DC Mayor Proposes To Let Medical Marijuana And Alcohol Companies Partner On THC Drinks

The mayor of Washington, D.C. is proposing to allow medical marijuana companies to partner with local breweries and distilleries to produce cannabis-infused, alcohol-free drinks for sale in the nation’s capital.

Under the partnership contemplated by the Medical Cannabis Beverage Product Amendment Act of 2026 proposed by Mayor Muriel Bowser (D), alcohol companies could apply for a medical cannabis production endorsement at a cost of $500 a year to manufacture cannabis beverages, and medical marijuana companies could apply for a $1,000 annual endorsement to import cannabinoids for production.

All beverages would have to be tested by a locally licensed laboratory, and there would be a six percent sales tax on the drinks.

“This is an opportunity to support two local industries and to keep business in D.C.,” Bowser said in a press release. “We have fantastic local brewers and distillers in our city, we have a robust medical cannabis market, and this is a new opportunity for those two markets to collaborate and create a safe and smoke-free alternative for patients in D.C.”

Breweries and distilleries would not be able to sell the cannabis beverages directly to consumers, and finished products would instead go to partnering medical marijuana manufacturers for testing and distribution.

Sales would be limited to registered medical cannabis patients via dispensaries, and the drinks would not be available for purchase in bars, restaurants, liquor stores and grocery stores.

“It makes sense to allow partnerships between the District’s medical cannabis and alcohol manufacturing industries to produce medical cannabis beverages,” Fred Moosally, Director of the Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration, said. “Providing a legal pathway for our local breweries and distilleries to utilize their expertise in beverage production is the logical next step in maturing D.C.’s medical cannabis marketplace and supporting our local business ecosystem.”

A press release from the mayor’s office said that the proposal “works to solve manufacturing challenges for the medical cannabis industry while providing an additional revenue stream for D.C.’s local craft beverage producers.”

“By utilizing the existing local bottling infrastructure, D.C. will expand the available smoke-free therapeutic options for medical cannabis patients, provide an additional revenue stream for local industry, and continue growing the District’s economy,” it said.

The legislation is now before the Council of the District of Columbia for consideration.

While Congress has continually blocked D.C. from legalizing recreational marijuana sales with an annually approved rider, local officials have worked to expand access through the existing medical cannabis market by, for example, by allowing residents and even visiting tourists to self-certify without the need for doctors’ recommendations.

Massachusetts Marijuana Businesses File Lawsuit To Keep Legalization Rollback Measure Off Ballot

Massachusetts marijuana businesses have filed a lawsuit aiming to block an initiative to roll back the state’s voter-approved legalization law from reaching the November ballot.

The proposal to repeal laws allowing legal recreational cannabis sales violates the state Constitution by containing “impermissibly unrelated subjects,” and the state attorney general’s official summary is “misleading and deficient,” according to the complaint filed on Tuesday before the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.

The measure also proposes “an unconstitutional regulatory taking” by “destroy[ing] the reasonable, investment-backed expectations of affected businesses and individuals and would eliminate the livelihoods of thousands of Massachusetts residents,” the suit, brought by participants in the state’s Cannabis Social Equity Program, says.

The plaintiffs—Stem Haverhill owner Caroline Pineau, Treevit LLC CEO Gyasi Sellers and Paper 4 Crane Provisions majority owners Lisa Mauriello and Boey Bertold—want the court to declare the initiative invalid, hold that Attorney General Andrea Campbell (D) erred in her summary and certification of the measure and enjoin Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin (D) from putting it on the ballot.

The initiative violates the law by combining “several unrelated and independent subjects, including criminal justice changes, elimination of the Social Equity Program, removal of local control over marijuana establishments by municipalities, elimination of professional discipline protections, elimination of public consumption and open container protections, and the dismantling of regulatory safeguards applicable to the medical marijuana industry,” the suit says.

“Because of the multiple unrelated provisions contained in the Petition, Massachusetts voters will be placed in the untenable position of being unable to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on it as a unified statement of public policy. For example, a voter who wishes to repeal adult-use marijuana but retain the Social Equity Program or preserve access to legal services for the medical marijuana industry cannot reasonably cast a vote that reflects those preferences. Likewise, a voter who wishes to repeal adult-use marijuana but does not want to eliminate the statewide ban on public consumption of marijuana is forced to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the entire package.”

“These scenarios, among others, would force voters to accept provisions they oppose in order to secure provisions they support,” the plaintiffs, who are represented by Vicente LLP, argue, calling the ballot measure “a classic example of logrolling.”

While the proponents of the initiative titled it “An Act to Restore Sensible Marijuana Policy,” it amounts to “an incoherent combination of repeal of adult-use marijuana, elimination of protections for professionals, dismantling of social equity initiatives, elimination of public safety protections, and purported measures relating to youth, among other things,” the filing says.

That claim is bolstered, the plaintiffs say, by numerous reports of voters who say they were misled by petitioners while being asked to sign ballot petitions.

“The Petition at issue proposes a measure entitled ‘An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy,’ which, if approved, would impose a hodgepodge of changes to Massachusetts law that are related to one another only by the proponents’ vague and highly subjective assertion that, together, they constitute a ‘sensible marijuana policy.'”

The suit also argues that the attorney general’s summary of the measure “fails to inform” voters about the true impact of the initiative, rendering it “neither fair nor concise” in violation of the law.

“Massachusetts voters have consistently driven the advancement of marijuana policy in the Commonwealth, often acting in the face of legislative inaction,” the filing says, noting the passage of ballot measures to decriminalize marijuana possession and to legalize medical and recreational cannabis.

Wendy Wakeman, a spokesperson for the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, which is behind the initiative, told The Boston Globe that she finds it “surprising that this group is so opposed to asking the voters what they think of legalized marijuana” by allowing the new measure to go to the ballot.

If passed, the state wouldn’t revert back to blanket prohibition; rather, it would repeal the commercial recreational sales and personal home cultivation components of the law while still allowing adults 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis for personal use.

Possession of more than one ounce but less than two ounces would be effectively decriminalized, with violators subject to a $100 fine. Adults could also continue to gift cannabis between each other without remuneration. Medical marijuana sales would remain legal.

The measure is currently before the legislature after supporters turned in an initial batch of signatures last year, and lawmakers have until May 5 to act on the proposal. If they choose not to enact it legislatively, the campaign would need to go through another round of petitioning and get at least 12,429 certified signatures by July 1 to make the November ballot.

Proponents faced skeptical questioning from lawmakers at a hearing of the Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions last month, with several raising concerns about the motivations behind the anti-marijuana measure and its implications for consumers and businesses.

A recent Bay State Poll from the University of Hampshire’s States of Opinion Project found that a majority of Massachusetts adults oppose the marijuana sales and cultivation repeal initiative.

The survey came months after cannabis activists filed a complaint with the State Ballot Law Commission, alleging that petitioners with the anti-cannabis campaign used misleading tactics to convince voters to support its ballot placement.

The commission rejected the complaint in January, however, and said advocates who challenged the ballot measure raised “unsupported allegations” about the propriety of the signature gathering process that they said warranted official scrutiny.

In any case, separate polling has found that nearly half of those who signed the marijuana sales repeal petition felt misled, with many claiming that the measure was pitched to them as a proposal to address unrelated issues such as public education and expanded housing.

The anti-marijuana coalition has denied any wrongdoing in the signature collection process and waved off the survey results.

An association of state marijuana businesses had separately urged voters to report to local officials if they observe any instances of “fraudulent message” or other deceitful petitioning tactics.

Meanwhile, the head of Massachusetts’s marijuana regulatory agency recently suggested that the measure to effectively recriminalize recreational cannabis sales could imperil tax revenue that’s being used to support substance misuse treatment efforts and other public programs.

To that point, Massachusetts recently reached another marijuana milestone, with officials announcing in February that the state has surpassed $9 billion in adult-use cannabis purchases since the market launched in 2018.

A report from the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) found that legalization is achieving one of its primary goals: disrupting illicit cannabis sales as adults transition to the regulated market. It shows that among adults who reported past-year marijuana use, an overwhelming 84 percent said they obtained their cannabis from a licensed source.

Massachusetts lawmakers also recently assembled a bicameral conference committee to reach a deal on a bill that would double the legal marijuana possession limit for adults and revise the regulatory framework for the state’s adult-use cannabis market.

In December, state regulators also finalized rules for marijuana social consumption lounges.

—Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.—

CCC recently launched an online platform aimed at helping people find jobs, workplace training and networking opportunities in the state’s legal cannabis industry.

Massachusetts lawmakers additionally approved legislation to establish pilot programs for the regulated therapeutic use of psychedelics.

Read the marijuana legalization rollback initiative lawsuit below:

Maryland Lawmakers Pass Bill To Protect Firefighters And Rescue Workers Who Use Medical Marijuana Off Duty

Maryland lawmakers have approved a bill to protect firefighters and rescue workers from being penalized over their lawful use of medical marijuana off the job.

The House of Delegates passed the legislation, HB 797 from Del. Adrian Boafo (D), on third reading by a vote of 100-31 on Thursday, days after it advanced through the Economic Matters Committee.

A Senate companion version of the cannabis measure sponsored by Sen. Carl Jackson (D) advanced through that chamber last month.

This marks the latest in a series of attempts over recent sessions to enact the reform aimed at giving emergency service professionals the option to use cannabis as an alternative treatment for health conditions that commonly afflict the first responder community, Boafo said at a earlier committee hearing on the bill.

Lawmakers are “bringing it back because it’s so critically important to our firefighters” and other rescue professionals who “work long shifts in tense emergencies and high-stress situations every day,” he said.

“Many experience chronic pain, injuries and anxiety as a direct result of serving our communities,” the lawmaker said. “Medical cannabis, when prescribed and used off duty, can help manage those conditions. But under current policies, firefighters who use medically prescribed cannabis can face retaliation or discipline from their employers, even when they’re following the law.”

“That leaves many of these public servants with a difficult choice: Either continue doing their jobs in pain, or turn to stronger prescription drug drugs, often opiates, just to get through the day,” Boafo said, while emphasizing that “nothing in this bill allows for impairment on the job” and that those who come to work impaired “will still face serious consequences and will be reported” to state emergency medical services regulators.

“Public safety remains a top priority here in Maryland, but our state must modernize its laws to protect employees who use medically certified cannabis responsibly and outside of the workplace,” he said. “Our firefighters and rescue professionals dedicate their lives to protecting us. They should not be punished for seeking legal, medically prescribed relief for the physical toll of that work.”

HB 797 would amend the state’s medical marijuana law by stipulating that firefighters, emergency medical technicians, cardiac rescue technicians and paramedics employed by the state or local governments could not face employment discrimination or retaliation for testing positive for cannabis metabolites if they’re a registered medical marijuana patient.

Specifically, employers could not “discipline, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against the fire and rescue public safety employee with respect to the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” if they test positive while holding a medical cannabis registration.

Further, employers could not “limit, segregate, or classify its employees in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive the fire and rescue public safety employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the fire and rescue public safety employee’s status as an employee.”

Nothing in the legislation would prohibit employers from taking action against an employee for showing up to work while under the influence of cannabis, and any instances where a public safety worker is found to be impaired while on duty would be reported to the State Emergency Medical Services Board.

The advancement of the House and Senate cannabis bills comes a year after officials in Maryland’s most populous county said they were moving to loosen marijuana policies for would-be police officers in an effort to boost recruitment amid a staffing shortage.

—Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.—

Meanwhile in Maryland, lawmakers are also advancing legislation to extend a psychedelics task force through the end of 2027 to develop updated recommendations on expanding therapeutic access to the novel drugs and potentially creating a regulatory framework for broader legalization.

Legislators also took up a bill this session to protect the gun rights of medical marijuana patients in the state.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee discussed the legislation from Del. Robin Grammer (R), who has sponsored multiple versions of the cannabis and gun rights measure over recent sessions, but they have not yet advanced to enactment.