Connect with us

Published

on

A large majority of Americans70 percent, according to the latest Gallup pollsupport marijuana legalization, and that sentiment is especially strong among younger voters. Gallup found that 79 percent of 18-to-34-year-olds thought marijuana should be legal, compared to 64 percent of adults 55 or older. Similarly, a Pew Research Center survey found that support for legalization was inversely correlated with age. It therefore makes sense that President Joe Biden, who has generated little enthusiasm among Americans of any age group, would try to motivate young voters by touting his support for “marijuana reform.”

The problem for Biden, a longtime drug warrior who is now presenting himself as a reformer, is that his position on marijuana falls far short of repealing federal prohibition, which is what most Americans say they want. His outreach attempts have clumsily obfuscated that point, as illustrated by a video that Vice President Kamala Harris posted on X (formerly Twitter) earlier this month.

“In 2020,” Harris writes in her introduction, “young voters turned out in record numbers to make a difference. Let’s do it again in 2024.” The video highlights “the largest investment in climate action in history,” cancellation of “$132 billion in student debt,” “the first major gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years,” and $7 billion in subsidies for historically black colleges and universities. Then Harris says this: “We changed federal marijuana policy, because nobody should have to go to jail just for smoking weed.” That gloss is misleading in several ways.

Biden has not actually “changed federal marijuana policy.” His two big moves in this area were a mass pardon for people convicted of simple possession under federal law and a directive that may soon result in moving marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a category supposedly reserved for drugs with a high abuse potential and no recognized medical use that cannot be used safely even under a doctor’s supervision, to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

Although Harris, echoing Biden, says “nobody should have to go to jail just for smoking weed,” that rarely happens. Biden’s pardons, which excluded people convicted of growing or distributing marijuana, did not free a single prisoner, and they applied to a tiny fraction of possession cases, which are typically prosecuted under state law.

When he announced the pardons in October 2022, Biden noted that “criminal records for marijuana possession” create “needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities.” But his pardons do not remove those barriers. They do not entail expungement of marijuana records, which is currently not possible under federal law. The certificates that pardon recipients can obtain might carry weight with landlords or employers, but there is no guarantee of that.

Biden’s pardons also did not change federal law, which still treats simple marijuana possession as a misdemeanor punishable by a minimum $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. So people can still be arrested for marijuana possession under federal law, even if they are unlikely to serve time for that offense (which would be true with or without Biden’s pardons). The pardons that Biden announced on October 6, 2022, appliedonly to offenses committed “on or before the date of this proclamation.” When he expanded those pardons on December 22, 2023, that became the new cutoff.

Marijuana use still can disqualify people from federal housing and food assistance. Under immigration law, marijuana convictions are still a bar to admission, legal residence, and citizenship. And cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana, are still prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which applies to any “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance.”

The Biden administration has stubbornly defended that last policy against Second Amendment challenges in federal court, where government lawyers have likened cannabis consumers to dangerous criminalsand “lunatics.” Worse, Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, which increased the maximum prison sentence for marijuana users who own guns from 10 years to 15 years and created a new potential charge against them, which likewise can be punished by up to 15 years behind bars. This is the very same law that Harris touts as “the first major gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years.”

Biden, in short, has neither “decriminalize[d] the use of marijuana” nor “automatically expunge[d] all marijuana use convictions,” as Harris promised on the campaign trail. Both of those steps would require congressional action that Biden has done little to promote.

What about rescheduling? A recent poll commissioned by the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform,Marijuana Moment reports, found that “voters’ impression of the president jumped a net 11 points” after they were informed about “the implications of the rescheduling review that the president initiated.” That included “an 11-point favorability swing among young voters 18-25,” who “will be critical to his reelection bid.”

But let’s not get too excited.Since rescheduling has not happened yet, it is not true that Biden “changed federal marijuana policy” in this area either. And assuming that the Drug Enforcement Administration moves marijuana to Schedule III, as the Department of Health and Human Services recommended last August in response to Biden’s directive, the practical impact would be limited. Rescheduling would facilitate medical research, and it would allow state-licensed marijuana suppliers to deduct business expenses when they file their federal tax returns, which is currently prohibited under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.

Even after rescheduling, however, marijuana businesses would remain criminal enterprises under federal law, which makes it hard for them to obtain financial services and exposes them to the risk of prosecution and asset forfeiture. For businesses that serve recreational consumers, prosecutorial discretion is the only protection against that risk. Cannabis consumers would still have no legally recognized right to own guns, and people who work in the cannabis industry would still face other disabilities under federal law, including life-disrupting consequences for immigrants. Rescheduling would not even make marijuana legally available as a prescription medicine, which would require approval of specific products by the Food and Drug Administration.

In response to overwhelming public support for marijuana legalization, in other words, Biden has made modest moves that leave federal prohibition essentially untouched. While he does not have the authority to unilaterally deschedule marijuana, he cannot even bring himself to support legislation that would do that. Why not?

During the 2020 campaign, Biden echoed seven decades of anti-pot propaganda, saying he was worried that marijuana might be a “gateway” to other, more dangerous drugs. “The truth of the matter is, there’s not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug,” he said. “It’s a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it….It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it’s a gateway drug or not.”

After Biden took office, his press secretary confirmed that his thinking had not changed. “He spoke about this on the campaign,” she said. “He believes in decriminalizing the use of marijuana, but his position has not changed.”

Biden’s rationale for opposing legalization is the same line of argument that Harry J. Anslinger, who headed the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, began pushing in the early 1950s after retreating from his oft-reiterated claim that marijuana causes murderous madness. “Over 50 percent of those oung [heroin] addicts started on marijuana smoking,” hetolda congressional committee in 1951. “They started there and graduated to heroin; they took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone.”

Anslinger reiterated that point four years later, when he testified in favor of stricter penalties for marijuana offenses. “While we are discussing marijuana,” a senator said, “the real danger there is that the use of marijuana leads many people eventually to the use of heroin.” Anslingeragreed: “That is the great problem and our great concern about the use of marijuana, that eventually if used over a long period, it does lead to heroin addiction.”

Since then, a great deal of research has examined this issue, which is complicated by confounding variables that make the distinction between correlation and causation elusive. Biden nevertheless thinks “more scientific investigation” will reach a definitive conclusion. If he won’t support legalization until we know for sure whether marijuana is a “gateway drug,” he will never support legalization.

The supposedly reformed drug warrior’s intransigence on this issue poses an obvious challenge for Harris, a belated legalization supporter who is trying to persuade voters who take the same view that Biden is simpatico. Marijuana Moment reports that Harris’ staff recently has been reaching out to marijuana pardon recipients, “seeking assurance that the Justice Department certification process is going smoothly and engaging in broader discussions about cannabis policy reform.”

According to Chris Goldstein, a marijuana activist who was pardoned for a 2014 possession conviction, the vice president’s people get it. Goldstein was “surprised by how up to speed and nice everybody was,” he told Marijuana Moment. “Her staff really did know the difference between rescheduling [and] descheduling, and they were interested to talk about it.”

No doubt Biden also understands the difference. The problem is that he supports the former but not the latter, which he rejects for Anslinger-esque reasons. Cheery campaign videos cannot disguise that reality.

Continue Reading

Politics

Investors sue Meteora and VC firm, alleging fraud

Published

on

By

Investors sue Meteora and VC firm, alleging fraud

Investors sue Meteora and VC firm, alleging fraud

A group of investors has filed a class-action lawsuit against decentralized cryptocurrency exchange Meteora, alleging the firm was involved in manipulating the launch and market price of the M3M3 token.

In an amended complaint filed on April 21 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs allege that venture capital firm Kelsier Labs, Meteora, and four current or former executives “intentionally misrepresented” information in the M3M3 launch in December 2024.

The investors claimed that they suffered at least $69 million in losses between December 2024 and February 2025 after the parties presented “trusted leaders in the Solana ecosystem” as being behind the token launch, rather than a “blatant fraud” in which sales were manipulated to artificially inflate the price.

“This artificially-inflated valuation communicated highly misleading information to non-insider investors, who reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations that the $M3M3 launch was fully accessible to the public and conducted in a transparent manner fair to non-insider investors, and thus reasonably relied on $M3M3 market price as a meaningful measure of its value,” the complaint reads. “The post-launch price spike also served to corroborate Defendants’ aggressively-marketed, but misleading, assertions that $M3M3 had intrinsic value and a comparatively low risk profile.”

Law, New York, Court
Class-action lawsuit against Meteora, Kelsier Labs, and current and former executives. Source: PACER

The lawsuit is one of many involving different crypto firms that have alleged fraud through violations of US securities laws. Though the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), under acting chair Mark Uyeda since US President Donald Trump took office, has scaled back or dismissed many enforcement actions involving digital assets, the agency said in February it still intended to pursue cases against fraudulent token projects.

The investors added:

“Together, Defendants designed the $M3M3 Token and planned its launch on Meteora in a manner intended to illicitly enrich themselves at the expense of the unsuspecting investing public.”

Related: Meteora says co-founder’s X account hacked after ‘parasitic’ memecoin post

Memecoins in the Solana ecosystem

Meteora has been tied to the launch of several high-profile yet controversial tokens, including those for Trump (TRUMP), his wife Melania (MELANIA), Libra (LIBRA), and online influencer Haliey Welch (HAWK).

According to the lawsuit, the firm “purported to offer a comprehensive solution to the problems in the memecoin investment market” with the launch of M3M3. The defendants in the case allegedly attempted to distinguish the token from other notable memecoins by highlighting the “legitimacy and trustworthiness” through the involvement of Meteora co-founder Ben Chow and the platform.

Kelsier Ventures, KIP Protocol, and Meteora face a similar class-action lawsuit filed in New York in March over LIBRA allegedly being launched in a “deceptive, manipulative and fundamentally unfair” manner. Argentine President Javier Milei briefly promoted the token over social media after his sister reportedly received payments from the project.

Magazine: Memecoin degeneracy is funding groundbreaking anti-aging research

Continue Reading

Environment

CATL unveils new EV battery that charges as fast as pumping gas

Published

on

By

CATL unveils new EV battery that charges as fast as pumping gas

China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL) has unveiled its latest battery cell technologies, which charge as quickly as filling up a gas tank while potentially lowering costs without compromise.

CATL has quickly become the world’s largest battery manufacturer by a wide margin. It is one of, if not the biggest, force for advancing electric transportation.

A big part of CATL’s success is due to its advancements in lithium-iron phosphate battery cells, also known as LFP. LFP cells are cheaper than nickel-rich batteries, but they used to have much lower energy density.

The Chinese battery manufacturers managed to close the gap somewhat while maintaining lower costs, resulting in LFP cells becoming popular for entry-level EVs.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Now, CATL is looking to do the same with sodium-ion batteries.

Like LFP cells, sodium-ion battery cells have the potential to be cheaper than more common Li-ion cells, but they also offer potential for superior performance, particularly in terms of faster charging and longer lifecycles.

CATL has unveiled today Naxtra, its new sodium-ion battery cells, and it claimed some truly impressive specs.

The new cell reportedly achieves an energy density of 175 Wh per kg (385 Wh per lb), on par with the higher-end of LFP battery cells.

The new cells also offer potential for significant safety improvements.

CATL shared several intense stress tests, including drilling into a cell and even cutting it in half without any thermal event:

The next-gen sodium cells could help further lower the cost of electric vehicles without compromising performance, and while increasing safety.

On top of the new Naxtra cell, CATL has also unveiled its next-gen Shenxing LFP battery cells.

Its charge rate is truly impressive. CATL shared several examples of cars charging at around 1,000 kW and maintaining over 500 kW at over 50% state of charge:

The new cell is being described as capable of adding 300 miles (482 km) of range in about 5 minutes – depending on the EV model.

That’s virtually as quick as filling up a tank of gas.

CATL says that the Shenxing will be in 67 electric vehicle models by the end of the year.

The next-gen cell was unveiled after BYD, CATL’s biggest competitor, also unveiled its latest technology, capable of charging electric vehicles at extremely high speeds.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla shares tumble ahead of first-quarter earnings report

Published

on

By

Tesla shares tumble ahead of first-quarter earnings report

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a cabinet meeting held by U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on March 24, 2025.

Win McNamee | Getty Images

Tesla shares fell almost 6% on Monday, a day ahead of the electric vehicle company’s first-quarter earnings report, as analysts fret over “ongoing brand erosion.”

The stock closed at $227.50 leaving it less than $6 above its low for the year on April 8. The shares are now down 44% for the year after wrapping up their worst quarter since 2022 in March. It’s the 12th time this year the stock has dropped by at least 5% in a single session.

CEO Elon Musk’s many distractions outside of Tesla, especially his role within the Trump administration, are in focus, along with the company’s progress on a long-delayed robotaxi and self-driving technology for its existing cars.

In the online forum that Tesla uses to solicit investor inquiries in advance of its earnings calls, more than 300 questions were submitted pertaining to Tesla’s self-driving systems, around 200 came in about the company’s Optimus humanoid robots in development, and more than 160 questions poured in about Musk individually. One investor asked, “What steps has the board of directors taken to mitigate the brand damage caused by Elon’s political activities?”

After spending $290 million to help return Trump to the White House, Musk is now leading an initiative to slash tens of thousands of federal jobs, sell off or end leases for federal office buildings, and reduce U.S. government capacity.

Musk’s politics and antics have elicited a massive backlash in Europe and parts of the U.S. This year, the company has been hit with waves of protests, boycotts and some criminal activity that targeted Tesla vehicles and facilities in response to Musk.

Earlier this month, Tesla reported 336,681 vehicle deliveries in the first quarter, a 13% decline from the same period a year earlier.

Tesla Q1 deliveries worse than expected

The company is expected to report revenue of $21.24 billion for the first quarter, according to LSEG, which would mark a slight drop from the same period last year. Analysts expect earnings per share of 40 cents. Investors will be paying particularly close attention to any commentary about Trump’s widespread tariffs and the potential impact on revenue and earnings as the year progresses.

Oppenheimer analysts wrote in a note out Monday that “ongoing brand erosion” for Tesla in the U.S. and Europe is weighing on sales already, but a “bigger issue for the company is potential weakness in China demand and margin impact due to the Trump tariffs.”

They wrote that competition in China, coupled with “nationalistic” consumer trends there, could “drive sales toward domestic brands.” Tesla would then have to export more of its China-made cars, which could lead to “downward pressure on pricing,” the Oppenheimer analysts said.

Caliber, a research firm that tracks how U.S. consumer sentiment is shifting around major brands, found that only 27% of its survey respondents in March would consider purchasing a Tesla, compared to 46% in January 2022.

Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives, a longtime Tesla bull, is hoping for a “turnaround vision” from Musk on Tuesday’s earnings call.

“Tesla has now unfortunately become a political symbol globally of the Trump Administration/DOGE,” he wrote, noting that “Tesla’s stock has been crushed since Trump stepped back into the White House.”

Ives estimated 15% to 20% “permanent demand destruction for future Tesla buyers due to the brand damage Musk has created” by working for Trump.

Late last week, Barclays maintained the equivalent of a sell rating and slashed its price target on Tesla to $275 from $325, citing a “confusing set-up” on the first-quarter with “weak fundamentals.” The firm said it could see a positive reaction if Musk is more focused on his automaker, and depending on what the company discloses about an anticipated “FSD event,” referring to Tesla’s Full Self-Driving offering.

Tesla said in announcing its reporting date that, in addition to earnings, it will provide a “live company update,” language the company hasn’t typically used in disclosures.

WATCH: Why investors are divided on Tesla’s turn to robots and self-driving cars

Why investors are divided on Tesla's turn to robots and self-driving cars

Continue Reading

Trending