Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[momofthegoons]

These 2 States Are Sabotaging Their Respective Marijuana Industries
These billion-dollar markets are making it impossible for their cannabis industries to thrive.

At this time last year, the cannabis industry looked as if it would be practically unstoppable. Canada had just become the first industrialized country in the world to legalize recreational marijuana, and Wall Street was throwing out huge estimates on future industry growth. In fact, earlier this year, investment bank Stifel forecast $200 billion in annual global sales by the end of the upcoming decade.

But as you're probably aware, the cannabis industry hasn't been delivering the green as expected. The North American pot industry has encountered a slew of growing pains, with supply issues in Canada, and tax issues in select U.S. states, wreaking havoc on pot stocks.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
These states aren't giving cannabis companies an opportunity to succeed
One the most front-and-center problems in Canada on the supply front has to do with the slow rollout of physical dispensaries in select provinces. For example, Ontario, a province with a population of 14.5 million, has a mere two dozen open retail dispensaries at the moment. That's about one open dispensary for every 604,200 people in the province. By comparison, Oregon, which didn't set limits on retail licensing, has an open dispensary for about every 5,600 people.

You might be under the impression that the U.S. has observed these issues with Canada and is learning from these early stage mistakes that are hampering legal-channel sales. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are two states that are sabotaging their respective cannabis industries due to their slow rollout of physical dispensaries.

California
When California residents passed Proposition 64 in Nov. 2016, it was expected that the crown jewel of the U.S. market would quickly generate more than $1 billion in annual tax revenue. However, in 2018, annual pot revenue in the Golden State actually declined by $500 million from the previous year, despite the fact that it opened its doors to recreational weed sales on Jan. 1, 2018.

High tax rates are definitely one problem in California. With the addition of an excise tax and wholesale tax, atop California's already robust state and local tax, the aggregate tax on legal marijuana can reach as much as 45%. This makes it very difficult for legal cannabis to compete with the black market on pricing.

But an arguably bigger problem for California is that it has so few open dispensaries throughout the state, and in key markets. Each municipality in the state has the option of deciding whether or not to allow retail dispensaries to open. Thus far, close to 80% of the state's jurisdictions have banned retail cannabis stores, thereby rolling out the red carpet to black market producers.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
What's more, Leafly reports that, as of this past week, the Los Angeles City Council has asked for a redo on the assignment of 100 new licenses within the city. According to the Council, there's the belief that some applicants received access to their online license applications early, and that other aspects of the licensing process weren't fair. While it's unclear if this redo will actually materialize, what is clear is that far too few dispensaries are operating in Los Angeles.

Maybe the company most impacted by these issues in California is MedMen Enterprises (OTC:MMNFF). MedMen, which operates as an upscale multistate operator with more than a dozen open locations in California, should be seeing incredible growth in the crown jewel of the U.S. cannabis market. Instead, sequential quarterly sales growth came in at 5% in the third quarter and around 10% in the fourth quarter. Yes, the needle is pointing upward, but it's become very difficult for MedMen to compete against black market operators on the basis of price and geography -- there are just 1.5 open dispensaries in California for every 100,000 residents.


Illinois
Another state that's about to make life incredibly difficult for cannabis companies is Illinois.

In June, Illinois became the first state in history to legalize the recreational possession and sale of cannabis entirely through the legislative process. The new law may also allow nearly 800,000 residents to have their previous convictions for possession or use of cannabis expunged, assuming there was no violence associated with the conviction. With sales commencing on Jan. 1, 2020, the needle should be pointing green in the Land of Lincoln.

However, as pointed out by Marijuana Business Daily, Illinois' restrictive retail licensing approach that's designed to deter business monopolies and oligopolies may actually incentivize consumers to shop in the illicit market. You see, Illinois has capped the number of retail locations that can be opened by a single company at 10, once the green flag waves on recreational sales. That means a maximum of 110 retailers can sell recreational pot on Jan. 1, 2020. Even with regulators expected to award 75 new retail licenses by May 1, 2020, we're only talking about a maximum of 185 licenses in the state by the end of 2020. In other words, Illinois will also have about 1.5 open dispensaries per every 100,000 residents. That's about a tenth that of Oregon.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
Looking out even further, the cannabis legislation passed by Illinois in June stipulates that the state cannot have more than 500 open dispensaries. In short, the state doesn't even have a chance to reach four open dispensaries per 100,000 residents.

And, consistent with California, Illinois' jurisdictions have the final say on whether or not to allow recreational weed retail stores. The expectation is that a number of more conservative parts of the Land of Lincoln will ban retail locations, thereby keeping licensed retailers from opening the maximum number of stores allowable by law.

If there were one company to single out here that should be concerned, it's Cresco Labs (OTC:CRLBF). Even though most eyes are on Cresco's pending acquisition of Origin House, the company is planning to have the maximum 10 open locations in Illinois by January. But with so few open retail locations, it's unclear if legal-channel pricing will be able to compete with the black market. Given how aggressive Cresco Labs has been in expanding its multistate presence, it's going to need a good showing from Illinois to drum up investor support. Unfortunately, this slow rollout of dispensaries suggests that the recreational pot market in Illinois may mature a lot slower than many folks realize.

 

[Shredder]

These 2 States Are Sabotaging Their Respective Marijuana Industries
These billion-dollar markets are making it impossible for their cannabis industries to thrive.

At this time last year, the cannabis industry looked as if it would be practically unstoppable. Canada had just become the first industrialized country in the world to legalize recreational marijuana, and Wall Street was throwing out huge estimates on future industry growth. In fact, earlier this year, investment bank Stifel forecast $200 billion in annual global sales by the end of the upcoming decade.

But as you're probably aware, the cannabis industry hasn't been delivering the green as expected. The North American pot industry has encountered a slew of growing pains, with supply issues in Canada, and tax issues in select U.S. states, wreaking havoc on pot stocks.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
These states aren't giving cannabis companies an opportunity to succeed
One the most front-and-center problems in Canada on the supply front has to do with the slow rollout of physical dispensaries in select provinces. For example, Ontario, a province with a population of 14.5 million, has a mere two dozen open retail dispensaries at the moment. That's about one open dispensary for every 604,200 people in the province. By comparison, Oregon, which didn't set limits on retail licensing, has an open dispensary for about every 5,600 people.

You might be under the impression that the U.S. has observed these issues with Canada and is learning from these early stage mistakes that are hampering legal-channel sales. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are two states that are sabotaging their respective cannabis industries due to their slow rollout of physical dispensaries.

California
When California residents passed Proposition 64 in Nov. 2016, it was expected that the crown jewel of the U.S. market would quickly generate more than $1 billion in annual tax revenue. However, in 2018, annual pot revenue in the Golden State actually declined by $500 million from the previous year, despite the fact that it opened its doors to recreational weed sales on Jan. 1, 2018.

High tax rates are definitely one problem in California. With the addition of an excise tax and wholesale tax, atop California's already robust state and local tax, the aggregate tax on legal marijuana can reach as much as 45%. This makes it very difficult for legal cannabis to compete with the black market on pricing.

But an arguably bigger problem for California is that it has so few open dispensaries throughout the state, and in key markets. Each municipality in the state has the option of deciding whether or not to allow retail dispensaries to open. Thus far, close to 80% of the state's jurisdictions have banned retail cannabis stores, thereby rolling out the red carpet to black market producers.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
What's more, Leafly reports that, as of this past week, the Los Angeles City Council has asked for a redo on the assignment of 100 new licenses within the city. According to the Council, there's the belief that some applicants received access to their online license applications early, and that other aspects of the licensing process weren't fair. While it's unclear if this redo will actually materialize, what is clear is that far too few dispensaries are operating in Los Angeles.

Maybe the company most impacted by these issues in California is MedMen Enterprises (OTC:MMNFF). MedMen, which operates as an upscale multistate operator with more than a dozen open locations in California, should be seeing incredible growth in the crown jewel of the U.S. cannabis market. Instead, sequential quarterly sales growth came in at 5% in the third quarter and around 10% in the fourth quarter. Yes, the needle is pointing upward, but it's become very difficult for MedMen to compete against black market operators on the basis of price and geography -- there are just 1.5 open dispensaries in California for every 100,000 residents.


Illinois
Another state that's about to make life incredibly difficult for cannabis companies is Illinois.

In June, Illinois became the first state in history to legalize the recreational possession and sale of cannabis entirely through the legislative process. The new law may also allow nearly 800,000 residents to have their previous convictions for possession or use of cannabis expunged, assuming there was no violence associated with the conviction. With sales commencing on Jan. 1, 2020, the needle should be pointing green in the Land of Lincoln.

However, as pointed out by Marijuana Business Daily, Illinois' restrictive retail licensing approach that's designed to deter business monopolies and oligopolies may actually incentivize consumers to shop in the illicit market. You see, Illinois has capped the number of retail locations that can be opened by a single company at 10, once the green flag waves on recreational sales. That means a maximum of 110 retailers can sell recreational pot on Jan. 1, 2020. Even with regulators expected to award 75 new retail licenses by May 1, 2020, we're only talking about a maximum of 185 licenses in the state by the end of 2020. In other words, Illinois will also have about 1.5 open dispensaries per every 100,000 residents. That's about a tenth that of Oregon.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
Looking out even further, the cannabis legislation passed by Illinois in June stipulates that the state cannot have more than 500 open dispensaries. In short, the state doesn't even have a chance to reach four open dispensaries per 100,000 residents.

And, consistent with California, Illinois' jurisdictions have the final say on whether or not to allow recreational weed retail stores. The expectation is that a number of more conservative parts of the Land of Lincoln will ban retail locations, thereby keeping licensed retailers from opening the maximum number of stores allowable by law.

If there were one company to single out here that should be concerned, it's Cresco Labs (OTC:CRLBF). Even though most eyes are on Cresco's pending acquisition of Origin House, the company is planning to have the maximum 10 open locations in Illinois by January. But with so few open retail locations, it's unclear if legal-channel pricing will be able to compete with the black market. Given how aggressive Cresco Labs has been in expanding its multistate presence, it's going to need a good showing from Illinois to drum up investor support. Unfortunately, this slow rollout of dispensaries suggests that the recreational pot market in Illinois may mature a lot slower than many folks realize.

The solution, although unfair to cannabis, would be to have liquor, pharmacy and mj sales follow the same rules.

 

[momofthegoons]

FDA Approves Yale Medical Cannabis Human Trials

The FDA has approved a human trials study by the Yale School of Medicine and CT Pharma investigating the effectiveness of cannabis-based medicines; it’s the first cannabis study on human subjects to be approved by the FDA.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted approval to the Yale School of Medicine and CT Pharma for human drug trials to study the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines, according to a Connecticut Public Radio report. The study will be the first with FDA approval to test cannabis on human subjects.

Yale University School of Medicine’s Dr. Rajita Sinha, the lead researcher for the clinical trial, said the studies will attempt to figure out how medical cannabis works, who it works for, what symptoms can be alleviated, dosages, and whether there is “a need for refinement.”

Michael Fedele, board chair of the Portland, Connecticut-based CT Pharma, told CPR that he hopes the study will result in the first FDA-approved cannabis-based medicine to be manufactured in the U.S.

"Right now, a company in England (GW Pharma) has the only FDA-approved, plant-based medical marijuana product (Epidiolex) in our market. That really shouldn’t be the case with respect to American companies.” – Fedele, via CPR

According to the FDA, the agency “is aware that there is considerable interest in the use of marijuana to attempt to treat a number of medical conditions” and does support “research into the medical use of marijuana and its constituents through cooperation with other federal agencies involved in marijuana research.”

According to a Hartford Business Journal report, Yale indicated the first phase will examine men and women between the ages of 21 to 45 who use cannabis recreationally but do not qualify for medicinal use. The second phase will focus on men and women ages 21 to 60 with chronic pain. Each participant will receive a placebo, CBD and THC. Side effects such as vital signs of heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and clinical symptoms will be assessed.

 

[Shredder]

FDA Approves Yale Medical Cannabis Human Trials

The FDA has approved a human trials study by the Yale School of Medicine and CT Pharma investigating the effectiveness of cannabis-based medicines; it’s the first cannabis study on human subjects to be approved by the FDA.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted approval to the Yale School of Medicine and CT Pharma for human drug trials to study the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines, according to a Connecticut Public Radio report. The study will be the first with FDA approval to test cannabis on human subjects.

Yale University School of Medicine’s Dr. Rajita Sinha, the lead researcher for the clinical trial, said the studies will attempt to figure out how medical cannabis works, who it works for, what symptoms can be alleviated, dosages, and whether there is “a need for refinement.”

Michael Fedele, board chair of the Portland, Connecticut-based CT Pharma, told CPR that he hopes the study will result in the first FDA-approved cannabis-based medicine to be manufactured in the U.S.

"Right now, a company in England (GW Pharma) has the only FDA-approved, plant-based medical marijuana product (Epidiolex) in our market. That really shouldn’t be the case with respect to American companies.” – Fedele, via CPR

According to the FDA, the agency “is aware that there is considerable interest in the use of marijuana to attempt to treat a number of medical conditions” and does support “research into the medical use of marijuana and its constituents through cooperation with other federal agencies involved in marijuana research.”

According to a Hartford Business Journal report, Yale indicated the first phase will examine men and women between the ages of 21 to 45 who use cannabis recreationally but do not qualify for medicinal use. The second phase will focus on men and women ages 21 to 60 with chronic pain. Each participant will receive a placebo, CBD and THC. Side effects such as vital signs of heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and clinical symptoms will be assessed.

Funny in a way. This herb has been in medical and recreational use for 5000 years. And now they're studying it for effectiveness. With the end result being a magic pill or potent derived from an already commonly used plant.

More power to them, but I ain't giving up my vape, lol.

 

[Bcbud]

Neil Young blames delay in obtaining U.S. citizenship on marijuana use

Canadian rock legend Neil Young says he wants to become a U.S. citizen and vote in the 2020 U.S. election but the government has put a roadblock...

straightcannabis.ca

 

[Shredder]

Neil Young blames delay in obtaining U.S. citizenship on marijuana use

Canadian rock legend Neil Young says he wants to become a U.S. citizen and vote in the 2020 U.S. election but the government has put a roadblock...

straightcannabis.ca

My hero! Loved Neil for about 50 years now.

Edit, I listened to some old Neil Young today. Revolution blues off the, on the beach album. It's a song about Charles Manson, that strangly enough, is relivent in today's political environment.

 

[Baron23]

These 2 States Are Sabotaging Their Respective Marijuana Industries
These billion-dollar markets are making it impossible for their cannabis industries to thrive.

At this time last year, the cannabis industry looked as if it would be practically unstoppable. Canada had just become the first industrialized country in the world to legalize recreational marijuana, and Wall Street was throwing out huge estimates on future industry growth. In fact, earlier this year, investment bank Stifel forecast $200 billion in annual global sales by the end of the upcoming decade.

But as you're probably aware, the cannabis industry hasn't been delivering the green as expected. The North American pot industry has encountered a slew of growing pains, with supply issues in Canada, and tax issues in select U.S. states, wreaking havoc on pot stocks.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
These states aren't giving cannabis companies an opportunity to succeed
One the most front-and-center problems in Canada on the supply front has to do with the slow rollout of physical dispensaries in select provinces. For example, Ontario, a province with a population of 14.5 million, has a mere two dozen open retail dispensaries at the moment. That's about one open dispensary for every 604,200 people in the province. By comparison, Oregon, which didn't set limits on retail licensing, has an open dispensary for about every 5,600 people.

You might be under the impression that the U.S. has observed these issues with Canada and is learning from these early stage mistakes that are hampering legal-channel sales. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There are two states that are sabotaging their respective cannabis industries due to their slow rollout of physical dispensaries.

California
When California residents passed Proposition 64 in Nov. 2016, it was expected that the crown jewel of the U.S. market would quickly generate more than $1 billion in annual tax revenue. However, in 2018, annual pot revenue in the Golden State actually declined by $500 million from the previous year, despite the fact that it opened its doors to recreational weed sales on Jan. 1, 2018.

High tax rates are definitely one problem in California. With the addition of an excise tax and wholesale tax, atop California's already robust state and local tax, the aggregate tax on legal marijuana can reach as much as 45%. This makes it very difficult for legal cannabis to compete with the black market on pricing.

But an arguably bigger problem for California is that it has so few open dispensaries throughout the state, and in key markets. Each municipality in the state has the option of deciding whether or not to allow retail dispensaries to open. Thus far, close to 80% of the state's jurisdictions have banned retail cannabis stores, thereby rolling out the red carpet to black market producers.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
What's more, Leafly reports that, as of this past week, the Los Angeles City Council has asked for a redo on the assignment of 100 new licenses within the city. According to the Council, there's the belief that some applicants received access to their online license applications early, and that other aspects of the licensing process weren't fair. While it's unclear if this redo will actually materialize, what is clear is that far too few dispensaries are operating in Los Angeles.

Maybe the company most impacted by these issues in California is MedMen Enterprises (OTC:MMNFF). MedMen, which operates as an upscale multistate operator with more than a dozen open locations in California, should be seeing incredible growth in the crown jewel of the U.S. cannabis market. Instead, sequential quarterly sales growth came in at 5% in the third quarter and around 10% in the fourth quarter. Yes, the needle is pointing upward, but it's become very difficult for MedMen to compete against black market operators on the basis of price and geography -- there are just 1.5 open dispensaries in California for every 100,000 residents.


Illinois
Another state that's about to make life incredibly difficult for cannabis companies is Illinois.

In June, Illinois became the first state in history to legalize the recreational possession and sale of cannabis entirely through the legislative process. The new law may also allow nearly 800,000 residents to have their previous convictions for possession or use of cannabis expunged, assuming there was no violence associated with the conviction. With sales commencing on Jan. 1, 2020, the needle should be pointing green in the Land of Lincoln.

However, as pointed out by Marijuana Business Daily, Illinois' restrictive retail licensing approach that's designed to deter business monopolies and oligopolies may actually incentivize consumers to shop in the illicit market. You see, Illinois has capped the number of retail locations that can be opened by a single company at 10, once the green flag waves on recreational sales. That means a maximum of 110 retailers can sell recreational pot on Jan. 1, 2020. Even with regulators expected to award 75 new retail licenses by May 1, 2020, we're only talking about a maximum of 185 licenses in the state by the end of 2020. In other words, Illinois will also have about 1.5 open dispensaries per every 100,000 residents. That's about a tenth that of Oregon.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
Looking out even further, the cannabis legislation passed by Illinois in June stipulates that the state cannot have more than 500 open dispensaries. In short, the state doesn't even have a chance to reach four open dispensaries per 100,000 residents.

And, consistent with California, Illinois' jurisdictions have the final say on whether or not to allow recreational weed retail stores. The expectation is that a number of more conservative parts of the Land of Lincoln will ban retail locations, thereby keeping licensed retailers from opening the maximum number of stores allowable by law.

If there were one company to single out here that should be concerned, it's Cresco Labs (OTC:CRLBF). Even though most eyes are on Cresco's pending acquisition of Origin House, the company is planning to have the maximum 10 open locations in Illinois by January. But with so few open retail locations, it's unclear if legal-channel pricing will be able to compete with the black market. Given how aggressive Cresco Labs has been in expanding its multistate presence, it's going to need a good showing from Illinois to drum up investor support. Unfortunately, this slow rollout of dispensaries suggests that the recreational pot market in Illinois may mature a lot slower than many folks realize.

Yep, government at work..... thinking that they know how to manage commercial market places.....and fucking it up.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

...as if the governments in question weren’t packed with paid agents of the commercial community.

I prefer to think of our constitutional government as what prevents us from being on a par with Saddam’s Iraq, Qaddafi’s Libya, Duterte’s Philippines. I prefer to think my fellow citizens can tell the difference and act accordingly.

This may be called political: but sideswiping “government” during a time of overlapping national crises, as if WE had NOTHING to do with any of it, is to me no less than an attack on my home. I *must* call it out when it happens.

I ask that you stop saying things that go right up to the edge in terms of pushing a perspective: if the only response possible is necessarily political, then the provoking post was political in intent. I appreciate you in all the forums where I’ve encountered you; however, I have noticed this ‘technique’ of getting right up on an line, the crossing of which invariably gets called out if anyone attempts to respond.

That technique is used all over the net to STOP discussion while STILL underscoring political narratives (in this case, ‘government bad, duh’) by blocking response. If I assume you are not aware of it, may I offer the awareness to you in a friendly way, please?

 

[Baron23]

...as if the governments in question weren’t packed with paid agents of the commercial community.

I prefer to think of our constitutional government as what prevents us from being on a par with Saddam’s Iraq, Qaddafi’s Libya, Duterte’s Philippines. I prefer to think my fellow citizens can tell the difference and act accordingly.

This may be called political: but sideswiping “government” during a time of overlapping national crises, as if WE had NOTHING to do with any of it, is to me no less than an attack on my home. I *must* call it out when it happens.

I ask that you stop saying things that go right up to the edge in terms of pushing a perspective: if the only response possible is necessarily political, then the provoking post was political in intent. I appreciate you in all the forums where I’ve encountered you; however, I have noticed this ‘technique’ of getting right up on an line, the crossing of which invariably gets called out if anyone attempts to respond.

That technique is used all over the net to STOP discussion while STILL underscoring political narratives (in this case, ‘government bad, duh’) by blocking response. If I assume you are not aware of it, may I offer the awareness to you in a friendly way, please?

Sorry, but I don't see anything partisan or political in my post. I actually don't know how you could possibly address the content of the article that @momofthegoons posted without discussing government. I mean, that was the core of the content.

Further, while I am an avid defender of our constitution and representative republic, to the extent that I served to defend it when absolutely nobody was thanking us for it, I do not think its at all partisan or political to hold or express a critical view of government (in general) wrt to its inefficiency, incompetence, and as one of the greatest creators of unintended consequences.

But thank you for your note and I will continue to closely examine my posts to ensure I remain non-political and within the rules of this board.

Cheers

 

[Baron23]

Whoa....a politician talking out of both sides of their mouth as the situation suits. Say it ain't so, Joe.

Mike Bloomberg’s ideas about cannabis legalization are totally bonkers

Now that former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is considering a run for the Democratic presidential nomination, his policies and past actions on cannabis are going to come under scrutiny. In a party and a nation that now solidly embraces legalization, it’s not going to go well for Mayor Mike.

During Bloomberg’s first run for New York City mayor in 2001, an enterprising local reporter casually asked if he’d ever had occasion to partake of some marijuana. In a flippant (read: honest) reply, Bloomberg indicated that not only had he consumed an undisclosed amount of cannabis in the course of his life, he found it to be a rather pleasurable experience.

“You bet I did,” he said. “And I enjoyed it.”

Presumably, the billionaire businessman turned novice politician felt a twinge of regret the moment that overshare left his lips. But it’s also possible that Bloomberg’s off-the-cuff response was far more calculated than it appeared—a dog whistle aimed squarely at millions of cannabis consumers living in the Baked Apple, right as they had to decide who to vote for in the race to succeed Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Things were bleak back then for Gotham’s pot smokers.

When Giuliani first came into power, the entirety of New York City saw fewer than 1,000 marijuana possession arrests per year. But as “America’s Mayor” prepared to leave office, the same city produced 25,000 such arrests annually, and they vastly disproportionately targeted the poor and communities of color. The ramp-up was part of a since discredited “broken windows” approach to policing that also included stopping-and-frisking around 100,000 citizens from low-income and minority communities every year. “I smell marijuana” was often used as the handiest pretext for these everyday harassments.

Cannabis became the pretext

For those found in possession of personal amounts of cannabis, an arrest frequently involved getting taken into custody, booked, strip searched, and then held for hours or even days before seeing a judge. So it would have made a lot of electoral sense for Candidate Bloomberg to show some solidarity with the cannabis community as the mayoral vote approached. Particularly since he was running as a Republican in a deep blue city against a progressive challenger who opposed the NYPD’s racist war on marijuana.

It’s impossible to know if Bloomberg’s wink towards weed won him any new supporters in the final stretch, but in an election held just weeks after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he did barely squeak into office.

What happened next should serve as a warning to anyone considering Mayor Mike as the savior of the Democratic Party in 2020. Because when it came to cannabis policy, he took everything Rudy Giuliani was already doing wrong and made it much worse.

“And I enjoyed it.”

Not long after Bloomberg’s inauguration as mayor, the National Organization For the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) spent $500,000 to plaster New York City with this message:

At the time, NORML founder Keith Stroup said the ad buy was meant to commend the new mayor for his honest statement, and create an opportunity for open dialogue about changing the city’s approach to enforcement.

“We’re not asking Mayor Bloomberg to change the law,” Stroup said. “We’re simply asking him to end the double standard by which ’open container’ violations [for alcohol] are handled with a ticket and a fine, while ’open smoking’ results in arrest and jail.”

As it turned out, Bloomberg had other plans.

“I’m not thrilled they’re using my name,” he said when asked about the NORML ad at a press conference. “I suppose it’s that First Amendment that gets in the way of me stopping it.”

Yup, that pesky First Amendment, always giving freedom of speech to the wrong people. And that darn Fourth Amendment, protecting them against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

It was, in fact, the Fourth Amendment that federal judge Shira Scheindlin cited in 2013 when ruling that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk campaign, encouraged by Mayor Bloomberg, violated the constitution. During his time as mayor Bloomberg oversaw a sixfold increase in the number of stops by police, and a 50% increase in the number of arrests for simple possession of marijuana.

So yeah: Bloomberg took everything Giuliani did wrong and made it way worse.

Has he evolved? That’s a hard no

A lot has changed in the nearly six years since Mike Bloomberg’s time as mayor came to an end on December 31, 2013. The very next day, in fact, the first ever recreational cannabis stores in the United States opened in Colorado. Since then 12 more states have followed suit, and national support for legalization has continued to reach record highs, particularly in the states where it has already been implemented.

So given all the new information that’s come to light, and given the fact that he may soon jump into the primary contest of a political party where cannabis legalization polls at 76% approval, you might think Mike Bloomberg would look for ways to pivot toward common sense when it comes to cannabis.

You would be wrong.

In a recent speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Bloomberg called cannabis legalization “perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done.” He added: “We’ve got to fight that.”

It’s tempting to create a humorous list of incredibly stupid things that “anybody has ever done” and then compare them to Bloomberg’s indefensible claim. Cheap laughs aside, it misses the point. To Bloomberg, cannabis legalization—despite its successful implementation and political popularity—remains a monumental disaster quite simply because he’s already personally subjected so many people to arrest.

He can’t admit that he was wrong on cannabis without being really really wrong, in a way that would rightly stain his reputation forever. So instead, he has convinced himself that cannabis legalization must be stupider than, say, letting a bunch of Wall Street fat cats (like him) crash the world economy in 2008 with absolutely zero arrests.

That’s all, hoax!

Michael Bloomberg must be aware that his out-of-step position on this issue will come up quickly upon his official entry into the 2020 Democratic Primary. With the exception of Joe Biden, all of his primary opponents support federal cannabis legalization. And even Biden now “supports decriminalizing marijuana.”

So if one of the biggest drug warriors in recent history can change his tune, how exactly does Michael Bloomberg continue to believe that legalization is the stupidest thing anyone has done? Simple. By inventing facts and sticking to them despite all evidence to the contrary.

Like when Bloomberg called medical cannabis (which over 85% of Americans now support) “one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.”

Perhaps nothing captures the utter stupidity of Bloomberg’s approach to cannabis policy than the following statement, made during a 2013 radio interview:

“Drug dealers have families to feed. If they can’t sell marijuana, they’ll sell something else. And the something else will be something worse. The push to legalize this is wrongheaded.”

Hang on. That’s worth unpacking. Bloomberg sees no place in the legal cannabis industry for the legacy growers and suppliers who operated under prohibition. He can’t even conceive of it. Instead, he assumes that your friendly local weed dealer will switch over to slinging heroin.

Which is obviously nonsense.

As is the idea that cannabis legalization will lead to more demand for heroin and thus more supply in the form of more dealers. Basically, nothing Bloomberg says about cannabis adds up. But that’s how things go once you start making up your own facts. When you’re a billionaire, they let you do it.

 

[Baron23]

New polls show ‘overwhelming’ support for legal cannabis in America

Politico and Harvard just dropped survey numbers on what Americans think about CBD and cannabis legalization, and new data today from the Pew Research Center backs up their findings. The results: Support for cannabis legalization continues to be overwhelming.
The new data set from Politico and Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health went in-depth on American’s attitudes, concerns and general thought processes about the controversial plant, as recreational, medical and CBD regulations continue to evolve around the nation.
The survey found slightly more than half of U.S. adults, 52%, know what CBD is. It also found that one in seven Americans, or 15%, openly admit to using CBD products, though it didn’t distinguish between cannabis-derived CBD products and hemp-derived CBD products.
And for the people who actually know what CBD is, they believe that it is very safe. Only 5% of people reported thinking it’s dangerous.
Legalizing pot is still popular, as 62% of those surveyed in the Politico-Harvard study approved of federal legalization. 69% of those people favored only allowing state-licensed stores to sell weed. Most excitingly, one in three people now support people being able to smoke pot in public spaces in their neighborhood! About half of people said they would be OK with a dispensary opening in their neighborhood as well.
This result was corroborated by a new study from Pew that was published on Thursday. The Pew data found that support for cannabis legalization was at its highest point since the organization started tracking it in 1969, and that it had continued to increase steadily over the past decade. Today, Pew found that 59% of American adults think recreational and medical cannabis should be legal, while 32% think only medical marijuana should be legal. That means, Pew says, an “overwhelming majority” of U.S. adults think medical or recreational cannabis should be legal, clocking in at 91%. Only 8% wanted to keep cannabis legal in all circumstances.
The Pew data pointed to a partisan gap — Democrats were more likely to support legalization than Republicans — but with such a huge buy-in from people across the political spectrum, the issue of cannabis legalization is officially bipartisan.
Things got a bit more unique with questions in the Politico-Harvard study about the FDA, which hinted that the public might have some areas where they want a bit more governmental restraint. 51% of those surveyed believe that CBD products “should be allowed to be sold to the public only if they have been shown to be safe by the FDA, like prescription drugs.” 43% believed CBD should be regulated like a supplement.
One of the folks with his hand in both the cannabis and CBD industries is famed San Francisco breeder and grower Mario “Mr. Sherbinski” Guzman. Sherbinski took a moment to chat with Cannabis Now on the new data.
“Americans are hungry for medicine that they know is safe and they feel comfortable with as they look for alternatives to what the healthcare industry is currently providing them and get more educated on the dangers of prescription drugs,” Sherbinksi said of the one in seven Americans now admitting to personal CBD use. “CBD is emerging as something that works, is safe and is available.”
Sherbinski thinks people in the industry have done a great job normalizing CBD, which is reflected by the high current access levels. He said that he believes the American public will continue to become more accustomed to recreational cannabis, especially when it comes to high-CBD strains that are great medicine but are still technically federally illegal.



“It’s just about education,” Sherbinski said. “People are becoming educated about CBD, but as they move into the needs of all Americans, THC is going to increasingly be a part of the conversation.”
Sherbinski pointed to the entourage effect as a big tool in explaining the need for wider cannabinoid reform to people already accepting of cannabidiol.
Sherbinski’s career has paralleled the major changes in public opinion around legalization. In 2006, only 36% of people supported cannabis legalization and the number would only climb by four percentage points by the end of the decade. We asked Sherbinski if he ever thought he’d see the numbers hit the 62% majority support legalizing marijuana has gained.
“You know not really, I figured it would move a lot slower just seeing the challenges we faced over the last 20 years,” he replied. “But I think through education and the work of people in the cannabis industry… I mean when I started there was just one state.”
Project CBD founder Martin A. Lee also weighed in on the Politico-Harvard study. Lee told Cannabis Now he wasn’t too surprised by the number of people claiming to use CBD.
“You’ve got all these people saying they use CBD, one out of seven, that’s a figure I’ve heard before,” Lee said. “I believe it tends to correspond or validate consumer reports. So that didn’t surprise me because I heard that figure. But what strikes me here is not so many people either tried it or used it, and who knows if the number includes the full scope since some people might be squeamish about talking about it.”
Lee says the cat is out of the bag on the FDA attempting to regulate CBD as a pharmaceutical. He says this leaves two options for CBD, “neither of which are good.”
The first option, Lee says, is that CBD will face heavy regulations that will raise the barrier of entry. The second option is treating it like a supplement, “which is basically not regulated,” he says.
“I would think there are other options, like really regulating well for safety, but easy access might be an option too — but these questions weren’t part of Politico and Harvard’s framework,” Lee said. “The fact that people want to buy it like vitamins or dietary supplements, it definitely should be available like that. It’s just the whole supplement space should be regulated at least as stringently as cannabis is being regulated in licensed markets like California.”
Lee next spoke on the overall acceptance of CBD’s safety by the public, with only 5% of people who know what it is thinking it’s dangerous.
“Basically that’s correct,” Lee said. “The FDA is desperately searching for harm. They’re trying to fabricate harm to the liver when there is no study that shows that accounting for the presence of really powerful drugs.”
Lee said while CBD isn’t harmful, the quality of the products can be less than excellent, and it might be hard to see any harm right away.
The National Cannabis Industry Association called the new data on public opinion just further evidence to add to the mountain of it showing Americans are ready for a deeper cannabis policy debate.
“This poll reiterates that Americans are ready to end prohibition and are becoming steadily more educated on the issues,” NCIA Media Relations Director Morgan Fox told Cannabis Now. “The fact that we are starting to focus more on how cannabinoids should be regulated rather than if they should be is readily apparent from these responses.”
NORML’s leadership pointed to the poll as evidence that in a time of major political unrest in America, fixing bad pot laws is still bipartisan.
“At a time when the political divides is larger than ever, the issue of marijuana legalization is one of the few policy issues upon which most Americans agree,” NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri told Cannabis Now. “With eleven states now having legalized the adult use of cannabis, citizens of all ages and ideologies are seeing the benefits of regulation and rejecting the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. We expect to see public support to continue to grow in 2020 as more and more states implement sensible cannabis regulatory policies.”

 

[Baron23]

Its just a committee vote....or maybe just a mark-up session....and they take them all of the time.....but, I'm still pretty sure that this is a first.

Vote To Federally Legalize Marijuana Planned In Congress


A key congressional committee plans to hold a historic vote on a bill to end the federal prohibition of marijuana next week, two sources with knowledge of the soon-to-be-announced action said.

AFP via Getty Images

The legislation, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and set aside funding to begin repairing the damage of the war on drugs, which has been disproportionately waged against communities of color.

Those programs—such as job training and legal aid for people impacted by prohibition enforcement, loans for small cannabis businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and efforts to minimize barriers to licensing and employment in the legal industry—would be paid for with a new federal five percent tax on marijuana sales instituted under the bill, and some of them would be administered by a new Cannabis Justice Office in the Department of Justice.


The proposal, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, would also provide for resentencing and expungement of records for people previously convicted of cannabis offenses and would shield immigrants from being denied citizenship status over marijuana.


It currently has 55 cosponsors, all but one of whom are Democrats.

A Senate companion is being led by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a 2020 presidential candidate, though it has not yet been scheduled for action in the GOP-controlled chamber.

Wednesday’s planned Judiciary Committee vote on the far-reaching cannabis reform legislation—which hasn’t yet been officially listed but is expected to be announced on Monday—comes about two months after the full House overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan bill to increase marijuana businesses’ access to banks.

Politico reported on Saturday that Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), who is not a member of the panel, vaguely mentioned upcoming committee consideration while speaking at a conference in Southern California.

The congresswoman reportedly didn’t clarify that the legislation would be formally “marked up,” or voted on, a detail that sources shared with Marijuana Moment in recent days. A Judiciary Committee spokesperson hasn’t responded to several inquiries about the pending vote.

The planned action on the bill, which would also block federal agencies from denying public benefits or security clearances over marijuana use, follows a hearing a Judiciary subcommittee held in July that examined the connection between marijuana legalization and racial justice.

The markup will provide the opportunity for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to file amendments to the bill, and could shed further light on an emerging divide between cannabis reform supporters who feel it is essential to address past drug war harms and equity in the cannabis industry immediately and those who believe it makes more sense to advance more limited, states’ rights-focused legislation that could stand a better chance of advancing through the Senate and to President Trump’s desk.

Those tensions surfaced both during the Judiciary hearing this summer as well as in the lead up to the House floor vote on the cannabis banking legislation. Some pro-legalization groups went so far as to ask leadership to delay the scheduled vote on the financial services bill because they took issue with what is seen as an industry-focused proposal moving ahead of one containing restorative justice provisions such as the MORE Act.

In response to those concerns, top Democrats such as Nadler and House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) pledged that while they were moving ahead with the banking vote, they also saw the importance of following up by advancing more comprehensive cannabis legislation.

Advancing the MORE Act or a similar descheduling proposal through committee and onto the House floor would make good on that pledge.

It’s less certain how the Senate would react to House passage of a far-reaching bill to end federal marijuana prohibition. Some advocates believe that only a more modest proposal to exempt state-approved cannabis activity from federal prohibition stands a chance in the Republican-controlled body.

That bill, the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, would not formally deschedule marijuana under the CSA and doesn’t include measures aimed at ensuring equity in the legal industry for communities most harmed by the drug war.

President Trump has voiced support for the less far-reaching bill, which is led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Gardner (R-CO).

 

[Baron23]

"he claims the substance could potentially be a "gateway drug."

Yep.....I live in Maryland and spend a good bit of time in the Delaware area shooting skeet, hunting, and fishing. I know a lot of people who have known Joe Biden for most of his life.

Ummmmmm....well, none of them think he's the sharpest knife in the drawer and some question if he even has an edge.

"Gateway drug"....come on, Joe. Pull your head out of your 1970's drug warrior ass, please.

Joe Biden Comes Out Against Legalizing Weed, Says It's Potentially A 'Gateway Drug' — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Disagrees


Former Vice President Joe Biden this weekend came out against legalizing marijuana on a federal level because he claims the substance could potentially be a "gateway drug." Hours later, progressive Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued against the 2020 frontrunner's stance.


Biden on Saturday said he would refuse to legalize marijuana nationwide until research sheds further light on the substance during a town hall in Las Vegas. "The truth of the matter is, there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug," the 2020 frontrunner said, according to Business Insider. "It's a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it."


Despite his remarks, Biden also made clear that he's not completely against cannabis use. "States should be able to make a judgment to legalize marijuana," he said, adding that he backs medical marijuana and would decriminalize possession of the drug.


Hours later, Ocasio-Cortez, a high-profile freshman progressive who recently threw her support behind Senator Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign, tweeted: "Marijuana should be legalized, and drug consumption should be decriminalized. These are matters of public health."


The Democratic congresswoman's remarks come after several 2020 candidates, including Sanders and Senators Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, vowed to legalize pot nationwide if elected president in 2020. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former HUD secretary Julian Castro, Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Senator Amy Klobuchar, author Marianne Williamson and former entrepreneur Andrew Yang have also expressed support for legalizing the substance.


Marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I substance by the Drug Enforcement Administration since 1970, alongside heroin and LSD. Previously, Biden has indicated that he would seek to move cannabis into Schedule II so that it's benefits and impacts can be further studied.


"It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it's a gateway drug or not," the former Vice President said on Saturday.


Like Biden, three 2020 hopefuls, Steve Bullock, John Delaney and Wayne Messam, have taken the view that marijuana legalization should be left up to the states to decide, according to Politico.


Dozens of states across America have already passed laws to legalize cannabis in some form, including California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon.

 

[Baron23]

I do not agree with her and believe that I have much more experience observing, and in some cases living, the hideous damage to people, families, and communities from some of these drugs....crack and heroin chief amongst them but I have also personally observed long term damage to people from hallucinogenics like acid.

I believe that this fits her desired "narrative" but is nonetheless a naive and half-baked policy position.

AOC Calls For Decriminalizing The Use Of All Drugs

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) voiced support for decriminalizing the use of all drugs on Sunday.


The freshman congresswoman tweeted that drug decriminalization, as well as marijuana legalization, are “matters of public health.”

This marks a development in Ocasio-Cortez’s drug policy platform. Previously, she called for decriminalizing the use and research of psychedelics, emphasizing the therapeutic potential of the substances.


To that end, she introduced an amendment to a spending bill in June that would remove a rider that advocates argue has inhibited research into the potential therapeutic benefits of Schedule I drugs such as psilocybin and LSD. The House rejected that measure in a floor vote, however.


There’s a growing push to decriminalize the personal possession of drugs beyond cannabis. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), both Democratic presidential candidates, are in favor of the policy. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang supports decriminalizing opioids as a means to combat the drug overdose crisis.


Ocasio-Cortez recently gave her endorsement to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). But while the senator was the first major presidential candidate to back marijuana legalization during his 2016 run, he said this year he’s “not there yet” on broader drug decriminalization. It’s not clear if the congresswoman’s role as a surrogate on his campaign will ultimately influence him to adopt the policy.


But as more candidates debate the best way forward on various drug reform proposals, with cannabis legalization being a given for almost all contenders, former Vice President Joe Biden remains several paces behind. He opposes adult-use legalization and said on Saturday that marijuana may be a gateway to other, more dangerous substances.

 

[Baron23]

6 States trying to legalize recreational marijuana in 2020

In case you hadn't noticed, cannabis sales are soaring around the world. According to the State of the Legal Cannabis Markets report from Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics, worldwide legal weed revenue more than tripled between 2014 and 2018 to $10.9 billion, and this is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Yet the United States, the most lucrative market for marijuana in the world, remains a hostile place for cannabis, at least at the federal level. Despite growing support among the public to legalize cannabis on a national level, lawmakers have stood pat on their Schedule I classification of pot. This ensures it remains entirely illegal at the federal level.

A number of states aim to legalize adult-use cannabis in 2020
However, this hasn't stopped individual states from legalizing cannabis in some capacity over the past 23 years. Beginning with California in 1996, a grand total of 33 states have legalized medical marijuana. Of these 33 states, 11 have passed legislation allowing for the legal consumption and/or sale of recreational weed. And this could be just the beginning.
In 2020, a major election year, there are six states currently trying to get a recreational marijuana initiative or amendment onto their ballots. Understandably, these initiatives or amendments are in the review or signature-gathering stage at the moment, which offers no assurances that they'll eventually make it onto a ballot for vote in November 2020. Nevertheless, the wheels have been put into motion to potentially legalize adult-use weed in the following six states (listed in alphabetical order).

1. Arizona
Arguably the most logical state to try to pass a recreational marijuana bill in 2020 is Arizona. The Grand Canyon State tried to pass a recreational marijuana initiative in 2016, with voters narrowly disapproving of the measure. However, we've historically seen second attempts at legalization pass. This is what previously happened in both California and Oregon, and is expected to happen in Arizona in 2020.
For instance, the Arizona Marijuana Legalization Initiative would legalize cannabis for consumption and purchase to anyone aged 18 and over. Taxes collected on legal cannabis would be used to fund schools, as well as help bolster the financing of state healthcare programs. Similar to Illinois' recreational pot bill, it would also aim to provide relief to persons previously convicted of marijuana offenses.
Legalizing recreational weed in Arizona would be a nice boost for multistate operator (MSO) Harvest Health & Recreation (OTC:HRVSF). Harvest Health isn't exactly the best-known dispensary operator in the country, but on a pro forma basis (i.e., if all of its pending acquisitions close) it has more retail store licenses than any other MSO. Harvest Health currently has 10 stores in Arizona, giving it a notable presence in what could be a cannabis battleground state next year.

2. Arkansas



In Arkansas, there are no fewer than three initiated constitutional amendments in the signature gathering stage that would, effectively, tackle recreational cannabis and/or perceived social injustices caused by incarceration from marijuana-related convictions. Both the Arkansas Marijuana Legalization Initiative and Arkansas Recreational Marijuana Initiative would legalize adult-use pot for those 21 and over.
Unlike Arizona, Arkansas will likely be a longer shot to green-light recreational weed. Even though support has been growing nationally for adult-use marijuana, Arkansans had to wait well over two years after approving a medical cannabis measure in November 2016 before medical weed sales commenced. This is also a state that tends to lean toward Republican lawmakers -- Republicans are less likely to support the legalization of marijuana. This makes all three constitutional amendments a bit of a long shot for the time being.

3. Florida
Similar to Arkansas, the Sunshine State has a number of initiated constitutional amendments that are in the signature gathering stage to either amend the state's medical marijuana program or legalize recreational cannabis.
For example, the Florida Marijuana Legalization Initiative would green-light the possession of up to 1 ounce of cannabis by residents aged 21 and up. There would also be a home-grow option allowing for up to six plants per household, with no more than three flowering at once. These plants would also need to be in an enclosed and locked space, and could not be sold.
Florida has already been wildly successful with its medical marijuana program, so recreational legalization would have to be considered a boon for an MSO like Trulieve Cannabis (OTC:TCNNF). Even with a small presence in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, Trulieve has focused nearly all of its attention on the Florida market. Trulieve has opened 39 stores in the Sunshine State to date, and is one of the very few pot stocks in North America that's already profitable on a recurring basis.

4. Missouri
Yet another initiated constitutional amendment comes to us from Missouri. Currently in the signature gathering phase, the Missouri Marijuana Legalization and Expungement Initiative would alter the state's constitution to no longer make it illegal to use, grow, or sell cannabis at the commercial level. It would also throw out previous convictions for non-violent marijuana offenses, similar to what Illinois did. Interestingly, this bill would also prohibit the taxation of physician-recommended medical marijuana.
Like Arkansas, the one complication here is that Missourians only legalized medical marijuana by vote one year ago, and the product only became available in licensed dispensaries in recent months. With little lead time to build up the appropriate sales infrastructure, it's unclear what sort of support a recreational legalization measure would generate in the Show-Me State.

5. New Jersey
The Garden State actually looked to be well on its way to legalizing recreational marijuana at the legislative level earlier this year, but efforts to wave the green flag eventually fell apart before reaching the finish line.
Whereas Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, and his state's legislature, were in agreement over their want to legalize adult-use cannabis, there had long been a difference of opinion over the appropriate tax rate. Once the tax rate debate looked to be resolved, certain lawmakers insisted on the measure including an expungement of previous convictions for cannabis offenses. This didn't sit well with some of New Jersey's more moderate lawmakers, and the measure wound up stalling.
The New Jersey Marijuana Legalization Amendment is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to legalize recreational weed. It can find its way onto the ballot through a 60% vote from both chambers of state's legislature during a single session, or a majority vote in both chambers during two successive sessions. Like Arizona, New Jersey looks to have a pretty good chance to legalize adult-use cannabis in 2020.

6. South Dakota
Last, but not least, the South Dakota Marijuana and Hemp Initiative is an initiated constitutional amendment that's currently gathering signatures. If passed, the measure would legalize the possession, use, transport, and sale of adult-use cannabis for persons aged 21 and up. South Dakota's Department of Revenue would be responsible for issuing all licenses for cultivation, testing, distribution, and retail, with a 15% tax rate applied to legal weed sales. This tax revenue would first go to cover costs associated with cannabis industry governance, with the reminder headed to state schools and the General Fund.
It's worth pointing out that South Dakota is the only one of these six states that hasn't passed medical marijuana legislation, so this initiative would also require the state's legislature to establish medical cannabis laws, as well as pass laws concerning the cultivation, processing, and sale of hemp.
Considering that South Dakota has no existing marijuana infrastructure in place, jumping from everything being illicit to a green light for all might be a bit much to ask.

 

[Bcbud]

U.S. Surgeon General Says Weed is Dangerous - RxLeaf

The Surgeon General wants you to think weed is dangerous. He'll seemingly stop at nothing to do so, too, even if its misrepresenting data.

www.rxleaf.com

 

[Baron23]

Its not that "monumental" to me....bills rattle around in committee for eternity with many never moving an inch further forward.

But, this is better than not and if its ever scheduled for a vote on the House floor, well....that would be interesting to see the outcome.

‘Monumental’ day for cannabis in U.S. Congress; key committee votes to make marijuana federally legal


For the first time, a congressional committee has voted to end federal prohibitions on cannabis.


As impeachment hearings transpired across the hall in the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon, the House Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 24-10, advanced a bill that could make use of marijuana legal.


The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Opportunity (MORE) Act of 2019, which has bipartisan support and 55 cosponsors, would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, which means the federal government treats it as if it were as dangerous as heroin or LSD and has no medical benefit.


The act would also require authorities to remove federal cannabis convictions from millions of criminal records.


More than two-thirds of American voters support full legalization, according to poll results released Nov. 14 by the Pew Research Center. The share of U.S. adults who oppose legalization has fallen from 52% in 2010 to 32%.


The bill has the support of several Philadelphia-area members of congress, all Democrats. But U.S. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D., Montgomery) believes there’s enough in the legislation to appeal to Senate Republicans.


“It’s a very conservative bill in that it gives control to the states,” said Dean, who serves on the Judiciary Committee.


One of those conservatives is U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.), who on Wednesday voted in favor. But Rep. Doug Collins (R., Ga.) used the words of one Democratic presidential candidate to argue against it.


“Joe Biden agrees, stating this past Saturday that marijuana legalization is ‘a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it,’" Collins said in a statement.


The MORE Act also would create a framework that would prevent the federal government from interfering in state cannabis laws. Collins derided that freedom as leaving the states to “fend for themselves.”


Former Republican House Speaker John Boehner, once an adamant opponent of marijuana legalization, now sits on the board of one of the largest cannabis companies in the world and offers online seminars on how to get rich investing in weed stocks.


Local cosponsors of the bill include U.S. Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D., N.J.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D., Pa.) and Dwight Evans (D., Pa.). Evans also is supporting a bill that would allow adults to grow marijuana at home.


Revenue generated under the MORE Act would be used to fund training and educational programs for communities that have felt the brunt of the War on Drugs, Watson Coleman said. A portion would go toward substance-abuse treatments.


Watson Coleman said there hasn’t been much of an opportunity to discuss the bill broadly within her caucus. “We’ve been pretty busy down here protecting democracy,” she said, referring to the impeachment hearings.


Marijuana activist Chris Goldstein called the vote “monumental.”


“It’s the first piece of marijuana cannabis legislation in Congress to move this far. And this could lead to more local reform as well,” said Goldstein, a South Jersey-based organizer for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “I think we’ll see more Republicans and Democrats joining on. This goes to show you can’t go to Congress and ignore this issue anymore, that’s for sure.”


The bill was introduced in July by U.S. Rep. Jarrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) and presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.).


Judiciary was only the first of several committees that will need to vet the bill. If leaders are confident it has enough support, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote next year. If it passed, it would be referred to the Senate.


Two other major pieces of cannabis legislation — the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Act and the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act — also are wending their way through Congress. The SAFE Act would allow banks to do business with the cannabis industry.


“The SAFE banking act and the STATES Act have good momentum,” said lawyer Seth A. Goldberg, who heads the cannabis industry group for Philadelphia law firm Duane Morris LLP. “But descheduling — which is what the MORE Act would do — would change everything.”

 

[Bcbud]

Give Cannabis a Sporting Chance: Lift The Weed Ban - RxLeaf

The weed ban prevents athletes from accessig a safe and non-perfromance enhancing medicine. Why ban when studies show it helps TBI, inflammation, and more?

www.rxleaf.com

 

[Baron23]

The House Wants to Legalize Marijuana, but the MORE Act Has a Fatal Flaw

Marijuana's momentum has been undeniable in recent years. Last year, we saw Canada become the first industrialized country in the world to legalize recreational cannabis in the modern era. Now, Mexico looks to be just months away from becoming the third country worldwide to OK the sale and consumption of adult-use weed.


We've also seen 33 states since 1996 wave the green flag on medical marijuana in the United States. A third of these medical weed states have also passed legislation allowing the consumption and/or sale of recreational pot.

Marijuana's scheduling in the U.S. puts pot businesses at a serious disadvantage

And yet, despite two-thirds of the American public favoring some sort of national legalization program, the U.S. federal government continues to classify cannabis as a Schedule I substance. That means it's entirely illegal, is deemed to be prone to abuse by users, and is considered to have no recognized medical benefits. In fact, cocaine has a less stringent scheduling than marijuana, according to the Controlled Substance Act. But the illegality of marijuana is just the start.


Even though the federal government has taken a hands-off approach to state-level regulation, this isn't exactly making life easy for companies in the cannabis space. For one, U.S. pot businesses have limited or no access to basic banking services. Since banks are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the FDIC is a federally created agency, they fear potential financial and/or criminal repercussions if caught aiding cannabis companies. This means limited or no access to everything from loans and lines of credit, to something as simple as a checking account.


In addition, marijuana businesses in the U.S. can be subjected to Section 280E of the tax code. Implemented in the early 1980s to curb cocaine smugglers from writing off their business expenses on their federal income taxes, 280E disallows businesses from taking normal corporate income tax deductions if selling Schedule I and II drugs, save for cost of goods sold. For pot companies and retailers, cost of goods sold tends to be a relatively small percentage of sales, which can lead to exceptionally high effective tax rates for profitable cannabis companies.


However, the House of Representatives wants to change this. All of it.

The House aims to legalize cannabis in the U.S.

Four months ago, on July 23, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) introduced the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or MORE Act, in Congress. The MORE Act is on track to be the first comprehensive marijuana reform legislation set to be voted on in Congress after the House Judiciary Committee voted 24-10 in favor of the bill on Wednesday, Nov. 20. The MORE Act now moves to the next stage of the process, which would be a vote in the Democratic-dominated House. (Note that Democrats have a considerably more positive view on legalizing cannabis than Republicans do.)


If the bill were approved in its current form, here's a brief summary of its key points:

• Decriminalizes cannabis at the federal level by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act.
• Requires federal courts to expunge prior convictions for cannabis offenses, or at least allows prior offenders to request expungement or a review of their case.
• Establishes a 5% federal tax on cannabis and cannabis products that'd be used to create an Opportunity Trust Fund. This Fund would assist individuals disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs, provide loans to small businesses in the pot industry, and help those adversely impacted by the War on Drugs minimize barriers to marijuana licensing and employment.

Essentially, the MORE Act ensures that states would have the right to regulate their own industries, but it would allow the federal government to collect their piece of the pie with a 5% tax on legal product. It would also help to right the perceived wrongs of the War on Drugs by helping those most impacted by the federal government's efforts to stamp out drugs use, including cannabis.


The MORE Act already has more than 50 co-sponsors, and it looks to have a very good chance of passage in the House.

The MORE Act has a fatal flaw that may not be apparent at first glance

If the MORE Act were to pass the House, it would then move on to the Senate, where things get considerably cloudier. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is certainly no fan of cannabis and has blocked riders specifically targeting marijuana reform in the past. With McConnell at the helm, cannabis reform continues to look unlikely.


What's more, Republicans have a more adverse view of cannabis than Democrats or Independents. The latest Gallup poll shows that 76% of self-identified Democrats and 68% of self-identified independents support legalizing pot in the U.S., with only 51% of self-identified Republicans on board with legalizing weed. There would need to be strong bipartisan support in the Senate for the MORE Act to pass, and that doesn't seem likely to happen, at least in the way the bill is currently written.


But, interestingly, neither Mitch McConnell nor the more adverse beliefs of the GOP toward cannabis are the biggest concern of the MORE Act. The bill's fatal flaw is actually the establishment of a 5% federal tax on cannabis.


Arguably the biggest hurdle in recreationally legalized states right now is black market marijuana. Illicit producers don't have to wait for cultivation, processing, distribution, or sales licenses to be approved, they don't pay state or federal income tax, and they avoid state, local, excise, and wholesale taxation (depending on the state). If the federal government adds yet another layer of taxation atop legal marijuana, it's only going to make the price disparity between legal and illicit pot even wider.


For example, California, the biggest marijuana market in the world by annual sales, applies a state and local tax, a 15% excise tax, and a wholesale tax on leaves or dried cannabis flower, to every pot sale. Mind you, this doesn't include other expenses, such as laboratory testing, that you can count on being added into the final cost of a product by retailers. Now imagine tacking on an additional 5% tax from the federal government. Based on a variety of estimates I've seen, we could be talking about an aggregate tax on legal Californian cannabis of between 50% and 80%, which would make it virtually impossible for legal producers to complete against the black market.


And if you think this worry is all for naught, think again. On Jan. 1, 2018, California opened its doors to recreational weed sales, but only managed $2.5 billion in total cannabis sales last year (that's recreational plus medical). This represents a decline of $500 million from the previous year, when only medical marijuana was legal. Consumers are clearly showing their displeasure with high tax rates, and its players like MedMen Enterprises (OTC:MMNFF) that have suffered the consequences.


Multistate operator and dispensary operator MedMen has been expanding in California rapidly, with the company now sporting more than a dozen locations in the Golden State. The passage of Prop 64 and the opening of retail doors in Jan. 2018 should have allowed MedMen to recognize rapid sales growth and potentially push toward profitability. Instead, MedMen's losses have been astronomical, and the company's sequential quarterly sales growth at its California locations has chimed in at a meager 5% and 10% in the fiscal third and fourth quarters, respectively.


California has shown us what happens when you overtax marijuana, and the MORE Act appears to have ignored that lesson entirely.

 

[Baron23]

And Medmen canned the Pharmacann acquisition also. Reality setting in a bit, I think.

Cresco terminates VidaCann acquisition, highlighting cannabis industry’s focus on saving cash


Chicago-based multistate cannabis operator Cresco Labs said it is ending its agreement to buy Florida’s VidaCann, becoming the latest U.S. marijuana M&A deal to unravel and highlighting the steps companies are taking to navigate a rocky business environment.


Cresco’s decision, in particular, sheds light on how marijuana companies are scrambling to save money and refocus efforts on their core markets amid a shortage of outside funding and falling cannabis stock prices.


The vertically integrated company noted in a news release it’s saving additional cash through the sale of two cultivation and processing facilities in Michigan and Ohio for nearly $40 million.


According to industry watchers, Cresco’s announcement signals three main takeaways:

• Transactions predominantly focused on equity are more likely to close.
• Companies will increasingly focus on their immediate core markets in light of challenging financial conditions.
• Cash savings are key as companies try to carve out profitability quicker.

In what was largely an all-cash deal worth about $120 million, Cresco had agreed in March to acquire vertically integrated VidaCann.


VidaCann operates 13 dispensaries in Florida as well as a 70,000-square-foot cultivation and processing facility.


In the news release, Cresco said it’s saving about $158 million to add to its balance sheet from both the termination of the deal and approximately $38 million from the separate sale of the two cultivation and processing facilities it will lease back.


Cash no longer king


The move supports the idea that all-stock transactions in the cannabis industry are more likely to survive – if amended under the different current trading conditions – than deals that are largely announced based more on cash.


“With highly volatile share prices, share-swap equity deals have a greater chance of closing since both the buyer and seller share in the upside or downside in the share prices,” said Mike Regan, equity analyst at MJBizDaily’s Investor Intelligence.


“In contrast, deals with a large cash component lock in the values at the deal announcement. It is smarter to redeploy that cash than to raise cash via shares issued at a 40% lower price than the original March 18 deal announcement.”


In recent weeks, Cresco amended the terms of its all-stock deal with California marijuana distributor Origin House and Curaleaf has changed the terms of its planned all-stock purchase of the Select brands of Cura Partners. Both deals are seen as likely to close.


An exception to this is MedMen’s cancellation of its planned purchase of PharmaCann, which also was an all-stock deal.


Focusing on core markets


Cresco, which releases quarterly results after the market close Tuesday, said it will continue to monitor the Florida market for future opportunities but would focus for now on more core markets in California, Illinois, Nevada and Pennsylvania.


In September, the company agreed to buy Tryke, a vertically integrated cannabis company that is active in Arizona and Nevada. That deal has a $55 million cash component in an overall transaction worth approximately $282.5 million.


Cresco said it is selling its two facilities in Michigan and Ohio to real estate investment trust (REIT) Innovative Industrial Properties for approximately $38 million.


The combined 166,500-square-foot facilities will be leased back and continue to operate under the Cresco name.


“In combination with the decision to terminate the Florida acquisition, the company has effectively strengthened the balance sheet by $158 million in a very nondilutive manner, which we view positively,” equity analyst Russell Stanley at Toronto-based Beacon Securities wrote in a research note.


Cresco trades on the Canadian Securities Exchange as CL.