Business
What Marijuana Reclassification Means For The United States
Washington — The United States Narcotic Enforcement Administration is considering reclassifying marijuana as a less harmful narcotic. The Justice Department’s proposal would recognize cannabis’ medical purposes but not legalize it for recreational use.
The proposal would shift marijuana from the “Schedule I” category to the less stringent “Schedule III.”
So, what does this mean, and what are the implications?
Technically, nothing has happened. The White House Office of Management and Budget must first examine the idea, followed by a public comment period and an administrative judge’s assessment, which could be a lengthy process.
Nonetheless, the change is considered “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended it.
AP – VOR News Image
What Marijuana Reclassification Means For The United States
“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.
It came after President Joe Biden last year requested that HHS and the attorney general, who controls the DEA, investigate how marijuana was classified. Schedule I legalized it alongside heroin, LSD, quaaludes, and ecstasy, among other substances.
Biden, a Democrat, is in favor of legalizing medical marijuana “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Thursday. “That is why it is important for this independent review to go through.”
No. Schedule III medicines, such as ketamine, anabolic steroids, and several acetaminophen-codeine combos, are still considered controlled narcotics.
AP – VOR News Image
What Marijuana Reclassification Means For The United States
They are subject to a variety of restrictions that allow for some medical usage as well as federal criminal punishment of anyone who traffics in the medications illegally.
Medical marijuana programs, which are already regulated in 38 states, and legal recreational cannabis markets in 23 states are expected to remain unchanged, but they are unlikely to meet federal production, record-keeping, prescribing, and other Schedule III drug criteria.
There haven’t been many federal prosecutions for simply possessing marijuana in recent years, even with marijuana’s existing Schedule I designation, but reclassification would have no immediate impact on those currently in the criminal justice system.
“Put simply, this shift from Schedule I to Schedule III is not keeping people out of jail,” said David Culver, senior vice president of public relations of the United States Cannabis Council.
However, rescheduling would have an impact, especially on research and marijuana business taxes.
Because marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, it has been extremely difficult to undertake permitted clinical trials involving its administration. This has produced a Catch-22 situation: there is a need for further study, but there are hurdles to doing so. (Sometimes, scientists rely on people’s claims of marijuana use.)
Schedule III medications are easier to study, although reclassification would take time to remove all hurdles to research.
“It’s going to be really confusing for a long time,” says Ziva Cooper, director of the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids. “When the dust has settled, I don’t know how many years from now, research will be easier.”
Among the unknowns include whether academics will be permitted to study marijuana from state-licensed shops and how the federal Food and Drug Administration would regulate this.
Some researchers remain optimistic.
“Reducing the schedule to schedule 3 will allow us to conduct research with human subjects using cannabis,” said Susan Ferguson, director of the University of Washington’s Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute in Seattle.
Firms involved in “trafficking” marijuana or any other Schedule I or II substance are not allowed to deduct rent, payroll, or other expenses that other firms can. (Yes, despite the federal government’s prohibition on marijuana, at least some cannabis firms, particularly those permitted by states, pay federal taxes.) According to industry associations, tax rates frequently reach 70% or more.
The deduction regulation does not apply to Schedule III medications, so the proposed amendment would significantly reduce cannabis companies’ taxes.
They claim it would treat them like other industries and let them compete with unlawful competitors that frustrate licensees and officials in locations like New York.
“You’re going to make these state-legal programs stronger,” says Adam Goers, an executive at Columbia Care, a medicinal and recreational cannabis provider. He co-chairs a group of corporate and other stakeholders advocating for rescheduling.
According to Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Center, deducting those expenditures could result in greater cannabis marketing and advertising.
Rescheduling would have no direct impact on another marijuana business issue: limited access to banks, particularly for loans, due to federally regulated institutions’ concerns about the drug’s legal status. Instead, the sector has focused on the SAFE Banking Act. It has frequently passed the House but is stuck in the Senate.
AP – VOR News Image
What Marijuana Reclassification Means For The United States
Yes, there are, notably the national anti-legalization organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS suggestion “flies in the face of science, reeks of politics” and gives a disappointing nod to an industry “desperately looking for legitimacy.”
Some legalization supporters argue that rescheduling marijuana is too modest. They want to keep the focus on totally removing it from the controlled substances list, which does not include alcohol or tobacco (although they are regulated).
According to Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, simply reclassifying marijuana would be “perpetuating the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policies.” According to Kaliko Castille, President of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, rescheduling simply “re-brands prohibition,” rather than giving state licensees the green light and bringing an end to decades of arrests that disproportionately affected people of color.
“Schedule III is going to leave it in this kind of amorphous, mucky middle where people are not going to understand the danger of it still being federally illegal,” the senator stated.
Peltz reported from New York. Associated Press writers Colleen Long in Washington and Carla K. Johnson in Seattle contributed to this story.
SOURCE – (AP)
Business
Internet Archive Loses Major Copyright Case Court Rejects Their Arguments
The Internet Archive has lost a critical legal battle, potentially affecting the future of internet history. Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided against the long-running digital archive, affirming a previous decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive, which determined that one of the Internet Archive’s book digitization initiatives infringed copyright law.
Notably, the appeals court’s ruling rejects the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending practices were shielded by the fair use doctrine, which permits for copyright infringement in certain circumstances, calling it “unpersuasive.”
In March 2020, the Internet Archive, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, launched the National Emergency Library, or NEL. The epidemic had forced library closures that prevented students, scholars, and readers from accessing millions of books, and the Internet Archive has stated that it was answering to calls from common people and other librarians to assist individuals at home in obtaining the books they required.
The NEL was an extension of the Open Library, an ongoing digital lending experiment in which the Internet Archive scans physical copies of library books and allows individuals to borrow digital versions as if they were conventional reading material rather than e-books. The Open Library lent the books to one person at a time—but the NEL eliminated this ratio requirement, allowing a large number of people to borrow each scanned book at once.
Shortly after its inception, the NEL faced criticism, with some authors claiming that it amounted to piracy. In response, after two months, the Internet Archive abandoned its emergency strategy and imposed lending caps. But the harm had been done. Major publishing giants, including Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, filed the complaint in June 2020.
In March 2023, the district court found in favour of the publishers. Judge John G. Koeltl determined that the Internet Archive had created “derivative works,” claiming that its copying and lending had “nothing transformative” to offer. Following the initial verdict in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the parties reached an agreement, the specifics of which have not been released; however, the archive has filed an appeal.
According to James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and internet law at Cornell University, the ruling is “not terribly surprising” in light of recent court interpretations of fair use.
Internet Archive won the appeal
The Internet Archive won the appeal, but only narrowly. Although the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s first decision, it underlined that it did not regard the Internet Archive as a commercial business, emphasising that it was clearly a charitable organisation. Grimmelmann believes this is the appropriate decision: “I’m glad to see that the Second Circuit fixed that mistake.” (He joined an amicus brief in the appeal, saying that classifying the use as commercial was incorrect.)
“Today’s appellate decision upholds the rights of authors and publishers to license and be compensated for their books and other creative works, and reminds us in no uncertain terms that infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest,” Association of American Publishers president and CEO Maria A. Pallante said in a statement.
“If there was any doubt, the Court makes clear that under fair use jurisprudence there is nothing transformative about converting entire works into new formats without permission or appropriating the value of derivative works that are a key part of the author’s copyright bundle.”
In a statement, Internet Archive director of library services Chris Freeland expressed dismay with “today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are electronically available elsewhere.” We are reviewing the court’s decision and will continue to defend libraries’ right to own, lend, and preserve books.
Dave Hansen, executive director of the Author’s Alliance, a nonprofit organisation that frequently advocates for increased digital access to books, also spoke out against the verdict. “The authors are researchers. “Authors read,” he says. “IA’s digital library assists authors in creating new works and encourages their desire to have their works read. This verdict may boost the bottom lines of the largest publishers and most well-known authors, but it will harm more people than it will help.
Difficult period for copyright law
The Internet Archive’s legal problems are not ended. In 2023, a collection of music labels, including Universal Music collection and Sony, sued the archive for copyright infringement on a music digitization project. That case is still working its way through the courts. The damages might total up to $400 million, posing an existential danger to the nonprofit.
The new ruling comes at a particularly difficult period for copyright law. There have been scores of copyright infringement cases filed against large AI businesses that provide generative AI tools in the last two years, and many of the defendants contend that the fair use doctrine protects their use of copyrighted data in AI training. Any big lawsuit in which judges reject fair use grounds is widely monitored.
It also comes at a time when the Internet Archive’s critical role in digital preservation is becoming increasingly apparent. The archive’s Wayback Machine, which catalogues website copies, has proven to be an invaluable resource for journalists, scholars, lawyers, and anybody interested in internet history. While there are other digital preservation programs, including national efforts by the US Library of Congress, there is nothing comparable available to the public.
Business
Hewlett Packard Won’t Drop Its UK $11 Billion Claim Against Tech Mogul Mike Lynch, Who Died When His Yacht Sank
LONDON — Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced Monday that it will not dismiss its U.K. claim for damages against the estate of British tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch, who died when his superyacht drowned last month.
In 2022, Britain’s High Court decided primarily to favor the US technology giant, which accused Lynch and his former finance director of fraud concerning its $11 billion acquisition of his software company Autonomy. Hewlett-Packard is seeking up to $4 billion in damages, and the judge is anticipated to make a ruling on the exact amount shortly.
AP News Image
Hewlett Packard Won’t Drop Its UK Claim Against Tech Mogul Mike Lynch, Who Died When His Yacht Sank
Mike perished when his yacht, the Bayesian, fell in a storm off Sicily on August 19. His widow, Angela Bacares, may now be liable for the damages.
Mike was acquitted in a separate US criminal trial of fraud and conspiracy in the agreement months before the sinking.
Hewlett Packard initially applauded its pricey 2011 acquisition of Lynch’s company but soon began to regret it. The corporation stated on Monday that it had “substantially succeeded” in its civil fraud allegations against Lynch and the former finance director, Sushovan Hussain.
“It is HPE’s intention to follow the proceedings through to their conclusion.”
However, the U.K. civil action judge has already concluded that the amount payable in damages will be “substantially less” than what the company is demanding.
The Lynch family’s spokesman declined to respond.
Mike and his daughter Hannah were among six passengers killed when the 56-meter (184-foot) luxury boat sank. One crew member, the boat’s chef, also perished, while 15 people escaped the accident. They gathered on the yacht to celebrate Lynch’s acquittal.
Hewlett Packard Won’t Drop Its UK Claim Against Tech Mogul Mike Lynch, Who Died When His Yacht Sank
Officials first reported that the boat was hit by a tornado over the water, known as a waterspout, but the weather phenomena was later identified as a downburst. Italian prosecutors are investigating the captain on possible accusations of manslaughter.
SOURCE | AP
Business
2024 | Elon Musk Hits Out At Judge Threatening To Suspend X In Brazil
Elon Musk has escalated his online attacks on a Supreme Court judge who has threatened to stop social media platform X in Brazil, labeling him “an evil dictator” in an ongoing battle between the two men.
Justice Alexandre de Moraes threatened to suspend X if Musk did not identify a new legal agent for the company in Brazil and pay any outstanding daily fines within 24 hours.
“Alexandre de Moraes is an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge,” the world’s richest person commented on X.
Elon Musk Hits Out At Judge Threatening To Suspend X In Brazil
Musk, who previously referred to de Moraes as “Darth Vader,” retweeted a statement from X’s Global Government Affairs team announcing that the judge’s “illegal demands and all related court filings” would be published in the coming days.
Brazil is a key market for social media networks. According to the Associated Press, around 40 million Brazilians, or roughly 18% of the population, use X at least once a month.
The trash-talking is the latest salvo in Musk’s spat with de Moraes, which revolves around free speech and alleged disinformation. X said earlier this month that it would suspend its business and lay off its employees in Brazil owing to what it described as “censorship orders” from the judge.
De Moraes had ordered the social media company to ban several X accounts he claimed were disseminating misinformation.
The most recent statement, signed by de Moraes, was also posted on the Supreme Court’s official X account, tagging both Musk and X’s Global Government Affairs account.
The Supreme Court statement was uploaded around 8:30 p.m. local time on Wednesday, giving Musk till Thursday evening local time to answer.
‘Censorship Orders’
On August 17, X issued a lengthy statement announcing that it would be forced to suspend operations and terminate employees in Brazil due to de Moraes’ “censorship orders.”
“Despite our numerous appeals to the Supreme Court not being heard, the Brazilian public not being informed about these orders and our Brazilian staff having no responsibility or control over whether content is blocked on our platform, Moraes has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process,” according to the statement from X.
Elon Musk Hits Out At Judge Threatening To Suspend X In Brazil
“As a result, to ensure the safety of our employees, we have decided to close our activity in Brazil, effective immediately. The X service remains available to Brazilians. We are profoundly saddened to have been compelled to make this decision. Alexandre de Moraes is exclusively responsible.
“Due to demands by ‘Justice’ Alexandre [de Moraes] in Brazil that would require us to break (in secret) Brazilian, Argentinian, American and international law, X has no choice but to close our local operations in Brazil,” he said on X’s website.
SOURCE | AP
-
Business4 weeks ago
Are You A Cash App User? You May Be Eligible For A Piece Of This $15 Million Settlement
-
Celebrity4 weeks ago
Liza Minnelli Is ‘Mad As Hell’ And Writing New Memoir
-
Business4 weeks ago
Susan Wojcicki, Former YouTube CEO And Longtime Google Executive, Has Died At 56
-
News4 weeks ago
Travis Scott Is Arrested At A Paris Hotel After Altercation With A Security Guard, Prosecutors Say
-
Sports4 weeks ago
Lydia Ko Finally Gets Her Olympic Gold. It Puts Her Into The LPGA Hall Of Fame
-
Business4 weeks ago
After A Rash Of Stolen Cars, Hyundai And Kia’s New Anti-Theft Software Is Showing Results