Last week, the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) reported that it was changing its marijuana policies after mounting pressure from MPP, athletes, and promoters who said the strictness and penalties were far too severe and driving athletes to drink or use dangerous drugs.

According to Bleacher Report, the threshold for failing a marijuana test for athletes was raised from 50 ng/mL of THC in the bloodstream to 150 ng/mL, in line with what the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has recommended for global athletic regulatory bodies.

[caption id="attachment_6914" align="alignright" width="140"] NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer[/caption]

MPP protested the previous policies with a billboard and petition to the NSAC in March after boxer Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. was suspended and fined $900,000 for testing positive for marijuana metabolites. In May, WADA recommended raising the limit to 150 ng/mL to exclude prior marijuana use that could not possibly contribute to current impairment. The very next month, Marc Ratner of the Ultimate Fighting Championship announced that it was putting its self-regulatory policies in line with the WADA recommendations.

While it will still be possible to test positive under the new threshold, it will be very difficult for prior marijuana use to disqualify or punish fighters and other athletes. When Nevada makes marijuana legal in 2016, they will truly be able to make the safer choice of substances without fear of unnecessary penalties.

MPP is also pressuring other sports organizations, such as the NFL, to stop punishing players for using marijuana.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing Tuesday regarding “Conflicts Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws.” The Justice Department announced on August 29 that it will not seek to stop Colorado and Washington from moving forward with implementation of voter-approved laws establishing state-regulated systems of marijuana cultivation and retail sales.

[caption id="attachment_6911" align="alignright" width="198"] Sheriff John Urquhart[/caption]

The truly amazing part was that the majority of those called to testify were in support of the DOJ policy. This included King County Sheriff John Urquhart of Washington and Jack Finlaw, chief legal counsel for Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper. The only people who seemed to disagree with the DOJ not getting in the way of these states enacting the will of their voters were Sen. Chuck Grassley and Kevin Sabet, one of the founders of the disingenuous Project SAM.

You can view the full hearing on C-SPAN.

The Marijuana Policy Project announced Monday it will support efforts to end marijuana prohibition in 10 more states by 2017. The announcement comes one day before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing at which it will address the U.S. Justice Department’s recent decision to allow states to regulate the cultivation and sale of marijuana.

MPP will work with local and national allies to pass voter initiatives in at least five states and bills in five state legislatures to end marijuana prohibition and replace it with systems in which marijuana is regulated and taxed like alcohol. MPP is currently supporting a petition drive led by Alaska activists to place an initiative on the August 2014 ballot, and it will work to pass initiatives in Arizona, California, Maine, and Nevada in the 2016 election. The organization is participating in lobbying and grassroots organizing efforts to pass bills in the Hawaii, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont state legislatures by 2017. MPP has been responsible for changing most state-level marijuana laws since 2000, and it was the largest backer of the successful 2012 initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol in Colorado.

“Most Americans are tired of seeing their tax dollars used to arrest and prosecute adults for using a substance that is objectively less harmful than alcohol,” said MPP executive director Rob Kampia. “Voters and state legislators are ready for change, and the federal government appears to be ready, as well.”

The Justice Department announced on August 29 that it will allow Colorado and Washington to move forward with implementation of voter-approved laws establishing state-regulated systems of marijuana cultivation and retail sales.

“Marijuana prohibition has been just as problematic and counterproductive as alcohol prohibition,” Kampia said. “We look forward to working with elected officials, community leaders, organizations, and other local and national allies to develop more effective and efficient marijuana policies.”

According to Talking Points Memo, Sen. John McCain made some comments Thursday that some may find surprising:

McCain’s comments could not have been better timed. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Justice Department’s new policy allowing states to move forward with taxing and regulating marijuana. Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake, is a member of that committee. Sen. Flake will have the opportunity to question Justice Department officials and help shape the future of federal policy on marijuana.

For years, the National Football League has been punishing athletes for using marijuana despite the fact that it is far less harmful than alcohol, a substance widely embraced by the league. Now that the U.S. Justice Department has announced it will allow states to legalize marijuana, the NFL needs to recognize and respect those laws, too.

Please sign MPP’s petition to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell calling on the league to stop punishing players for using marijuana.

To draw attention to this important petition, MPP is unveiling a giant billboard across the street from Mile High Stadium in Denver, where the NFL’s first regular season game of the year will be taking place tomorrow. The Denver Broncos-themed ad reads, “Stop driving players to drink! A safer choice is now legal (here),” referencing the Colorado legalization law MPP helped pass in November.

The NFL would never punish a player simply for having a beer or cocktail, so why does it levy severe penalties against them for using a substance that is less toxic, less addictive, and less likely to contribute to violence? The NFL's harsh marijuana penalties do nothing to promote the health and safety of the players. If anything, they put them in danger by steering them toward using alcohol and away from making the safer choice to use marijuana instead.

Help us change the way our society views and treats marijuana by signing our petition to the NFL today. Tell the league to stop driving players to drink with severe penalties for using marijuana, especially in states where marijuana has been made legal for adult or medical use.

On Tuesday, MPP director of federal policy Dan Riffle spoke with Fox Business Network about the Department of Justice announcement last week that the federal government will not interfere with the implementation of legal marijuana businesses in Colorado and Washington.

Here is the segment from “Markets Now”:

Last week, the Department of Justice announced that it would not prioritize marijuana enforcement against businesses that were following state law and adhering to a set of criteria established by Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Given the administration's history with marijuana policy, there is a lot of speculation about what this memo will mean for the future of reform efforts and the legal marijuana industries in Colorado and Washington, as well as the 20 states and the District of Columbia that allow marijuana for medical purposes.

[caption id="attachment_6891" align="alignright" width="121"] Rob Kampia[/caption]

Here is an excerpt from an in-depth analysis by MPP's executive director Rob Kampia in the Los Angeles Times:

The Cole memo was the equivalent of no policy at all, since the federal government goes after very few individual marijuana users. In 2012, it sentenced only 83 marijuana-possession offenders to probation or prison, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Meanwhile, the DEA raided more medical marijuana providers during Obama's first term in office than it did during the eight years under President George W. Bush.

So what can we learn from the Obama administration's words and actions?

The key lesson is to write state-level marijuana laws correctly. There have been hundreds of outrageous DEA raids on medical marijuana clinics in California, Montana and Washington state, but these three states' laws don't explicitly authorize the clinics in the first place. (These states simply authorize patients and caregivers to grow their own.)

In contrast, there have been zero DEA raids on clinics in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont. In these states, plus the District of Columbia, there has been a clear licensing process for medical marijuana businesses.

Read the full article here.

At a press briefing Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it will allow Colorado and Washington to move forward with implementation of laws establishing state-regulated systems of marijuana production and distribution.

“Today’s announcement is a major and historic step toward ending marijuana prohibition," said MPP director of federal policy Dan Riffle. "The Department of Justice's decision to allow implementation of the laws in Colorado and Washington is a clear signal that states are free to determine their own policies with respect to marijuana.

“We applaud the Department of Justice and other federal agencies for its thoughtful approach and sensible decision. It is time for the federal government to start working with state officials to develop enforcement policies that respect state voters, as well as federal interests. The next step is for Congress to act. We need to fix our nation's broken marijuana laws and not just continue to work around them.”

[caption id="attachment_6885" align="alignright" width="106"] Dep. Attn. Gen. James Cole[/caption]

While the memo reiterates that marijuana use and distribution are still in violation of federal law, it lays out the priorities for the Department of Justice in states where marijuana policy differs from federal law:

• the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
• the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
• state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
• violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
• drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
• growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
• preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

After the last memo issued by Cole regarding state medical marijuana law and federal enforcement, states with very clear policies in place to control and regulate marijuana distribution saw little or no interference. This latest memo seems to echo that position in the cases of Washington and Colorado for adult use, so hopefully we can expect the Department of Justice to continue this trend moving forward.

UPDATE: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will testify at the hearing.

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced Monday that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on “Conflicts Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws." Sen. Leahy has reportedly invited U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole to speak to the committee.

The hearing is scheduled for September 10 at 10 a.m. ET in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Sen. Leahy has said he believes state laws making marijuana legal for adult or medical use "should be respected."

MPP's director of government relations Dan Riffle had this to say:

"Two states have made marijuana legal for adult use and are establishing regulated systems of production and distribution. Twenty states plus our nation's capital have made it legal for medical use. By failing to recognize the decisions of voters and legislators in those states, current federal law is undermining their ability to implement and enforce those laws.

"Marijuana prohibition's days are numbered, and everyone in Washington knows that. It's time for Congress to stop ignoring the issue and develop a policy that allows states to adopt the most efficient and effective marijuana laws possible. We need to put the 'reefer madness' policies of the 1930s behind us and adopt an evidence-based approach for the 21st century."

This could be a really big deal. We'll keep you posted.

On Monday, Politifact published the results of its research into the accuracy of MPP’s statement in a recent ad that marijuana is objectively safer than alcohol.

As expected, the statements in the ad were true (despite Politifact giving a strange conclusion as to why it was only mostly true). What was unexpected, however, was the response from the National Institute on Drug Abuse:

"Claiming that marijuana is less toxic than alcohol cannot be substantiated since each possess their own unique set of risks and consequences for a given individual," wrote the institute. NIDA, part of the National Institutes of Health, funds government-backed scientific research and has a stated mission "to lead the nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction."

MPP’s Mason Tvert had this to say:

"Our federal government has been exaggerating the harms of marijuana for decades, but at this point it has gone off the deep end," Tvert told The Huffington Post. "NIDA's statement that marijuana can be just as toxic as alcohol would be on par with the FDA announcing sushi is as fattening as fried chicken."

"This is gross negligence on the agency's part and should be addressed immediately by the White House," Tvert continued. "It is one thing for our federal officials to convey their opposition to marijuana policy reform. It is an entirely different and more disturbing situation when they are conveying opposition to scientific evidence."