2, 2026 with Section 2019 unchanged. November 12, 2026 remains the date for cannabinoids the plant cannot produce; the other two tests and the quantity caps start December 11, 2026. See "The hemp delay is law" on this page (link) and the current hemp story (link).

The hemp cliff moves, but only by a month, and only if this passes

What it says. On August 2, 2026, Senate Appropriations leaders released the text of the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, a stopgap that would fund federal agencies through December 11, 2026. Near the end of Division B sits Section 2019, headed "Section 781 Extension." It provides that until December 11, 2026, the amendments made by section 781 of division B of Public Law 119-37 "shall only apply with respect to products described in paragraphs (1)(C)(ii)(I) and (1)(C)(iv)(I) of section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946." The bill does not say what those subclauses contain. We looked them up and published the read the same day: they are the "not capable of being naturally produced" test, and only that test. Section 781 built three tests, and this provision leaves the first one running while putting the other two to sleep for twenty nine days, including the test asking whether a batch was "synthesized or manufactured outside the plant" and the quantity caps. The House passed its own continuing resolution last month with no hemp language, so this text needs a Senate vote and then House agreement before it reaches the President.

Why it matters. The coverage is calling this a lifeline for hemp, and a reprieve for synthetics is not what it says. Read which switch stayed on. The surviving test asks whether nature is capable of making that kind of molecule anywhere, ever, and delta-8 occurs in the plant in traces, so a delta-8 gummy assembled entirely in a vessel out of CBD and acid passes it. The test that could tell a field from a chemical plant, the one asking how a batch was made, is the test this provision switches off. Congress had three tools already passed into law and picked up the one that cannot see the tank. Be precise about the other half too, because the precision is what makes this hold up: with the quantity caps asleep, raw THCA flower also survives those twenty nine days. This is a short pause with an edge on it, not a ban on nature. And read the calendar. It is a stay of about four weeks attached to a funding deadline, landing the hemp question back on the same desk in December where it can be traded against everything else in a year-end package. Every month the date slides, the operators who can carry lawyers, lobbyists, and inventory they cannot legally sell keep standing, and the small ones close anyway. The safety case for age limits, testing, and keeping engineered intoxicants away from minors is real and we say so every time. This provision does none of that. It moves a date, and it moves it in a direction.
SEC filing and company releases · July 20 to 31, 2026

In News from July 27, 2026 to September 12, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Three deals in eleven days, and the map gets smaller

What it says. On July 20, 2026, Vireo Growth Inc. announced a definitive agreement to buy cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and retail operations from subsidiaries of The Cannabist Company (formerly Columbia Care) across five markets: Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and West Virginia. Total consideration is up to $35 million, up to $18.75 million in cash at closing plus up to $16.25 million in seller notes, with closings staged through 2026 and into 2027 subject to regulatory approval in each state. The deal would add up to 25 dispensaries and one cultivation and one production asset, bringing Vireo to roughly 230 dispensaries across 15 states on a pro forma basis, a figure that also counts other previously announced acquisitions still pending, which the company says would make it the second largest dispensary network in the country. The sale comes out of distress: Cannabist entered CCAA insolvency proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court on March 24, 2026, and obtained U.S. recognition of those proceedings under Chapter 15 in the District of Delaware on May 9, 2026. Vireo's chief executive described the purchase as a "disciplined and strategic approach to industry consolidation." Two more deals followed within eleven days. On July 27 Vireo announced an agreement to acquire Planet 13 Holdings Inc., which the company said would position it as the largest U.S. operator by dispensary count. On July 31 it announced four separate securities purchase agreements to buy FarmaceuticalRx LLC, FarmaceuticalRx 2 LLC, CAOH LLC, and Canoe Hill Ohio, LLC, adding eight Ohio dispensaries plus a cultivation and processing facility and related real estate, for roughly $208 million paid not in cash but in about 11 million subordinate voting shares, issued half at closing and the rest at about 90 and 180 days, with a clawback of up to 25 percent if performance thresholds are missed. Vireo says that once the Ohio transactions and its other announced deals close it expects a presence in 16 states and roughly 270 dispensaries, up from operations in 10 states and about 170 dispensaries today. The Ohio release also discloses that chief executive John Mazarakis is himself a seller under the CAOH LLC agreement. Vireo states he declared the conflict and recused himself from all board deliberations and voting, that the transactions are a related party transaction under Multilateral Instrument 61-101, and that the company intends to rely on exemptions from both the formal valuation and the minority shareholder approval requirements on the basis that the interested portion does not exceed 25 percent of market capitalization. Shareholder approval is not expected to be required. Closing is expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, subject to regulatory approval.

Why it matters. The company saying the quiet part out loud is useful: this is consolidation, and consolidation is what a market looks like while it closes. In eleven days one buyer went from roughly 170 dispensaries to a stated path toward 270 across 16 states, and from second largest to, by its own description, the largest operator in the country by store count. One of the original multistate operators went insolvent and its stores went to the buyer with capital. Note where the assets sit, mostly limited-license states, which is the point: a license cap means a fixed number of doors, and when the doors change hands they move toward whoever has cash during a downturn. That is not a scandal, it is arithmetic, and it is the arithmetic that decides whether the legal market ends up with hundreds of independent operators or a dozen landlords. Two details are worth holding. The Ohio deals are being paid in stock rather than cash, which is how a company keeps buying through a downturn when cash is the thing nobody has. And the company disclosed that its own chief executive is a seller in one of the four, that this makes the package a related party transaction, and that it intends to use exemptions from both an independent valuation and a minority shareholder vote. Vireo disclosed all of that itself and says he recused, which is the system working as designed. It is still worth saying plainly what the design permits: a company can buy an asset partly from its own chief executive without an outside valuation and without asking its minority shareholders. Watch the state regulators. Every one of these transfers needs approval, and approval is the one moment the public still has leverage to ask whether a market this concentrated is the market voters said yes to.
SAMHSA · July 27, 2026

In News from July 31, 2026 to September 16, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Despite the scary headlines, teen use fell again

What it says. On July 27, 2026, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration released Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2025 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. PEP26-07-010, NSDUH Series H-61). Past-year marijuana use among people aged 12 to 17 fell to 8.7 percent, about 2.2 million young people, down from 10.9 percent and 2.8 million in 2021; past-month use fell to 5.0 percent from 6.1 percent. SAMHSA labels both trends decreased. Adult use moved the other way: past-year use among people 26 and older rose from 17.3 percent to 20.6 percent over the same period. Separately, Detailed Table 9.38A reports that 21.4 million people aged 12 or older used marijuana on 20 or more days in the past month, against 17.2 million for alcohol on that same 20-day definition and 19.9 million who smoked cigarettes on every one of the past 30 days. The survey's overall response rate was 8.5 percent, and SAMHSA warns that 2025 estimates are not comparable with 2020 or earlier because the survey changed how it collects data. State-level estimates for 2024 and 2025 are not due until early 2027.

Why it matters. Two things worth holding onto. First, teen use went down while more states opened adult markets. That is the opposite of what the case against legalization has predicted for two decades, and it is now in the government's own numbers, landing while the DEA's one-sided rescheduling record sits with the Administrator. SAMHSA does not say legalization caused the decline, and neither do we: the report never uses the word, and the national file cannot support a state-by-state claim. But a prediction was made, loudly and for years, and the data did not cooperate. Second, be careful with the number the trade press ran with. Comparing marijuana to cigarettes here compares a 20-days-out-of-30 threshold against an all-30-days threshold, and daily marijuana use has been flat since 2022 while daily drinking fell by roughly 5 million and daily smoking by roughly 7.6 million. Marijuana did not climb past them; they came down. We flag it because a number repeated often enough becomes a fact, and this one will be quoted at legislatures for a year.
Delaware General Assembly · signed July 23, 2026

In News from July 30, 2026 to September 12, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Delaware puts hemp drinks behind the liquor counter

What it says. On July 23, 2026, the Governor signed House Bill 373 (Volume 85, Chapter 394), sponsored by Rep. Deb Heffernan with Reps. Osienski and Chukwuocha and Sen. Cruce. The act builds a state system for THC-infused beverages. Manufacturers need state authorization and must deliver to licensed importers, who handle notice and testing before the drinks can move from a warehouse to a store. Package stores may obtain authorization to sell the beverages for off-premises consumption under rules on shelf placement, signage, and packaging, and licensed retail marijuana stores may sell them too. The act classifies CBD, CBG, CBN, and CBC as nonintoxicating cannabinoids, raises civil penalties for selling to anyone under 21 to as much as $10,000 for a repeat offense within five years, and taxes infused beverages at 50 cents per container, collected at the warehouse distributor rather than the register. Most of it takes effect October 21, 2026, and the tax provisions on February 1, 2027. The act also carries its own kill switch: sales of infused beverages may sunset if Congress changes the federal definition of hemp in 7 U.S.C. 1639o to make it a controlled substance.

Why it matters. The safety half of this is right, and we will say so: age limits, testing, child-resistant standards, and real penalties for selling to minors are what a serious product regime looks like. The part to watch is the plumbing. Routing hemp drinks through authorized manufacturers, licensed importers, and package stores is the alcohol model, and the alcohol model rewards whoever already holds a license and a warehouse. A small maker who has been selling a seltzer directly to a corner shop now needs a path through an importer. That is the same pattern Tennessee ran a month earlier, and it is the pattern the November 12 federal cliff would push nationwide. Note the sunset clause too. Delaware wrote its own law knowing Congress could erase the category underneath it, which tells you how much of this market now rests on one federal definition.
White House ONDCP · July 23, 2026

In News from July 31, 2026 to September 12, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

The government is testing the sewer, and the report has no privacy section

What it says. On July 23, 2026, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced its first wastewater-based drug testing report, a newsletter from the ONDCP Office of Data and Research titled Wastewater Analytics: A Powerful Window into Shifting Drug Use Trends. The program quantitatively measures more than 20 drugs across 101 U.S. counties covering about 18 percent of the population, and qualitatively screens for more than 500 substances in selected counties. Biobot Analytics, a private company, collects and analyzes the samples and provides ONDCP with data aggregated at the county level or higher. The trend series runs from June 2022 to April 2026. ONDCP reports declines in fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine between January and April 2026, and says medetomidine, para-fluorofentanyl, carfentanil, and acetyl fentanyl now appear in every census region. Ketamine was detected in every county tested and tianeptine in 77 percent. The report cautions that its findings are not nationally representative and that concentrations should not be read as representative of an entire county or state.

Why it matters. Start with what is not in the document. There is no privacy section, no consent language, no statement about whether an individual could ever be identified, and no data retention or governance terms anywhere in the report, its supplement, or the release. What the release does name explicitly is the audience: parents, teachers, medical professionals, and law enforcement officials, alongside a stated goal of reducing drug trafficking and use. Measuring a community's sewage is not a search of any one person, and near real-time data on a poisoned supply can save lives, so we are not against the tool. We are asking for the rules. A monitoring program with this reach should arrive with its limits written down, and the list of 500-plus substances it screens for is not published, so the public has no way to know whether the plant compounds this site tracks are already on it. There is also a finding ONDCP put in a parenthetical: its own data show the states with the most fentanyl are not the states with the most naloxone or medication for opioid use disorder. Build the sensor and skip the response, and you have measured a crisis rather than answered it.
Michigan Supreme Court · July 22, 2026

In News from July 27, 2026 to September 23, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The first sentence states the holding too broadly. The court had already held in People v Armstrong, decided April 2, 2025, that the smell of marijuana alone is not probable cause for a search. People v Wilkins answered the question Armstrong left open: the court held that the search was not permitted where the trooper had probable cause to believe only that the occupants, who were under 21, were responsible for a civil infraction. The other factors the court listed are a criminal amount of marijuana in plain view, someone smoking, lingering smoke, or signs of intoxication. See the Michigan brief (link). This is logged on the Corrections page (link).

The smell of a legal plant is not a warrant

What it says. On July 22, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v Wilkins (Docket No. 167737), holding 5 to 2 that the smell of marijuana alone does not give police probable cause to search a car without a warrant. Justice Kimberly Thomas wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Cavanagh and Justices Welch, Bolden, and Hood; Justice Zahra dissented, joined by Justice Bernstein. The court reasoned that because Michigan voters legalized marijuana through the 2018 Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, and made small-amount possession by a person under 21 a civil infraction rather than a crime, substances prohibited only by civil law are not contraband for purposes of a warrantless automobile search. The opinion is careful: odor can still be one factor toward probable cause when paired with other evidence such as visible smoke, signs of intoxication, marijuana in plain view, or an amount over the criminal threshold. The court decided the case under the Fourth Amendment and declined to reach the Michigan Constitution; Justice Welch joined in full but wrote separately that she would have decided it on state constitutional grounds. The Court of Appeals judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

Why it matters. Legalization on paper does not automatically reach the roadside. For years after voters changed the law, the smell of a legal plant kept working as a skeleton key, a reason to search a car, and the people that key was used on were not evenly distributed. This ruling closes that gap and does it on the cleanest possible ground: the public voted to take marijuana out of the criminal law, so the criminal-law tools that came with it have to go too. That is the commons argument in a courtroom. The public decided; the institutions have to follow. Note the limit, though. This is one state's Fourth Amendment reading, it leaves odor available as a factor alongside real evidence, and the same fight is live in other states that legalized. The right thing to watch now is enforcement data: whether search rates and who gets stopped actually change, or whether the practice simply reappears with a different justification written on the report.
U.S. House · July 22, 2026

In News from July 27, 2026 to September 12, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: Our first reading of this bill has since been published: "The Hemp Bill That Would Make the Kid the Offender" (link). The November 12 date in this story predates the two stage calendar set on September 2, 2026.

A new federal hemp bill, and a close reading underway

What it says. On July 22, 2026, Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) and Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), the lead Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, introduced the Lawful Hemp Protection Act (H.R. 9830). It is a 60-page bill that would replace the hemp regime scheduled to take effect on November 12, 2026 with a new federal structure for hemp-derived consumer products, covering the legal definition of hemp, product standards, federal permitting, taxation, and distribution. It has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and, additionally, to Energy and Commerce, Agriculture, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

Where we are. This is a long and structurally complex bill, and it arrives with the November 12 deadline about sixteen weeks out. Drug Policy Watch has a full page-by-page review underway and is not taking a position on it yet. We would rather be slow and right than fast and quoted. Our assessment will be published when the review is finished and checked, including a comparison against the other hemp bills now before Congress. Until then we are reporting that the bill exists, what it covers, and where it sits.
U.S. Senate · July 16, 2026

In News until September 12, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: This story cited one source, the sponsors' announcement, which does not mention hemp. The story's line about hemp is not supported by the bill text, S. 5022. Section 803 rewrites the federal hemp definition around a total THC test: 1 milligram per 100 grams for products and 0.7 percent for plant material that has only been harvested, dried, cured or trimmed, counting any tetrahydrocannabinol, including delta-8, delta-9 and delta-10. On our reading, that does not keep intoxicating hemp THC products inside the hemp definition. The phrase "written to block the November 12 federal recriminalization of hemp THC products" says more than the text supports. This is logged on the Corrections page (link).

The bill that would legalize the whole plant, not just the corporate slice

What it says. On July 16, 2026, Senators Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, and Ron Wyden, joined by 14 Democratic co-sponsors, reintroduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA). It would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act entirely, direct the Attorney General to finalize descheduling within 180 days, and set a federal excise tax that starts at 5 percent for small and mid-size producers (rising to 12.5 percent over five years) and at 10 percent for large ones (rising to 25 percent). It would expunge low-level federal cannabis convictions within a year, let those still incarcerated petition for resentencing, fund equity licensing and a Small Business Administration lending pilot for operators harmed by the drug war, create a Center for Cannabis Products at the FDA, and add hemp provisions written to block the November 12 federal recriminalization of hemp THC products. The bill arrived one day after the DEA's Schedule III hearing closed.

Why it matters. The contrast is the whole story. The administration's path reschedules medical marijuana to Schedule III, which mostly hands a tax break to the licensed operators already inside the fence. CAOA would take the fence down: deschedule the plant, clear records, and write in graduated taxes, equity licensing, and lending built to keep the market open to small and disadvantaged operators instead of the biggest players. It faces long odds in a divided Congress, and the White House opposes full legalization, so passage is unlikely this year. But it is the clearest marker of the real choice in front of the country: reform that widens the commons, or reform that just moves the gate. Watch whether the expungement and small-business pieces survive if any part of it moves.
DEA · June to July 2026

In News until September 28, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The record did not go to the Administrator on this schedule. The Chief Administrative Law Judge stayed the matter on September 29, 2026, admitted a Government Accountability Office report on October 22, 2026, and denied a motion to reopen the hearing. Briefs were filed October 29 and replies November 5, 2026. Current story: (link).

A hearing with only one side in the room

What it says. The DEA's formal evidentiary hearing on moving marijuana to Schedule III, before Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius, ran from June 29 and was scheduled to conclude no later than July 15, 2026. It recessed July 3, reconvened July 6, and heard its final participants in mid-July, with the states of Nebraska, Idaho and Indiana closing out the record alongside their own scientific witness. The hearing concluded on July 15, 2026, and Chief Administrative Law Judge Julius set August 17, 2026 as the deadline for optional post-hearing briefs, after which the full record passes to the DEA Administrator for a final decision. The agency selected seven participants, and every one of them opposed rescheduling: the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the states of Nebraska, Idaho and Indiana (Louisiana withdrew on June 25, 2026), DUID Victim Voices, and two clinicians. The government's own FDA witness testified that marijuana has an accepted medical use and that its abuse potential and overdose risk are lower than the scheduled drugs it was compared with.

Why it matters. A hearing where only opponents get a seat is not a debate, it is a stage. Patients, doctors who support access, and reform groups asked to participate and were shut out. Some attorneys argue a one-sided record could ironically help rescheduling survive a court challenge. Our view: a process built this lopsided invites exactly the legitimacy questions that will trail whatever it produces.
Federal Register, 91 FR 43095 · hearing September 14, 2026

In News from September 12, 2026 to October 9, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The comment period on this docket closed October 5, 2026. Comments can no longer be filed here. For an FDA psychedelics docket that is still taking comments, see the current ibogaine story (link).

The public hearing on psychedelics rules the public's questions out of order

What it says. The FDA published a notice on July 14, 2026 (91 FR 43095, docket FDA-2026-N-7542) setting a public hearing titled "Considerations for Potential Future Therapeutic Use of Psychedelic Drugs." The hearing is on Monday, September 14, 2026, from 12:30 to 4:30 p.m. Eastern, in hybrid form, in person at the agency's White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Maryland. Requests to present were due August 21, 2026. Written comments are open to the docket until 11:59 p.m. Eastern on October 5, 2026, and anyone may file one. The agency says it is seeking feedback on the potential future therapeutic use of drug products containing a psychedelic substance in supervised and supportive settings, and that it is not seeking comment on legalization, decriminalization, the merits of state and local programs, scheduling, or religious and ceremonial use, while welcoming data from state programs. The notice supports Executive Order 14401 of April 18, 2026, "Accelerating Medical Treatments for Serious Mental Illness."

Why it matters. Start with the part that is good, because it is real: a federal comment window on psychedelics is open until October 5 and it costs nothing to use. If you have something to say, say it on the docket, where it becomes part of a record an agency has to answer. Then read the fence. The notice welcomes data from state programs and rules the merits of state programs out of scope. It rules scheduling out of scope, and scheduling is the single thing standing between a person and a legal supervised session. It rules out religious and ceremonial use, which is where most of the human experience with these substances actually lives. What is left inside the lines is the set of questions a company with an investigational new drug application is already staffed to answer: protocols, settings, monitoring, endpoints. Oregon and Colorado built the only real-world evidence base in this country, with their own money, their own rulemaking, and volunteers who took the risk, and they are invited to hand the data over and stay out of the conclusion. That is the mechanism by which a commons becomes an input. The veterans this is being accelerated for are the test of whether it worked: if the end of this road is a supervised session that a veteran can actually reach and afford, it worked, and we will say so. If the end of it is an approved product priced like a specialty drug while the state programs that proved it are folded up, then the hearing did exactly what its scope section said it would.
Idaho Secretary of State · July 14, 2026

In News until September 12, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: Idaho voters rejected HJR 4 on November 3, 2026 (66.27 to 33.73, unofficial results). The initiative power stands. See the Idaho brief (link).

Idaho's medical cannabis initiative falls short, and the state moves to end the ballot option

What it says. On July 14, 2026, the Idaho Secretary of State's Office announced that the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act initiative failed to qualify for the November ballot. Organizers with the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho turned in a maximum of 58,024 county-certified signatures and met the 6 percent threshold in only 13 legislative districts, short of the 70,725 valid signatures and 18 districts state law requires. In a July 13 determination letter, Secretary of State Phil McGrane also said his office referred complaints of possible fraud, including a signature attributed to a voter who died in 2021, to the Idaho State Police, and could not verify the residency of 293 petition circulators. Separately, the legislature has referred a constitutional amendment, HJR 4, to the November 2026 ballot that would give the legislature sole authority to legalize marijuana or other substances and strip the public's power to do so by initiative.

Why it matters. This is the commons fight in its purest form: not just who controls a plant, but who controls the tool citizens use to change the law. Idaho is one of the few states with no medical program, and residents spent a year using direct democracy to try to build one. The drive fell short, tangled in problems the campaign blames on its first paid signature vendor. Now the same ballot may carry HJR 4, which would fence off that avenue for good, so that even a clean, winning signature drive could not legalize cannabis in the future. Keeping intoxicants from minors is a legitimate aim; permanently stripping voters of the initiative power is a different thing entirely. The petition failed this year. The remaining question, on the amendment, is whether Idahoans should be allowed to ask again.
U.S. HHS · July 13, 2026

In News until September 16, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Washington moves to build the psychedelics pipeline, and to own it

What it says. On July 13, 2026, HHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs signed a five-year memorandum of understanding to develop psychedelic treatments for veterans with serious mental illness, advancing President Trump's executive order 14401. The same day, the FDA finalized its guidance, Psychedelic Drugs: Considerations for Clinical Investigations, and set a public hearing on therapeutic use for September 14, 2026. Alongside the agreement, the National Institute on Drug Abuse awarded funding to support an investigational new drug application for ibogaine, a plant-derived psychedelic, and the HHS research agency ARPA-H opened funding to study ibogaine for opioid use disorder, saying it would also explore ways to keep future treatments affordable and accessible.

Why it matters. This is the fastest the federal government has ever moved on psychedelics, and the direction matters as much as the speed. Ibogaine comes from a plant, Tabernanthe iboga, used by traditional healers for generations; psilocybin grows in the ground. The machinery now being built, FDA guidance, agency partnerships, and IND applications, is the same machinery that produces patents, exclusive approvals, and pharmaceutical pricing. ARPA-H's promise to keep treatments affordable is the right instinct, and worth holding them to. The question we keep our lens on: will veterans and the communities that have stewarded these plants get real access to the medicine, or will a plant that has healed people for centuries be fenced off, approved, and sold back to them at a price they cannot pay?
Texas DSHS · effective July 31, 2026

In News from July 30, 2026 to August 3, 2026. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The last paragraph was written before Congress changed the federal calendar. Under Section 2019 of H.R. 6500, signed September 2, 2026, the federal hemp change arrives in two stages, November 12 and December 11, 2026, and delta-8 made from CBD falls in the second. See "The hemp delay is law" on this page (link). The Texas brief has the current state of the Texas rules and the litigation over them (link).

Texas closes the delta-8 door on July 31

What it says. The Texas Department of State Health Services published a notice in the July 10, 2026 edition of the Texas Register (51 TexReg 4597) reinstating clarifications to the definitions of tetrahydrocannabinols and marihuana extract in the state's 2021 Schedules of Controlled Substances. The notice takes effect July 31, 2026. In practice it treats more than trace amounts of THC other than delta-9 as a controlled substance, which reaches manufactured delta-8 and delta-10 products, while finished hemp products that stay at or below the 0.3 percent delta-9 limit remain lawful. DSHS says it acted pursuant to the opinion the Supreme Court of Texas delivered on May 1, 2026 in No. 23-0887, Texas Department of State Health Services v. Sky Marketing Corp., d/b/a Hometown Hero, in which the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered judgment, with Justice Young writing for the court. The court denied rehearing and issued its mandate on June 5, 2026, ending the stay that had been running against the Travis County injunction.

Why it matters. Watch how this happened, not only what it does. No bill passed. A schedule that had been frozen by an injunction since 2021 came back to life through a court ruling and an agency notice, and thousands of Texas storefronts have three weeks to clear their shelves. Whatever you think of concentrated delta-8, a market can be closed in this state without a single recorded vote, and that is a governance problem as much as a drug problem. Keeping engineered intoxicants away from minors is right. The question is who is left standing afterward: Texas keeps a narrow medical program with a handful of licensed operators, so the demand does not disappear, it moves to whoever is inside the fence or to no one at all. This is a live rehearsal for what November 12 does nationally, and the people about to find out first are the small shops.
DEA · July 1, 2026

In News until September 12, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The order did not arrive as described here. On August 26, 2026 the DEA temporarily scheduled the three related substances (91 FR 54948). When we last reported on it, in September 2026, no order on 7-OH itself had published. See "Three lab-made analogues went to Schedule I, and the plant compound did not" on this page (link).

The plant compound Washington just moved to ban

What it says. On July 1, 2026, the DEA filed notices of intent to temporarily place concentrated 7-OH (7-hydroxymitragynine) and three related substances (mitragynine pseudoindoxyl, MGM-15, and MGM-16) into Schedule I, published in the Federal Register on July 6. HHS reviewed the science and recommended the action, and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. backed it. The order targets highly concentrated, synthetic, and semi-synthetic 7-OH products, the powders, tablets, gummies, and dissolvable strips sold in gas stations and smoke shops, not ordinary botanical kratom leaf, which carries only trace amounts of 7-OH below the set threshold. The threshold is more than 0.050 percent 7-OH by dry weight in botanical material, or more than 0.050 percent or 1.00 milligram in a synthetic or processed article. The DEA notices themselves take no public comment (docket DEA-1570, 91 FR 40917, and docket DEA-1644, 91 FR 40909); the comment window that closes July 31, 2026 belongs to a separate HHS request for information (docket HHS-OASH-2026-0232, 91 FR 41049), and HHS says it is not taking comment on permanent scheduling or on kratom policy generally, only on the threshold. The DEA says the temporary scheduling order will publish on or after August 5, 2026, and would run two years.

Why it matters. Two things are true at once. Concentrated, opioid-like 7-OH products sold at the checkout counter, some to young people, with no dosing standards, are a real safety problem, and pulling the most potent versions off the shelf is a defensible call. But watch the move underneath it. 7-OH comes from the kratom plant, used in Southeast Asia for generations. When a plant compound is criminalized as Schedule I, the door that stays open is a patented, FDA-approved pharmaceutical version, owned by whoever can afford the approval, while the plant and the people who rely on it get pushed to the margins. The question we keep asking: does this protect families, capture a market, or both? Keep the lens on who ends up owning the molecule.
U.S. House · July 1, 2026

In News until August 3, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Veterans, ibogaine, and who gets to own the cure

What it says. A bipartisan group, Reps. Lou Correa (D), Morgan Luttrell (R), Jack Bergman (R), and Michael McCaul (R), filed the IBOGAINE Act to write President Trump's psychedelics executive order (EO 14401) into law and push the Attorney General to decide within 60 days whether to move ibogaine from Schedule I to Schedule II. Sponsors cite a 2024 Stanford study in which veterans' PTSD symptoms fell 88 percent a month after ibogaine treatment.

Why it matters. The real fight over psychedelics is not only legality, it is enclosure: who gets to own and profit from these medicines. Ibogaine comes from a plant, Tabernanthe iboga, used by traditional healers for generations. The danger is that codification and rescheduling route it into patents, exclusive FDA-approved formulations, and pharmaceutical pricing, while grassroots practitioners and the plant's traditional stewards get criminalized or priced out, and the veterans this bill is named for still cannot afford the cure. Access to research is good. Access to the commons, so a plant that has healed people for centuries is not fenced off and sold back to them, is the fight we keep our lens on.
Georgia General Assembly · effective July 1, 2026

In News until July 31, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Georgia treats it like medicine, now watch who gets to grow it

What it says. The Putting Georgia's Patients First Act (SB 220), signed May 12 and effective July 1, 2026, renames low THC oil to medical cannabis, replaces the old 5 percent THC cap with a 12,000 milligram possession limit, adds qualifying conditions including lupus, intractable pain, severe insomnia, and inflammatory bowel disease, and allows vaporization for patients 21 and older.

Why it matters. First, the good news, and it is real: this is a genuine expansion of patient access in a deep-red state, and it ends the cruel severe or end-stage gatekeeping that forced patients to get sicker before they could qualify. Access for patients is the win. But Georgia runs a tightly capped license system with only a handful of producers. As demand grows, the enclosure question moves to the front: who gets to grow and sell, a closed circle of well-capitalized licensees, or is there room for small and equity operators too? Watch supply, price, and who holds the licenses.
Tennessee General Assembly · effective July 1, 2026

In News until July 30, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Tennessee hands hemp to the liquor industry

What it says. HB 1376 / SB 1413, enacted as Public Chapter 526, moved oversight of hemp-derived cannabinoid products from the Department of Agriculture to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, banned THCA, and set up an alcohol-style three-tier license system with new taxes. It took full effect July 1, 2026, and limits sales to retailers serving customers 21 and older.

Why it matters. Let us be clear: keeping intoxicating products away from minors is the right call, and age-gating is a feature, not a flaw. The catch is enclosure. Routing hemp through the liquor regulator and a three-tier license system hands a market built by small, independent operators to established alcohol interests and whoever can afford the new licenses, and bans THCA outright. The public-safety framing is real. So is the quiet transfer of a market to the biggest players. That tradeoff, safety used as the door through which consolidation walks in, is what we are watching, and it is a preview of what the federal cliff could do nationwide.
Delaware General Assembly · July 1, 2026

In News until July 27, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

When the legislature overrules the veto, and the counties

What it says. SB 75 limits how Delaware counties can use zoning and permits to block marijuana businesses, and preempts conflicting county rules. Governor Meyer vetoed it; the legislature completed a veto override on July 1, 2026.

Why it matters. This is a fight over who really controls access: the state that legalized cannabis, or the counties quietly zoning it out of existence. Lawmakers sided with access and with the licensees, including medical-conversion and equity operators, that local rules were strangling. Local control is a genuine value. So is not letting a legal market be nullified block by block.
Nebraska · June 30, 2026

In News until July 31, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Note added November 10, 2026: The Nebraska Supreme Court decided Kuehn v. Evnen on September 4, 2026 and upheld the petitions. See the Nebraska Supreme Court story on this page (link).

Voters said yes. Nebraska is fighting it, at home and in Washington.

What it says. On June 30, 2026, Nebraska's Attorney General approved the Medical Cannabis Commission's regulations, but used the signing statement to warn that a pending Nebraska Supreme Court case, Kuehn v. Evnen, which his own office brought alleging petition malfeasance, could erase the law's statutory authority entirely. The rules cap the state at 12 dispensaries and set tight purchase limits.

The federal parallel. On May 22, 2026, Nebraska joined Indiana and Louisiana (which has since withdrawn) in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn the Justice Department's medical Schedule III rescheduling, and Nebraska is one of the handful of states the DEA hand-picked to argue against reform at its one-sided hearing. So the same officials are working to undo medical cannabis both where their own voters passed it and where the federal government just loosened it.

Why it matters. Nebraskans voted for this. Their attorney general is at once implementing the rules and trying to erase them, in a state courtroom and a federal one. It is the underdog story writ large: the public versus the officials who did not want the result. Two dockets tell the story, Kuehn v. Evnen at the Nebraska Supreme Court and the consolidated challenge at the D.C. Circuit.
Glass House Brands · June 30, 2026

In News until July 27, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

And then there were two

What it says. On June 30, 2026, Glass House Brands began trading on the NYSE as GLAS, the second cannabis operator on a major exchange, after deconsolidating its dual-use business.

Why it matters. Two uplistings in a month is a trend. Access to real capital markets is the prize the industry has chased for a decade. It also concentrates the advantage among the few operators large enough to make the jump, a who benefits dynamic we will keep tracking as the money moves.
Office of the Governor of Virginia · June 16, 2026

In News until July 27, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Virginia builds a legal market, and its own farmers may not survive to see it

What it says. On June 16, 2026, Governor Abigail Spanberger, Senator Lashrecse Aird, and Delegate Paul Krizek announced a budget deal creating a regulated adult-use cannabis market in Virginia, with retail sales beginning July 1, 2027. The same deal ends the state's 25-to-1 hemp loophole (which allowed intoxicating hemp THC products with limited oversight), moves hemp regulation to the Cannabis Control Authority, caps retail at 350 licenses, and sets child-safety rules including child-safe packaging, a ban on products shaped like animals, fruits, vehicles, or humans, and 1,000-foot buffers from schools, hospitals, playgrounds, and treatment facilities. Small hemp farmers and shop owners say the earlier August 15, 2026 hemp crackdown will wipe them out roughly a year before they could enter the new market.

Why it matters. The child-safety and age-gating pieces are the right call, and the deal's own language promises to protect small businesses, impact licensees, and microbusinesses from predatory investment. Watch whether that promise survives contact with the calendar. Virginia's existing hemp growers and retailers, many of whom already complied with the state's strict 2023 rules, face a gap: their products become illegal in August 2026, but the legal market they could join does not open until July 2027, with no bridge in between. As one Caroline County farmer put it, lawmakers changed the law they created to favor Wall Street corporations over Virginia farmers and small businesses. Enclosure rarely announces itself. It shows up as a timeline that only the well-capitalized can wait out.
Illinois General Assembly · signed June 12, 2026

In News until July 30, 2026. Our page history starts July 22, 2026 and this story was published before that. Shown as it last appeared there, including any fixes made while it ran. Not updated since, except where a dated note says so.

Illinois doubles what adults can carry, and pulls hemp indoors

What it says. Governor JB Pritzker signed SB 3222 (Public Act 104-0463), an omnibus that doubles adult possession limits to 60 grams of flower, 10 grams of concentrate, and 1,000 milligrams of THC in infused products, adds curbside and drive-through pickup, lets every licensed dispensary register to serve medical patients, and expands telehealth certification. It also creates a new Illinois Hemp Act that bars intoxicating hemp sales to anyone under 21 and, starting November 12, 2026, folds delta-8, THCP, HHC, and similar products into the state's licensed Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act with child-resistant packaging and marketing limits.

Why it matters. The consumer wins are real: more medical access, easier pickup, and higher possession limits that shrink the reasons to arrest people. Age-gating intoxicating hemp and keeping it away from kids is the right call, full stop. The catch is the one we track everywhere: the new hemp rules take effect on the exact day the federal cliff lands, November 12, 2026, and route a market built by small, independent shops into the licensed cannabis system, where the established operators already hold the licenses. Safety is the door. Watch who walks through it, and whether Illinois' small hemp retailers are still standing on the other side.