Congress decided to throw another curveball into the mix. On January 23, 2026, Representatives Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Marc Veasey (D-TX) introduced the Hemp Enforcement, Modernization, and Protection (HEMP) Act—a bipartisan attempt to regulate, rather than ban, the consumable hemp market that Trump's spending bill tried to annihilate just weeks earlier.

There was a time when cannabis culture had its heroes. Its anti-establishment icons who made rebellion look fun, made counterculture accessible, and made prohibition look absurd through the power of comedy, art, and sheer audacity.

Today, we're going to talk about the deep history of THC, how this molecule came to exist millions of years before humans, how it helped build civilization, and why the idea that we can or should ban it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both biology and human history.

And let’s not forget the irony of the Chevron Doctrine dying, throwing the entire legal framework into disarray. It was the year that federal policy reached peak confusion—a contradictory mess where even the lawyers couldn't figure out if we were winning or losing. And if you think 2026 is going to be any different, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The chaos isn't slowing down; it’s just shifting gears. We’re entering a new phase where the only constant is unpredictability.

Medical cannabis prescribing in Australia operates through competing business models. Some clinics charge consultation fees for each appointment. Others eliminate these fees entirely through subscription-based delivery systems. Reddit discussions across r/MedicalCannabisOz, r/MedicalCannabisAus, r/MMJ, and regional forums reveal how patients evaluate these different approaches.

But sarcasm aside, this matters. Because now we have scientific confirmation—published in a peer-reviewed journal—of what rational people have been screaming into the void for 54 years: the Controlled Substances Act is not based on science. It's based on politics, racism, corporate protection, and authoritarian control.

There's a disturbing amount of noise on Twitter right now about the U.S. conducting military strikes in Mexico against drug cartels. Americans who've apparently learned nothing from history are cheering for drone strikes, Special Forces operations, and full-scale military intervention as the "solution" to the fentanyl crisis.

I decided to find out by diving into a Reddit thread on r/AskConservatives titled "Do any conservatives here oppose legalizing cannabis and why?" The responses were illuminating—not because they showed unanimous support for legalization, but because they revealed something much more interesting: genuine nuance, thoughtful debate, and perspectives shaped by lived experience rather than corporate talking points.

That’s why the results of a recent study involving stressed-out mice caught the attention of the public as well as the scientific community: the mice repeatedly gravitated towards weed to relieve them of stress. They weren’t trained to do so, nor were they tasked to do so. It seemed as if the mice’s biology prompted it, as it likely found cannabinoid consumption soothing.

Another fascinating takeaway from the study: counties with medical marijuana laws saw a 15% drop in booze purchases. This is after the researchers accounted for factors that influence drinking patterns, such as employment, income, and age among others. Additionally, this study utilized Nielsen retail scanner information, which relies on hard sales data. The results are clear: marijuana is a good substitute for alcohol. And when people can legally access it, a significant portion of the population will choose it instead of alcohol.