Grow Life 420

An NFL player is suing the league and his former team the Denver Broncos for alleged employment discrimination after he was fined more than half a million dollars for testing positive for THC that he says was caused by his prescribed use of a synthetic cannabinoid.

Randy Gregory filed a lawsuit in a Colorado district court last week, asserting that the league and the Broncos violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) by penalizing him for using the Food and Drug Administration- (FDA) approved cannabis medication dronabinol to treat anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and pain.

While the NFL and its players union agreed to end the practice of suspending players over marijuana or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement in 2020, it’s continued to fine players over positive THC tests. For the first through third positive test, the fine is half a week’s salary; a fourth and each subsequent positive test is punishable by a fine equal to three week’s salary.

“Thus, if Mr. Gregory takes his medication as prescribed, he is fined seventy-five percent (75 percent) of his salary and earns twenty-five percent (25 percent),” the court filing, previously reported by NBC News, says. Since the time that the NFL rejected his request for an accommodation to use the synthetic THC medication in May 2023, he paid out $532,500 in penalties.

“Mr. Gregory is entitled to the full protection of Colorado anti-discrimination laws. The NFL and Broncos ignored Colorado State law and have refused to engage, in good faith, in the interactive process with Mr. Gregory,” the lawsuit says. “It is a violation of CADA for the NFL and the Broncos to financially penalize Mr. Gregory for consuming prescribed Dronabinol to treat his disabilities, while simultaneously benefiting from his continued employment. The NFL and the Broncos are not above the law.”

Attorneys for Gregory also pointed out that the cannabis-based drug is “an alternative to opioids and benzodiazepines, which are fraught with significant side effects and addiction issues.”

The NFL itself has committed significant funding to research into whether CBD can serve as an effective opioid alternative, and it’s also explored the therapeutic potential of the non-intoxicating cannabinoid for pain management and neuroprotection from concussions.

A commissioner of the NFL and the league’s players union previewed the funding plan in June 2022, emphasizing the strong interest among players and other stakeholders. The joint NFL-NFLPA committee also held two informational forums on CBD in 2020.

But despite the fact that dronabinol is legal at both the state and federal level as an FDA-approved medication, the league has not carved out an exemption to its THC rule, prompting him to file a charge of discrimination first with the Colorado Civil Rights Division before moving forward with the lawsuit.

“Mr. Gregory is entitled to damages including, but not limited to, repayment of the monetary fines that Mr. Gregory was required to pay including interest to the fullest extent permitted by law in an amount to be determined at trial,” the suit says. “Mr. Gregory is entitled to damages and relief to the fullest extent permitted by law in an amount to be determined at trial.”

Meanwhile, other sports leagues have similarly adopted revised marijuana policies as the state-level cannabis legalization movement continues to spread.

For example, a collegiate athletics proposal from earlier this year would remove marijuana from the list of substances included in drug screenings for National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) championship competitions, with officials set to vote on the matter this month.

The plan would build on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) announced in December that it is formally removing marijuana from its newly modified banned substances list for athletes, also building on an earlier reform.

However, ahead of a UFC event in February, a California athletics commission said they could still face penalties under state rules for testing positive for THC over a certain limit, as the state body’s policy is based around WADA guidance.

Nevada sports regulators voted last year to send a proposed regulatory amendment to the governor that would protect athletes from being penalized over using or possessing marijuana in compliance with state law.

While advocates have welcomed these changes, there’s been criticism of WADA over its ongoing cannabis ban. Members of a panel within the agency said in an opinion piece last August that marijuana use by athletes violates the “spirit of sport,” making them unfit role models whose potential impairment could put others at risk.

Advocates strongly urged WADA to enact a reform after U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson was suspended from participating in Olympics events due to a positive THC test in 2021.

Following that suspension, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) said that the international rules on marijuana “must change,” the White House and President Joe Biden himself signaled that it was time for new policies and congressional lawmakers amplified that message.

Read the NFL player’s anti-discrimination lawsuit over cannabis-related penalties below: 

GOP Congressman Predicts Florida Voters Will Approve Marijuana Legalization, But Doubts Congress Will Advance Cannabis Banking By November

Image element courtesy of Marco Verch.

The post NFL Sued By Player Who Was Fined Over $500,000 For Positive THC Tests Caused By Prescribed Cannabis Medication appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has formally canceled a scheduled Monday administrative hearing on its proposed ban of two psychedelic compounds as the constitutionality of the scheduling process is being challenged in federal court.

In a notice published in the Federal Register on Friday, DEA said that the hearing is being indefinitely postponed in light of an administrative law judge staying the proceeding in response to the court action.

“As the matter before DEA is currently stayed, no hearing will commence on June 10, 2024,” the notice says.

The purpose of the hearing was to allow the agency to receive expert input on its controversial plans to classify 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine (DOI) and 2,5-dimethoxy-4-chloroamphetamine (DOC) as Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The cancellation comes about a month after Panacea Plant Sciences (PPS) filed a complaint and request for injunctive relief against DEA in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

PPS is contesting the administrative hearing process that’s preceding final rulemaking, arguing that DEA’s reliance on administrative law judges to settle such arbitration is unconstitutional based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

“Panacea Plant Sciences is glad that the DEA has provided the public notice that the hearing is canceled. We expect to win in federal court and force the rule to be withdrawn,” CEO David Heldreth told Marijuana Moment on Friday. “We wish the DEA would do the scientific community and country a favor and withdraw the rule itself.”

The hearing has been stayed until the federal court renders a decision in the legal challenge to the administrative process. In the interim, Panacea and the Justice Department are required to submit joint status reports every 60 days until the case is resolved.

This is the latest development in a years-long dispute over DEA’s efforts to schedule the psychedelics, which it first attempted to do in 2022, only to withdraw the proposal amid pushback from the scientific community. The agency separately withdrew from a proposal to ban five different tryptamine psychedelics in 2022.

Last December, DEA announced that it would be trying to enact the DOC and DOI ban again. The agency’s notice about the scheduling proposal still lacks evidence that directly connects the compounds to serious adverse health events or demonstrated a high abuse potential.

“To date, there are no reports of distressing responses or death associated with DOI in medical literature,” it says. “The physiological dependence liability of DOI and DOC in animals and humans is not reported in scientific and medical literature.”

DEA said that anecdotal reports posted by people online signaled that the substances have hallucinogenic effects, making it “reasonable to assume that DOI and DOC have substantial capability to be a hazard to the health of the user and to the safety of the community.”

It did point to one report of a death of a person who had used DOC in combination with two other unspecified drugs—as well as two reports of hospitalizations that it said were attributable to the use of DOC with other drugs—but scientists say that hardly constitutes reason enough to place them in the most strictly controlled schedule.

In the background of this development, the Justice Department is now taking public comment on its proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA. It’s expected that an administrative hearing will be similarly scheduled once that’s complete. It’s unclear whether the ongoing litigation over that administrative process in the context of the psychedelics scheduling issue will come into play for the marijuana action.

Florida Marijuana Legalization Ballot Measure Has More Support Than DeSantis, Who Is Campaigning Against It, Poll Shows

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia.

The post DEA Formally Cancels Hearing On Proposed Psychedelics Ban Amid Constitutional Challenge To Review Process appeared first on Marijuana Moment.

A Florida retirement fund is suing Scotts Miracle-Gro (NYSE: SMG) and some of its executives over poor decisions that caused the value of the shares to fall damaging the group’s pension plan. The Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System is a benefit pension plan based in Hialeah, Florida filed a complaint last week in the Southern District of Ohio outlining the allegations of mismanagement at Scott’s. Scotts maintains its headquarters in Marysville, Ohio, which is situated in this District.

The pension fund claims it bought shares in the company during a period in which the value was inflated as investors were unaware of the true situation with the company’s finances. The market period was defined as between November 3, 2021, and August 1, 2023. They claim that once Scott’s told investors the truth about the financial situation, the shares sold off causing the fund to see its investment fall as well.

Accusations against Scotts

The main allegations against Scotts in the complaint revolve around inventory levels, debt levels, and maintaining a specific covenant of the debt regarding a debt-to-EBITDA ratio.

Stuffing the channels

The first complaint is that Scotts missed out on millions of dollars in sales in 2020 and 2021 due to a lack of inventory as it faced surging demand. The investors accused Scotts of buying too much inventory after having too little and then hiding the problem. They claim that instead of Scotts coming clean with investors over having more inventory than it could sell, it engaged in “stuffing the channels.” The complaint alleges that Scotts sales personnel pressured retailers to purchase more inventory than they wanted or needed. The court document read, “This scheme enabled Scotts to book as revenue the sales to its distributors and maintain earnings to debt ratios that just barely exceeded those required by its debt covenants.”

The investors also pointed to earnings calls in which the Scotts CEO Jim Hagedorn told investors about record shipments, which they say was a false claim.

Debt levels

The investors are also upset that at the beginning of the class period, Scotts held $2.3 billion of debt but by the end, Scotts’ debt had ballooned to $3.1 billion. The problem with the debt levels growing was that Scott’s has to maintain a debt-to-EBITDA ratio under 6.25 in order to remain in good standing on its debt. If the debt goes higher than the earnings by too much it breaches the debt covenants.

They alleged that by claiming the company had higher earnings, it wouldn’t trigger the debt covenants even as the debt was rising. However, quarterly sales were falling forcing the company to move the goalposts on the debt covenants to 7.0 times the debt-to-EBITDA ratio. That way the company could tell investors that it wasn’t in default of its debt covenants.

Had Scotts admitted it was in default, the investors claim the company’s lenders could have declared all outstanding indebtedness immediately due and payable.

Stock selloff

The main issue that caused the lawsuit was that Scott’s common stock plunged in value once the company told investors that it was having difficulties. When Scott’s reported its 2022 full-year earnings, the company cut its projections to roughly half of its prior guidance. The company also announced plans to take on additional debt to cover restructuring charges as it attempted to cut costs. Still, executives were optimistic, which the investor’s claim wasn’t warranted.

Then by the third fiscal quarter of 2023, the company slashed fiscal year EBITDA guidance by a staggering 25% and announced it had to take a $20 million write-down. The market responded with a selloff.

The complaint notes that Scotts had a closing price of $102.18 per share on June 7, 2022, which then fell to a closing price of $93.13 per share on June 8, 2022. As the executives began expressing the problems to the market, shares fell from $71.44 on August 1, 2023, to a closing price of $57.86 per share on August 2, 2023.

News of the investor lawsuit may have triggered more selling. The stock closed on June 7 at $68 and in early trading on Monday, shares fell to $65.

The post Scotts Miracle-Gro sued over channel stuffing appeared first on Green Market Report.

Voters in Slovenia approved a pair of cannabis-related ballot measures over the weekend, one on whether medical marijuana patients should be able to cultivate the plant for personal use and the other on whether all adults should be able to legally grow and possess marijuana.

The sale and use of medical cannabis is already legal in the country, but cultivation remains prohibited.

The two marijuana questions appeared on the ballot in Sunday’s election alongside other referendum questions on medically assisted dying and a proposed change to the country’s general elections process.

The first question—”Should the Republic of Slovenia allow the cultivation and processing of cannabis for medical purposes on its territory?”—passed 67 percent to 33 percent.

The second—”Should the Republic of Slovenia allow the cultivation and possession of cannabis for limited personal use on its territory?”—was approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.

The outcomes are advisory and not binding on lawmakers. Nevertheless, they could influence future legislation and contribute to the growing push for reform in the country.

Slovenia’s National Assembly voted to put the questions on the ballot in April. The country’s National Institute of Public Health had taken a position against the cannabis proposals.

The votes are among the latest examples of a push for marijuana reform making its way through Europe. About two months ago, another country in the region, Germany, began implementing a cannabis legalization law.

In Slovenia’s neighboring Italy, meanwhile, voters were deprived of the opportunity to decide on marijuana and psychedelics policy reform in 2022 following a ruling from the country’s top court. But support has been building for a narrower, cannabis-only measure that would allow the home cultivation of four plants, the eventual creation of social clubs and the elimination of penalties for consumers.

Malta became the first European country to enact marijuana legalization, with the president signing a reform bill in 2021.

A novel international survey released in 2022 found majority support for legalization in several key European countries. Slovenia was not included in that poll, however.

The United Nations’s (UN) drug control body recently reiterated that it considers legalizing marijuana for non-medical or scientific purposes a violation of international treaties, though it also said it appreciates that Germany’s government scaled back its cannabis plan ahead of the recent vote.

German Lawmakers Approve Changes To Marijuana Legalization Law Addressing Social Clubs And Impaired Driving

The post Voters In Slovenia Approve Marijuana Ballot Measures appeared first on Marijuana Moment.