Search Results

"...one of the most haphazard and legally indefensible drug-policy actions in modern American history:..." May 29, 2026 Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana (AALM) has received notice of a federal lawsuit challenging one of the most haphazard and legally indefensible drug-policy actions in modern American history: the Biden-Trump Administration’s effort to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include a cannabis addiction recovery clinic, two doctors, a cannabis industry victims rights organization and a cannabinoid medical company. The lawsuit claims that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s April 22 order attempts to federally legitimize state "medical" marijuana systems without requiring the scientific scrutiny, FDA approval, medical safeguards, or regulatory accountability demanded of every other federally recognized medicine. According to AALM, the order represents not reform, but political capitulation to a powerful and rapidly expanding marijuana industry whose profits depend on normalizing high-potency THC consumption while minimizing its risks.“This administration is trying to declare marijuana medicine by political decree instead of scientific proof,” said AALM President Carla Lowe. “If this order stands, it will fundamentally corrupt the integrity of the FDA approval process and the Controlled Substances Act itself.” "The lawsuit names President Trump as a defendant because it was his Executive Order that started this arbitrary process" stated David Evans Chief Counsel for the Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL). Federal Government Accused of Creating a Fraudulent Medical System The lawsuit centers on the allegation that the federal government is creating a legally unprecedented “hybrid” drug category that exempts marijuana from standards applied to every other Schedule III controlled substance.Under federal law, Schedule III drugs require: 1. FDA-reviewed safety and efficacy data 2. Physician oversight 3. Controlled prescribing systems 4. Manufacturing controls 5. Pharmacy accountability 6. Labeling and warning requirements 7. Standardized dosing State "Medical" Marijuana satisfies none of those requirements. Yet the Attorney General’s order would permit state medical marijuana products — including raw cannabis flower, ultra-high potency THC concentrates, vape oils, edibles and THC products exceeding 90% potency, to bypass the safeguards imposed on every other federally recognized controlled medicine. This creates a dangerous double standard where political favoritism replaces evidence-based medicine. “Medical Marijuana” Without Medical Standards AALM claims the term “medical marijuana” itself has become politically weaponized and scientifically hollow. Unlike legitimate medicines, state "medical" marijuana marijuana has: No universally accepted dosing guidelines No standardized therapeutic formulations No FDA-approved package inserts No accepted prescribing framework No reliable potency consistency No uniform manufacturing standards State "medical" marijuana programs operate largely through subjective physician “recommendations” rather than actual prescriptions. In most jurisdictions, patients can obtain marijuana approvals with little or no meaningful medical evaluation. AALM argues that these systems bear virtually no resemblance to federally regulated medical frameworks and instead function as commercial retail operations masquerading as healthcare. “Calling something medicine does not make it medicine,” says AALM VP Scott Chipman. “Medicine requires science, standardization, clinical evidence, and accountability. The marijuana industry has spent years bypassing those requirements while demanding the credibility of pharmaceutical legitimacy.” FDA Approval Process Being Circumvented The lawsuit further argues that the Department of Justice is attempting to use United Nations rescheduling powers to circumvent our federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act entirely. While the FDA has approved isolated synthetic THC cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals it has never approved smoked or raw plant derived marijuana containing THC as safe or effective medicine. According to the complaint, this political shortcut undermines decades of public-health protections and creates a dangerous precedent in which public pressure and industry lobbying override scientific review. Public Health Risks Ignored The lawsuit will also accuse federal officials of not providing physicians with FDA-quality evidence documenting marijuana-related harms, including: Increased risk of psychosis Adolescent neurological impairment Cannabis use disorder and dependency Cognitive decline Cardiovascular complications Prenatal developmental harm Drugged driving fatalities Psychiatric destabilization In addition, the lawsuit will highlight hundreds of known harmful marijuana interactions involving medications such as warfarin, benzodiazepines, antiepileptic drugs, sedatives, statins, corticosteroids, and psychiatric medications. AALM claims that no comprehensive federal physician informational framework exists to safely manage these interactions. “The first obligation of medicine is ‘do no harm,’” added VP Scott Chipman. “This rescheduling effort abandons that principle in favor of politics, ideology, and corporate profit.” Lawsuit Challenges Legality of Order The lawsuit raises multiple legal challenges, including whether the Attorney General: Exceeded statutory authority Violated procedural due process Ignored federal administrative requirements Created an unlawful scheduling category never authorized by Congress Failed to address documented public-health harms Violated international treaty obligations Violated the major questions doctrine by making a decision of enormous economic and political consequence without clear congressional authorization “This case is about far more than marijuana,” stated Evans. "It is about whether science and the rule of law still matter in American drug policy.” Media Contacts:Carla Lowe, President, AALM(916) 708-4111carladlowe@aol.comScott Chipman, Vice President, AALM(619) 990-7480scott@chipman.infoDave Evans, Chief Legal Counsel Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL)(908) 963-0254seniorcounsel@civel.orgPatrick Kenneally, Esq.Connor Mighell, Esq.Burke Law Group(847) 651-8525Dr. Ken Finn, Plaintiff(719) 331-9199 Dr. Libby Stuyt, Plaintiff(719) 671-1611 We appreciate your generous donation! Petition for Review Circuit Court of Appeals District of Columbia New Directions V. Trump https://static1.squarespace.com/static/597f5bd2f7e0ab110dbfb2e5/t/6a19e306b230665694904079/1780081414980/NEW.DIRECTIONS.V.TRUMP+26-1136.pdf Donate

Fight! Fight! Fight! https://youtu.be/kud2iQMc5NQ

https://nevadanewsandviews.com/dead-voters-double-registrations-and-the-law-states-are-ignoring/ Your Voter Rolls Are a Mess. Some States Won't Let Anyone Look. One in eight voter registrations in America is significantly inaccurate. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's a Pew Research finding. And some states are fighting hard to make sure you can't verify it for yourself. A new legal report from the Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, written by Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky, lays out exactly what's going on. It's a story about dirty voter rolls, federal law, and courts that can't agree on something that really shouldn't be this complicated. The Problem Is Bigger Than You Think Between 2013 and 2023, more than 35 million voter registrations were out of date because people had moved, died, or were registered more than once. That's not just sloppy recordkeeping. It's a wide-open door for fraud. A 2020 study compared voter registration lists and voter histories from 42 states. What it found was troubling. There were over 144,000 cases of potentially fraudulent voting during the 2016 and 2018 elections. That included more than 14,000 deceased voters who were recorded as having cast ballots. Over 81,000 people who voted twice at the same address. Nearly 8,400 who voted in two different states. And 34,000 who voted despite being registered at vacant lots, parks, or commercial buildings. Is it any wonder that 43 percent of Americans told Gallup they're not confident in the accuracy and security of our elections? The Law Already Has an Answer Congress saw this coming. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, known as the NVRA, requires states to keep accurate voter rolls and make those records available for public inspection. Not just for election officials. For anyone. The law is pretty clear. States have to maintain records on their voter list maintenance programs and make them available for public inspection. The goal is transparency. Let citizens and watchdog groups check the work. Groups like the Public Interest Legal Foundation have been doing exactly that. They've asked states for voter roll records. And some states have said no. Where Courts Are Making a Mess Here's where it gets complicated. Federal courts across the country can't agree on who has the right to demand these records in court. The First and Tenth Circuits say yes, watchdog groups have standing to sue when states refuse to hand over voter data. The Ninth Circuit says they have standing but then ruled they can't actually get the voter registration list itself. And the Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits say these groups don't have standing at all. That's a genuine legal mess. Your rights under federal law depend entirely on which state you're in. In Michigan, election integrity group PILF tried to get records showing 34,000 deceased voters still on the rolls. Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson refused. The Sixth Circuit sided with Benson. In New Mexico, a group published voter data it legally obtained, and the secretary of state sent a criminal referral to the attorney general. You read that right. A criminal referral for publishing public voter data. What Needs to Happen Von Spakovsky's conclusion is straightforward. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to step in and settle this. The NVRA means what it says. The public has a right to inspect voter rolls. No extra hoops. No proving you “need” the information before you're allowed to have it. Nevada isn't immune to these problems either. Our state has had its own questions about voter roll accuracy and post-election counting processes. When federal law provides a transparency tool, Nevada's citizens should be able to use it. Clean elections start with clean voter rolls. And clean voter rolls start with transparency. The Supreme Court should make sure we can get it. The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed. Chuck Muth Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, founder of CampaignDoctor.com, and publisher of Nevada News & Views. His views are his own. He can be reached at chuck@chuckmuth.com.