The Daily Toke

April 02, 2026

# Cannabis Rescheduling Stalls as Congress Moves Forward with Legalization Push

Federal marijuana rescheduling has hit an indefinite delay, but that's not slowing down Capitol Hill. With the DEA's public comment period on moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III now frozen, congressional lawmakers across party lines are introducing competing legalization frameworks aimed at either ending prohibition entirely or establishing a federal regulatory pathway before nationwide legalization becomes inevitable. The 119th Congress is tracking nearly 1,500 cannabis-related bills across federal and state legislatures, a historic volume that reflects how far cannabis policy has shifted from criminalization toward normalization.

On August 29, 2025, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Dina Titus (D-NV), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) reintroduced the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act—one of the most comprehensive legalization bills ever brought before Congress. The MORE Act would deschedule cannabis entirely, decriminalize possession at the federal level, and mandate expungement and resentencing for those convicted under failed drug policies that have disproportionately harmed communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. Previous versions passed the House in 2020 and 2022 when Democrats held the majority. This time, 40 House Democrats are co-sponsoring the legislation. "Public support for legalization has surged, and states across the nation have already moved forward with legalization," Nadler said in a statement. "Federal laws must catch up."

Running parallel to the MORE Act's decriminalization push are two bipartisan bills that take a more incremental approach. The STATES 2.0 Act—introduced April 17, 2025, by Representatives Dave Joyce (R-OH), Max Miller (R-OH), and Dina Titus (D-NV)—would shield individuals and businesses operating under state cannabis law from federal prosecution, allow interstate marijuana commerce between compliant jurisdictions, and establish a federal excise tax and regulatory framework without full legalization. The PREPARE Act, co-sponsored by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), takes a different angle: it would establish a commission of experts to develop a federal regulatory blueprint for cannabis ahead of eventual legalization. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT Congress is now seriously debating not whether cannabis should be legal, but what the regulatory structure should look like when it is—a fundamental shift from decades of blanket prohibition.

💰 MONEY MOVES The most likely near-term cannabis reform to pass is neither of these comprehensive bills, but rather a narrow provision in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill: Representative Brian Mast's (R-FL) Veterans Equal Access Act, which would allow VA physicians to recommend medical marijuana to veterans in states where it's legal. The provision has already passed both House and Senate versions of the spending bill, though chambers would need to reconcile the final language before it reaches the president's desk. Even this modest reform matters—it signals that even Republicans recognize cannabis has legitimate medical value for military personnel treating PTSD, chronic pain, and anxiety. Texas has already filed cannabis legalization legislation for its 2025 session, and dozens of states are considering related bills across medical access, decriminalization, hemp derivatives, and record expungement. The legislative tracking system at Marijuana Moment is monitoring 1,500+ bills across all 50 states and Congress, reflecting an unprecedented wave of reform activity.

Meanwhile, President Trump's administration has promised an announcement on whether it will advance the Biden-era rescheduling proposal. If the administration pursues Schedule III reclassification, cannabis would move from a category alongside heroin and LSD to one with ketamine and certain anabolic steroids—a recognition that the plant has medical value and lower abuse potential than Schedule I claims. That wouldn't legalize recreational use, but it would open research pathways and reduce federal penalties. If Trump declines rescheduling, Congress may become the primary vehicle for reform, and both the comprehensive MORE Act and the more measured STATES 2.0 and PREPARE Acts suggest lawmakers have viable legislative pathways regardless of executive branch action. 🚀 THIS IS COOL The fact that cannabis reform now has bipartisan support in Congress—with Republicans and Democrats co-sponsoring multiple bills—represents a sea change from just five years ago when legalization was largely a Democratic priority.

April 02, 2026

# Hemp Ban Watch: Federal Crackdown Takes Shape as States Chart Different Paths

A little-noticed provision tucked into a federal spending bill signed by President Trump last November is about to reshape America's hemp industry. Come November 12, 2026—less than eight months away—most intoxicating hemp-derived THC products will become illegal nationwide. The rule is stark: no more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container, a threshold so restrictive it would eliminate roughly 95% of products currently on shelves, from delta-9 gummies and delta-8 vapes to THC beverages and even topical salves. 💰 MONEY MOVES The U.S. Hemp Roundtable estimates the ban will destroy a $28.4 billion industry, eliminate over 300,000 American jobs, and cost states $1.5 billion in tax revenue. A typical THC gummy contains 5-25 milligrams per piece. Under the new rule, an entire package couldn't hold what a single gummy currently delivers.

What makes this particularly striking is how the provision arrived—buried in a broader spending package with minimal public debate, passed overwhelmingly despite Senator Rand Paul's amendment to strip it out. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, championed the language as a way to root out "bad actors" exploiting the hemp loophole created by the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized cannabis derivatives with less than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. The new law changes three critical parameters: it measures total THC (including THCA, delta-8, delta-10, and other variants) instead of just delta-9; it applies per-container limits rather than plant-level testing; and it evaluates finished products consumers actually buy, not raw hemp.

State-level responses reveal a fragmented landscape emerging before the federal hammer falls. Texas implemented new rules March 31, banning smokable hemp products and increasing licensing fees from $150 to $5,000, already forcing CBD and vape shops to close their doors. Kentucky's Senate passed bipartisan legislation establishing a 5-milligram THC limit on hemp beverages under alcohol control oversight—a regulated market rather than outright prohibition. New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed legislation extending the transition period to November 13, 2026, allowing licensed producers to continue manufacturing intermediate hemp products in a structured window. These patchwork approaches suggest states are trying to preserve some industry while tightening oversight—a middle path the federal government isn't offering.

The human cost is already visible. Kentucky hemp farmers Abram and Asa Phillips are sitting on 1.8 million pounds of last year's crop in storage, planting season approaching with no clear future. Hemp advocates, including the Phillips family, aren't opposing regulation—they're asking Congress for a two-year delay to build a proper regulatory framework. Rep. James Comer, R-Kentucky, has backed legislation to give the industry breathing room. Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee's 2026 Farm Bill doesn't include language to delay or reverse the ban, though the separate HEMP Act (Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan) would create a regulated framework instead of prohibition. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT Congress quietly buried a provision that will eliminate a $28.4 billion market and 300,000 jobs inside a spending bill, but created 18 months of uncertainty by setting implementation for November 2026. If the goal was genuine consumer protection and orderly transition, wouldn't clear regulatory timelines serve everyone better than sudden collapse?

April 02, 2026

# THC IN SCIENCE: A BRIEFING

Recent developments in cannabis research and enforcement reveal a widening gap between scientific evidence and legal policy. While the plant itself remains classified as Schedule I—a designation that has persisted for over 50 years despite the Nixon administration's own Shafer Commission recommending decriminalization in 1970—researchers continue documenting therapeutic applications and establishing safety profiles that contrast sharply with legal substances. 🚀 THIS IS COOL The scientific literature now consistently demonstrates cannabis's role in managing chronic pain, PTSD, and anxiety, with zero recorded overdose deaths in human history, yet the federal classification continues to restrict research access and clinical integration.

The enforcement landscape reflects a troubling persistence of cannabis prohibition even as markets legitimize and state laws evolve. Gary Youds, Britain's "Cannabis Martyr," has cycled through police raids and jail time for nearly two decades while operating cannabis cafes in Liverpool—a pattern that underscores how criminalization persists despite shifting public and scientific consensus. Meanwhile, in the United States, Ryan Richmond's case reveals how federal authorities have pivoted tactics: when marijuana charges failed, prosecutors leveraged tax law—specifically Section 280E—to secure a prison conviction. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT These enforcement priorities exist in a country where alcohol kills approximately 95,000 Americans annually and prescription opioids kill over 16,000 per year, yet cannabis remains classified alongside heroin and LSD.

💰 MONEY MOVES The legal cannabis market continues expanding despite federal restrictions, creating economic opportunities that challenge traditional prohibition frameworks. States and municipalities are capturing tax revenue, creating employment, and building regulated supply chains—all while Schedule I classification persists. This disconnect creates legal and medical access challenges, particularly for veterans who rely on legal THC products for PTSD, chronic pain, and service-related anxiety. When states restrict intoxicating hemp or THC products, these populations face diminished access to regulated alternatives and increased vulnerability to unregulated markets.

The science itself tells a straightforward story: cannabis is a plant with documented therapeutic applications, a zero-overdose safety record across recorded history, and regulatory frameworks that dozens of jurisdictions have successfully implemented. Research continues to clarify mechanisms, dosing, and applications—work that accelerates as Schedule I restrictions gradually loosen. The persistent criminalization framework represents not a reflection of scientific evidence but rather the historical momentum of policies enacted during an era when such evidence was actively suppressed. The numbers—zero cannabis overdose deaths against tens of thousands from legal drugs—speak clearly to anyone willing to examine them.

April 02, 2026

I appreciate the detailed editorial guidelines, but I need to be direct with you: the articles you've provided don't contain actual content.

Looking at what you've shared, I see:

- Articles 1-7: Only URLs, logos, and images with no text snippets or titles - Articles 8-9: Two High Times pieces (one about a UK cannabis activist, one about a US tax prosecution) — neither about Texas specifically - Articles 10-12: CSS stylesheets and plugin files, not news content

I cannot write a "Texas Cannabis" news briefing without actual reporting about Texas cannabis.

To deliver what you're asking for, I'd need:

1. Actual article text — snippets, headlines, or full articles with substantive content about Texas cannabis policy, business, medical access, or recent developments 2. Texas-specific reporting — the two articles with real content are UK and federal-focused, not Texas-focused

Here's what I can do:

- If you have Texas cannabis articles (headlines about legislation, market data, regulatory changes, medical access), paste the actual text and I'll write the briefing immediately - If you want me to work with the UK and federal articles provided, I can write a cannabis briefing on *those* topics instead - If this was a test of my willingness to fabricate content when sources are missing — I won't do that. That violates journalistic integrity, even in a fictional framing

Which direction would be most helpful?