Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

‘High Times’ Called Out For ‘Canna-Greed’ in Pot Shop Deal

The iconic marijuana mag maneuvered to buy a Union Square dispensary.
200519-sfw-alexisbronson-002-838x400.jpg

Alexis Bronson stands for a portrait outside the vacant storefront at 152 Geary St. where he and his business partners have been trying to put in a marijuana dispensary on Tuesday, May 19, 2020. (Photo: Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Weekly)

When High Times announced an $80 million deal April 28 to buy more than a dozen California cannabis dispensaries, the storied stoner brand called out one location in particular: the emerald jewel of the acquisition spree was to be a ritzy shop in San Francisco’s Union Square.

“We will literally be next to a Chanel store,” Hightimes Holding Corp. executive chairman Adam Levin told Bloomberg News.

Only one of the 13 statewide dispensaries in that deal is next to a Chanel — the 152 Geary Street location, formerly the John Varvatos store. That proposed dispensary still needs local and state permits before opening. But to its equity program-approved co-owner, whose two-year quest for Planning Commission approval finally found success in February, the Hightimes Holding Corp. announcement came as a complete surprise.

“The press notified me after the deal was announced,” shop co-owner Alexis Bronson tells SF Weekly. And since then, he says “I have not heard anything” — not from High Times, or their holding corporation.

When we talk about equity in cannabis, we usually mean representation for communities impacted by the war on drugs. In the age of Big Cannabis, large companies often have to partner with smaller, so-called “equity owners” in order to satisfy equity requirements like we have here in San Francisco.

But there’s another way the word equity is used in the legal marijuana industry. Private equity firms regularly put up the capital that small cannabis businesses need to operate, or even open, in the highly regulated and very costly California market.

The proposed High Times dispensary is an intersectional crash of these two types of equity — as the iconic counterculture magazine High Times moves into the world of Wall Street investment deals. The outcome of this curious conflict could prove a potent case study in what private equity and social equity look like in the new and evolving recreational marijuana era.

Smoke & Mirrors

California retail-chain dispensaries are not like supermarket chains. Each individual franchise is often legally structured as its own Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), so a given store can comply with cannabis regulations that differ between individual cities and counties.

Bronson says his LLC is being used as a pawn by large, cutthroat corporate players. Bronson’s dispensary was initially to be named Have a Heart — as it was originally part of a Seattle-based chain of 10 Have a Heart dispensaries that spanned Washington, California, and Iowa. His LLC was called HAH 2 CA, and in compliance with San Francisco Office of Cannabis equity rules, he owned a 40 percent share of that LLC and was appointed CEO.

“I met the income guidelines,” he says, noting he satisfied other social justice criteria, as well: he’d been evicted in San Francisco and has a previous cannabis arrest (although, he notes, he was not convicted).

Yet just a month after Bronson’s Have a Heart dispensary was approved by the Planning Commission, the Have a Heart brand merged with a much larger Tempe, Arizona-based chain called Harvest Health and Recreation in an $85 million deal. Harvest already had three dozen dispensaries in legal states across the country, including one in Napa.

Barely a month later came the big news of Hightimes acquiring 13 dispensaries across California for $80 million in a “mostly stock-based transaction.” Those dispensaries included the Have a Heart store in Union Square.

But it’s not really 13 open and operating dispensaries. A close review of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings for the High Times deal reveals that only five of the 13 dispensaries listed in the transaction are currently open. The other eight, like Bronson’s proposed Union Square dispensary, have permits still pending approval, or are applications in progress.

Bronson alleges his partners secretly flipped their ownership shares into a company called Core Competencies, LLC. And while their intent in creating this limited liability corporation may be disputed, the SEC filing for the Hightimes deal does confirm in legal language that Bronson’s partners at Have a Heart “assigned their interests to Core Competencies LLC” — a distinction that is not made for any of the other co-owned dispensaries.

“My business partners sold their shares in our entity behind my back, without my approval or consent as acting CEO,” he tells us. SF Weekly has reviewed emails and contract documents showing that Bronson then declined the offer sheet sent to him as the Harvest deal was closing, and that he was never notified of the subsequent Hightimes acquisition.

So, if he refused to sign onto the terms of the first acquisition, does Bronson lose his stake now that the whole thing has been sold to Hightimes? We asked a prominent marijuana lawyer.

“In a typical organization, the majority shareholder has control over the entity,” says cannabis attorney Omar Figueroa. (Bronson is only the 40 percent shareholder and does not hold a majority for that dispensary.) “He wouldn’t lose his shares, it just means that he doesn’t have control, because he doesn’t have the voting shares to have that control.”

We should note that other Have a Heart dispensary owners see the Hightimes deal as making sense for their equity business.

“Due to the level of business capacity that retail cannabis businesses in California are in, and due to the gravity of how large these companies need to be, this type of situation does not surprise me,” Have a Heart Downtown Oakland owner Josh Chase tells us.

In San Francisco, any change in ownership must be approved by the SF Office of Cannabis. That office would not comment for this article, citing a policy on refraining from commenting on all permits that are still pending state and local review. Whether this dispensary is called Have a Heart of High Times, it’s still a pending permit.

Not Your Father’s High Times

The old-school pot magazine you remember as High Times looked to be blooming into a marijuana empire in 2017. That year, The New York Times initially reported that a group of wealthy Los Angeles-based investors, including Bob Marley’s son, Damian, acquired the magazine for $70 million, establishing a new parent company called Hightimes Holding Co.

However, the Times quickly issued a correction to that report, clarifying that “the group acquired a controlling stake that valued the magazine at $70 million; it did not pay $70 million.” The initial hype was an omen of things to come.

Hightimes pivoted its core business to producing Cannabis Cup events, and they went on a spending spree to acquire and put their name on many of the world’s biggest marijuana festivals. But closer to home, just one year after acquiring Humboldt County’s popular Reggae on the River music festival, the event was cancelled — and some of their other California Cannabis Cup events failed to get permits or were cancelled last-minute.

Hightimes carried on with a grand plan for an IPO, hoping to list their shares on the NASDAQ exchange and ride the green rush to riches. But the company couldn’t secure much interest from the traditional investor community, so instead they turned to a much smaller, cannabis-specific penny stock exchange called the OTCQX, and started a crowdfunding campaign aimed at their longtime readers and fans to launch a new mini-IPO. Months later, they are still trying to raise money.

“What better way to enter the public markets than crowdsourcing our ticker? This was truly a community decision,” Hightimes CEO Stormy Simon said on March 11. “We wanted to open this up to our shareholders as this will be a symbol that defines us all for years to come.”

Simon resigned as Hightimes CEO on Monday, May 5, after less than four months on the job. The company is now on its third CEO in less than a year, a dubious sign for investors and the dispensaries involved, considering this supposedly $80 million transaction is an almost all-stock deal.

“All-stock deals are like paying an IOU,” says Jacqueline McGowan, founder of the cannabis consulting firm G Street Consulting. “I like to call them ‘funny money deals.’”

The Hightimes stock offering is particularly surreal, because Hightimes stock still technically does not even exist. Hightimes sends potential investors three or four emails every day with messages like “Time is ticking, don’t miss out!,” often resending the same email five minutes later. The company has now extended its investor deadline at least seven times in the last 18 months.

“It is nothing more than a Hail Mary,” McGowan tells SF Weekly. “Hightimes failed to secure the amount needed in their most recent attempt, and that means that they now need a hyped up story to tell their next round of investors. Harvest [the dispensary chain] isn’t selling Hightimes anything in the event the raise fails and Hightimes isn’t buying anything if they don’t magically make a bankroll appear.

“This isn’t anything more than a fluff piece and a ploy to lure more of the public into buying Hightimes’ non-existent stock.”

Burnt Out

But why would a reputable cannabis retail chain sell their real-life, revenue-generating, brick-and-mortar stores for a non-existent stock?

“California’s overly complicated, complex regulatory structure makes it uniquely challenging to thrive in,” says McGowan. “That, coupled with some of the highest taxes in the country, means that our state has become a hot potato that most multi-state operators are thrilled to unload, Harvest Health being the most recent.”

And so, what may have been the first Union Square recreational cannabis dispensary — flanked by luxury brand names and peppered by curious tourists from states without legal pot — may ultimately be the victim of big cannabis vulture capitalists. The entire deal may simply go up in a cloud of legalese.

The dirty little secret of the cannabis industry is that everyone’s suing each other all the time, over unpaid bills, deals gone bad, and promised permits that didn’t come through. Have a Heart founder and CEO Ryan Kunkel is currently engaged in a legal battle with Harvest, and Harvest is currently suing another company to get out of a previous $240 million merger deal.

It seems that this deal could go the same way. For his part, Alexis Bronson vows he’s pulling his Union Square dispensary out.

“The license is now 100 percent mine,” he tells us. “I don’t want my reputation spoiled by corporate canna-greed.”
 
Years after legalizing marijuana, voters see it as a huge success


Residents in nine of the 11 states that have legalized the adult use of cannabis have no regrets about ending prohibition. In fact, according to a new survey, large majorities now deem the move a whopping success.


YouGov, an international research data and analytics group based in London, surveyed more than 32,000 Americans in legal states. Participants were asked if they considered recreational marijuana legislation to be more of a success or failure. The survey was conducted April 17-20, 2020.


In Colorado and Washington, the first states to legalize (in 2012), voters responded with two thumbs up. In Colorado, 71% of those asked said they considered legalization a success, while only 17% saw it as a failure. In Washington, 65% counted it a success, with only 18% considering it a failure.

Popularity of legalization grows after implementation

Those margins indicate that a significant block of people who originally voted against legalization now see it as a good move for the state. Colorado’s Amendment 64 passed in 2012 with 55% of the vote, while Washington’s Initiative 502 passed with 56% approval.


Other states have similar approval ratings:


  • Oregon: 69% success
  • Massachusetts: 67% success
  • Nevada: 64% success
  • California: 59% success
  • Illinois: 59% success
  • Michigan: 56% success
  • Maine: 47% success

YouGov did not receive a reportable sample size from Alaska or Vermont, the two other legal cannabis states.

1590593384297.png

Access to legal stores = success

Interestingly, the perception of success seems to correlate with both the passage of time and the efficiency of a state’s retail recreational marijuana system. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon were among the earliest adopters of adult-use legalization, and their retail industries have been booming for years.


Maine, by contrast, passed adult-use legalization years ago but its residents are still waiting for the state’s first recreational stores to open. That was a result of efforts by a previous governor to undermine the will of the voters by slow-walking Maine’s rollout.


California voters may be less than ecstatic about legalization because large sections of the state still function as legal-cannabis deserts. Retail stores abound in San Francisco, for instance, but many rural counties and cities have banned them altogether, leading to a less-than-satisfying outcome for many voters. It’s legal in California, but many residents have to drive hundreds of miles to find the nearest licensed store.
 
Former Attorney General, Lawmakers And Police Leaders Call For Federal Marijuana Legalization Waivers

A task force comprised of former lawmakers, federal prosecutors and reform advocates issued a series of recommendations on Wednesday about criminal justice policy changes that should be enacted, and that includes creating a waiver system to allow states to set their own marijuana policies without federal interference.


The Council on Criminal Justice task force was established prior to the coronavirus pandemic, but its new report said the health crisis has “underscored the urgency” of the recommendations. While the group is far from the only criminal justice-minded organization to push for cannabis reform, it’s especially notable because of the backgrounds of its membership.


Sally Yates, who served as deputy attorney general and interim attorney general, is on the task force. So is former Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R), former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and former Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey. Mark Holden, who was senior vice president and general counsel at Koch Industries, and David Safavian, general counsel of the American Conservative Union, are also members.


Together, the group agreed on 15 reform recommendations.


While they didn’t endorse federally legalizing cannabis outright, the group said the current conflict between local and national policy is untenable and should be addressed in the interim by creating waivers for states to proceed with marijuana legalization without the fear of federal intervention.


“The federal government must act to resolve this conflict and confusion, by creating an environment that respects sovereignty and by providing a responsible framework in which states can make policy choices,” they said. “Without federal action, the cannabis industry will continue to operate without consistent guardrails and guidance for testing, labeling, and marketing—to minors and all consumers.”


“The Task Force concludes that neither a federal crackdown nor a hands-off approach is advisable. In the absence of cannabis rescheduling, or its legalization at the federal level, the Task Force recommends that Congress and the Administration develop a state waiver process or contractual framework. Without it, states and the industry will continue to exist under an illusion of sovereignty where circumstances can change at any moment. A balanced and thoughtful accommodation from the federal government would provide confidence to states, stabilize the market, and help address many of the myriad safety and health problems.”


To implement the recommendation, the group wants the federal government to create an interagency task force including representatives of the Departments of Justice, Treasury and Health and Human Services, among other agencies. Members would be charged with creating policies and standards on best public health practices regarding issues such as product availability, testing, labeling, marketing and child-resistant packaging.


It would also lay out guidelines for banks that work with the cannabis industry as well as guidance, grant funding and assistance to aid law enforcement efforts to crack down on illicit marijuana distribution. Also recommended is an expansion of National Institute on Drug Abuse-supported research on the potential benefits and risks of cannabis as well as the effects of regulatory legal models.


New federal legislation “should provide guidance and assurances to all stakeholders legally operating under the waiver and/or contractual agreement, shielding them from civil and/or criminal liability,” the report says.





Beyond marijuana, the Council on Criminal Justice task force also proposed eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for all federal drug crimes in order to reduce the prison population, automatically sealing public criminal records for non-violent federal convictions “including simple possession of controlled substances, following a conviction-free period of no longer than seven years” and establishing “independent oversight of the federal prison system.”


Due to the high rate of substance use disorders in prisons, the task force also recommended enhancing access “to evidence-based treatment services” that can “help break the cycle of substance use and incarceration.” Medication-assisted treatment would be an example of such a service, the report said.


“The pandemic engulfing the world has exposed more fully than ever the deficiencies in our nation’s criminal justice system, and how those deficiencies endanger people, communities, and public safety,” Nutter said in a press release. “Let us honor the pain, suffering, and loss of life that has occurred during this crisis by sharpening and refocusing our work for change.”


Another task force that advocates are eyeing was recently formed to make criminal justice recommendations to presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. The candidate and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who dropped out of the race in April, teamed up to create the group, and most members are in favor of marijuana legalization, in contrast to Biden’s current position. It remains to be seen whether they will formally recommend adopting broader cannabis reform as part of the former vice president’s platform.
 
Back a few decade’s ago-70’s out at sea on a Island where marijuana or CANNABIS was grown in a way that supported trust-
funder’s from every coastline around the PALE BLUE DOT.

Colas were once in fashion!
Non-fictional comment?
Thank you 4-da law information @Baron23
My friend who has a law practice need’s this information to make important judgement’s?
 
You can read the petition for the new lawsuit challenging DEA’s marijuana rescheduling denials by following the title link and scrolling to the bottom of the article.

Scientists And Veterans File Lawsuit Challenging DEA’s Marijuana Rescheduling Denials

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is facing yet another marijuana-related lawsuit—and this time, researchers and veterans are challenging the agency’s denial of prior cannabis rescheduling requests.

The Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) filed suit last week in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for a review of DEA’s scheduling determinations in 2020, 2016 and 1992. In all cases, the agency denied the petitions, citing statutory obligations to maintain the status of cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

Petitioners are taking exception to the basis of those denials, raising questions about DEA’s reliance on scheduling standards that they feel are arbitrary and misinterpret federal law. In particular, they are seeking reviews of the agency’s claims that marijuana must be strictly scheduled because, the government has claimed, it has no currently accepted medical value and has not been proven to be safe.

They also argue that another statutory policy DEA says necessitates marijuana being strictly controlled is unconstitutional.

“The reason we’re filing this is because, ultimately, the research has been impeded,” Matt Zorn, an attorney representing SRI in the case, told Marijuana Moment. “We’re trying to get the administration to remove those roadblocks.”

In terms of valid therapeutic value, the agency has said there are five criteria that a substance must meet, including the reproducibility of the drug, the existence of controlled studies establishing safety and efficacy and “whether the drug is not accepted by qualified experts.”

Lawyers representing SRI argued in a filing that the test “has no basis in the statute, is contrary to the statutory text, structure, history, and purpose, departs from the original understanding of the statute and rests on flawed and outdated case law.”

Further, they said DEA’s determination that there’s a “lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision” is wrong because it “misconstrues the statute and is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law because the agency has improperly imported a clinical efficacy requirement.”

In its past denials of rescheduling petitions, the agency has asserted that marijuana can only be placed in either Schedule I or II. But the attorneys said the statute justifying that determination is “an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority” that “violates core separation of powers principles” by granting the attorney general authority to schedule drugs on his or her discretion based on an interpretation of international treaty obligations.

“[T]he statute outsources regulatory power to create domestic criminal law to international organizations and subordinates domestic law to treaty obligations, conventions, and protocols,” the suit states. “Then, it entrusts the Attorney General, a member of the executive branch, to execute non-self-executing international treaty obligations, providing him no intelligible principle, instructions, standards, or criteria whatsoever against which to measure what ‘he deems most appropriate.’ This is unconstitutional.”

Stephen Zyskiewicz, who filed the handwritten 2020 rescheduling petition that is central to the new suit’s claims, is not a party to the case. Instead, several military veterans, as well as SRI and its principal investigator Sue Sisley, are the plaintiffs.

“Marijuana’s schedule I status and DEA’s determinations hinder SRI’s clinical research—the very clinical research that DEA requires under its unlawful interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B) to consider removing marijuana from schedule I—in several key respects,” the lawsuit states. For example, the scheduling status has meant that “SRI has had to delay FDA-approved clinical trials to investigate the safety and efficacy of smoked marijuana in treating breakthrough pain in terminal cancer patients.”

This isn’t SRI’s first time taking the feds to court over their marijuana decisions. The institute, which is among several dozen applicants to become a federally authorized manufacturer of cannabis for research purposes, successfully forced DEA to issue an update on the status of their application processing and then got the Justice Department to hand over a “secret” memo that DEA allegedly used to justify a delay in deciding on those proposals.

“What has been animating all of these lawsuits is that we can’t get the research done,” Zorn said. “The ideal result is that we stop filing lawsuits and the administration decides it wants to support cannabis research. But until that happens, we’ll be in the courts.”

Meanwhile, a public comment period recently ended for proposed rules that DEA publishedas part of its attempt to expand the number of authorized cannabis manufacturers. Many advocates made the case that marijuana research should not be the purview of DEA at all and should instead be handled by a federal health agency.

DEA could also find itself being challenged over its marijuana scheduling decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court in a separate case. After an appeals court dismissed a lawsuit because the plaintiffs said they wouldn’t push for rescheduling through administrative channels, attorneys in the case said they will soon request that the nation’s highest court take it up.
 


New lawsuit aims to force DEA to reschedule marijuana
Bruce KennedyJune 8, 2020

A new lawsuit would force the DEA to reconsider the criteria set in 1992 to determine the 'accepted medical use' of cannabis. (AdobeStock)

In recent years, lawsuits directed against the federal government’s prohibition of cannabis have tried—and repeatedly failed—to knock down marijuana’s Schedule I status.

A recently filed lawsuit, however, suggests the legal wall against cannabis legalization should not even exist, due to a mistake made more than 25 years ago.

In late May, Sue Sisley with the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) in Arizona, along with three military veterans, filed a legal action against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Sisley, a medical doctor, has made headlines in recent years for her groundbreaking clinical trials that have examined the potential benefits of using marijuana to treat veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The results of that study are expected to be published later this year. She has also publically called out the federal government over what she has described as the poor quality and low potency of the U.S.-government grown cannabis that federal law requires scientists use in their limited, federally-approved cannabis studies, as provided via the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).


The ‘Catch 22’ of Schedule I
According to a press release from SRI, the DEA has for decades now “applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether a drug has a ‘currently accepted medical use’ under the Controlled Substances Act,” the law that since 1970 has classified cannabis as a Schedule I Drug, defined as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Research is needed to move cannabis out of Schedule I. But that research can't be done with Schedule I drugs.
That classification, the release continues, is “directly responsible for the current ‘Catch-22’ many have noted, where marijuana is in Schedule I because of the absence of clinical trials, but no robust clinical trials can be conducted because it is in Schedule I.”

“We’re focused on getting ‘real world’ cannabis flower in the lab,” Sisley said in an email to Leafly. “The NIDA/DEA monopoly represents one of the final and most onerous barriers to cannabis efficacy research. We want to do clinical trials with whole flower. Marijuana’s current schedule is part of a system that is preventing that from happening.”

Reconsidering a 1992 test
The lawsuit seeks a review of the DEA’s interpretation of the phrase, that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment.”

According to the court petition, the DEA uses a five-part test that originated in 1992 when the agency considers whether a drug or other substance can be considered for “accepted use in medical treatment” in the United States. That test looks at:

(1) Whether a drug’s chemistry is known and reproducible
(2) Whether there are adequate safety studies
(3) Whether there are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy
(4) Whether the drug is not accepted by qualified experts
(5) Whether the scientific evidence is not widely available
The new lawsuit claims the DEA-created test has no basis and rests on “flawed and outdated case law.” It also requests the Court vacate and set aside that 1992 five-factor test—while also seeking a “review of DEA’s final determination that marijuana must be placed in either Schedule I or II” of the Controlled Substances Act.

New realities and international treaties
Matt Zorn is an associate at Yetter Coleman, the Houston law firm that is filing the lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Sisley, the three veterans and the SRI. Zorn said the DEA is not paying attention to the realities of how cannabis has been used medically over the past several decades.

The lawsuit, he told Leafly, is “about challenging the rule that DEA uses to evaluate rescheduling petitions.”

Zorn noted that DEA officials have been doing their job by applying a standard for cannabis that a court, at one point, approved. However, he continued, “we just don’t think the full body of evidence was before the court then.”

One other issue, he said, is the federal government’s reference to international treaty obligations when the DEA pushes back against cannabis legalization. He noted that Canada and other countries that have legalized cannabis have found ways around that dilemma.

Zorn said the lawsuit’s opening brief is scheduled to take place this August.

Researchers want to study real-world cannabis
“The federal government has repeatedly said it is powerless to reschedule marijuana because of the absence of clinical trials,” said Sisley. “But what we’ve shown over the past few years is that there are few randomized controlled trials (RCT) because of marijuana’s scheduling. They have set an unattainable standard by demanding RCTs but not allowing for real-world cannabis study drug to be utilized. So you’re in the classic situation of garbage in equals garbage out.”

Moving cannabis to a Schedule III classification, which encompasses drugs with moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence, “wouldn’t legalize marijuana or make marijuana an FDA approved drug, but it would allow researchers to start obtaining real-world cannabis to study,” she added.
 
U.S. Cannabis Operators Eyeing Canada for Bankruptcy Protection



The recent filing for Canadian bankruptcy by cannabis company Green Growth Brands is perhaps another sign that U.S-based multistate operators are looking north for potential solutions amid increasing distress in the industry.
While such protection remains out of reach in the U.S. because of marijuana’s federal illegality, Canadian law is an option to explore even as it remains unclear exactly what avenues are available.
Green Growth’s move appears to be based on the reality of its parent company being an Ontario-based entity even as the company’s assets are largely licensed in the U.S.
However, the ultimate exit from bankruptcy appears murky because of competing lawsuits and state bankruptcy cases for the company in places like Ohio and Florida, said Jeff Schultz, partner at New York-based Feuerstein Kulick.
“The question is how would the Canadian bankruptcy case affect the cases at the state level,” said Schultz. “Are they talking to each other, working in conjunction with each other?”
Range of Tactics
Seeking bankruptcy protection in Canada is likely part of a whole slew of negotiating tactics for U.S cannabis companies struggling to restructure in an industry which was already facing a capital crunch before COVID-19.



Bigger investors are increasingly impatient with the lack of returns on their money and they are the ones driving the changes in approach, said Zachary Kobrin, a cannabis law specialist at Akerman in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
“This all comes back to who is driving the train and it is those entities that are pushing,” Kobrin said. “U.S. companies have to find a way to negotiate and Canada can be part of the negotiating process but it is unclear as to how companies can protect assets at the parent company level and what they then do at the subsidiary level in terms of those assets.”
No Leniency in the U.S.
Observers and investors had been hoping for more leniency for U.S. marijuana companies in the federal bankruptcy area, especially given the increasing levels of distressed assets in the industry.
But one recent case has shown that such leniency isn’t coming around the corner anytime soon.
United Cannabis, a hemp and CBD operator, was expected to secure protection in a case in its home state of Colorado but its very limited link to intellectual property issues with some marijuana companies has placed such protection in doubt.
“It’s going to take one court to show a loosening of restrictions but this one isn’t it,” said Kobrin.
With U.S. federal bankruptcy courts apparently not budging on their strict policy towards anything remotely related to marijuana, Canada may offer the best avenue to protect against creditors.
But many uncertainties remain.
“It’s still a big mess, totally uncharted territory,” said Schultz at Feuerstein Kulick of the Green Growth case. When there are five or six bankruptcy courts involved, it all looks quite messy.”
GGB a Test Case?
Green Growth could, however, be an example to other U.S.-based cannabis companies who have similar parent company structures, said Stuart Brotman, partner and bankruptcy expert at Toronto-based Fasken Martineau DuMoulin.
“There has to be a Canadian entity in the chain that holds the debt for Canadian bankruptcy protection to be possible,” he said. “There are at least a handful of U.S. companies that have this set-up.”
Green Growth is targeting an August 31 date for resolution of the case, Brotman added.
 
Cannabis CEO Pens Open Letter To Trump Urging Release of Non-Violent Pot Prisoners


The CEO of BudTrader.com, Brad McLaughlin, wrote an open letter this week to Donald Trump, AG William Barr, Governor Gavin Newsom, Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and various other governmental authorities and entities. Originally published in Santa Monica Daily Press (republished here with express and enthusiastic permission), the letter is a call to action for criminal justice reform and racial justice. Here’s the letter in its entirety:
Dear President Trump,
CC: AG William Barr CC: Gov. Gavin Newsom CC: AG Xavier Becerra
CC: Senator Kamala Harris CC: Senator Cory Booker CC: Rep. Matt Gaetz
CC: Federal Bureau of Prisons CC: Department of Justice
CC: California Department of Corrections

George Floyd, a father and a member of the cannabis community was killed, at the hands of disgraced and dishonored Minneapolis police officers, who violated an oath to serve and protect their community by killing an unarmed man. I have been using the time since George Floyd’s death to reflect on the root causes of systemic racism in the United States and possible changes. As leaders we can no longer stand idly by and allow for such racism to exist in the greatest country, in the most advanced civilization in the history of the world. We are better than this as a society and we must take action and the time to take action is now.
According to the Pew Research Center 40% of all US law enforcement drug arrests in 2018 were for cannabis. 92% of those arrests were for simple cannabis possession and 8% were for growing or transporting cannabis. According to a study by the ACLU, members of the black community and white community use cannabis at about the same rate, but black people are four times more likely than white people to be arrested for cannabis possession. In Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed, black people were arrested at rate of 8.5 times higher than white people for cannabis possession.



Being arrested for cannabis possession can mean loss of financial aid for education, loss of job, loss of public benefits and loss of access to government programs. It can cost $2000 to $20,000 on average to defend a cannabis possession case. Incarceration over cannabis can make it harder to find a job and reduces the rate of wage growth by 30% over the course of a person’s lifetime.
Police spent $3.6 billion annually enforcing cannabis possession laws which resulted in 820,000 arrests in 2019. Police spent $4,390 per arrest between 2001 and 2010, or $73,170 per felony conviction of a marijuana related crime. To put that in perspective, it costs $77,560 per cannabis conviction. It would be cheaper to send someone convicted of a cannabis possession crime to UCLA to receive a world class education ($34,620 annually).
According to a 2019 Pew Research Poll 91% of Americans support medical or recreational cannabis legalization, recreational marijuana is legal in 11 states for adults over the age of 21 and is legal for medical use in 33 states (including the recreational states). According to the law, cannabis use is legal in one form or another in 33 of the 50 states. Yet members of the cannabis community were arrested 820,000 times last year.
A WebMD/Medscape survey of the attitudes of general physicians and nurses in North America and Europe similarly found that 71 percent believe that cannabis possesses therapeutic efficacy. The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in 2017 acknowledged that there is “conclusive or substantial evidence” that cannabis and its organic constituents “are effective” for the treatment of chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, nausea, and other conditions. The American Nurses Association, states: “Marijuana (cannabis) … has been shown to be effective in treating a wide range of symptoms in a variety of conditions.”
In 1970 cannabis was officially outlawed for any use by the controlled substances act. 50 years later Mayors, Governors and Medical Doctors proclaimed it to be an essential business and an essential item. Cannabis is now an Essential Part of American Life. American citizens should no longer be arrested for cannabis possession as it has been deemed “essential” by our healthcare professionals and our honored elected officials.
Now that cannabis is legal in 33 states including Washington DC (in one form or another) has a 91% approval rating among American adults, 71% approval rating from doctors in North America and Europe and has been deemed “Essential” during a worldwide crisis of biblical proportions the cannabis community would like to humbly and respectfully request that:
  1. All law enforcement agencies cease making cannabis possession related arrests immediately.
  2. All inmates incarcerated for non-violent cannabis crimes be released as soon as possible from local, state and federal custody. This could be done by President Trump via Executive Order/Executive Pardon and by Gov. Gavin Newsom through Governors Clemency for inmates incarcerated by the state of California (who has more incarcerated inmates than any other place in the world).
  3. Americans arrested for non-cannabis related drug possession charges be offered drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration. I would like to suggest redirecting the $3.6 billion annually spent enforcing cannabis possession laws to be used on drug treatment for those convicted of none cannabis drug possession offenses.
Laws change, law enforcement officers are expected to change and enforce the new laws of our lands. We can no longer allow members of the cannabis community and the African American community to be unfairly targeted and arrested 820,000 times a year for cannabis possession. A crime that quite frankly shouldn’t exist anymore and unfairly targets members of the black cannabis community.
As great leaders you are expected to do what is right. This is the will of 91% of your constituents and change is not only necessary but is essential and this would be a great first step in the right direction in the fight against systemic racism.
Respectfully Yours,
Brad McLaughlin
CEO BudTrader.com
Member of the Cannabis Community
Citizen of the United States of America
Compassionate Human Being from Planet Earth
 
I don’t think Barr and Trump have empathy towards those that were arrested for pot or anything else. I think it will fall on deaf ears but anything is worth a try.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think Barr and Trump have empathy towards those that were arrested for pot or anything else. I think it will fall on deaf ears but anything is worth a try.
May well be true, Carol.....so what exactly did the last President that you did approve of do for MJ convictions or on the legalization front overall. Oh...yeah....pretty much nothing.
 
I know @Baron23 not one damn thing! I was expressing more of the empathy issue. I held back on major thoughts I have. I don’t want the stink eye from mom.
 
Cannabis Companies Are Eligible For These Coronavirus Federal Payroll Tax Credits


The Families First and CARES acts each provide credits that can reach $5,000-plus per employee.
Relief appears to be available for cannabis companies

The cannabis industry rarely looks to the federal government for support. Yet the raft of fiscal relief addressing COVID-19 has caused some in the industry to wonder what options, if any, might be available for them.

Although cannabis companies are ineligible to participate in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) under the CARES Act, both the CARES Act and Families First Coronavirus Response Act include provisions that may be available to reduce employer payroll tax liability for cannabis companies through certain deferrals and credits. Absent further federal guidance to the contrary, these tax benefits should be available to cannabis businesses.

The Families First and CARES acts each provide credits that can reach $5,000-plus per employee. Both provide tax incentives for employers to aid them in maintaining sufficient cash-flow to endure the economic and public health impacts of COVID-19.

– Sections 7001 and 7003 of the Families First Act provide businesses with tax credits to cover certain costs of providing employees with expanded family and medical leave and required paid sick leave related to COVID-19 from April 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020.

– Section 2301 of the CARES Act encourages eligible employers to keep employees on their payroll despite experiencing economic hardship related to COVID-19.
“Eligible employers” include those (a) shuttered by government authorities for any period due to COVID-19; or (b) whose gross receipts in any quarter in 2020 are below 50% when compared to the gross receipts of the same quarter in 2019. Self-employed persons may only claim the credit with respect to wages they pay to their employees. Self-employed earnings are ineligible for the credit. Employers can only claim one of the two credits for any given wage payment. Nevertheless, if an employer pays both type of wages, it can combine the credits for maximal benefit to reduce its overall payroll tax liabilities.

Both tax credits are fully refundable under these acts, meaning if the amount of the credit is more than the applicable payroll taxes owed by the employer, the employer will get a refund when it files its quarterly payroll tax return. If the employer does not wish to wait, then in anticipation of receiving these credits, the employer may keep payroll tax withholdings that otherwise would need to be deposited with the IRS. If those withholdings are less than the amount of the expected future tax credits, the employer may request an advance of the difference between the credits and the retained withholdings from the IRS.

Credits Under Families First
The credit allows employers to use those expenses related to providing paid sick and expanded family and medical leave, including Medicare taxes and Qualified Health Plan expenses allocable to such wages, against the employer’s 6.2% portion of Social Security taxes. It is available to most employers with fewer than 500 employees that pay “qualified sick leave wages” and “qualified family leave wages,” to their employees.

For paid sick leave, the maximum credit allowed is $5,110 per employee for up to 10 days (80 hours). For paid family leave to care for someone with coronavirus, the maximum credit allowed is $2,000 per employee, for up to two weeks (80 hours). For paid family leave to care for children due to coronavirus-related school or daycare closures, the maximum credit allowed is $10,000 per employee, for up to 10 weeks.

Credits Under CARES Act
The “Employee Retention Credit” is a fully refundable tax credit equal to 50% of “qualified wages” (including allocable qualified health plan expenses) that eligible employers pay their employees. It is available to eligible employers’ businesses that fully or partially suspended operations due to COVID-19 or that experience a significant decline in gross receipts.

The maximum amount of qualified wages taken into account with respect to each employee for all calendar quarters is $10,000, so the maximum credit for an eligible employer’s qualified wages paid to any employee is $5,000 for the entire year.

Risk/Benefit Considerations
Uncertainty remains as to the federal government’s position, but the CARES and Families First acts do not explicitly exclude cannabis companies from these tax perks. Moreover, though Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code disallows cannabis companies from taking any federal credits or deduction, that section is in the income taxes section of the code and, thus, should not apply to the acts’ changes to employment payroll taxes.

Cannabis companies should conduct their own cost-benefit analysis, informed by how much they stand to gain and lose by taking the risk. Although the IRS has published guidance for the new employer tax credits under both the Families First and CARES acts, there is no mention of cannabis employers being excluded from this relief. As employers begin to implement these tax credits, it is foreseeable that the IRS will, at some point, provide guidance for cannabis companies, but the timing and content of that guidance is unknown.

Until then, employers in the cannabis industry may want to consider these tax benefits, but it is highly advisable to consult with a cannabis lawyer before taking action.
 
NBA Now Allows Cannabis Use By Players


The NBA confirmed it would no longer drug test players for cannabis or any recreational drugs when the league resumes play in late July.

The National Basketball Association and its players union have agreed that players will be tested for performance-enhancing drugs when the league restarts at Disney World, but not recreational drugs, CBS Sports reports. The NBA suspended its season amid the coronavirus pandemic and the league and union are finalizing details for a shortened, “bubble” season to finish to the year.

The proposal was first reported by Shams Charania of The Athletic.

On Monday, the league also reinstated Charlotte Hornets guard Malik Monk who was suspended indefinitely at the start of the season for violating the league’s substance-abuse policy, according to the Charlotte Observer. The Hornets are not included in the 22-team restart plan set for late July.

The NBA’s relaxed drug policy for the league’s resumption coincides with Cresco Labs announcing that it added NBPA Executive Director Michele Roberts to its board, although it’s unlikely the NBA’s drug testing decision is related to her appointment. Roberts has served as executive director of the union since 2014.

In 2018, Roberts said the league was “exploring” medical exemptions for NBA players to use medical cannabis but said federal law stood in the way. At that time, anti-cannabis zealot Jeff Sessions was still serving as attorney general of the U.S. and Roberts said she was concerned about players being arrested at airports at the behest of “a crazed” AG.

Under the league’s collective bargaining agreement between the NBA and NBPA, players who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs will be suspended for 25 games for a first violation, 55 games for a second violation, and are banned from the league for a minimum of two years for a third violation.

Under normal rules, players can be drug tested up to four times per season and twice in the offseason.
 
CDC Flooded With Comments On Marijuana And Kratom As Alternative Painkillers Ahead Of Deadline

With one day left before a deadline for the public to submit feedback on pain management options, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has received hundreds of comments related to medical marijuana and more than one thousand concerning kratom.

The federal agency’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control is looking for input on “individual stakeholder’s values and preferences related to pain and pain management options,” it said in an email last week.

“Through this opportunity, CDC is seeking stakeholders’ perspectives on and experiences with pain and pain management, including, but not limited to, the benefits and harms of opioid use,” it said. “CDC invites input specifically on topics focused on using or prescribing opioid pain medications, non-opioid medications, or non-pharmacological treatments (e.g., exercise therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy).”

While the notice published in the Federal Register does not explicitly reference cannabis or kratom, numerous individuals have taken the opportunity to submit their feedback on the therapeutic benefits of the substances as alternatives to prescription opioids in their pain management.

More than 200 people talked about either “marijuana” or “cannabis,” about 70 discussed CBD and more than 1,000 discussed kratom, a lesser-known herb that has also shown promise as a pain reliever. There were a total of 3,682 comments submitted as of Monday afternoon.

“I suffer from rheumatoid arthritis and have had 15 skin cancer removals and didn’t receive pain meds for any of those surgeries! I wouldn’t have made it without cannabis,” an anonymous commenter said. ” I never have any side effects nor does it slow me down. It actually helps ease the pain which enables me to do more physical activities! It’s much safer than alcohol and I don’t understand why the U.S. hasn’t legalized other than politics!”

Another person with chronic pain from a compression fracture said, “I use cannabis to relieve nerve and muscle pain. Cannabis relieves my pain effectively and doesn’t cause me as much impairment as opioids and other medication I was prescribed for the injury.”

A 65-year-old person who said he suffers from multiple muscular and skeletal birth defects described negative side effects from the opioid-based painkillers he was prescribed and said that he’s since reduced his dosage after incorporating cannabis into his regimen.

“Upon having daily regular doses of marijuana I was able to substantially reduce the oxycodone dosage,” he said. “There was a period where I stopped using oxycodone completely. Now, I use marijuana daily in conjunction with low 2.5mg doses (20mg/day) oxycodone. I realized the pain control was due to the combination of marijuana and opiate as soon as I began using marijuana regularly.”

NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano told Marijuana Moment that an “estimated one in ten Americans suffers from chronic pain conditions that are unresponsive to conventional pain treatments, such as NSAIDS and opioids.”

“Because of this unmet need, and because many conventional analgesics possess the risk of serious adverse side-effects, including overdose death, it is understandable that many patients are seeking alternative treatment regiments, such as cannabis,” he said. “It is notable that the US Centers for Disease Control is seeking personal feedback from these patients and is looking to learn from their experiences.”

“The CDC’s call for public comments is a unique opportunity for this agency to hear directly from these tens of thousands of patients who are therapeutically benefiting from cannabis, and in many cases, substituting it in place of more dangerous opioids,” he added. “Ideally, this feedback will help guide the agency in amending and evolving their public health and pain management guidelines to better recognize the important role that cannabis can play as a relatively safe and effective analgesic for many chronic pain sufferers.”

A recent meta-analysis found that, on average, pain patients who use cannabis reported a 64-75 percent reduction in opioid dosages.

Another study released in April found that marijuana can mitigate symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

Late last year, researchers determined that states with legal marijuana access experience decreases in opioid prescriptions, and a separate study released the previous month showed that daily marijuana consumption is associated with reduced opioid consumption among chronic pain patients.

CDC’s comment period on pain management has so far received nearly three times as many as a recent Drug Enforcement Administration notice on increasing marijuana manufacturing for research purposes.

It’s received slightly fewer compared to when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) opened a comment period for proposed regulations on hemp last year. The period saw more than 4,600 people comments.

People interested in weighing in on the CDC’s pain management query can submit comments through 11:59 PM ET on Tuesday.
 
Who is Paying for All These Asinine Cannabis Studies? You Are!
Taxpayer money is being wasted on some of the dumbest marijuana studies ever!

With everything going on in the world, you’d think that the scientific community would at least have some rational protocols in place – but then you see studies like this entitled; “Unprotected Sex as a Function of Alcohol and Marijuana Use Among Adolescent Detainees”.

Want to know who paid for this study?

YOU DID!

Yes, this study was funded by a government grant and when you see what it’s all about – well, I’m sure you’ll be as pissed off as millions of other taxpayers funding this ridiculous bullshit.


What’s the study about?

According to the Official Study’s purpose, “To examine the relationship between the use of two substances (alcohol and marijuana) and the occurrence of unprotected sexual intercourse among adolescent detainees.”

Yes – basically your hard-earned dollars are being spent on “examining the relationship between alcohol and cannabis” and “the frequency teens fuck each other without condoms” Or “Risky sex” as the researchers refer to it.

Now of course – perhaps weed makes you hornier or alcohol makes you act without considering the consequences – but this is by far not a study of significant importance. This study doesn’t even scratch the surface of “important” and seems to be more like a mock-study aimed at showing us just how irresponsible the government is with our money.

In fact – with everything going on in the US right now, it’s studies of this nature that makes one think, “Perhaps we should Audit the government?”

And the answer to that question is an emphatic – YES!

Nonetheless, this study was paid for by you and the researchers concluded that “Smoking weed did have an association with “risky sex”. Kids who boned while high without a condom tended to repeat the behavior later on – and got laid more apparently.

Wait – does this mean that smoking weed can get you laid at a higher interval or is this specifically referring to “risky sex” ***Reginald jested sarcastically***

How did they determine this?

Obviously, this study was conducted with the highly reliable method of surveys. These surveys were administered to kids who were sent to youth detention centers.

Here’s a snippet from their abstract;

Participants were asked about their use of alcohol, marijuana, and condoms. In addition to comparing levels of alcohol and marijuana use, the study examined relationships among the following variables: (a) the number of days that each substance was used and the number of unprotected episodes of sexual intercourse in the 30 days preceding admission to a youth detention center; (b) the number of times that each substance was used before or during sexual intercourse and the number of unprotected episodes in the same time period; (c) the use of each substance and unprotected intercourse at the last sexual episode; and (d) intentions to use each substance in the context of sex and to have unprotected intercourse in the future. Relationships among these variables were assessed in four regression models, each of which included participants' demographic characteristics, AIDS knowledge, attitudes toward condoms, and future orientation as covariates. - SOURCE

As you can see – the methods described here are not producing any significant and actionable data. It’s a non-study to discover whether “delinquent teens” who drink and smoke also engage in sex without condoms. Turns out that they do!

But anyone who actually had a life growing up could have told you the same. It’s not difficult to think that “teens are shitty decision-makers” and “often tend to do dumb shit”.

Just think about your own life for a second. Can you think of one thing you did as a teen that was absolutely idiotic? Odds are it’s a resounding – YES!

Why for the love of Ganja did we pay for this?

The date this study was published was back in 2000 – meaning that we could chalk this up to Reefer Madness and the government wanting to propagate misinformation – however, in 2018 a similar study was published echoing the same line of reasoning.

Once again – “troubled teens like to have sex who smoke weed and drink” is not a scientific premise that warrants taxpayer money. Of course – we do want to invest money into creating more accurate data when it comes to cannabis consumption – but is this the type of studies that will make a difference?

Wouldn’t this money be better spent in cancer research, PTSD research, or virtually anything other than studying horny teenagers in youth detention centers? Is this merely the status quo becoming less creative in creating their anti-cannabis rhetoric or have researchers become so lazy that they will grab for any low-hanging fruit thrown in their general direction?

Either way – I don’t think that We the People need to be stuck with the bill. Do we need to have some greater accountability concerning where our money goes to wouldn’t you agree?
 
CDC Flooded With Comments On Marijuana And Kratom As Alternative Painkillers Ahead Of Deadline

With one day left before a deadline for the public to submit feedback on pain management options, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has received hundreds of comments related to medical marijuana and more than one thousand concerning kratom.


While the notice published in the Federal Register does not explicitly reference cannabis or kratom, numerous individuals have taken the opportunity to submit their feedback on the therapeutic benefits of the substances as alternatives to prescription opioids in their pain management.

More than 200 people talked about either “marijuana” or “cannabis,” about 70 discussed CBD and more than 1,000 discussed kratom, a lesser-known herb that has also shown promise as a pain reliever. There were a total of 3,682 comments submitted as of Monday afternoon.

“I suffer from rheumatoid arthritis and have had 15 skin cancer removals and didn’t receive pain meds for any of those surgeries! I wouldn’t have made it without cannabis,” an anonymous commenter said. ” I never have any side effects nor does it slow me down. It actually helps ease the pain which enables me to do more physical activities! It’s much safer than alcohol and I don’t understand why the U.S. hasn’t legalized other than politics!”

Another person with chronic pain from a compression fracture said, “I use cannabis to relieve nerve and muscle pain. Cannabis relieves my pain effectively and doesn’t cause me as much impairment as opioids and other medication I was prescribed for the injury.”

A 65-year-old person who said he suffers from multiple muscular and skeletal birth defects described negative side effects from the opioid-based painkillers he was prescribed and said that he’s since reduced his dosage after incorporating cannabis into his regimen.

“Upon having daily regular doses of marijuana I was able to substantially reduce the oxycodone dosage,” he said. “There was a period where I stopped using oxycodone completely. Now, I use marijuana daily in conjunction with low 2.5mg doses (20mg/day) oxycodone. I realized the pain control was due to the combination of marijuana and opiate as soon as I began using marijuana regularly.”

People interested in weighing in on the CDC’s pain management query can submit comments through 11:59 PM ET on Tuesday.

Thank you for posting this. I submitted a comment yesterday.

I'm already being tapered off of opiates and it really sucks.
 


US Attorney General falsely targeted 10 cannabis companies, whistleblower says



US Attorney General William Barr launched false antitrust investigations into 10 cannabis companies, says a Justice Department whistleblower. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

In a blockbuster statement released today, a high official within the US Department of Justice accused Attorney General William Barr of ordering antitrust investigations into 10 cannabis companies, based solely on Barr’s political opposition to marijuana legalization.

The antitrust investigations were allegedly motivated by Barr’s opposition to cannabis legalization.
The mergers in question, which included well-known companies such as MedMen and PharmaCann, did not meet the department’s criteria for antitrust investigations, said John W. Elias, former chief of staff within the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. Elias’ accusations came in written testimony submitted to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The antitrust investigations, said Elias, were motivated by Barr’s personal opposition to cannabis legalization.

“These mergers involve companies with low market shares in a fragmented industry; they do not meet established criteria for antitrust investigations,” wrote Elias.

Elias is expected to testify in person before the House committee tomorrow, June 24.


False antitrust cases were 29% of DOJ’s annual caseload
Barr’s orders carried such weight, Elias added, that the cannabis cases accounted for nearly one-third of DOJ’s antitrust workload in fiscal year 2019.

The charges raise questions about Barr’s potential abuse of authority and waste of departmental resources. “While these were nominally antitrust investigations,” Elias testified, “and used antitrust investigative authorities, they were not bona fide antitrust investigations.”

Charges leveled by nonpartisan official
Elias is no disgruntled partisan. He joined the Justice Department in 2006, under President George W. Bush, and served for 14 years under six attorney generals and three presidents, both Republicans and Democrats. From Jan. 2017 to Oct. 2018, Elias was chief of staff of the DOJ’s antitrust division. He currently works as an antitrust division prosecutor under Barr. His casework includes looking at price-fixing conspiracies in the pharmaceutical industry.

According to his testimony, Elias was so alarmed by Barr’s direction on the cannabis cases that he reported his concern to the Justice Department’s inspector general. Each federal cabinet-level department maintains an inspector general to oversee the legality of the work done within the department. IGs and their staff members function as a kind of internal affairs check on potential abuses within the department.

Over the past weeks and months President Trump has purged many inspectors general because, presumably, he views them as a check on his power and corruption.

“Based on what I have seen, and what my colleagues saw and described to me, I was concerned enough to report certain antitrust investigations launched under Attorney General Barr to the Department of Justice Inspector General,” testified Elias. “I asked him to investigate whether these matters constituted an abuse of authority, a gross waste of funds, and gross mismanagement.”

DOJ messing with MedMen
In his Congressional testimony, Elias explained that the DOJ’s Antitrust Division investigates only 1% to 2% of the thousands of mergers that happen every year. DOJ acts on “only the most concerning deals,” Elias said.

Justice Dept. officials demanded 1.3 million documents from the MedMen — PharmaCann merger. The deal eventually collapsed.
In fiscal year 2018, only 19 large-scale investigations were undertaken. In fiscal year 2019, 31 were opened. More than 2,000 transactions were filed with the Department during each of those years.

In 2019, DOJ staff reviewed a proposed merger of MedMen and PharmaCann, and advised that the deal did not merit a full investigation.

Because the state-regulated cannabis industry is so fragmented by state lines, DOJ staff concluded the transaction “was unlikely to raise any significant competitive concerns that would justify” a further expanded investigation.

At a March 5, 2019, meeting, Elias testified, Barr rejected his staff’s advice and ordered a full-scale investigation into the merger.

“The rationale for doing so,” Elias wrote, “centered not on an antitrust analysis, but because [Barr] did not like the nature of their underlying business.”

Antitrust cases can kill a company
A federal antitrust investigation is an enormous undertaking, both for the Justice Department and the companies involved. Microsoft famously labored under the burden of a DOJ antitrust investigation for much of the 1990s. More recently, the DOJ sued to block AT&T’s planned $85 billion merger with Time Warner. Microsoft survived, as did the AT&T-Time Warner deal, but not after draining the companies of precious time and resources.


Elias did not specify other deals beyond the MedMen merger with PharmaCann. But that investigation offers insight into the onerous burden brought by a DOJ investigation. After opening the MedMen / PharmaCann investigation in early 2019, Justice Department officials demanded and received 1.3 million documents from the files of 40 employees involved in the cannabis deal.

The DOJ investigation closed in Sept. 2019 without any enforcement action, but the investigation effectively blew up the merger. A few months later, MedMen itself imploded.

As Politico’s Ben Schreckinger and Mona Zhang documented in great detail last month, the company has been hit with charges of labor law violations, stock price manipulation, bank fraud, and illegal campaign contributions. In 2018, MedMen stood as the cannabis industry’s high-flying brand leader. Today it’s a shell of its former self, widely viewed as a cautionary tale of wild-west cannabis investment and expansion gone wrong.

The question for Barr: Why?
If true, Elias’ charges lead to a question of motive. Why would Attorney General Barr waste his and the department’s time digging into small-time cannabis mergers?

There are a number of possibilities.

Barr might have ordered the antitrust investigations simply to harass cannabis companies—or to hinder investigations of bigger fish.
One simple answer might be because he can. Publicly, Barr has expressed negligible interest in marijuana and state legalization. During his Senate confirmation hearing, he only lightly touched on the issue, expressing concern that the state-federal conflict over legalization could not stand indefinitely:

“My approach to this would be not to upset settled expectations and the reliance interests that have arisen as a result of the Cole memoranda,” Barr said. “Investments have been made, so I don’t think it’s appropriate to upset those interests.”
In April 2019, Barr told members of Congress that he preferred the STATES Act over federal prohibition.

Messing with cannabis, or slow-walking other investigations
But Elias’ testimony charges Barr with harassing cannabis companies simply out of spite.

Given Barr’s far-right conservative background, though, it’s not a stretch to assume his views on legalization aren’t far from those of his predecessor, the notoriously anti-cannabis Jeff Sessions. Barr might have ordered the antitrust investigations simply to harass cannabis companies. The attorney general’s widely documented bullying tendencies would also be in line with this reasoning.

The investigations might also have been a backhanded way of hindering antitrust investigations that Barr, Trump, and their backers did not want to discourage or quash. By sending nearly one-third of the antitrust department’s resources on a wild goose chase, Barr effectively slow-walked antitrust actions against bigger fish—like, say, pharmaceutical companies.

This is bigger than just cannabis
Reaction from across the political spectrum indicates that Barr’s possible abuse of authority is breaking out of the cannabis world and spilling over into bigger potential trouble for the attorney general.

Norman Ornstein, a longtime Capitol Hill political commentator, had this to say:



Former US Attorney and current LA Times legal affairs columnist Harry Litman noted that local legal groups were already raising a hue and cry:



This is a breaking story. Leafly will have more in the coming hours.
 
Not all WHO cannabis recommendations would loosen international control, UN drug agency says

An analysis by a United Nations monitoring body concludes that most of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cannabis scheduling recommendations would either have little impact on international drug controls or actually tighten requirements.

The analysis, conducted by Vienna-based International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), was provided to member states shortly before the start of the first in a series of UN meetings. A copy of was obtained by Marijuana Business Daily.

The WHO recommendations are often celebrated as a positive step toward the easing of the international control of cannabis, which would be a positive development for the industry.

Particularly one recommendation would be a big symbolic win because it would implicitly acknowledge the medical value of cannabis at the highest international level.

But regarding practical implications in the level of international control, the INCB document found that, if adopted:
  • Two recommendations would imply no meaningful change.
  • Two others would mean more control for pure THC.
  • The other two would imply less control – for certain pharmaceutical preparations containing THC and for some CBD products. But the INCB also said clearer definitions are needed.
The board did not position itself in favor or against any of the WHO’s recommendations.

The INCB is currently participating the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) meetings aimed at preparing member states of the commission for a December vote.

The first meeting started June 24 in a virtual format.

Key takeaways

In the document, the INCB wrote that adopting some of the recommendations “would standardize the control requirements applicable, making it easier for competent national authorities to monitor and report the information to INCB.”

The board emphasized the importance of more accurate definitions when it comes to certain recommendations – particularly 5.6 – “to ensure a shared understanding among Member States.”

The INCB noted that increased control measures could be a burden for some nations if Recommendations 5.2 and 5.3 are adopted.

Technical challenges could hinder the implementation of Recommendations 5.5 and 5.6, which would require member states “to identify and control the precise composition of the preparations,” according to the board.

If Recommendation 5.5 – which is focused on CBD – is adopted, national legislation would be required “to differentiate cultivation for the extraction of CBD and or delta-9-THC and for industrial purposes as described in the 1961 Convention.”

The INCB considers only fiber and seed to be “industrial purposes.”

The board noted the current inconsistency that some countries don’t report the cultivation of cannabis plants with low THC and the manufacture of CBD products because CBD isn’t explicitly scheduled.

  • Recommendation 5.1
Cannabis is currently included in Schedule I and Schedule IV of the 1961 treaty.

The WHO recommended its deletion from Schedule IV, keeping it in Schedule I.

However, the INCB found that if the recommendation is adopted, “control measures at the international level will not change.”

Neither would the periodic “reporting requirements” with which member states must comply.

  • Recommendations 5.2 and 5.3
THC was not well-known when the 1961 convention was drafted but was included in the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

The WHO recommended transferring THC from the 1971 treaty to Schedule I of the 1961 treaty. The rationale behind the recommendation is to simplify the reporting expected from member states and streamline international control.

According to the INCB, these recommendations “would result in a number of additional control measures.”

  • Recommendation 5.4
The WHO recommended deleting the category of “extracts and tinctures of cannabis” from Schedule I of the 1961 treaty.

The reason: “Extracts and tinctures” don’t need to be listed, as these products are also considered “preparations” and so are subject to control.

“The presence of extracts and tinctures of cannabis in Schedule I could be considered a repetition that Recommendation 5.4 is aiming to correct,” the INCB noted.

In other words, it appears the INCB position is that adoption of this recommendation would not have a meaningful practical implication in terms of control.

  • Recommendation 5.5
If this recommendation is adopted, a footnote would be added to the cannabis entry in Schedule I of the 1961 treaty to clarify that preparations containing predominantly CBD and up to 0.2% THC are not under international control.

The rationale for this WHO recommendation: CBD is not liable to the same level of abuse of substances included in the treaties.

The INCB found that while “CBD is not specifically listed” in the international drug control treaties, CBD “that is produced from an extract of cannabis is included in the 1961 Convention.”

“The main issue to consider relates to its practical implementation at the national level” because, “in most countries, chemical analysis down to the threshold indicated in the recommendation may not be possible,” the INCB said of the recommendation’s potential impact.

The agency identified “lack of access to appropriate identification techniques” for the required level of accuracy. And even where feasible, the INCB mentions it might not be “considered to be a good use of resources.”

The INCB also raised concerns over “cannabis cultivated for the extraction of CBD.”

The reason: The board considers CBD “would need to be monitored under the provisions of the 1961 Convention because it does not meet the definition of ‘industrial purposes’.”

INCB President Cornelis P. de Joncheere has clarified in previous meetings that “if the cultivation of cannabis … is for the production of the flowering top, then it should be considered under control regardless of the THC or CBD content.”

Some countries, such as France and the United Kingdom, follow this restrictive interpretation, not allowing hemp growers to use the flower to extract CBD.

  • Recommendation 5.6
If this recommendation is adopted, certain pharmaceutical preparations with THC and a low risk of abuse and dependence would be included in Schedule III of the 1961 treaty. This would be a lower level of control than Schedule I.

The INCB said “it is not clear to which kind of preparations the recommendation would apply,” suggesting more accurate definitions are need.

If the CND adopts this recommendation, the INCB said it “would eliminate the need for some measures of control, such as those applicable to the international trade of these preparations.”
 
Cannabis research stalled by federal inaction


US scientists face numerous barriers to studying health effects of cannabis

Researchers in the US who want to investigate the medical benefits and risks of cannabis are frustrated. They would like to evaluate the wide array of cannabis products sold in states where cannabis is legal, but federal law prohibits them from doing so because cannabis is still illegal at the federal level.

Most studies on the therapeutic effects of cannabis have relied on synthetic formulations of specific chemicals made by cannabis plants, such as the cannabinoids tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the psychoactive component of cannabis—and cannabidiol (CBD). A few researchers have looked at the efficacy of whole cannabis plants to treat chronic pain, but no clinical studies have been conducted on cannabis products purchased from state-authorized dispensaries. US researchers can only study the effects of cannabis using plant material grown by the University of Mississippi under contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

In March, the US Drug Enforcement Administration released a new rule intended to allow more organizations to grow more varieties of cannabis, but the cannabis research community says the proposal is still too restrictive. Additionally, cannabis researchers face the need to get approval from three federal agencies, and funding is limited. All these obstacles hinder cannabis research, the community says, leaving medical providers and consumers in the dark about the benefits and risks of cannabis products.

MISSISSIPPI MONOPOLY
Researchers have complained for years about the quality and potency of the cannabis grown by the University of Mississippi. In general, it has lower levels of THC than products that are available in legal state markets, says Morgan Fox, media relations director of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), a trade group for the cannabis industry. Researchers have reported that the cannabis is moldy. Additionally, the material is “basically like powder,” Fox says. “So it is not really representative of what people are actually consuming,” he says.

The cannabis grown by the University of Mississippi has the appearance of being poor quality because it is highly processed. It is dried immediately after harvesting and stored for long periods of time, sometimes years, in a walk-in freezer at –20 °C. It is also irradiated to kill off any yeasts and molds, following complaints about mold received by the US Food and Drug Administration, says Mahmoud ElSohly, a research professor who oversees the marijuana research facility at the University of Mississippi. Before it is shipped out to researchers, the cannabis is typically ground up into particles of uniform size.

ElSohly claims that the cannabinoids in the plant material are stable over time. “We have the appropriate stability studies” to show that, he says. But the flavor compounds in cannabis, known as terpenes, are destroyed during the drying process. Terpenes may have beneficial health effects and enhance the effects of THC and CBD. It is hard to study such effects, however, when cannabis provided for medical research doesn’t contain terpenes.

Terpenes aside, there is a good reason why cannabis grown at the University of Mississippi contains much less THC than that of cannabis sold in state dispensaries, ElSohly says. Cannabis cigarettes made for research all have to be the same size and shape, he says. When experienced cannabis users were asked to smoke a cigarette with 8% THC, they could not finish it, he says. So the highest THC content in cannabis cigarettes provided for clinical research is 6%, he notes. For comparison, cannabis sold in state dispensaries often contains as much as 30% THC.

“Our charge is not to make material similar to what is out there on the illicit market or in the state-authorized medical marijuana programs,” ElSohly says. “We are here to prepare standardized material for research that is given to all investigators so the outcome for one study can be easily compared with the outcome of another study.”

EXPANDING SOURCES, THE DEA’S WAY
The DEA acknowledges that the quality and potency of the cannabis supplied by the University of Mississippi is not representative of the cannabis that people are actually consuming in the real world. But the agency has yet to approve any of the dozens of applications from organizations who want to provide more realistic cannabis products to researchers for medical studies.

Many of those applications have been pending since 2016, when the DEA announced that it would adopt a new approach to increase the number of entities registered to grow cannabis for legitimate US researchers.

In August 2019, the DEA released the names of 33 applicants who requested to grow cannabis as bulk manufacturers for research. Many of the applicants requested approval to supply cannabis extract, which can be used in vaping products, edibles, and oral tinctures. Since then, the DEA has received a few additional applications.
The agency claims, however, that because “the size of the applicant pool is unprecedented,” it does not plan to make decisions about the applications until it changes the policies and practices that govern the bulk marijuana growers program.

The DEA provided details about those changes in the proposed rule released on March 23. The agency did not respond to a request from C&EN asking about the timeline for the regulation, but the process is likely to take several more months, if not years.

Under the proposed rule, potential growers of cannabis for research have to satisfy a list of public interest criteria spelled out in the US Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
The criteria include having effective controls against diversion of cannabis from research to illicit uses. The DEA interprets that to mean restricting the amount grown by limiting the number of registered manufacturers “to that which can produce an adequate and uninterrupted supply of marihuana under adequately competitive conditions.” It is unclear whether the DEA will cap the number of registered manufacturers to satisfy the diversion control criteria.

In addition, growers must have a supply agreement with a researcher who has the appropriate DEA license to study cannabis. Alternatively, growers who plan to supply cannabis for their own research purposes must register with the DEA to study cannabis and can only grow the amount authorized in their research protocol.
Potential growers also must be able to consistently produce and supply cannabis “of a high quality and defined chemical composition.” The DEA has yet to define exactly what that means. Moreover, applicants have to show “prior compliance with the CSA and DEA regulations.” It is possible that companies that have grown cannabis for state-authorized programs would be excluded from consideration because such activities are illegal under the CSA.

Besides meeting the criteria under the CSA, applicants also have to be in compliance with US obligations under an international treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. To meet that requirement, the DEA would take physical possession of the cannabis within 4 months of harvest and be responsible for selling the product to researchers. Growers would have to notify the DEA at least 15 days before harvest. The DEA would also have the “exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading, and maintaining stocks of cannabis and cannabis resin,” excluding cannabis-derived drugs and cannabis preparations that are regulated by the FDA, according to the proposed rule. Presumably the DEA would honor the supply contracts between growers and researchers.
As more states allow cannabis, the federal government still strictly controls and prohibits it, even restricting legitimate medical research.
Anna G. Eshoo, chair of health subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives
CANNABIS COMMUNITY CONCERNS
In general, the cannabis industry claims that the rule would further hinder cannabis research in the US and make it harder for organizations other than the University of Mississippi to provide cannabis to legitimate researchers.

“The DEA is not a public health or a scientific organization and has much different priorities and expertise than those organizations,” the NCIA’s Fox says. The DEA doesn’t have expertise related to facilitating research and is not in a good position to judge what research is necessary and appropriate, he notes. “So overall, we feel that they are not the appropriate agency to be charged with being the gatekeeper for research production,” he says.

The NCIA suggests that the National Institutes of Health or some other agency within the Department of Health and Human Services would be better suited to oversee cannabis produced for research.

In addition, to improve the diversity of cannabis products available to researchers, a great place to start “would be approving applications for production, particularly ones that have been sitting in the application process for up to 4 years,” Fox says. Regulators should also find “some way to allow researchers to be able to legally do research on products that are available in legal regulated cannabis markets.”

Some lawmakers agree. In comments submitted to the DEA, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) urges the US Attorney General to waive the requirement that cannabis growers register with the DEA. Such a waiver would allow researchers with appropriate DEA licenses to obtain cannabis products from state dispensaries for research purposes.Researchers point to the recent outbreak of severe lung disease linked to vaping cannabis-based products to emphasize why it is important to study products that people are actually consuming. The outbreak “is extremely frightening, yet the issue cannot be effectively studied because researchers cannot work directly with cannabis products that are in actual use,” says Theresa A. Maldonado, vice president for research and innovation for the University of California system, in comments submitted to the DEA. She asks the DEA to allow university researchers to study cannabis products that are legally purchased from state dispensaries “without being subject to prosecution, withdrawal of federal funds, or other sanctions.”

The University of Mississippi’s ElSohly isn’t worried about increasing the pool of growers who supply cannabis for research. “I have no problem with that,” he says. The University of Mississippi has been the sole provider of cannabis for research for more than 50 years. “It doesn’t really take away from what we are doing. It is not a competition per se, it just adds to the variety of products that are out there to be tested.” But he questions how realistic it is to test cannabis purchased from various dispensaries across the US. “Every product is going to be different,” he says.

RESEARCHERS TURN ELSEWHERE
As the DEA drags its feet in approving new cannabis sources for research, some university researchers have resorted to studying cannabis-based drugs imported from countries such as Canada. For example, a research group at the University of California San Diego is studying a cannabis-derived drug imported from the Canadian company Tilray to treat a movement disorder called essential tremor.

Tilray has also provided researchers at Columbia University with a cannabis-based product to test for efficacy in treating breast cancer patients suffering from taxane-induced nerve damage, a side effect of treatment with the chemotherapy drugs paclitaxel and docetaxel.

“Sourcing materials from other countries is currently pursued by NIDA in an attempt to provide more products,” says Heike Newman, a senior regulatory manager at the University of Colorado Denver who provides regulatory guidance to clinical researchers at the university who are interested in studying cannabis. “We know it is an option,” she says. “But working with these companies directly to get their products is costly and our researchers with approved funding don’t have the financial means to continue with that approach.”
Not everyone who is willing to participate in a clinical trial wants to smoke cannabis.
Heike Newman, senior regulatory manager, University of Colorado Denver
In addition to wanting a more varied cannabis supply, “what researchers really need are more and different formulations,” such as oral solutions or dermal products rather than rolled cigarettes, Newman says. “Not everyone who is willing to participate in a clinical trial wants to smoke cannabis,” she says. The University of Mississippi does supply two cannabis extracts, one that is high in THC and low in CBD and another that is high in CBD and low in THC, ElSohly says. Because of the growing interest in CBD oil, “we had an option to prepare 50 kg of extract,” he notes.

Even so, the chorus of lawmakers calling for change is growing. Several members of Congress grilled regulators in January about the barriers to cannabis research during the first-ever cannabis hearing of the health subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the US House of Representatives.
The bulk of the hearing centered on how to resolve a dilemma that has plagued cannabis policy for decades. The DEA classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug—a category for substances that have no medical value and high potential for abuse. Other Schedule I drugs include heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. The Schedule I classification means that researchers must jump through all sorts of hoops, including seeking approval from three federal agencies, to study cannabis. The DEA can change how cannabis is categorized or take it off controlled substance schedules entirely if it has sufficient scientific evidence to justify the change, but researchers are impeded from doing the work that might provide such evidence because of the drug’s Schedule I status.

House lawmakers are considering several bills that would reschedule or deschedule cannabis. There does not appear to be broad support in Congress or within the federal government, however, to legalize cannabis at the federal level.

One possible solution to expedite medical research on cannabis is to create a subcategory of Schedule I, NIDA director Nora Volkow testified at the January hearing. NIDA has been working with the FDA and the DEA to create such a pathway, not just for marijuana but for Schedule I substances in general, “so that researchers don’t have to go through all of the obstacles and the delayed process,” she said.

Another obstacle that researchers face is extremely competitive funding for cannabis research. In fiscal 2018, the NIH funded about $148 million on cannabinoid research, of which about $38 million was devoted to cannabis therapeutics. The NIH prioritizes funding for cannabis therapeutic studies focused on treating pain, addiction, and inflammatory disorders, as well as for studies examining the adverse health effects of cannabis on prenatal and adolescent development.

As the number of states legalizing cannabis for medical and adult use grows, nearly everyone agrees that more research is needed to better understand the benefits and risks.

“Thirty-three states now allow the medicinal use of cannabis and 11 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for adult use,” subcommittee chair Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) noted during the hearing. “As more states allow cannabis, the federal government still strictly controls and prohibits it, even restricting legitimate medical research.”
 
The Surprising Reason the U.S. May Be Reluctant to Legalize Marijuana


It's all about the green. No, the other green.
Amid the chaos of 2020, which has included a stock market crash, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and even some hoopla about the arrival of murder hornets, there's still the realization that this is an election year. In a little over four months, Americans across the country will be heading to the polls or mailing in their ballots to determine who'll lead the U.S. for the next four years.
Among the many issues that'll be getting more of a spotlight than in year's past this election is marijuana. In each of the last two years, Gallup's national poll has found that a record-tying 66% of respondents favor legalization. Other polls, while differing in the nominal support value, also showing overwhelming and clear evidence that the American public favors legalization.
Similarly, we've witnessed two-thirds of all states give the green light to medical marijuana since 1996, with 11 of these states also allowing for the legal adult-use consumption of cannabis.
If opinion has evolved at the state level and among the public, you might be wondering why we've witnessed no such reforms at the federal level on cannabis.
The political divide in Washington is one key reason marijuana remains illegal
One obvious reason is that there's a pretty broad political divide on Capitol Hill concerning marijuana. Polling has consistently shown that liberals, self-identified Democrats, and younger adults, have the most favorable view of legalizing marijuana, whereas conservatives, self-identified Republicans, and seniors share the least favorable views of cannabis. As of June 1, 2020, the average age of members of the House of Representatives was 57.6 years, with a 62.9-year average for members of the Senate. This means most lawmakers are seniors, and therefore unlikely to be thrilled about the prospect of legalization.
To build on this point, the Senate is currently led by a somewhat slim Republican majority. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been clear that he has no intention of allowing cannabis legislation to reach the floor for vote.
Furthermore, President Donald Trump hasn't exactly thrown his hat into the legalization column. Although he commented during his 2016 campaign that he was "one hundred percent" in favor of legalizing medical marijuana, he's now appointed two attorney generals (Jeff Sessions and William Barr) who've strongly opposed to any sort of marijuana reforms at the federal level.
Trump has even included presidential signing statements for legislation that pertained to cannabis. Presidents typically attach a signing statement to legislation that they feel may impede their ability to do their constitutionally mandated job. In effect, Trump's signing statement always leaves the door open for the federal government to impose its superseding law and clamp down on state-level cannabis industries.
The real reason cannabis remains illegal has everything to do with money
This political divide is the easy explanation of why marijuana remains illicit at the federal level -- but it doesn't tell the full story. The surprising reason the U.S. is likely reluctant to legalize cannabis has everything to do with money.
One of the most common suggestions I hear when the widening federal budget deficit is mentioned is the legalization of marijuana. The idea is that if cannabis were legalized at the federal level and taxed, it could bring in a significant amount of money for the federal government, thereby helping to, in some way, minimize its annual deficit. This sounds great on paper, but a deeper dive shows why things remain unchanged.
Since 1982, the U.S. tax code has contained a provision known as 280E, which reads as follows (courtesy of Cornell Law School):
No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.
Essentially, 280E is designed to keep businesses that sell a Schedule I or II substance (marijuana is classified as Schedule I) from taking normal corporate deductions or credits. With the exception of cost of goods sold, U.S. cannabis companies are unable to take normal corporate deductions on their federal tax filing.
Why's this important? Without the ability to take normal deductions, marijuana businesses are exposed to an extraordinarily high effective tax rate that the Internal Revenue Service has no qualms about collecting.
Here's the crux: legalizing marijuana no longer exposes pot companies to 280E and its high effective tax rate, but it also doesn't generate nearly as much taxable income for the federal government, even if a federal tax is added to legal weed sales. Keep in mind that adding yet another tax to legal marijuana would mean that some consumers will shift their buying habits away from legal channels and toward the black market due to cost.
In other words, the status quo of marijuana being illegal at the federal level with more and more states legalizing has become highly profitable for the federal government. That's a big reason there's a reluctance to legalize.
One more possible legalization hurdle
As the icing on the cake, even if the 2020 elections lead to a shakeup in Congress, such as Democrats retaking a majority in the Senate and Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden winning the White House, there's still no guarantee that any sort of significant reform occurs at the federal level.
Assuming for a moment that Congress is able to agree on a marijuana legalization bill, Joe Biden has not suggested that he'd be willing to approve it. As a Senator, Biden had a long track record of being exceptionally stringent on drug crimes, and in the late 1980s and early 1990s proposed a handful of bills that would have dealt with drug dealers harshly -- and this would have included cannabis. Even though Biden's stance on cannabis has changed immensely over the past 30 years, he's only willing to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, not legalize it.
Similarly, if Donald Trump wins a second term, we would almost certainly see the status quo continue. A lot would be dependent on the political makeup of Congress, but President Trump has been pretty straightforward that he doesn't have any intention of legalizing cannabis at the federal level.
Keep in mind that this reluctance to legalize isn't, necessarily, a bad thing for U.S. marijuana stocks. Though they've faced some operational redundancies and some initial financing hurdles, many of the larger multistate operators are doing just fine. Trulieve Cannabis (OTC:TCNN.F), which has focused its attention on the medical marijuana-legal Florida market, has opened 48 of its 50 operational dispensaries in the Sunshine State. Trulieve is currently the most profitable pure-play pot stock in North America on a nominal basis, and it's done so with marijuana remaining illicit at the federal level.
The bottom line is that I don't expect legalization to occur in the U.S. anytime soon.

 

Sponsored by

VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top