Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

Medical marijuana registrations spike as recreational stores close due to coronavirus

he global coronavirus pandemic has upended significant swaths of the economy in Massachusetts and the relatively-young legal marijuana industry is no exception.


Just as it was finding a groove and getting more retail marijuana stores open all around the state, the Cannabis Control Commission has ordered a halt to all non-medical marijuana business and is looking for ways to support the fledgling industry and its workers, and to be ready to resume the rollout of adult-use retail when the COVID-19 public health emergency abates.


“I’m not going to forecast what might happen in the industry other than I am concerned. You know, there are a wide variety of companies in this industry -- some big, many small -- the bigger ones have more resources, obviously, to weather a storm like this than the smaller ones, so I’m very concerned,” CCC Chairman Steven Hoffman told reporters Friday after the commission met to discuss possible ways to limit the damage done to the industry. “But I can’t offer a forecast because I don’t know what the future holds for any of us, not just our industry. I will say we will continue working collaboratively with the industry and having more conversations like the one we just had to do everything that’s within our regulatory authority to help ease the burden.”


Since Gov. Charlie Baker ordered the closure of all non-essential businesses starting March 24, only registered patients in the state’s medical marijuana program have been able to buy marijuana. The governor has resisted calls to follow the lead of other states and allow adult-use sales as an essential service, and the Legislature -- largely bound by the pandemic to doing things by unanimous consent -- did not address a Rep. Chynah Tyler attempt to re-open adult-use shops and put them on the same footing as package stores.


The CCC has also eased some of the requirements for becoming a medical marijuana patient, allowing new patients to become registered through a telehealth visit with a certifying physician rather than an in-person visit. That, combined with the limited availability of marijuana, has led to “a pretty significant surge” in the number of initial patient registrations, CCC Executive Director Shawn Collins said.


“We’ve issued more than 30 waivers to clinicians to issue those initial certifications via telehealth. In the intervening time, from March 23 through April 1, we’ve received more than 1,300 new patient registrations. In the 10 days prior, we received 500 patient registrations. So that’s a significant jump in patient registration,” he said Friday.






Though the product is largely identical, the medical program offers several benefits not available in the recreational market. Medical marijuana is not taxed, patients can get marijuana delivered to their homes, and patients can buy edibles with higher THC levels than are allowed in the non-medical market. Before being allowed to renew their medical marijuana card, any patient who initially becomes registered via telehealth will have to visit their certifying clinician in person, Collins said.


Hoffman said he was not at all surprised by the spike in medical patient registrations.


“There’s always been a belief that people were -- some people and I don’t know the percentages -- but some people were using the adult use market to satisfy their medical needs,” he said, pointing out that the CCC does not keep purchase records for the non-medical side of the industry and does not identify consumers other than to confirm they are at least 21 years old. “And I think since the adult-use market is temporarily shut down, I think those people are applying for medical licenses.”


But with more people trying to obtain medical marijuana, the CCC on Friday started to consider ways to ensure the stability of the medical marijuana supply chain -- to be sure that patients who have been using the program for years can continue to get their medicine and the influx of new patients will be able to access it as well.


The CCC talked about the possibility of allowing licensed recreational cultivation facilities -- which are allowed to continue tending to their crops during the shutdown but cannot start new plants -- to sell their product to medical treatment centers. Commissioner Kay Doyle was tasked with taking the lead on determining the feasibility of that and other ideas.


Of course, not all recreational consumers are switching to the medical side of the legal industry. Many are likely returning to the illicit sources of marijuana they relied on prior to Massachusetts launching legal sales.


“It’s always been impossible to really quantify what’s going on in the illicit market and what impact legalization is having. But of course I’m concerned that people that will not be able to go to an adult-use store for the period of time that they remain closed will use the illicit market,” Hoffman said. “That’s something I’m very concerned about.”


The chairman said the CCC has been busy processing license applications during the adult-use industry shutdown in hopes of keeping the steady pace of approvals and store openings going whenever retailers are allowed to re-open.


“I’m sure it’ll take some time to get it up to speed. What I’m pleased about ... we are working pretty efficiently at the commission in terms of processing applications and so I think once the industry is allowed to reopen, we can, I think, have not just the current licensees, but a large number of licenses that have been processed during this period of time closer to being ready to open,” he said. “It’s not going to be an on-off light switch and get everything back to normal. I think it’ll take a little adjustment, but as I said, I think we’ll have a pretty strong queue of people ready to go in addition to the ones that have already been licensed.”


During Friday’s meeting, which was held via video conference with access for the press and public, the CCC also began a discussion of other ways it might be able to ease some of the economic impacts of the pandemic on its licensees.


The possibilities Collins mentioned included extending business license renewal dates until the state of emergency is lifted, being flexible about industry worker registrations given that some workers may be laid off and eventually brought back, and waiving certain fees like the $40 a month cost of tying into the CCC’s tracking software.


“I am concerned for everybody feeling these impacts. The adult-use industry is, however, unique because of the conflict between federal and Massachusetts law. Much of the relief being offered to companies and employees through the $2 trillion CARES Act will not be available to this industry,” Hoffman said. “We have an obligation, I strongly believe, to do everything that we possibly can to mitigate the economic damage that’s being incurred by these companies and individuals within the bounds of our regulatory authority.”

 

[momofthegoons]

Businesses That ‘Indirectly’ Work With Marijuana Industry Ineligible For Federal Coronavirus Loans

It’s not just state-legal marijuana retailers and growers that stands to miss out on federal relief loans amid the coronavirus outbreak. In addition to that restriction, which the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) confirmed last month, a wide range of businesses that indirectly service the cannabis industry are also ineligible under recently enacted legislation.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which the President Trump signed last month, provides for a Paycheck Protection Program that offers a significant amount of forgivable loans to companies with 500 or fewer employees. Cannabis businesses—as well as ancillary firms that contribute to them with products or services—are specifically excluded from those benefits, however.

In a notice about the draft rules of the CARES Act, SBA points to a document from last year outlining businesses that are generally ineligible for its programs. One section describes how “Businesses Engaged in any Illegal Activity” can’t receive federal loans.

“SBA must not approve loans to Applicants that are engaged in illegal activity under federal, state, or local law,” it states. “This includes Applicants that make, sell, service, or distribute products or services used in connection with illegal activity, unless such use can be shown to be completely outside of the Applicant’s intended market.”

“Because federal law prohibits the distribution and sale of marijuana, financial transactions involving a marijuana-related business would generally involve funds derived from illegal activity,” it continues. “Therefore, businesses that derive revenue from marijuana-related activities or that support the end-use of marijuana may be ineligible for SBA financial assistance.”

To that end, it’s no surprise that businesses such as dispensaries and cultivation facilities would be excluded. But it’s also the case that a large class of companies that indirectly work with the cannabis industry could also lose out on the benefits.

An ineligible “indirect marijuana business” is defined by SBA as “a business that derived any of its gross revenue for the previous year (or, if a start-up, projects to derive any of its gross revenue for the next year) from sales to Direct Marijuana Businesses of products or services that could reasonably be determined to aid in the use, growth, enhancement or other development of marijuana.”

SBA provides specific examples of such companies. The list includes “businesses that provide testing services, or sell or install grow lights, hydroponic or other specialized equipment, to one or more Direct Marijuana Businesses; and businesses that advise or counsel Direct Marijuana Businesses on the specific legal, financial/accounting, policy, regulatory or other issues associated with establishing, promoting, or operating a Direct Marijuana Business.”

Businesses that sell paraphernalia like bongs or pipes intended for cannabis use are also ineligible for the loans, SBA said.

However, the agency said its interpretation of an indirect cannabis business doesn’t extend to companies that provide general services such as plumbing or tech support for laptops that marijuana firms use, for example.

The penalty for submitting an application for the relief loans with fraudulent information is up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 under one federal statute. Another statute makes it punishable by imprisonment of up to two years and a maximum $5,000 fine. Finally, if the application was submitted to a federally insured institution, the penalty is up to 30 years in prison and up to a $1 million fine.

“As a starting point, it is incredibly unfair that state-legal cannabis companies are not eligible for these SBA loans,” Josh Kappel, founding partner at Vicente Sederberg, told Marijuana Moment. “These companies pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, unemployment taxes, and, of course, federal corporate taxes. In every way, they deserve to be treated like any other business when it comes to these emergency loans.”

“It is even more egregious when the SBA determines, not by law but by its own regulations, that companies will be ineligible for loans if they derived any revenue in the previous year from selling products or services to state-legal cannabis companies,” he added. “In a state like Colorado, when you consider law firms, accounting firms, advertising and marketing firms, HVAC companies, lighting companies, and on and on, there are literally hundreds of small businesses that could be deemed ineligible.”

Advocates are pushing for Congress to add language to future coronavirus-related spending legislation to free up access to SBA services for state-legal marijuana businesses. But it remains to be seen whether that will materialize.

Eleven senators did recently send a letter to leadership in a key committee asking that they add a provision allowing marijuana businesses to access federal loan services in an upcoming annual spending bill, however.

“While we would like to see loans available to all cannabis companies, the SBA, at the very least, should immediately modify its regulations to remove the prohibition on COVID-19-related loans to ‘indirect marijuana businesses,'” Kappel said. “Countless jobs and small businesses could be at risk if they do not.”

Because hemp was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, businesses that sell the crop or those that indirectly service those companies are eligible for federal relief programs—a point SBA stressed in a recent blog post.

 

[Baron23]

are specifically excluded from those benefits, however.

If I understand this correctly, they are NOT specifically excluded by the legislation but are specifically excluded by the fucking bureaucrats at the SBA and their rules for administering these loans.

Wee fucking bastards that they are.

 

[Baron23]

Legislation and regulation in US cannabis


US Cannabis CEO Michael Patterson discusses federal and state cannabis laws and future policy developments.
Michael Patterson is the CEO and founder of US Cannabis Pharmaceutical Research and Development; and has more than 25 years’ experience in the healthcare sector.
Patterson tells MCN about the challenges posed by federal and state legislation in the USA and the future of American cannabis policy.

How can producers ensure they are compliant with state and federal regulations?
By employing people with experience in highly regulated industries – healthcare, banking, government, et cetera – and having dedicated compliance staff overseeing the entire operation. Because if you are not compliant, you are not in business.

How does the current system, where cannabis is illegal under federal law but wholly or partly decriminalised in a growing number of states, complicate the use of medical cannabis? Would a more standardised regulatory approach help patients and clinicians?
It complicates the business, especially if you are a multi-state operator (MSO). Your business must follow different rules in every single state which adds cost to the medicine and the consumer. Furthermore, the inconsistent regulation makes physicians unsure of the law, which decreases their willingness to prescribe or even recommend medical cannabis.

For example, in the state of Florida there are currently over 300,000 medical cannabis patients; but 90 physicians wrote almost 130,000 recommendations – even though over 2,500 physicians have the ability in principle to write cannabis recommendations. With consistent law and regulation, there will be more physicians willing to write medical cannabis recommendations and more patients able to receive this life saving medication.

As more states institute regulations permitting the use of medical cannabis, how do federal tax and banking policies hold the industry back? What changes should be implemented in this respect?
Currently, there are multiple bills in front of the US Congress to ‘open up’ legal banking. One bill called the ‘SAFE Banking Act’ has passed the House but is stuck in committee in the Senate because one Republican Senator (Mike Crapo of Idaho) refuses to ‘help the marijuana industry get bigger selling their poison’. If the bill could pass, it would allow financial institutions to work with cannabis companies without fear of any repercussions from the federal government.

The Republicans are stuck in a ‘prohibition hangover’ and feel they are somehow protecting the country from itself by keeping banking out of the cannabis system; even though 33 states have independently approved cannabis as a form of medicine. The only way that I see this changing is if the Democrats can win the majority in the Senate, which would allow them to control all the committees and get banking legislation approved.

What are the economic benefits of widening legalisation on medical and adult use?
The more states that legalise, the more normalised cannabis use becomes in everyday life. We are beginning to see social use being approved in Colorado, California, Alaska; and more states are yet to come. The more normalised cannabis use becomes, the more it will create a positive cycle of acceptance; which creates more consumer interest in using cannabis; which increases demand; and eventually decreases cost of the medicine – depending on the state.

How do you anticipate the industry evolving in the US over the next few years?
We will see more states approve recreational adult use cannabis. In 2020, we expect New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island to legalise adult use. This will put pressure on the federal government to legalise cannabis at the federal level because enforcement of federal cannabis laws will become impossible. Furthermore, we see the export of technology, knowledge and talent from the USA to other countries via partnerships, joint ventures, and consulting contracts.

Currently 90% of all legal cannabis sales occur in the USA. Since Americans cannot export product, we see the beginning of exporting knowledge to be able to help others internationally with advanced technology for cultivation, extraction, tracking and payments; and with compliance, operations, research and development, and university partnerships.

 

[Baron23]

IME, one of the biggest obstacles in view current MMJ programs as indeed medical is....I CAN'T GET THE SAME SHIT TWICE!!

Ok, bit of an exaggeration but not by much. Can't get the same strain from the same grower...often. Same strain from two different growers is NOT the same. Etc.

To my mind, there should be a base set of products that I can consistently get for the medical effect I want and that's just not the case, IMO.

Is Medical Marijuana a Misnomer in its Current Form?

There is no disputing that cannabis provides medicinal relief to scores of people. However, federal regulations limit the scope of testing for marijuana recommended for patients, unlike the rigorous testing standards held for other medicines. As such, only a few cannabis-esque medicines have been able to reach the U.S. market to date. With a handful of medications and dispensary options to choose from, one could argue that medical cannabis, in its current form, is a misnomer to some degree.
Moreover, a lack of conclusive data prevents the community from fully understanding the functions of the plant itself. Without proper insights, medical professionals lack needed information on critical plant compounds like cannabinoids and terpenes. “We know that there are almost 150 different phytocannabinoids in cannabis with some new cannabinoids being discovered as recently as two months ago,” said Sarah Dakar, vice president of product development at Jay Pharma. “Very few of these cannabinoids have been isolated and studied, and the ones that have been studied have only undergone very limited studies.”
As such, current patients are primarily left to the best guesses of themselves and the staff at their dispensary. Doing their best to go beyond guesswork, physicians make evidence-based decisions in place of clinical trials. However, evidence-based decisions relying on small lab samples and anecdotal findings can only carry medical cannabis so far. Without data from clinical studies to support such decisions, medical professionals and patients alike are left without complete certainty.
As medical cannabis markets advance and mature, a lack of data is growing from a gap to a chasm. With much left to understand about the plant and its medicinal effects, many hope that regulatory change will come soon enough. However, as often the case in cannabis, uncertainty lies ahead.
Uncertainty in Today’s Medical Cannabis Market



“We are in the initial phase of understanding the medical benefits and risks associated with each cannabinoid,” said Dakar. “We are far from understanding the complex relationship that exists when there are multiple cannabinoids combined.”
Six countries, Canada, Uruguay, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Czech Republic, currently lead the way in lab studies regarding medical cannabis and other areas of interest. Federal regulations limit the United States from taking part in advancing the understanding of the plant and its compounds. This limitation is due to cannabis being a Schedule I drug. With the government’s view that cannabis provides no medical value, the plant cannot be studied in America at this time.
Scant lab research to date has resulted in limited data in critical areas of study, Dakar reported. In particular, Jay Pharma’s VP singled out cannabinoid treatments. For example, CBN is believed to aid in appetite stimulation and sleep. However, further research must be conducted to account for each person’s endocannabinoid system, explained the medical researcher.
A Lack of Conclusive Data Impacts the Medical Marijuana Market
A burgeoning market saddled by a knowledge gap creates pain points no other medication in the U.S. currently faces. “As of right now, it’s up to the patient to ideally find which chemovar and consumption method works best for them,” Dakar said of the patient’s plight. This situation is often brought on by the physicians’ lack of education and confidence in the current data available. “Physicians not only don’t have enough data to inform their decisions, but many of those physicians aren’t properly educated on the data that does exist.”
Both patients and practitioners face the ongoing ramifications of federal regulations stemming from the drug war. Speaking of drugs, the approval of cannabis-based medications won’t happen in the current regulatory climate. As such, only a few marijuana-based options have reached American markets to date. So far, the FDA has approved one cannabis-derived prescription drug, Epidiolex, as well as three synthetic cannabis-related prescription drugs, Cesamet, Marinol, and Syndros.
With the approved options treating just a few conditions, most patients remain without a legal medical cannabis option that has gone through FDA trials. Regardless of its tests, many patients want answers. This includes hundreds of Washington State residents, where a poll found that 74% wanted information from cancer providers about cannabis treatment options. The research noted the high interest is likely boosted by being in a legalized state. However, the report went on to state that “cancer patients desire but are not receiving information about cannabis use during their treatment from oncology providers.”
Where Does America’s Medical Cannabis Go From Here?
With the previously mentioned six nations leading the way, research regarding marijuana and specific phytocannabinoids will develop in time. Even if the U.S. were to reschedule the plant and allow for testing, studies may not focus on specific compounds for some time, according to Jeff Zucker, president of cannabis strategy firm Green Lion Partners. While such reviews are ideal, Zucker advised people not to hold their breath. “The FDA is used to analyzing individual chemical compounds, so a plant that has hundreds of those is something they’re in no rush to tackle.”
Meanwhile, CannaMD’s Dakar and her team are working in Israel. They’re preparing for Phase I and II trials to assess a synthetic strain of CBD and its effect on malignant Glioblastoma multiforme brain tumors. The company expects the start date to begin the second half of 2020.
Back in the U.S., the FDA has voiced its support of what it calls sound scientific research. The FDA says it supports research efforts by providing information on the clinical research process and specific requirements to develop a drug for humans. Additionally, it claims to provide support for investigators and their clinical trials and other procedural matters.
The efforts of the FDA indicate that the U.S. may be interested in helping close the information gaps in the cannabis market. However, without substantial regulatory changes on the federal level, a lack of U.S. research will continue to hamper the progress of the country’s medical cannabis market. While the nation can rely on outside data, America’s inability to study the plant itself will likely continue to impact its market and the globe for some time.

 

[Bcbud]

What the Legalization of Cannabis in Mexico Means for the U.S.

With the legalization of cannabis in Mexico, the U.S. may find itself at a tipping point for federal cannabis law changes. It may have no choice.

www.rxleaf.com

 

[Tammurrell]

If I worked there, you would have never seen this story lol.

Right,

 

[Baron23]

IMO, it will never happen.

Marijuana lobby presses for coronavirus relief funds


The cannabis lobby is flexing its muscle in Washington and seeking aid for small businesses in the next coronavirus relief package.
The marijuana industry has already found help at the state level. Twenty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are allowing medical cannabis dispensaries to remain open during the pandemic, and eight states allow both licensed recreational and medical cannabis dispensaries to operate. Cannabis groups are pushing for more states to allow legal marijuana markets to remain open and are seeking funds in state aid packages.
But the push for help from Washington, where the federal government still classifies marijuana as a controlled substance, has so far failed to make headway.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, a $2.2 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress in March, prohibits businesses engaged in cannabis-related activity from receiving any small business loans.
Cannabis groups say that is unfair and are pushing to change that in the next aid package.
“Cannabis businesses are dealing with the exact same thing that other businesses are dealing with in terms of employee protection, maintaining payroll ... all on top of the onerous financial burdens that cannabis businesses already face,” said Morgan Fox, National Cannabis Industry Association media relations director.
Cannabis lobbying groups wrote a letter to governors last week to urge them to provide loans at the state level and to push their congressional delegations to include them in the next federal relief package.
Fox said the association has heard that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) are working out language to allow cannabis companies to receive small-business loans. Pelosi’s office did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment, but Perlmutter said he is hopeful it will happen.
“I plan to keep pushing to ensure the cannabis industry has the ability to be eligible for SBA [Small Business Administration] relief funds during this COVID-19 crisis. I have spoken to House leadership about this matter and I’m hopeful in one of the next two packages we can get this done,” Perlmutter told The Hill.
The National Association of Cannabis Businesses (NACB) is also working toward relief for pot shops.
“We’re very favorable towards utilizing stimulus funds or recovery funds and opening those to cannabis businesses. I know that’s problematic because of the status of cannabis, but there are people who think there are ways they can get it done, and I think Pelosi’s looking at that,” Mark Gorman, NACB chief operating officer, told The Hill.
The industry groups have also turned to K Street for help. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck has been working on behalf of the Cannabis Trade Federation to lobby Congress to find ways to help cannabis companies access aid in the CARES Act.
“There is a very robust conversation happening in the House right now about how to help these companies going forward,” Brownstein’s Melissa Kuipers Blake said.
The GOP-controlled Senate will be a harder sell. In 2019, marijuana business advocates had high hopes for passing legislation that would allow financial institutions to finally do business with cannabis businesses that were legal in the states. The House passed legislation in September that would allow banks to finally work with cannabis businesses, but the bill failed to move in the Senate.
As pot businesses deal with the coronavirus pandemic, the industry hopes to draw attention to the divide between the federal government and states on the issue.
The industry has seen sales spike at points during the pandemic. Pot consumption hit a record high as weekly sales growth peaked at 64 percent for the week of March 16, the sharpest rate increase since the start of 2019. But the marijuana lobby says that despite those numbers, small cannabis businesses still need loans to stay open.
“There’s a misconception that the fact that cannabis businesses have been able to stay open has created some kind of bonanza. Average sales have dropped aside from some brief spikes that occurred several weeks ago, based on consumer concern that they wouldn’t have legal access,” Fox said.
“I think there’s a difference between being able to stay open and being able to survive the pandemic,” Blake said, likening marijuana businesses to the restaurant industry. “You’ve seen restaurants able to stay open for delivery, but the revenue is not there to truly keep them afloat.”
The industry, though, faces opposition from the anti-marijuana lobby, which called it “laughable” that pot businesses are seeking relief.
“They definitely have a lot of hubris to say they need money at a time when they’re seeing record sales. It’s laughable that they’re asking for it,” Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), said. “I think it’s just a pattern for them pushing boundaries ... as they can.”
Sabet said he is hopeful Congress will continue to deny aid to marijuana shops in future relief packages.
“I think you may have the same old pro-marijuana members who were pro-marijuana before this crisis. … I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re going to propose something, but I don’t think it’s going to actually go through,” he said.
Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, though, pointed to the lobbying muscle behind marijuana.
“[Cannabis shops are] still doing things that are illegal under federal law even though they are state-licensed. I find that absurd. Does that mean their lobbyists won’t win? They might win. They’ve got a lot of lobbying power in Washington, D.C.,” he told The Hill.
The marijuana lobby currently is ramping up pressure on Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R), who closed recreational marijuana dispensaries in the state, despite marijuana being legal there.
“It’s a fundamentally difficult balancing act that states around the country are grappling with and trying to do their best to help health and jobs,” Caulkins said.
Nevada closed storefronts but allows marijuana deliveries, and Maine just announced its first licenses for marijuana shops.
The NACB wrote to Baker last week, saying that state-legal shops should be open just like liquor stores in Massachusetts. They warned of the danger that marijuana consumers will patronize unlicensed sources, posing health risks and taking tax dollars from the state.
“There’s no reason if liquor stores are open that cannabis stores shouldn’t be open, too,” Gorman said.
SAM, though, said allowing marijuana shops to stay open threatens public health when health officials are cautioning against standing in lines or inhaling smoke.
“This is a case of influence really buying a public policy, and the public policy they bought right now is allowing them to stay open during this time of crisis,” Sabet said.
For the industry, the coronavirus outbreak has provided an opportunity to revive the debate on legalization.
The NACB says legalization will provide a boost to states as economies begin to reopen.
“There is a great opportunity to think outside the box when you’re coming out of a deep recession, especially in the case of ... Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. They should be moving quickly toward cannabis legalization. There’s a lot of tax revenue in that, and I think they’d be missing a huge opportunity,” Gorman said.
Gorman noted that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (R) closed liquor stores, which are a crucial source of tax dollars, in the state during the pandemic.
“You can’t do what you’ve done for years, which is when they need money, they raise the markup on distilled spirits. You have to look at other things, and cannabis legislation provides steps to it and the ability to tax the product is a no-brainer,” he said.

 

[ataxian]

IMO, it will never happen.

Marijuana lobby presses for coronavirus relief funds


The cannabis lobby is flexing its muscle in Washington and seeking aid for small businesses in the next coronavirus relief package.
The marijuana industry has already found help at the state level. Twenty states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are allowing medical cannabis dispensaries to remain open during the pandemic, and eight states allow both licensed recreational and medical cannabis dispensaries to operate. Cannabis groups are pushing for more states to allow legal marijuana markets to remain open and are seeking funds in state aid packages.
But the push for help from Washington, where the federal government still classifies marijuana as a controlled substance, has so far failed to make headway.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, a $2.2 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress in March, prohibits businesses engaged in cannabis-related activity from receiving any small business loans.
Cannabis groups say that is unfair and are pushing to change that in the next aid package.
“Cannabis businesses are dealing with the exact same thing that other businesses are dealing with in terms of employee protection, maintaining payroll ... all on top of the onerous financial burdens that cannabis businesses already face,” said Morgan Fox, National Cannabis Industry Association media relations director.
Cannabis lobbying groups wrote a letter to governors last week to urge them to provide loans at the state level and to push their congressional delegations to include them in the next federal relief package.
Fox said the association has heard that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) are working out language to allow cannabis companies to receive small-business loans. Pelosi’s office did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment, but Perlmutter said he is hopeful it will happen.
“I plan to keep pushing to ensure the cannabis industry has the ability to be eligible for SBA [Small Business Administration] relief funds during this COVID-19 crisis. I have spoken to House leadership about this matter and I’m hopeful in one of the next two packages we can get this done,” Perlmutter told The Hill.
The National Association of Cannabis Businesses (NACB) is also working toward relief for pot shops.
“We’re very favorable towards utilizing stimulus funds or recovery funds and opening those to cannabis businesses. I know that’s problematic because of the status of cannabis, but there are people who think there are ways they can get it done, and I think Pelosi’s looking at that,” Mark Gorman, NACB chief operating officer, told The Hill.
The industry groups have also turned to K Street for help. Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck has been working on behalf of the Cannabis Trade Federation to lobby Congress to find ways to help cannabis companies access aid in the CARES Act.
“There is a very robust conversation happening in the House right now about how to help these companies going forward,” Brownstein’s Melissa Kuipers Blake said.
The GOP-controlled Senate will be a harder sell. In 2019, marijuana business advocates had high hopes for passing legislation that would allow financial institutions to finally do business with cannabis businesses that were legal in the states. The House passed legislation in September that would allow banks to finally work with cannabis businesses, but the bill failed to move in the Senate.
As pot businesses deal with the coronavirus pandemic, the industry hopes to draw attention to the divide between the federal government and states on the issue.
The industry has seen sales spike at points during the pandemic. Pot consumption hit a record high as weekly sales growth peaked at 64 percent for the week of March 16, the sharpest rate increase since the start of 2019. But the marijuana lobby says that despite those numbers, small cannabis businesses still need loans to stay open.
“There’s a misconception that the fact that cannabis businesses have been able to stay open has created some kind of bonanza. Average sales have dropped aside from some brief spikes that occurred several weeks ago, based on consumer concern that they wouldn’t have legal access,” Fox said.
“I think there’s a difference between being able to stay open and being able to survive the pandemic,” Blake said, likening marijuana businesses to the restaurant industry. “You’ve seen restaurants able to stay open for delivery, but the revenue is not there to truly keep them afloat.”
The industry, though, faces opposition from the anti-marijuana lobby, which called it “laughable” that pot businesses are seeking relief.
“They definitely have a lot of hubris to say they need money at a time when they’re seeing record sales. It’s laughable that they’re asking for it,” Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), said. “I think it’s just a pattern for them pushing boundaries ... as they can.”
Sabet said he is hopeful Congress will continue to deny aid to marijuana shops in future relief packages.
“I think you may have the same old pro-marijuana members who were pro-marijuana before this crisis. … I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re going to propose something, but I don’t think it’s going to actually go through,” he said.
Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, though, pointed to the lobbying muscle behind marijuana.
“[Cannabis shops are] still doing things that are illegal under federal law even though they are state-licensed. I find that absurd. Does that mean their lobbyists won’t win? They might win. They’ve got a lot of lobbying power in Washington, D.C.,” he told The Hill.
The marijuana lobby currently is ramping up pressure on Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R), who closed recreational marijuana dispensaries in the state, despite marijuana being legal there.
“It’s a fundamentally difficult balancing act that states around the country are grappling with and trying to do their best to help health and jobs,” Caulkins said.
Nevada closed storefronts but allows marijuana deliveries, and Maine just announced its first licenses for marijuana shops.
The NACB wrote to Baker last week, saying that state-legal shops should be open just like liquor stores in Massachusetts. They warned of the danger that marijuana consumers will patronize unlicensed sources, posing health risks and taking tax dollars from the state.
“There’s no reason if liquor stores are open that cannabis stores shouldn’t be open, too,” Gorman said.
SAM, though, said allowing marijuana shops to stay open threatens public health when health officials are cautioning against standing in lines or inhaling smoke.
“This is a case of influence really buying a public policy, and the public policy they bought right now is allowing them to stay open during this time of crisis,” Sabet said.
For the industry, the coronavirus outbreak has provided an opportunity to revive the debate on legalization.
The NACB says legalization will provide a boost to states as economies begin to reopen.
“There is a great opportunity to think outside the box when you’re coming out of a deep recession, especially in the case of ... Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. They should be moving quickly toward cannabis legalization. There’s a lot of tax revenue in that, and I think they’d be missing a huge opportunity,” Gorman said.
Gorman noted that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (R) closed liquor stores, which are a crucial source of tax dollars, in the state during the pandemic.
“You can’t do what you’ve done for years, which is when they need money, they raise the markup on distilled spirits. You have to look at other things, and cannabis legislation provides steps to it and the ability to tax the product is a no-brainer,” he said.

Decent read!
Thank you for the info!

 

[momofthegoons]

How COVID-19 is affecting marijuana legalization efforts across the US

The coronavirus crisis has hurt marijuana legalization efforts in the short term, with state legislatures pivoting to focus on more pressing issues and citizen groups struggling to collect enough signatures to place initiatives on November ballots.

However, several recreational and medical marijuana initiatives already had qualified for the November election before the coronavirus outbreak.

Looking ahead, some experts believe legalization could accelerate once the coronavirus is contained.

Click on the video below for a status report on marijuana legalization efforts by Marijuana Business Daily’s Jeff Smith.

 

[momofthegoons]

Allowing marijuana businesses to open bank accounts could be part of coronavirus stimulus

Legislation allowing banks to provide credit cards and checking accounts to legal cannabis businesses has been stalled in the Senate. But members of Congress are looking to add its provisions to the next coronavirus stimulus bill, NJ Cannabis Insider has learned.

The argument is that many patients who use legal marijuana are among the most vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, and forcing them to deal in cash also puts employees at risk.

“Everything has to be capable of mitigating the spread of the coronavirus and mitigating the economic harm of the pandemic,” said Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

CORONAVIRUS RESOURCES: Live map tracker | Businesses that are open | Homepage

The effort is taking place as supporters of ending the federal ban on marijuana seek to make legal cannabis businesses eligible for Small Business Administration loans.

The $2 trillion stimulus law included a $349 million paycheck protection program to encourage small businesses to retain their employees, but the cannabis businesses were excluded.

“We want to pass the SAFE Banking Act, but we also know SAFE Banking alone won’t be enough to give cannabis businesses the relief they need like other businesses,” said Rep. Earl Perlmutter, D-Colo.

“I plan to keep pushing to ensure the cannabis industry has the ability to be eligible for SBA relief funds during this COVID-19 crisis. I have spoken to House leadership about this matter and I’m hopeful in one of the next two packages we can get this done.”

Perlmutter, the chief sponsor of the banking bill, is pushing for its inclusion in the stimulus bill, according to another member of Congress speaking on condition of anonymity.

After all, asking the marijuana businesses eligible for the loans raises the question of how they would get the money, since most do not have bank accounts and an SBA official isn’t going to walk in the door with a paper bag of dollar bills.

“If we get SBA access but don’t get banking, how can SBA distribute money to someone who is unbanked?” Strekal said. “Are they going to get $10,000 cash?”

 

[Baron23]

Essential but illegal. Our politicians are running out of sides of their mouths to speak from....mendacious SOBs that they are

'Illegal To Essential': How The Coronavirus Is Boosting The Legal Cannabis Industry


The coronavirus crisis could be igniting a revolution of sorts in the legal cannabis industry.
Thirty-three states across the U.S. allow for some form of sale and consumption of marijuana. And of those, more than 20 states have designated the cannabis industry as essential during the coronavirus outbreak.
While advocates are applauding many of the interim marijuana laws, they also say those laws exposes dangerous disparities among states.
Twenty-four states, including Florida, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, have permitted customers to pick up marijuana purchases curbside at dispensaries.
Nevada has shut down all storefronts and moved to delivery-only statewide.
Ohio, Delaware and Minnesota have adopted orders allowing patients to consult with a physician via telehealth to receive a medical marijuana prescription.
Cannabis advocates argue that marijuana — which some people take for seizures, pain and nausea — is unlike virtually any other therapeutic. And access to it, whether prescribed by a doctor or not, depends largely on where you live.
"This epidemic and the way the cannabis businesses are being run really highlights the need for federal oversight," said Debbie Churgai of Americans for Safe Access, which advocates for broader access to medical marijuana for therapy and research. "Every state is doing it a different way."
"I couldn't go to the dispensary if I wanted to"
Ahead of the Massachusetts stay-at-home order that went into effect on March 24, Sean Carnell went into prep mode. He spent more than $1,000 on cannabis products to make sure he had enough to last through it.
Carnell, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Afghanistan and now lives in Brockton, Mass., uses cannabis to relieve pain from a traumatic brain injury and numerous surgeries from several service-related injuries.
"I went around and went to some of the best people I know that grow flower, have juices, have candies," Carnell, 40, said. "I just stocked the f*** up. So, if anything happens in the next couple weeks ... I'm good."
The state separates recreational and medical marijuana storefronts. In response to the spread of COVID-19, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker allowed medical dispensaries to remain open but ordered stores that sell recreational cannabis to close.
Carnell said he has been approved for a medical card, but it still hasn't arrived. It has been months, he said.
"I couldn't go to the dispensary if I wanted to," Carnell said.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, designated marijuana a critical retail industry on March 22. His order allows for medical marijuana purchases to be made at shops, and recreational cannabis can be picked up curbside.
But on the heels of that order, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock mandated that dispensaries in the city would be closed the following day.
That led to a surge in panic-buying and a record day of sales, said Lisa Gee, an executive with Lightshade Labs. Her company operates roughly a dozen stores in the Denver area.
"I said to a couple of my colleagues, 'I'm not sure whether to send the mayor cookies or go TP his house,' " Gee added.
Hours after making the announcement, the mayor reversed course and allowed dispensaries to stay open, so long as those businesses practiced "extreme physical distancing."
But for Gee, the biggest victory came with the governor declaring marijuana businesses as essential.
Cannabis essential in many states, but federally prohibited
Nationally, 27 states with stay-at-home orders in effect have allowed marijuana operations to remain open in some form during the coronavirus economic shutdown. All but four of them have deemed cannabis an essential business, according to a tally by the Marijuana Policy Project.
"Marijuana has been illegal and demonized for decades," said Karen O'Keefe, the organization's director of state policies. "In a lot of states, it went from being illegal to essential in a short amount of time."
The legal marijuana industry has some difficulty operating even under normal circumstances. It is heavily taxed and has difficulty securing financial backing from banks, and because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, cannabis businesses will see no relief from the $2 trillion coronavirus relief package that President Trump signed into law last month.
These hurdles make legitimate pot businesses susceptible to competition from the ever-present black market.
"In this age of the coronavirus, a lot of those burdens have become dangerous," O'Keefe said. "In the context of this crisis, it's also more of a risk because the people selling marijuana illegally aren't following all the social distancing requirements, sanitation requirements, things like that."
O'Keefe said those concerns should prompt states to further expand access to legitimate businesses during the outbreak.
The pandemic has highlighted how deeply entrenched cannabis is in American society. Legal marijuana sales across the country broke records last month, said John Kagia of New Frontier Data, which tracks sales and consumer trends in the cannabis industry.
"That's a remarkable development for a product that remains still classified as a Schedule I substance under federal law," Kagia said.
Kagia expects that consumers will grow accustomed to the expanded access to cannabis that the coronavirus has brought about in some places and may balk if states repeal the changes once the stay-at-home orders are lifted.
He estimated that more than 43 million Americans consume cannabis regularly and spend some $70 billion a year on both the legal and illicit markets.
Marijuana advocates entered 2020 buzzing about the possibility of as many as 40 states having some form of legal cannabis laws on their books by year's end. The coronavirus crisis likely means that in hard-hit states, such action will not be a legislative priority.
But looking ahead, the industry is pinning its hopes on more states legalizing recreational marijuana. "It's creating strange bedfellows between Republicans and Democrats on an issue where there used to be a lot of polarity," Kagia said.
He added: "Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, ensuring that this industry is able to operate in a viable and effective way becomes, however you may personally feel about it, something that you have to represent your state's interests in."

 

[Baron23]

US cannabis rules and regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic


The United States has had a long, complex relationship with cannabis legalization. While it's still illegal at a federal level, individual states have been decriminalizing and legalizing cannabis since the 1970s (in the case of Alaska), with increasing momentum driven in recent decades by advocates for medical marijuana. Now the foothold both recreational and medical cannabis has in non-prohibition states is being tested by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Like grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations, and liquor stores, cannabis dispensaries have been included by many states in the lists of "essential businesses" that are allowed to continue operating despite shelter-in-place and stay at home orders issued by governors to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus. But like legalization laws themselves, each state has taken a slightly different approach to mandating how and where cannabis can be sold during the pandemic.
Some states have opted to allow curbside pickup, while others are test-driving home-delivery options, while still others have rolled back legalization for recreational cannabis users and have deemed only medical cannabis essential. That can be confusing even for state residents – much less visitors or those who find themselves sheltering-in-place in a city that's new or relatively unfamiliar.
You might be curious how those who partake in cannabis, whether for recreation or medication or somewhere in between, are navigating the ever-changing rules for purchase, possession, and use. Whether you're celebrating 420 with fellow cannabis enthusiasts or are curious if you'll be able to get a refill of your herbal medicine where you live, we’ve got the scoop on rules and regulations coast to coast.
Cannabis regulations in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic

Alaska
Alaska doesn’t get as much attention as California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington when it comes to its relatively chill approach to cannabis. But Alaska first legalized recreational cannabis in 1975 (and later again in 2015), and in 2019 became the first state to permit on-site consumption at dispensaries.

The state isn’t allowing medical cannabis card holders to register for the first time via telemedicine, but you can connect with your doctor remotely to renew your license and license expiration dates have been extended. Curbside and drive-thru sales have been permitted, too, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the new rules, only 5 customers are allowed in a dispensary at a time, sniffing samples is no longer allowed, and online and phone orders are encouraged. Extra pertinent for 4/20 is the new rule that dispensaries should “limit sales or promotions that would increase the likelihood of customer density in retail stores.”

California
When Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statewide stay-at-home order on March 19, 2020, the state also declared cannabis dispensaries to be essential businesses during the pandemic. That designation means they are required by law to adhere to the CDC’s business social-distancing guidelines,
Home delivery has been legal in California since January 16th, giving cannabis consumers yet another way to refill their stash while minimizing the spread of novel coronavirus. But that’s not the only way to stock up. The state of California also allowed dispensaries to apply for a request for disaster relief and obtain approval from both the Bureau and their local jurisdiction to start operating drive-thru or curbside pickup.

The exact procedure for curbside pickup varies from business to business (and state to state). But with most dispensaries in the US, the process looks the same – you fill your shopping cart online or over the phone, and receive a call or text when your order is ready for pickup. On arrival to the store, you stay in your car and a budtender comes out to check your ID, accept payment, and hand you your products. The process minimizes contact and long lines outside dispensaries. If your driver’s license is expired, never fear. California issued 60-day extensions on expired licenses during the COVID-19 crisis – and that applies to proving you’re of age for cannabis purchases, too.

Colorado
On March 20th, Jared Polis, Governor of the State of Colorado, temporarily lifted several regulations to help state residents access essential services, including cannabis dispensaries, with minimal contact. That executive order suspended in-person physicals normally needed to procure a medical marijuana card until April 18th, 2020. It also permitted online cannabis sales, which in turn made curbside pickup possible.

However, Colorado hasn’t fully legalized home delivery of cannabis yet. While the state allows for it, it’s up to individual municipalities to turn on the green light or not. Both curbside and home delivery services are stymied, too, by a problem many legal states face while cannabis remains federally prohibited – finding credit card networks willing to process payments for dispensaries. That cash-only limitation is a challenge for canna-retailers on top of rapidly building out e-commerce systems that may be in-use only while stay at home orders are in place.

You may also like: A guide to the best cannabis dispensaries, lodging and experiences in Denver

Connecticut
Connecticut is still working on passing legislation to legalize recreational cannabis, but medical cannabis has been legal since 2012. Now Governor Ned Lamont has given medical cannabis cardholders the flexibility to get certified via telemedicine, extended expiration dates for card holders and caregivers, and waived fees for lost registration certificates.

Delaware
According to Delaware State News, Columbia Care – a major operator of dispensaries in Delaware – is now offering delivery thanks to special accommodation from the Governor’s State of Emergency declaration. This could be a gateway to continued delivery services after the pandemic is over, according to Office of Medical Marijuana Director Paul Hyland. The OMM is also recommending patients and caregivers deliver applications for medical cannabis cards by mail, rather than in person.

Illinois
Illinois is still very new to being a post-prohibition state – recreational cannabis only became legal on January 1st, 2020. That said, they’ve been swiftly adjusting some of the rules and regulations around both medical and recreational cannabis, including a new provision that allows examinations for medical marijuana cards to be conducted via telemedicine until further notice. Illinois also allowed curbside pickup for medical cannabis card holders until March 30th.

Meanwhile, many dispensaries in major metro areas like Chicago closed temporarily to deep-clean, or out of concern that long lines were running amok of safe social-distancing. However, Representative Sonya Harper has also authored a bill that would allow for home delivery services in Illinois (though not drive-thru or curbside pickup for recreational purchases). If that bill is passed, it could make access even easier for Illinois residents.


Maryland
Recreational cannabis is decriminalized, but not legal, in Maryland, while medical cannabis has been legal since 2017. Medical dispensaries are still open as essential businesses, provided that hygiene and social distancing provisions are maintained, as per a March 17th bulletin issued by Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission. You can’t sniff the bud before you buy anymore, but otherwise medical users can keep calm and carry on.

Massachusetts
Massachusetts made a decision to issue a cease and desist and summary suspension order effectively ending recreational cannabis sales in state through at least May 3th. Governor Charles D. Baker was concerned that residents of other states would be tempted to travel to Massachusetts to make purchases to take home, which is not only illegal but has the potential to increase the spread of COVID-19. As such, “adult-use retail” is considered non-essential, leading numerous dispensaries to shutter and furlough employees.

Medical cannabis users, however, can take advantage of curbside pickup as of March 27, as well as phone and electronic sales. Like many states, Massachusetts is now allowing medical cannabis patients to work with their health care providers using telehealth services. Massachusetts is also quite unique in that it automatically updates medical cannabis registration information when you use your Massachusetts driver’s license to sign up or renew, a program that’s continuing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Michigan
Michigan is also relatively new to legal cannabis, with recreational sales starting as recently as December of 2019, but it’s taken a very proactive approach to weed sales during the COVID-19 pandemic. When Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed the “Stay Home, Stay Safe” executive order on March 23, an an advisory bulletin issued by the Michigan Marijuana Regulatory Agency that same day noted that both medical cannabis and recreational facilities were allowed to continue sales as essential businesses. There is just one catch – in-store transactions were immediately banned, and purchases can only be made curbside or by delivery.

New Mexico
New Mexico is also on board with curbside pickup, as well as phone and online orders for medical cannabis cardholders. The Department of Health is also encouraging dispensaries to apply for a special amendment to allow delivery services, and is limiting dispensaries to 10 customers or fewer in-store. Furthermore, medical cannabis users have a 90 day extension on cards set to expire between March 11 and June 13 of 2020.

New York
It’s not surprising that New York, one of the states hardest hit by the novel coronavirus, developed special regulations to help keep medical cannabis users safe. Until April 16th, dispensaries that already had approval to deliver cannabis products to registered patients and their caregivers were given near carte blanche to expand delivery services statewide. Patients were also directed to take advantage when possible, as well as to schedule appointments at dispensaries for in-person visits to help maintain a safe distance between customers.

Nevada
Governor Steve Sisolak ordered cannabis stores to prevent customers from congregating closely inside and while waiting in line outside, and has strongly encouraged delivery services. Because many dispensaries aren’t equipped to rapidly shift their business models to delivery and curbside pickup is explicitly forbidden, that's presented a barrier for some Nevadans who rely on cannabis to treat their medical conditions, as well as recreational users.

New Hampshire
New Hampshire legalized medical cannabis in 2013, and has loosened several regulations to make access easier for cardholders. The Therapeutic Cannabis Program has waived designated caregiver application fees and criminal history checks, permitted telehealth for certification and renewal of medical cannabis licensure, as well as designated medical dispensaries as essential businesses that can set up curbside, call-ahead, by-appointment, and pre-order options. And until July 31st, you don’t need to sweat an expired ID card when you go to pick up your medicine.

Ohio
Medical marijuana users in Ohio got a little wiggle room since the Ohio Department of Health issued a Stay at Home order on March 22. Card holders can now designate up to three caregivers who can help with purchasing and transporting medical cannabis on behalf of the patient to minimize exposure. Physicians are now allowed to engage with medical marijuana card holders using telemedicine, and card holders can take advantage of phone orders and curbside pickup.

Oregon
Oregon has long been at the forefront of legal cannabis (well, the western side of the state, anyways) – home delivery has been legal in the Beaver State since 2017, for example. But Oregon is loosening its regulations even further during the pandemic. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is temporarily allowing curbside pickup (aka on-site delivery), enabled by phone, online orders, and even email transactions. Medical Marijuana card holders can also temporarily stock up on more cannabis at once – up to 24 ounces a day but no more than 32 ounces a month.

Utah
If you’re a Utah resident and have been hoping to get access to medical cannabis, you’re in luck. Until December 31st, the Beehive state is allowing qualifying patients to use a recommendation letter from physicians in lieu of a medical cannabis card to make legal purchases at dispensaries. That’s been a popular move – since March 1st, the Utah Department of Health has issued over a thousand medical cannabis cards and 203 medical providers are registered as part of the Utah Medical Cannabis Program. There’s just one catch – all of those patients have to go through one single cannabis pharmacy in the state, though more may open by the end of the year depending on the impact of COVID-19.

Washington DC
As of April 14th, the District of Columbia is allowing delivery, curbside pickup, and at-the-door pickup for medical cannabis users and their caregivers. There are some hoops for dispensaries to jump through, including registration of just one delivery vehicle per dispensary with the state, which must be equipped with a GPS device and cannot bear any signage or decals advertising cannabis, but it's still offers customers another option while staying at home as much as possible.

Washington
Washington is famous for its recreational cannabis laws, and has been rolling out new regulations to stay ahead of COVID-19. Those include expansion of curbside sales to include recreational customers as well as medical cannabis patients, though drive-thru windows are not allowed, nor are sales from tents or kiosks. Parents who need to pick up their medicine don’t need to worry about bringing children in tow – Washington has also temporarily relaxed rules about minor being present on dispensary property until April 30th. Dispensaries are also allowed to give away FDA-approved hand sanitizer as long as it isn’t treated as a promotion or contingent on product sales.

 

[Baron23]

On 4/20, A Look At How COVID-19 Has Impeded Weed Legalization Efforts Around The Country

The coronavirus outbreak has put weed legalization — a movement that has made considerable strides in recent years with 11 states now allowing recreational marijuana and 33 permitting medical cannabis — on the back burner in states around the country, as politicians focus their efforts on combating the epidemic and the future of ballot referendums on the issue is thrown in the balance due to social distancing guidelines.

KEY FACTS
2020 was expected to be the year that as many as 16 states across the country passed laws that legalized medical or recreational marijuana.
Instead, the coronavirus outbreak has caused some state lawmakers to abandon the cause; “Too much [to deal with], too little time,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who called legalizing weed a “priority” earlier this year, said when asked about marijuana legalization during a recent press briefing.

State lawmakers in New York, along with Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut were all hopeful they could pass or expand marijuana legislation this year only to shift their focus after the outbreak began.

Marijuana advocates had also sought to pass legalization laws this year via ballot measures in almost a dozen states, but the pandemic has made it extremely difficult to collect the number of signatures needed to be included on the ballot in November.

“The coronavirus has impacted every signature drive on every issue across the country,” Matthew Schweich, deputy director of legalization advocacy group Marijuana Policy Project, told Politico.

Still, some states — including South Dakota, New Jersey and Mississippi — were already successful in putting marijuana legalization on the ballot in November (Arizona has enough signatures but they have not yet been verified by the state).

CHIEF CRITIC
Some cannabis CEOs argue the outbreak will eventually be a boon to the legalization effort, as many governments will turn to the weed industry to boost economic activity in the wake of a coronavirus-induced recession. “When we all start to be able to lift our heads from this Covid experience, we are going to be faced with a scenario where a lot of jobs have gone away, a lot of economic development impact has disappeared,” said Charlie Bachtell, CEO of Cresco Labs, to CNBC. “How are we going to bring that back? I think cannabis has to be part of that discussion.”

CRUCIAL QUOTE
On Monday, a day unofficially known as “Weed Day,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) called on Congress to pass a bill she sponsored that would legalize mairjuana at the federal level and expunge non-violent weed offenses.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR
Whether marijuana advocates get creative about passing ballot initiatives. Campaigns are looking into using e-signatures and drive-by petition signing.

 

[Baron23]

44 House And Senate Members Are Calling For Cannabis Business To Gain Access To Forthcoming COVID-19 SBA Funding

Ten senators today joined 34 members of the U.S. House in calling for the ability of the nation’s cannabis companies in states that are “legal” (for medical or adult use or both) to access any upcoming Small Business Administration (SBA) relief funds during the current COVID-19 pandemic.
“The cannabis industry supports more than 240,000 workers in the United States, spanning 33 states and the District of Columbia,” the senators wrote in their letter dated April 22 letter. The letter was addressed to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York.
House members signed a similar letter last week. “Some of these jobs have already been lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic crisis and there is significant risk of greater job loss in the coming months,” the senators’ letter said.
Today In: Consumer Tech
“We ask Senate leadership to include in any future relief package provisions to allow state-legal cannabis small businesses and the small businesses who work with this industry to access the critical SBA support they need during these challenging and unprecedented times,” the senators’ letter continued.
The House members’ letter sent last Friday had a similar message: “The COVID-19 outbreak is no time to permit federal policy to stand in the way of the reality that millions of Americans in states across the country face daily,” the letter said. That reality is “that state-legal cannabis businesses are sources of economic growth and financial stability for thousands of workers and families, and need our support.”
According to a statement from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Legislation (NORML), those 240,000 workers represent four times the number of American workers in the coal industry, which has a significant presence in Senate Leader McConnell’s home state of Kentucky.
Nevertheless, the SBA’s position has been consistent. “Because federal law prohibits the sale and distribution of cannabis, the SBA does not provide financial assistance to businesses that are illegal under federal law,” a SBA spokeswoman said in March, at the time of passage of an earlier small business disaster-assistance legislation in response to COVID. “Businesses that aren’t eligible include marijuana growers and dispensers, businesses that sell cannabis products, etc., even if the business is legal under local or state law,” she said.
At the federal level, hemp has been legal since the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, but marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances act.
Because of this exclusion, cannabis businesses were left out of the $480 billion aid package for small businesses, hospitals and testing passed by the Senate on Tuesday, on a voice vote. The House is expected to pass the legislation tomorrow.
Importantly, the letters calling for SBA access referred to forthcoming COVID-19 legislation, which is not unexpected but may be delayed: Congress is in recess right now, not scheduled to return until May 4, in order to reduce the possibility of coronavirus infection in the packed halls and meeting rooms of Washington.
Asked about the industry’s argument for access to SBA funding, Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, pointed, in an interview, to how, “Cannabis – its commerce – is regulated now in 34 states and the District of Columbia, and [how] the majority of those jurisdictions have deemed the industry as essential to the health and well-being during the time of the pandemic.
“Every regulated market, with the exception of the adult use market in Massachusetts,” Strekal said, “continues to be operational, and with the unprecedented steps that Congress has taken to provide support for small businesses – including the Paycheck Protection Program — as well as loans and grants to purchase PPE – the [cannabis] companies which are remaining open should be able to access those funds.”
The letters’ signers, who are politically bipartisan, are largely from states legal for at least medical cannabis. The House members leading that legislative body’s cannabis letter are Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, and Rep. Tom McClintock, R-California.
The ten senators are all from states legal for both medical and adult use, except for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, whose state is legal only for medical sales. Leading the Senate effort are Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, who serves on the Small Business Committee, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.
Senator Schumer’s office could not be reached for comment, though Strekel said Schumer had been “supportive” toward lifting cannabis’s prohibition in the past. Though McConnell has been a spirited champion of legal hemp, which is cultivated in his state, he is strongly opposed to what he calls hemp’s “illicit cousin,” marijuana. He had a photograph of himself taken as he accepted an honorary machete supposedly used to chop down what was described as thousands of marijuana plants.
Asked about the letters’ message and its chances for success, Strekel was noncommittal, referring only to the fast-moving events in Washington. “Honestly,” he said, “I didn’t think Congress would be spending an extra $4 billion this year two months ago, so political reality shifts pretty quickly.”

 

[ataxian]

44 House And Senate Members Are Calling For Cannabis Business To Gain Access To Forthcoming COVID-19 SBA Funding

Ten senators today joined 34 members of the U.S. House in calling for the ability of the nation’s cannabis companies in states that are “legal” (for medical or adult use or both) to access any upcoming Small Business Administration (SBA) relief funds during the current COVID-19 pandemic.
“The cannabis industry supports more than 240,000 workers in the United States, spanning 33 states and the District of Columbia,” the senators wrote in their letter dated April 22 letter. The letter was addressed to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York.
House members signed a similar letter last week. “Some of these jobs have already been lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic crisis and there is significant risk of greater job loss in the coming months,” the senators’ letter said.
Today In: Consumer Tech
“We ask Senate leadership to include in any future relief package provisions to allow state-legal cannabis small businesses and the small businesses who work with this industry to access the critical SBA support they need during these challenging and unprecedented times,” the senators’ letter continued.
The House members’ letter sent last Friday had a similar message: “The COVID-19 outbreak is no time to permit federal policy to stand in the way of the reality that millions of Americans in states across the country face daily,” the letter said. That reality is “that state-legal cannabis businesses are sources of economic growth and financial stability for thousands of workers and families, and need our support.”
According to a statement from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Legislation (NORML), those 240,000 workers represent four times the number of American workers in the coal industry, which has a significant presence in Senate Leader McConnell’s home state of Kentucky.
Nevertheless, the SBA’s position has been consistent. “Because federal law prohibits the sale and distribution of cannabis, the SBA does not provide financial assistance to businesses that are illegal under federal law,” a SBA spokeswoman said in March, at the time of passage of an earlier small business disaster-assistance legislation in response to COVID. “Businesses that aren’t eligible include marijuana growers and dispensers, businesses that sell cannabis products, etc., even if the business is legal under local or state law,” she said.
At the federal level, hemp has been legal since the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, but marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances act.
Because of this exclusion, cannabis businesses were left out of the $480 billion aid package for small businesses, hospitals and testing passed by the Senate on Tuesday, on a voice vote. The House is expected to pass the legislation tomorrow.
Importantly, the letters calling for SBA access referred to forthcoming COVID-19 legislation, which is not unexpected but may be delayed: Congress is in recess right now, not scheduled to return until May 4, in order to reduce the possibility of coronavirus infection in the packed halls and meeting rooms of Washington.
Asked about the industry’s argument for access to SBA funding, Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, pointed, in an interview, to how, “Cannabis – its commerce – is regulated now in 34 states and the District of Columbia, and [how] the majority of those jurisdictions have deemed the industry as essential to the health and well-being during the time of the pandemic.
“Every regulated market, with the exception of the adult use market in Massachusetts,” Strekal said, “continues to be operational, and with the unprecedented steps that Congress has taken to provide support for small businesses – including the Paycheck Protection Program — as well as loans and grants to purchase PPE – the [cannabis] companies which are remaining open should be able to access those funds.”
The letters’ signers, who are politically bipartisan, are largely from states legal for at least medical cannabis. The House members leading that legislative body’s cannabis letter are Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, and Rep. Tom McClintock, R-California.
The ten senators are all from states legal for both medical and adult use, except for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, whose state is legal only for medical sales. Leading the Senate effort are Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, who serves on the Small Business Committee, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon.
Senator Schumer’s office could not be reached for comment, though Strekel said Schumer had been “supportive” toward lifting cannabis’s prohibition in the past. Though McConnell has been a spirited champion of legal hemp, which is cultivated in his state, he is strongly opposed to what he calls hemp’s “illicit cousin,” marijuana. He had a photograph of himself taken as he accepted an honorary machete supposedly used to chop down what was described as thousands of marijuana plants.
Asked about the letters’ message and its chances for success, Strekel was noncommittal, referring only to the fast-moving events in Washington. “Honestly,” he said, “I didn’t think Congress would be spending an extra $4 billion this year two months ago, so political reality shifts pretty quickly.”

Very interesting!

 

[Baron23]

Democrats introduce bill to include cannabis businesses in coronavirus relief

Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.) have introduced a bill to make legal cannabis businesses eligible for federal coronavirus relief aid meant for small businesses.
The legislation would grant the businesses eligibility for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Economic Injury Disaster Loans and other aid. A $483 billion interim coronavirus aid package, which will replenish the small-business lending program, is set to pass the House on Thursday, but it excludes marijuana companies from receiving aid.
“As Congress seeks to provide relief to small businesses across America, chief among those being left out are state-legal cannabis businesses that are essential to communities and have met the demands of this crisis,” Blumenauer said in a statement. “We should include state-legal cannabis in federal COVID-19 response efforts. Without providing these businesses the relief needed to carry out the recommended public health and worker-focused measures, we are putting these hard-working people — and ourselves — at risk.”



Cannabis lobbying groups have been pushing for eligibility for the aid since Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March, which also excluded marijuana companies.
Congress is looking ahead to the next coronavirus-related bill, which is expected to be another massive package, but timing for it is up in the air. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said it will not be negotiated until the Senate is able to return in full and debate.
The National Association of Cannabis Businesses said in a statement on Thursday that the group would continue advocating for financial relief for the industry.
“We are extremely disappointed that Congress again excluded legal cannabis businesses and thousands of their hardworking employees from the benefits of this legislation,” CEO Gina Kranwinkel said.
The anti-marijuana lobby is pushing back on pot businesses seeking relief, noting that marijuana sales have been up during the coronavirus pandemic in states that have allowed businesses to stay open.
“This bill should be a complete nonstarter in Congress. Record levels of Americans are finding themselves unemployed as businesses nationwide have been forced to close their doors in an effort to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus COVID-19," Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said in a statement on Thursday.
"One notable exception to business closures has been the marijuana industry, which has quite publicly strong-armed leaders into reversing course on closures and even common sense limits on operations," Sabet added.
Blumenauer and Perlmutter led a letter last week, signed by dozens of members of Congress, asking House leadership to include these businesses in the interim coronavirus package.
“As you draft the next COVID-19 relief bill, we write to ask that you address one of the shortcomings of the CARES Act — the exclusion of state-legal cannabis businesses and their employees,” the letter read.

 

[Bcbud]

U.S. cannabis companies say legalization would be an economic saviour. Have they learned nothing from Canada?

"We thought it was bad in Canada with our patchwork of government regulations, they have 50 states"

www.thegrowthop.com

 

[Baron23]

Politics
DEA Marijuana Scheduling Lawsuit Will Be Appealed To Supreme Court Following Dismissal

A federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over the classification of marijuana last week after the plaintiffs announced they would not pursue an administrative policy change as the court had recommended.


Now, the plaintiffs—a coalition of medical cannabis patients and activists, including Alexis Bortell and former NFL player Marvin Washington—plan to take their case all the way to the Supreme Court.


The suit, which was first filed in 2017, argued that keeping marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is unconstitutional because it creates undue burdens that jeopardize patients’ lives by preventing access to what a majority of states now regard as a medicine. They sought a court mandate to enjoin DEA and require the agency to cease enforcement of federal cannabis prohibition.


A U.S. District Court dismissed that request, stating that the plaintiffs must first seek administrative relief through existing channels such as a petition asking DEA directly to reclassify cannabis. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld that decision last year, concluding that it “cannot be seriously argued that this remedy is not available through the administrative process.”


The court kept the case open, stressing that DEA should “promptly” consider rescheduling and gave the petitioners six months to submit a request with the agency. After initially requesting a deadline extension for that action—which was denied in January—the plaintiffs informed the court that they would not be asking DEA to consider rescheduling because they believe they would be denied and because the agency would, at best, reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug, which they said would create additional harms.


“As reflected in prior correspondence to this Court, reclassification of cannabis under Schedule II would actually exacerbate the conditions afflicting our clients; would instantly throw thousands of cannabis businesses out of business; and would disrupt the lives of tens of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who rely upon cannabis daily to sustain their health, wellness, and lives,” Michael Hiller, who is representing the plaintiffs, wrote in January.


In a phone interview with Marijuana Moment on Tuesday, Hiller argued that placing marijuana in Schedule II would mean that the industry would have to be medicalized in a way that would end state-regulated dispensaries. Instead, he suggested, cannabis products would have to be Food and Drug Administration-approved, and only pharmacists could prescribe it, limiting access.


That’s an interesting perspective that could create complications for former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee who opposes descheduling but supports moving marijuana to Schedule II. While the modest rescheduling might seem to be an improvement, many advocates familiar with the potential consequences of that policy change are unlikely to view it as a victory.


“Because the petitioning and administrative process under the CSA threatens to harm our clients without affording them the opportunity to achieve the benefits the lawsuit was designed to achieve, we are not going to file the Petition with the DEA,” Hiller wrote.


Because the plaintiffs refused to seek administrative relief, the federal appeals court issued a response on Friday, stating that “it is hereby ORDERED that the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”


The plaintiffs anticipated that decision and wrote in their letter that once judgement is entered, “we will file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in the hope that Plaintiffs may finally be afforded the opportunity to prove at trial, their claims that the mis-classification of cannabis under the CSA violates their rights under the United States Constitution.”


“We always knew we’d end up at the Supreme Court, irrespective of who won in the lower courts, because we are seeking to change the law,” Hiller told Marijuana Moment. “Whenever you seek to change federal law, you are likely to end up at the Supreme Court. Our hope is to win a declaration that the classification of cannabis is unconstitutional (because it is), thereby rendering the CSA unenforceable and legalizing cannabis at the federal level nationwide.”


He also raised the point that the Justice Department could be put in an awkward position if it attempts to oppose the writ of certiorari after it’s filed in July, arguing that it would contradict President Trump, who has voiced support for medical cannabis as well as states’ rights when it comes to adult-use legalization.


“If we were to obtain certiorari and win in the Supreme Court, cannabis would be de-scheduled from the Controlled Substances Act and thus legal under federal law. It would then be up to the individual states to determine whether to legalize or prohibit cannabis cultivation, sale, possession and use,” Hiller said. “That is effectively the outcome that candidate Trump promised to deliver in 2016 when he was running for president.”


“Back then, he stated repeatedly that he was one hundred percent in favor of federally legalizing cannabis for medical use, and that he believed the question of adult-use legalization was for the states to decide individually,” he continued. “Thus, to be consistent with the president’s campaign promise, the Justice Department not only should not oppose our request for certiorari; the Justice Department should join it and advocate for a reversal of the 2d Circuit decision.”


DEA has on numerous past occasions outright denied petitions to change marijuana’s status under the CSA, most recently in 2016.


The current case isn’t the only cannabis-related lawsuit DEA has faced in recent years. Scientists sued the agency last year, alleging that it had deliberately delayed approving additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes despite pledging to expand the number of those facilities in 2016.


A court mandated that DEA take steps to make good on its promise, and that case was dropped after DEA provided a status update.


Last month, DEA finally unveiled a revised rule change proposal that it said was necessary due to the high volume of applicants and to address potential complications related to international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. A public comment period is now open, after which point the agency says it will finally approve an unspecified number of additional growers.


The scientists behind the original case filed another suit against DEA in March, claiming that the agency used a “secret” document to justify its delay of approving manufacturer applications.


According to the plaintiffs, after DEA said it would accept more cultivators, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel secretly issued an opinion that interprets international treaty obligations as making it impossible to carry out the 2016 proposed rule while maintaining compliance.

Read the court order and plaintiff letter below:

Scribd

www.scribd.com

 

[Baron23]

One doctor vs. the DEA: Inside the battle to study marijuana in America

Millions of people across the U.S. can legally buy pot at dispensaries — but scientists aren’t allowed to study it.
Early in Dr. Sue Sisley’s medical career, military veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder told her that smoking marijuana prevented nightmares and helped them sleep. Sisley, a primary care physician and psychiatrist in Scottsdale, Arizona, who has treated vets for two decades, said she was initially skeptical of her patients’ claims, but their families vouched that pot was helping with their symptoms.
“Even though I was dubious, they never really gave up,” Sisley said of the patients. “They were so relentless.”
About a decade ago, Sisley decided to study pot’s psychiatric effects to see if she could prove what her patients were experiencing. But, because of marijuana’s federal status as an illegal drug, this turned out to be far from a simple task.
Since then, Sisley has been fired from her job at the University of Arizona; lost a study partner at another university; and had the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs block her attempts to recruit patients for research. By 2016, her scientific study was underway through the Scottsdale Research Institute, and she finally had federally approved cannabis in hand to provide to 76 military vets.
But she was not happy with the weed she received.
The marijuana was a “powdery mishmash of stems, sticks and leaves,” Sisley said. The level of tetrahydrocannabinol — or THC, the chemical that gets people high — was around 8 percent, far lower than the smokable products at pot dispensaries that often surpass 20 percent. The research weed also tested positive for yeast and mold, she said.
“I’m astonished by that,” Sisley said. “As a physician, how do I hand out moldy weed to study subjects?”
Sisley couldn’t shop around, though, because since 1968, the Drug Enforcement Administration has required scientists who want to study cannabis’s effects to use only marijuana from a 12-acre farm at the University of Mississippi. While the director of the farm disputes Sisley’s characterization of the cannabis supplied, Sisley and other scientists argue that government rules forcing them to use only the Mississippi weed have stifled research because it doesn’t match what people are actually using.
“We haven't done any research on the stuff that people are buying and consuming today — that’s the problem,” said Cindy Kiel, executive associate vice chancellor for research administration at the University of California, Davis.
The DEA promised a few years ago it would let more people grow marijuana for research purposes, but it wasn’t until late last month — as the country hunkered down under stay-at-home orders to combat the coronavirus pandemic — that the agency unveiled a plan for how it would do that. Under the DEA’s newly proposed rules, the agency would allow more scientists and companies to grow marijuana for research, but they would have to turn it over to the DEA, which would then dole it out to scientists.
Sisley saw this as another way to slow-walk marijuana research. So she sued the government, demanding it reveal its legal justification. On Wednesday, the Department of Justice unveiled a secret 2018 memo that blocked the DEA from approving additional cultivators like Sisley, in the absence of stricter rules. The memo also raised questions about the existing arrangement with the University of Mississippi, and whether it must change to comply with an international treaty.
Sisley never envisioned that her attempt to study marijuana’s potential benefits would become a decade-long quest involving fights with universities and the federal government, and attempts to uncover a confidential legal document. Yet this is the complicated maze scientists studying cannabis have been navigating for years.
Now, Sisley and others hope the DEA will finally expand the kind of marijuana available for research — even if the government adds onerous requirements for those who want to grow it — which could ultimately determine its benefits and potential harms, and whether it will ever be legalized federally.
“We’re trying to make sure the public is aware of what we believe is an injustice, a suppression of scientific freedom,” Sisley said, “and to understand the myriad ways that the government has ensured that cannabis drug development research will never proceed.”
Jeff Sessions pumps the brakes
Legal pot is already a bigger industry than organic produce in the United States, and the demand for products with cannabidiol — a nonpsychoactive component often referred to as CBD that has therapeutic properties — is projected to top $23 billion within three years. A majority of the country now has medical marijuana programs on the books, and 11 states have legalized weed for adult recreational use.
However, the DEA still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug — a restrictive category reserved for substances believed to have no medical value and be susceptible to abuse. The DEA has repeatedly said it won’t support reclassifying marijuana because there aren’t well-controlled studies or scientific evidence approved by the Food and Drug Administration to show medical benefits. Yet scientists say that if evidence of those benefits is ever going to exist, they need to put real-world weed — not what’s made available from the University of Mississippi — through these studies.
This sets up a paradox, in which practically no one can show through an FDA-approved clinical trial that the cannabis products on the market are safe or beneficial because researchers can’t legally study them.
“Effectively 200 million Americans can access cannabis right now, but a doctor or scientist can’t,” said George Hodgin, founder of the Biopharmaceutical Research Company, a marijuana analytical firm. “It is at best irresponsible, and, at worst, it’s dangerous.”
Cannabis research is so tightly controlled that the DEA denied a request by UC Davis faculty two years ago to buy CBD products for pets from a nearby dispensary to study their effects on animals, said Kiel, the research administrator at the university. The DEA shot down the study because the scientists weren’t going to use cannabis grown by the University of Mississippi operation, Kiel said.
In 2016, following requests from scientists, the DEA announced that it would allow more facilities to cultivate cannabis for research. Sisley, Hodgin and UC Davis were among at least 33 applicants that lined up for a license, hopeful that this was the beginning of a renaissance in marijuana research.
Then Jeff Sessions became attorney general.
A former senior DEA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal agency deliberations, told NBC News that Sessions was “adamantly opposed” to expanding the options to study marijuana, and in 2017 he halted the government’s plans to allow more growers. When members of Congress later pressed Sessions on the pending applications, he suggested that allowing more than one producer could put the country at risk of violating the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, a 1961 international treaty.
Frustrated, Sisley said she essentially went on “a nationwide tour to speak to every Bob’s Burger Barn or American Legion post, anyone who would have me,” to talk about the government’s stonewalling of cannabis research. That’s how she met Texas-based attorneys Matt Zorn and Shane Pennington, who took on Sisley’s case pro bono last year.
Together, they sued the DEA for not processing Sisley’s application, and in July 2019, a court ordered the agency to explain itself. Just before a court deadline last August, the DEA said it planned to issue new regulations for how it would permit additional growers.
The new rules proposed by the DEA last month were the result of an opinion written by lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel in June 2018, while Sessions was still attorney general. The opinion concluded that the Single Convention treaty required the DEA to “monopolize” the exchange of all legal marijuana for research. The existing set-up — letting the University of Mississippi grow and ship marijuana — didn’t satisfy the Single Convention treaty, the memo concluded, and the DEA needed a new framework in which the agency takes control of the cannabis before distributing it to scientists.
That opinion was kept secret until Sisley and her legal team filed a lawsuit in March against the department, which settled this week with the release of the document.
Pennington said the memo reveals that the limitations under the treaty were not based on who is growing the marijuana. “It’s about who’s possessing it, purchasing it, and doing wholesale trade in it, so it’s been a myth that we’ve had to have this University of Mississippi weed this whole time,” he said.
A spokesman for the DEA defended the agency’s handling of marijuana for research.
“DEA must operate within the bounds of law, regulations, and international treaties,” the spokesman said in an email. “DEA must ensure the Schedule I substance is procured from a lawful source, and therefore requires the researcher identify the controlled substance, source, and amount involved. Because many state dispensaries comport only with state law and not federal law, a Schedule I substance from a state dispensary cannot be used for research.”
The proposed regulations, the spokesman added, “could permit a greater range of product available for scientific research.”
The Mississippi farm defends its weed
The grow operation on the University of Mississippi’s Oxford campus has heavy security, with dozens of cameras, guards on duty, motion-activated sensors and multiple security gates equipped with vibration detectors. It’s a far cry from 40 years ago, when undergraduates once tried to cast fishing rods over a fence to snag a marijuana plant. The farm is set up through a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which decides what kind of marijuana should be grown and is involved in the lengthy approval process for researchers who want to study it.
Mahmoud ElSohly, the longtime director of the Marijuana Project at Ole Miss, bristles at the criticisms of his products, including that it has tested positive for mold and has lower THC levels than advertised. He says these complaints are untrue and part of “propaganda to push an agenda that's mainly going toward legalization.”
“I welcome the opportunity for other growers to get involved,” ElSohly said, “so people can't complain about that anymore.” He notes that studies showing benefits of cannabis “are coming from the material we produce. So it’s not that bad after all.”
ElSohly, a professor who also researches cannabis, said that on top of ensuring their material is clear of salmonella and E. coli, the project now tests for yeast and mold. A typical growing season yields over 1,100 pounds of plant material, which is dried and prepared to researchers’ requests, like being rolled into joints. ElSohly acknowledged that he can’t match the many marijuana products on the market, but he said he offers a range of potency levels, which is what he believes should matter most to scientists.
“If we match one, what about all the others?” he said. “Are we supposed to match all of the growers that a dispensary has? It makes no sense.”
But Staci Gruber, director of the Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery program at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, said the menu from the Ole Miss farm — which is largely confined to smokeable flower and THC extract — excludes high-potency products like edibles, shatter or wax.
“It’s not as if we can get gummies with a standardized amount,” Gruber said. “That’s inherently limited.”
Sisley said this is the result of having only one supplier of marijuana for research.
“I’m a lifelong Republican, and as a conservative I think monopolies are inherently problematic because they promote apathy,” Sisley said. “The University of Mississippi has enjoyed a government-enforced monopoly for over 50 years. They’ve had no competition, no need, no drive to be responsive to the public, to scientists’ needs.”
ElSohly scoffed at the idea of a monopoly, noting that the University of Mississippi submits a bid for the government contract every few years, and “anyone who has the capabilities the infrastructure” is welcome to compete.
How professors get creative to study cannabis
It’s difficult to find someone who publicly opposes expanding marijuana research. Members of Congress who oppose legalizing pot have called for more research. Major scientific groups want it. Even the National Institute on Drug Abuse would like to have more competition, because only having one grow operation at Ole Miss “slows the development of cannabis-based medications,” the agency’s director, Nora Volkow, testified to Congress this year.
Dr. Kevin Sabet, former drug policy adviser in the Obama administration, said more research is needed so that lawmakers can understand the effects of high-potency marijuana.
“For the vast majority of products, we don't have the long-term research to establish their safety at all,” said Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a nonprofit opposed to legalizing recreational pot.
Under the current restrictions, scientists have had to get creative to study weed.
Washington State University researchers are conducting a study in which they ask participants to buy cannabis at a legal dispensary, go home and smoke it, and then take an Uber or Lyft to the lab to give a blood sample. Michael McDonell, a psychology professor at the university, acknowledges that the system isn’t perfect, but it circumvents prohibitions on university staff possessing marijuana.
“I’d like to be able to go buy one strain of cannabis, send it to a lab to know what's in it, know what's exactly the dose that's in it, and then study that,” McDonell said.
Scientists are cautiously optimistic about the direction things are heading for marijuana research. Attorney General William Barr has promised to expand the number of marijuana growers approved by the DEA.
But while the public comment period on the proposed regulations ends on May 22, there’s no deadline after that for next steps by the DEA. And some are concerned the expansion of growers isn’t enough. Kiel, of UC Davis, said the DEA hasn’t clarified whether newly approved growers will have to use marijuana seeds from the only approved source — the University of Mississippi farm.
“Which isn't going to solve the research problem,” Kiel said. “It just won’t.”
Sisley’s study with Arizona veterans wrapped up last year, and she expects it will be published in the coming weeks. She said it took her awhile to shake her medical school training that marijuana is dangerous and addictive, but she’s come to believe it “is so much more benign than the prescriptions I write for patients every day.”
“People recognize this plant has significant medical properties,” Sisley said. “We just don't know how to harness them specifically to treat various illnesses. That’s why people are still skeptical. We still don't know what varieties to use to treat different illnesses because the research has been systemically impeded by our federal government.”