|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
-
Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
-
Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Yeah, well....i bet it doesn't. Fed government rules are exquisite as a tool for obfuscation and delay. Oh, it looks like their is a path...but silly you just don't understand bureaucracy's real purpose....to impede progress at every turn. Otherwise, work may get done and progress accomplished.
There is a reason that the DEA hasn't done anything on this for years....because...wait for it....THEY DON'T WANT TO! Being a drug cold warrior employee pays the bills, its their rice bowl. End of story, they are NEVER going to embrace real progress on MJ and will need to be dragged out of the swamp and into the light.
DEA Proposes Rules To Allow For Expansion Of Marijuana Research In U.S.
New rules proposed by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) could finally end years of frustration among research scientists who want to study the impact and potential medical uses of cannabis.
The rules, filed in the federal registry on March 20, will allow the DEA to consider applications from cannabis growers who want to supply marijuana for research purposes. Under the present rules, the only place to grow marijuana for research is the University of Mississippi.
The university has held the sole license to grow marijuana for research since 1968. However, scientists have complained that cannabis from the university’s farm is substandard when compared to what people can buy at a retail dispensary.
A University of Northern Colorado study found that the weed grown at the university is genetically closer to hemp than to the cannabis for sale in a dispensary, making any research using it suspect at best. It’s so inferior one scientist has sued the federal government in an attempt to force them into allowing other farms to grow research cannabis.
The DEA claims it wants to expand research, but scientists have waited years.
In a press release about the proposed changes, the DEA stated that the new rules will “expand opportunities for marijuana growers” who want to grow weed for research purposes. The new rule will allow the DEA to evaluate the 37 applications currently pending in Washington D.C. from growers interested in supplying marijuana for research.
Acting DEA administrator Uttam Dhillon said in the release that the DEA “continues to support additional research into marijuana and its components, and we believe registering more growers will advance the scientific and medical research already being conducted.”
Cannabis researchers have been saying this for years. While reading such a statement from the DEA gave hope to cannabis advocates, some remain unconvinced as the statement runs contrary to past actions of the DEA. Or, more accurately, the lack of action.
Some fear this is the latest foot-dragging maneuver from the DEA.
In an interview with Science magazine, George Hodgin, CEO of the Biopharmaceutical Research Company, called the decision “the biggest, the most meaningful, and material progress made in federal cannabis policy in decades.” The company is one of the 37 applicants on file with the DEA.
However, Shane Pennington didn’t share that enthusiasm. He represents the Scottsdale Research Institute, which is also an applicant and the company that sued the federal government.
Pennington told Science that filing the proposed rules is just one small step. The DEA still must take the time to solicit and respond to public comments, then act on the final rules. He voiced fear that the DEA has “found a way to put this on the back burner a lot longer.”
There is a reason that the DEA hasn't done anything on this for years....because...wait for it....THEY DON'T WANT TO! Being a drug cold warrior employee pays the bills, its their rice bowl. End of story, they are NEVER going to embrace real progress on MJ and will need to be dragged out of the swamp and into the light.
DEA Proposes Rules To Allow For Expansion Of Marijuana Research In U.S.
New rules proposed by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) could finally end years of frustration among research scientists who want to study the impact and potential medical uses of cannabis.
The rules, filed in the federal registry on March 20, will allow the DEA to consider applications from cannabis growers who want to supply marijuana for research purposes. Under the present rules, the only place to grow marijuana for research is the University of Mississippi.
The university has held the sole license to grow marijuana for research since 1968. However, scientists have complained that cannabis from the university’s farm is substandard when compared to what people can buy at a retail dispensary.
A University of Northern Colorado study found that the weed grown at the university is genetically closer to hemp than to the cannabis for sale in a dispensary, making any research using it suspect at best. It’s so inferior one scientist has sued the federal government in an attempt to force them into allowing other farms to grow research cannabis.
The DEA claims it wants to expand research, but scientists have waited years.
In a press release about the proposed changes, the DEA stated that the new rules will “expand opportunities for marijuana growers” who want to grow weed for research purposes. The new rule will allow the DEA to evaluate the 37 applications currently pending in Washington D.C. from growers interested in supplying marijuana for research.
Acting DEA administrator Uttam Dhillon said in the release that the DEA “continues to support additional research into marijuana and its components, and we believe registering more growers will advance the scientific and medical research already being conducted.”
Cannabis researchers have been saying this for years. While reading such a statement from the DEA gave hope to cannabis advocates, some remain unconvinced as the statement runs contrary to past actions of the DEA. Or, more accurately, the lack of action.
Some fear this is the latest foot-dragging maneuver from the DEA.
In an interview with Science magazine, George Hodgin, CEO of the Biopharmaceutical Research Company, called the decision “the biggest, the most meaningful, and material progress made in federal cannabis policy in decades.” The company is one of the 37 applicants on file with the DEA.
However, Shane Pennington didn’t share that enthusiasm. He represents the Scottsdale Research Institute, which is also an applicant and the company that sued the federal government.
Pennington told Science that filing the proposed rules is just one small step. The DEA still must take the time to solicit and respond to public comments, then act on the final rules. He voiced fear that the DEA has “found a way to put this on the back burner a lot longer.”
Baron23
Well-Known Member
"the key may be developing a strong marketing campaign to give new consumers more dosing education"
I'd settle for them having the same damn strain each time I want to make a purchase. Find a grower/strain that really works for your med needs....better buy a bunch when you see it because here is absolutely zero stability in offerings in MD's MMJ program.
I can go into the pharmacy and get the exact same drug each and every time. I can go into a liquor store and they will have damn close to the same inventory every time.
MMJ, no way.
This may not be as much of an issue for rec consumption, but this situation really does undermine, to some extent, the argument that this is medicine....WHEN YOU CAN'T GET THE SAME PRODUCT TWICE IN A ROW!!!!
Just my never humble opinion.
To Expand Customer Base, Cannabis Companies Need To Offer Consistency
As marijuana becomes more popular, consumers expect a consistent percentage of THC in the products they buy. While cannabis brands now deliver products that offer that consistency, attracting more casual customers may require even more fine-tuned accuracy in dosing.
At least, that’s the argument in a recently published New York Times Magazine piece that delves into how cannabis companies continue to experiment to create products that offer a consistent level of THC.
As reported in the magazine, now that weed has increasingly become a “regular consumer product, customers are increasingly seeking the same ‘proven consistency’ they expect from potato chips and soap.”
That echoes NBC, which called creating products that offer a consistently high “marijuana’s holy grail.”
Many cannabis companies already are delivering consistent products.
Of course, many cannabis companies already deliver consistent products, especially in the edibles market. But the New York Times Magazine article offers a glimpse into the challenges cannabis entrepreneurs face in convincing new, more casual users that this is the case.
If they already offer a consistent product, the key may be developing a strong marketing campaign to give new consumers more dosing education in order to build trust.
Cannabis already is a $10 billion industry across the globe, close to $8 billion in the United States alone. It’s been rapid growth for an industry that wasn’t even legal in most of the United States 10 years ago, and one that remains illegal in all but 11 states and the District of Columbia for adult use.
There is much room for growth. For example, the Times noted annual alcohol sales have reached $200 billion. For cannabis to reach that level, the magazine argued, people will want to know that what they buy “will give them the effect they want.”
The magazine points out this is a relatively new field of research. Much of the cannabis research being done now is built upon work done by Israeli scientist Raphael Mechoulam, who first identified THC in cannabis in the 1960s. He also isolated cannabigerol (CBG) and mapped the structure of cannabidiol (CBD), according to New York Times Magazine.
Mechoulam also first used the term “entourage effect,” which describes the interplay between the human body and cannabinoids in determining the effects of cannabis.
Consistency is a top need for consumers, a recent survey says.
In a survey of cannabis consumers in 2019, BDS Analytics listed the delivery of “consistent, low-dose, dialed in products” as one of the Top 10 trends for cannabis. The Colorado-based marketing analysis company, which focuses on the cannabis industry, reported that “increasingly more cannabis consumers care deeply about consistent dosing, and being able to carefully control the nature of their experiences.”
They found that 33 percent of edibles consumers prefer lose-dose products, while 40 percent prefer high-dose CBD products with a low amount of THC. Those numbers indicate a growing number of consumers want to use cannabis edibles as a wellness product, not to get high.
The survey also found that a growing number of consumers want clear labeling from cannabis companies about the dosage of each product and “cannabis in controlled doses that meet the expectations set by labeling.” Every legal state regulates labeling as required for edibles, but not necessarily for smokables.
That’s why an emphasis on consistency is a smart move by cannabis entrepreneurs. Most companies that produce edibles lead with this key advantage of their product. For example. Wana Brands gummies out of Colorado was among the first to offer a variety of edible dose levels. It is one of the reasons Wana grew to become the highest-selling brand in the state.
“Wana gummies are a customer favorite because they are potent and consistent. And they taste delicious. The recipes are refined so you don’t taste a dose of the cannabis as much as the treat,” founder Nancy Whiteman told Trip Savvy in 2019.
I'd settle for them having the same damn strain each time I want to make a purchase. Find a grower/strain that really works for your med needs....better buy a bunch when you see it because here is absolutely zero stability in offerings in MD's MMJ program.
I can go into the pharmacy and get the exact same drug each and every time. I can go into a liquor store and they will have damn close to the same inventory every time.
MMJ, no way.
This may not be as much of an issue for rec consumption, but this situation really does undermine, to some extent, the argument that this is medicine....WHEN YOU CAN'T GET THE SAME PRODUCT TWICE IN A ROW!!!!
Just my never humble opinion.
To Expand Customer Base, Cannabis Companies Need To Offer Consistency
As marijuana becomes more popular, consumers expect a consistent percentage of THC in the products they buy. While cannabis brands now deliver products that offer that consistency, attracting more casual customers may require even more fine-tuned accuracy in dosing.
At least, that’s the argument in a recently published New York Times Magazine piece that delves into how cannabis companies continue to experiment to create products that offer a consistent level of THC.
As reported in the magazine, now that weed has increasingly become a “regular consumer product, customers are increasingly seeking the same ‘proven consistency’ they expect from potato chips and soap.”
That echoes NBC, which called creating products that offer a consistently high “marijuana’s holy grail.”
Many cannabis companies already are delivering consistent products.
Of course, many cannabis companies already deliver consistent products, especially in the edibles market. But the New York Times Magazine article offers a glimpse into the challenges cannabis entrepreneurs face in convincing new, more casual users that this is the case.
If they already offer a consistent product, the key may be developing a strong marketing campaign to give new consumers more dosing education in order to build trust.
Cannabis already is a $10 billion industry across the globe, close to $8 billion in the United States alone. It’s been rapid growth for an industry that wasn’t even legal in most of the United States 10 years ago, and one that remains illegal in all but 11 states and the District of Columbia for adult use.
There is much room for growth. For example, the Times noted annual alcohol sales have reached $200 billion. For cannabis to reach that level, the magazine argued, people will want to know that what they buy “will give them the effect they want.”
The magazine points out this is a relatively new field of research. Much of the cannabis research being done now is built upon work done by Israeli scientist Raphael Mechoulam, who first identified THC in cannabis in the 1960s. He also isolated cannabigerol (CBG) and mapped the structure of cannabidiol (CBD), according to New York Times Magazine.
Mechoulam also first used the term “entourage effect,” which describes the interplay between the human body and cannabinoids in determining the effects of cannabis.
Consistency is a top need for consumers, a recent survey says.
In a survey of cannabis consumers in 2019, BDS Analytics listed the delivery of “consistent, low-dose, dialed in products” as one of the Top 10 trends for cannabis. The Colorado-based marketing analysis company, which focuses on the cannabis industry, reported that “increasingly more cannabis consumers care deeply about consistent dosing, and being able to carefully control the nature of their experiences.”
They found that 33 percent of edibles consumers prefer lose-dose products, while 40 percent prefer high-dose CBD products with a low amount of THC. Those numbers indicate a growing number of consumers want to use cannabis edibles as a wellness product, not to get high.
The survey also found that a growing number of consumers want clear labeling from cannabis companies about the dosage of each product and “cannabis in controlled doses that meet the expectations set by labeling.” Every legal state regulates labeling as required for edibles, but not necessarily for smokables.
That’s why an emphasis on consistency is a smart move by cannabis entrepreneurs. Most companies that produce edibles lead with this key advantage of their product. For example. Wana Brands gummies out of Colorado was among the first to offer a variety of edible dose levels. It is one of the reasons Wana grew to become the highest-selling brand in the state.
“Wana gummies are a customer favorite because they are potent and consistent. And they taste delicious. The recipes are refined so you don’t taste a dose of the cannabis as much as the treat,” founder Nancy Whiteman told Trip Savvy in 2019.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Trump Admin Could Let Researchers Study Marijuana Dispensary Products, Scientist Argues After DOJ Memo Released
A scientist in a case that forced the release of a previously “secret” Justice Department document about federally authorized marijuana research this week is now calling on Congress to urge administrative action to more rapidly expand studies into the therapeutic potential of cannabis.
Sue Sisley of the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) and attorneys representing her facility say the Department of Justice is empowered to waive certain requirements and allow additional researchers to immediately grow their own cannabis for studies without registration under newly proposed regulations or even to obtain products from state-licensed dispensaries, for example.
They want lawmakers’ help pressuring the Trump administration to take advantage of a process they say would not necessarily violate international treaties that federal officials have long cited as a reason they’ve been slow to license new cultivators.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) disclosed a memo that seemed to have been used by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to justify delaying approval of additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes beyond the sole legal that scientists have had to rely on for half a century. That disclosure was the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by SRI last month.
Attorneys representing SRI said that the newly unveiled document helps explains what was happening behind closed doors for several years of inaction and delays after DEA initially said in 2016 that it would be approving more manufacturers.
But in their new letter to members of Congress, they identify a federal statute that they argue can be used by the attorney general to waive registration requirements, allowing research institutes to immediately grow their own cannabis for studies or to purchase it from licensed dispensaries instead of having to wait until new rigorous licensing rules go into effect.
“That Congress can fix these issues with legislation goes without saying. But what fewer recognize is that this Administration can cut through the regulatory red-tape right now,” Sisley and her lawyers wrote.
“DEA could, for example, exempt licensed Schedule I marijuana researchers from having to obtain a separate registration to manufacture marijuana, provided those researchers agree not to distribute any marijuana they manufacture. Alternatively, it could permit licensed Schedule I marijuana researchers to obtain marijuana from state-legal dispensaries. The executive’s authority to grant waivers under [federal code] is broad.”
SRI is one of dozens of applicants to become federally authorized cannabis cultivators for research purposes. It initially sued DEA three years after the agency said it would expand cultivation facilities, with SRI alleging an unlawful delay in approvals. That led the agency to announce in March that it is proposing new rules in order to process the applications.
Prior to the document’s release, it was unclear exactly what was holding DEA up from fulfilling their pledge. The OLC memo, written in 2018 but undisclosed to the public until this week, determined that DEA’s 2016 announcement about expansion would have violated international treaties—an analysis that the agency had declined to explain to applicants as their proposals languished for years.
OLC also found, however, that even the current system for marijuana research in the U.S.—which involves the National Institute on Drug Abuse contracting a single grow facility at the University of Mississippi to produce cannabis and DEA registering scientists who can obtain it—violates several provisions of international treaty obligations.
In particular, it determined that the existing process violates a provision stipulating that marijuana grown for research must be purchased and possessed by a single federal agency—a policy that DEA is seeking to adhere to under a recently revised rule change proposal released last month.
But SRI and its attorneys argue there’s a simpler solution, and that’s why they’re circulating a letter to members of Congress imploring action.
“In the United States, doing robust clinical research with marijuana should not be so difficult,” the letter from Sisley and her lawyers to members of the House and Senate says. “Scores of Americans rely on medical marijuana to treat a variety of symptoms, including our nation’s veterans and terminally ill. Not surprisingly, this issue has solid bipartisan support. It also has support among federal agencies including FDA, NIH, and DEA itself.”
While DEA’s new proposed rule change would seemingly address issues identified in the OLC memo—primarily by making it so DEA would be the sole agency in charge of possessing and purchasing cannabis for research—attorneys Shane Pennington and Matt Zorn said there’s a federal statute that would enable the Justice Department to circumvent the rulemaking process by unilaterally waiving registration requirements and setting its own regulations to abide by international treaties.
That code in question stipulates: “The Attorney General may, by regulation, waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if he finds it consistent with the public health and safety.” Unlike other statutes concerning the issue, this one does not explicitly mention international treaty obligations.
“Plainly, given the undisputed urgency of the need for this research, waiving certain registration requirements to allow already-licensed Schedule I researchers obtain marijuana from real world or alternative sources would be ‘consistent with the public health and safety,'” the attorneys’ letter said.
Of course, the international treaties to which the U.S. is a party would still be in effect. But under the statute cited by SRI, the attorney general could theoretically impose any regulations that he felt were necessary to maintain compliance. For example, if the official were to make it so researchers could purchase marijuana from dispensaries, it could satisfy the requirement that research-grade cannabis be purchased and possessed by a single federal agency by allowing DEA to technically “own” the shop’s product.
“I should caution that it’s tough to answer these questions in the abstract because the answer in real life would depend on what the AG thought was necessary to comply with the OLC interpretation of the Single Convention,” Pennington said in an email to Marijuana Moment. He added that he is “not in any way conceding I agree with the OLC’s interpretation” but was simply speculating about how the federal government could allow researchers to immediately grow their own marijuana or study products from dispensaries while still complying with its analysis.
It was previously reported that the Justice Department, under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a vociferous opponent of cannabis reform, blocked DEA from processing any of the several dozen cultivation license applications it received in response to the 2016 announcement. Attorney General William Barr views the issue differently, however, telling lawmakers that he’s pushed “very hard” to get more manufacturers approved and that he thinks “it’s very important to get those additional suppliers.”
The reason all of this matters to researchers and advocates is because of issues resulting from the monopolized cannabis supply for research purposes at the University of Mississippi. Studies have indicated that the marijuana it produces is not reflective of the cannabis sold in retail dispensaries in legal states, raising questions about the veracity of previous studies that have relied on it.
SRI, for its part, is hoping to become an approved marijuana manufacturer to supply studies into the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis for post-traumatic stress disorder.
“Boiled down, the fact that a secret re-interpretation of an international treaty from 1961 has blocked the advancement of marijuana science in this country for the past three years is absurd,” the letter continues. “Allowing American scientists to cultivate or acquire marijuana grown in this country under strict DEA regulation and supervision is pro-science, pro-veteran, and pro-law enforcement. It puts America First and promotes public health and safety.”
Read SRI’s marijuana research letter to Congress below:
www.scribd.com
A scientist in a case that forced the release of a previously “secret” Justice Department document about federally authorized marijuana research this week is now calling on Congress to urge administrative action to more rapidly expand studies into the therapeutic potential of cannabis.
Sue Sisley of the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI) and attorneys representing her facility say the Department of Justice is empowered to waive certain requirements and allow additional researchers to immediately grow their own cannabis for studies without registration under newly proposed regulations or even to obtain products from state-licensed dispensaries, for example.
They want lawmakers’ help pressuring the Trump administration to take advantage of a process they say would not necessarily violate international treaties that federal officials have long cited as a reason they’ve been slow to license new cultivators.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) disclosed a memo that seemed to have been used by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to justify delaying approval of additional marijuana manufacturers for research purposes beyond the sole legal that scientists have had to rely on for half a century. That disclosure was the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by SRI last month.
Attorneys representing SRI said that the newly unveiled document helps explains what was happening behind closed doors for several years of inaction and delays after DEA initially said in 2016 that it would be approving more manufacturers.
But in their new letter to members of Congress, they identify a federal statute that they argue can be used by the attorney general to waive registration requirements, allowing research institutes to immediately grow their own cannabis for studies or to purchase it from licensed dispensaries instead of having to wait until new rigorous licensing rules go into effect.
“That Congress can fix these issues with legislation goes without saying. But what fewer recognize is that this Administration can cut through the regulatory red-tape right now,” Sisley and her lawyers wrote.
“DEA could, for example, exempt licensed Schedule I marijuana researchers from having to obtain a separate registration to manufacture marijuana, provided those researchers agree not to distribute any marijuana they manufacture. Alternatively, it could permit licensed Schedule I marijuana researchers to obtain marijuana from state-legal dispensaries. The executive’s authority to grant waivers under [federal code] is broad.”
SRI is one of dozens of applicants to become federally authorized cannabis cultivators for research purposes. It initially sued DEA three years after the agency said it would expand cultivation facilities, with SRI alleging an unlawful delay in approvals. That led the agency to announce in March that it is proposing new rules in order to process the applications.
Prior to the document’s release, it was unclear exactly what was holding DEA up from fulfilling their pledge. The OLC memo, written in 2018 but undisclosed to the public until this week, determined that DEA’s 2016 announcement about expansion would have violated international treaties—an analysis that the agency had declined to explain to applicants as their proposals languished for years.
OLC also found, however, that even the current system for marijuana research in the U.S.—which involves the National Institute on Drug Abuse contracting a single grow facility at the University of Mississippi to produce cannabis and DEA registering scientists who can obtain it—violates several provisions of international treaty obligations.
In particular, it determined that the existing process violates a provision stipulating that marijuana grown for research must be purchased and possessed by a single federal agency—a policy that DEA is seeking to adhere to under a recently revised rule change proposal released last month.
But SRI and its attorneys argue there’s a simpler solution, and that’s why they’re circulating a letter to members of Congress imploring action.
“In the United States, doing robust clinical research with marijuana should not be so difficult,” the letter from Sisley and her lawyers to members of the House and Senate says. “Scores of Americans rely on medical marijuana to treat a variety of symptoms, including our nation’s veterans and terminally ill. Not surprisingly, this issue has solid bipartisan support. It also has support among federal agencies including FDA, NIH, and DEA itself.”
While DEA’s new proposed rule change would seemingly address issues identified in the OLC memo—primarily by making it so DEA would be the sole agency in charge of possessing and purchasing cannabis for research—attorneys Shane Pennington and Matt Zorn said there’s a federal statute that would enable the Justice Department to circumvent the rulemaking process by unilaterally waiving registration requirements and setting its own regulations to abide by international treaties.
That code in question stipulates: “The Attorney General may, by regulation, waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if he finds it consistent with the public health and safety.” Unlike other statutes concerning the issue, this one does not explicitly mention international treaty obligations.
“Plainly, given the undisputed urgency of the need for this research, waiving certain registration requirements to allow already-licensed Schedule I researchers obtain marijuana from real world or alternative sources would be ‘consistent with the public health and safety,'” the attorneys’ letter said.
Of course, the international treaties to which the U.S. is a party would still be in effect. But under the statute cited by SRI, the attorney general could theoretically impose any regulations that he felt were necessary to maintain compliance. For example, if the official were to make it so researchers could purchase marijuana from dispensaries, it could satisfy the requirement that research-grade cannabis be purchased and possessed by a single federal agency by allowing DEA to technically “own” the shop’s product.
“I should caution that it’s tough to answer these questions in the abstract because the answer in real life would depend on what the AG thought was necessary to comply with the OLC interpretation of the Single Convention,” Pennington said in an email to Marijuana Moment. He added that he is “not in any way conceding I agree with the OLC’s interpretation” but was simply speculating about how the federal government could allow researchers to immediately grow their own marijuana or study products from dispensaries while still complying with its analysis.
It was previously reported that the Justice Department, under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a vociferous opponent of cannabis reform, blocked DEA from processing any of the several dozen cultivation license applications it received in response to the 2016 announcement. Attorney General William Barr views the issue differently, however, telling lawmakers that he’s pushed “very hard” to get more manufacturers approved and that he thinks “it’s very important to get those additional suppliers.”
The reason all of this matters to researchers and advocates is because of issues resulting from the monopolized cannabis supply for research purposes at the University of Mississippi. Studies have indicated that the marijuana it produces is not reflective of the cannabis sold in retail dispensaries in legal states, raising questions about the veracity of previous studies that have relied on it.
SRI, for its part, is hoping to become an approved marijuana manufacturer to supply studies into the potential therapeutic benefits of cannabis for post-traumatic stress disorder.
“Boiled down, the fact that a secret re-interpretation of an international treaty from 1961 has blocked the advancement of marijuana science in this country for the past three years is absurd,” the letter continues. “Allowing American scientists to cultivate or acquire marijuana grown in this country under strict DEA regulation and supervision is pro-science, pro-veteran, and pro-law enforcement. It puts America First and promotes public health and safety.”
Read SRI’s marijuana research letter to Congress below:
Scribd
Bcbud
Cannabis enthusiast
Secret Memo Shows Trump Blocked Marijuana Research
The Fresh Toast - A secret memo released as part of a recent lawsuit demonstrates how the Trump Administration has quietly blocked marijuana research in the United States. - Cannabis
thefreshtoast.com
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Biden backs marijuana decriminalization, stops short of legalization
The Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee in the 2020 election, Joe Biden, has released a plan which includes decriminalizing marijuana, after previously finding himself in hot water over his comments about cannabis.
Biden’s major former opponents in the Democratic primaries have all come out in support of full federal legalization, with progressive Senator Bernie Sanders vowing to legalize weed via executive order on his first day in the White House.
Following Sanders’s decision to drop out of the 2020 race last month, the Vermont senator pledged to stay on remaining primary ballots in order to maintain influence over the party’s platform.
Some have wondered whether this would lead to Biden supporting legalization as the Sanders’s campaign has released a very ambitious plan. However, Biden stopped short of full legalization, settling for decriminalization instead, in the newly released plan.
Biden had signaled early on that he believes legalization would require more research and scientific evidence on the potential harm of cannabis. Notably, he previously suggested marijuana could be a gateway drug in comments he subsequently walked back.
Biden’s plan – a half measure at best?
Titled Lift Every Voice: The Biden Plan for Black America, the former vice president’s manifesto for supporting African-Americans if he wins November’s election aims to provide funding for black-owned businesses and criminal justice reform.
As black voters form a key part of his base, the Biden campaign tried to tackle the disproportionate effect the so-called War on Drugs has had on the African-American community in the U.S. by adding decriminalization.
The Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee in the 2020 election, Joe Biden, has released a plan which includes decriminalizing marijuana, after previously finding himself in hot water over his comments about cannabis.
Biden’s major former opponents in the Democratic primaries have all come out in support of full federal legalization, with progressive Senator Bernie Sanders vowing to legalize weed via executive order on his first day in the White House.
Following Sanders’s decision to drop out of the 2020 race last month, the Vermont senator pledged to stay on remaining primary ballots in order to maintain influence over the party’s platform.
Some have wondered whether this would lead to Biden supporting legalization as the Sanders’s campaign has released a very ambitious plan. However, Biden stopped short of full legalization, settling for decriminalization instead, in the newly released plan.
Biden had signaled early on that he believes legalization would require more research and scientific evidence on the potential harm of cannabis. Notably, he previously suggested marijuana could be a gateway drug in comments he subsequently walked back.
Biden’s plan – a half measure at best?
Titled Lift Every Voice: The Biden Plan for Black America, the former vice president’s manifesto for supporting African-Americans if he wins November’s election aims to provide funding for black-owned businesses and criminal justice reform.
As black voters form a key part of his base, the Biden campaign tried to tackle the disproportionate effect the so-called War on Drugs has had on the African-American community in the U.S. by adding decriminalization.
The presidential hopeful’s plan was met with some criticism. While acknowledging the plan is a “promising sign” that Biden’s campaign has taken criminal justice reform seriously, president of the Minority Cannabis Business Association Jason Ortiz told Marijuana Moment that it is not enough.
Meanwhile, incumbent President Donald Trump says he supports states deciding for themselves on marijuana reform. But a newly released memo suggests the Trump administration has been blocking much-needed marijuana research for years.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
When Will We See Legal Cannabis Banking Reform?
Thirty-three U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana and another 11 have legalized recreational use. In 2018, legal cannabis sales worldwide netted $10.9 billion. This figure is expected to grow between five and eighteen times before the close of the next decade. The one uncertainty when it comes to projecting worldwide cannabis sales is the United States.
The United States is the most lucrative cannabis market in the world. In 2018, the U.S. recorded $8 billion of the $10.9 billion in global legal cannabis sales. That market is expected to quintuple to an estimated $41 billion by 2025. This projected value not only includes the sale of legalized flower, but also edibles, vapes, topicals, beverages, and concentrates.
However, it’s hard to determine exactly how much revenue is coming in because many buyers and retailers are forced to operate and buy from cash-only businesses. Some online dispensaries, like The Amsterdam, utilize Bitcoin for payment. There are also cannabis-centered cryptocurrencies like Potcoin and Cannabiscoin that some online retailers are utilizing. Cash only and cryptocurrency businesses can make profits difficult to track.
The Problem
The United States Government remains fairly firm on keeping cannabis listed as a Schedule I drug. This puts the plant into the company of heroin and LSD: illegal, holding no medical value, and prone to abuse. As long as Congress continues to list cannabis as a Schedule I drug, there are certain issues that will plague those operating in the industry, even in states where cannabis is legal.
A Possible Solution
In September, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. In a nutshell, the act ensures that banks and credit unions would be protected from being targeted by the federal government for providing services, including banking, lines of credit, and loans to those in the cannabis industry. Currently, the industry relies on the protections offered by riders that need to be renewed each year.
Now that the SAFE Act has passed the House, it moves on to the Republican-controlled Senate. This means that there are still major roadblocks ahead for the bill. For example, in July, there was a hearing on banking and cannabis and Republicans didn’t even bother to show up. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell remains staunchly opposed to marijuana legalization, and he could even prevent a vote on the issue.
Another issue is that with an election year coming up, many members of Congress believe that the overlying issue should be addressed. The overlying issue is the current Schedule I status of cannabis. Many Democratic and Republican Senators believe that this issue should be resolved first, which would hopefully negate the need for a banking act to allow cannabis businesses access to financial institutions.
There is Hope
When it comes to gaining access to financial services, smaller banks are often willing to fill the gap. Some cannabis companies are taking the initiative and launching their own credit card companies. The cards are often limited to their own dispensaries, but it is an example of the kind of ingenuity being seen in the burgeoning industry.
When it comes to banking and cannabis, a vote is expected in the Senate on the SAFE Act by the end of the year. There is also hope that at some point in the near future, cannabis will be rescheduled, removing it from Schedule I status. Until then, the cannabis industry may have to continue relying on cash, small banks, and their own financial creativity to make the business work.
Thirty-three U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana and another 11 have legalized recreational use. In 2018, legal cannabis sales worldwide netted $10.9 billion. This figure is expected to grow between five and eighteen times before the close of the next decade. The one uncertainty when it comes to projecting worldwide cannabis sales is the United States.
The United States is the most lucrative cannabis market in the world. In 2018, the U.S. recorded $8 billion of the $10.9 billion in global legal cannabis sales. That market is expected to quintuple to an estimated $41 billion by 2025. This projected value not only includes the sale of legalized flower, but also edibles, vapes, topicals, beverages, and concentrates.
However, it’s hard to determine exactly how much revenue is coming in because many buyers and retailers are forced to operate and buy from cash-only businesses. Some online dispensaries, like The Amsterdam, utilize Bitcoin for payment. There are also cannabis-centered cryptocurrencies like Potcoin and Cannabiscoin that some online retailers are utilizing. Cash only and cryptocurrency businesses can make profits difficult to track.
The Problem
The United States Government remains fairly firm on keeping cannabis listed as a Schedule I drug. This puts the plant into the company of heroin and LSD: illegal, holding no medical value, and prone to abuse. As long as Congress continues to list cannabis as a Schedule I drug, there are certain issues that will plague those operating in the industry, even in states where cannabis is legal.
- Businesses operating in the cannabis industry are subject to Section 280E of the tax code. This was implemented in the early 1980s to keep drug smugglers from writing off “business expenses” on their taxes. Save for the cost of goods sold, marijuana companies cannot claim any deductions on their taxes. This results in an effective 70%-90% tax rate.
- Because financial institutions report to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which is a federal agency, financial institutions such as banks and credit unions fear financial or criminal repercussions from aiding cannabis companies.
A Possible Solution
In September, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. In a nutshell, the act ensures that banks and credit unions would be protected from being targeted by the federal government for providing services, including banking, lines of credit, and loans to those in the cannabis industry. Currently, the industry relies on the protections offered by riders that need to be renewed each year.
Now that the SAFE Act has passed the House, it moves on to the Republican-controlled Senate. This means that there are still major roadblocks ahead for the bill. For example, in July, there was a hearing on banking and cannabis and Republicans didn’t even bother to show up. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell remains staunchly opposed to marijuana legalization, and he could even prevent a vote on the issue.
Another issue is that with an election year coming up, many members of Congress believe that the overlying issue should be addressed. The overlying issue is the current Schedule I status of cannabis. Many Democratic and Republican Senators believe that this issue should be resolved first, which would hopefully negate the need for a banking act to allow cannabis businesses access to financial institutions.
There is Hope
When it comes to gaining access to financial services, smaller banks are often willing to fill the gap. Some cannabis companies are taking the initiative and launching their own credit card companies. The cards are often limited to their own dispensaries, but it is an example of the kind of ingenuity being seen in the burgeoning industry.
When it comes to banking and cannabis, a vote is expected in the Senate on the SAFE Act by the end of the year. There is also hope that at some point in the near future, cannabis will be rescheduled, removing it from Schedule I status. Until then, the cannabis industry may have to continue relying on cash, small banks, and their own financial creativity to make the business work.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
"subjects decreased their overall mean speed following cannabis consumption"
hahaha...yeah, that doing 15 in a 55 will get you every time! LOL
Study: Medical Cannabis Use Has Little to No Effect on Driving Abilities
According to a new study published in the Journal of Concurrent Disorders, those who consistently use medical cannabis show little to no difference in their driving performance following cannabis inhalation. The study, titled Effects of therapeutic cannabis on simulated driving: A pilot study, was first reported on by NORML.
For the study, researchers from the University of Toronto, Health Canada, and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health examined the influence of marijuana inhalation on simulated driving performance among a group of daily medical marijuana consumers. “Participants were asked to refrain from engaging in any cannabis use during the 48 hours immediately prior to the study sessions. Fourteen subjects completed the study.” Subjects performed on a driving simulator prior to and 30 minutes after inhaling cannabis. Three separate driving scenarios were programmed into the simulator.
The study found that subjects decreased their overall mean speed following cannabis consumption, and marijuana did not appear to influence subjects’ ability to maintain lateral control or their brake reaction time. “Despite refraining from the use in cannabis in the days leading up to the study, subjects nonetheless possessed residual levels of THC (4ng/ml on average) in their blood prior to smoking marijuana during the study session.”
The study concludes by stating: “The purpose of the present pilot study was to investigate the effects of therapeutic cannabis use on simulated driving. It was found that therapeutic cannabis reduced overall mean speed with no effects on straightaway mean speed, straightaway lateral control, or brake latency. … [F]urther investigation of the effects of therapeutic cannabis on driving are warranted.”
The full abstract of the study can be found below:
Background: Although medical cannabis has been available to Canadians since 2001, there is little research on the effects of cannabis on driving in individuals who use cannabis medically. This pilot study sought to determine the effects of therapeutic cannabis use on simulated driving. Methods: Eligible participants reported daily use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, with a medical authorization. Prior to the test session, participants were asked not to smoke their regular dose. Participants (n=14) completed self-report questionnaires, including subjective effects questionnaires (visual analog scales), the Addiction Research Centre Inventory (ARCI), and Profile of Mood States (POMS), and provided blood (for determination of THC and metabolites). They also drove a simulator both before and after smoking their usual daily dose of cannabis. Outcome measures on simulated driving consisted of overall mean speed, straightaway mean speed, straightaway lateral control, and brake latency. Speed and lateral control were also measured under cognitive load. Results: After smoking cannabis, overall mean speed was reduced. No effects of therapeutic cannabis were found on straightaway mean speed or straightaway lateral control for either condition (standard or cognitive load) or on brake latency. After smoking therapeutic cannabis in the lab, changes in speed and lateral control were negatively correlated with the amount of cannabis smoked per day. Prior to smoking therapeutic cannabis in the lab, under baseline conditions, speed and lateral control under cognitive load were also correlated with the amount of cannabis used per day. Therapeutic cannabis use increased subjective reports and blood levels of THC and metabolites. Conclusions: The present study suggests that, even with repeated daily use, cannabis consumption among therapeutic users may alter driving behavior. This has implications for road safety and use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes.
hahaha...yeah, that doing 15 in a 55 will get you every time! LOL
Study: Medical Cannabis Use Has Little to No Effect on Driving Abilities
According to a new study published in the Journal of Concurrent Disorders, those who consistently use medical cannabis show little to no difference in their driving performance following cannabis inhalation. The study, titled Effects of therapeutic cannabis on simulated driving: A pilot study, was first reported on by NORML.
For the study, researchers from the University of Toronto, Health Canada, and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health examined the influence of marijuana inhalation on simulated driving performance among a group of daily medical marijuana consumers. “Participants were asked to refrain from engaging in any cannabis use during the 48 hours immediately prior to the study sessions. Fourteen subjects completed the study.” Subjects performed on a driving simulator prior to and 30 minutes after inhaling cannabis. Three separate driving scenarios were programmed into the simulator.
The study found that subjects decreased their overall mean speed following cannabis consumption, and marijuana did not appear to influence subjects’ ability to maintain lateral control or their brake reaction time. “Despite refraining from the use in cannabis in the days leading up to the study, subjects nonetheless possessed residual levels of THC (4ng/ml on average) in their blood prior to smoking marijuana during the study session.”
The study concludes by stating: “The purpose of the present pilot study was to investigate the effects of therapeutic cannabis use on simulated driving. It was found that therapeutic cannabis reduced overall mean speed with no effects on straightaway mean speed, straightaway lateral control, or brake latency. … [F]urther investigation of the effects of therapeutic cannabis on driving are warranted.”
The full abstract of the study can be found below:
Background: Although medical cannabis has been available to Canadians since 2001, there is little research on the effects of cannabis on driving in individuals who use cannabis medically. This pilot study sought to determine the effects of therapeutic cannabis use on simulated driving. Methods: Eligible participants reported daily use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, with a medical authorization. Prior to the test session, participants were asked not to smoke their regular dose. Participants (n=14) completed self-report questionnaires, including subjective effects questionnaires (visual analog scales), the Addiction Research Centre Inventory (ARCI), and Profile of Mood States (POMS), and provided blood (for determination of THC and metabolites). They also drove a simulator both before and after smoking their usual daily dose of cannabis. Outcome measures on simulated driving consisted of overall mean speed, straightaway mean speed, straightaway lateral control, and brake latency. Speed and lateral control were also measured under cognitive load. Results: After smoking cannabis, overall mean speed was reduced. No effects of therapeutic cannabis were found on straightaway mean speed or straightaway lateral control for either condition (standard or cognitive load) or on brake latency. After smoking therapeutic cannabis in the lab, changes in speed and lateral control were negatively correlated with the amount of cannabis smoked per day. Prior to smoking therapeutic cannabis in the lab, under baseline conditions, speed and lateral control under cognitive load were also correlated with the amount of cannabis used per day. Therapeutic cannabis use increased subjective reports and blood levels of THC and metabolites. Conclusions: The present study suggests that, even with repeated daily use, cannabis consumption among therapeutic users may alter driving behavior. This has implications for road safety and use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes.
House COVID Package Includes Cannabis Banking Relief, But Not Small Business Support
House Leadership unveiled legislation today, the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (aka the ‘‘HEROES Act”), to provide additional economic resources and support in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Included in the language of the bill is HR 1595: The SAFE Banking Act, which amends federal law so that explicitly banks and other financial institutions may work directly with state-legal marijuana businesses. Members of the House of Representatives voted 321 to 103 in favor of the Act in September. Reform advocates, including NORML, had lobbied leadership to include banking reform in the latest COVID relief measure.
NORML also encouraged leadership to include separate provisions in the Act to permit state-licensed cannabis businesses to be eligible to receive loans and other types of financial assistance via the Small Business Administration (SBA). The state-licensed cannabis industry employs more than 240,000 American workers, over four times the number of American workers as does the coal industry. The majority of these businesses are small-to-medium in size.
Over 40 members of Congress signed multiple letters to Congressional Leadership demanding SBA reform.Representative Earl Blumenauer has introduced legislation to address this matter, and in recent days a coalition of reform advocates? along with criminal justice and civil rights groups urged this reform.
Nonetheless, language to amend SBA eligibility was not included in the bill.
NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said: “The inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in the CARES 2 package is a positive development, but one that’s akin to applying a band-aid to a gaping wound. In the majority of states, these cannabis businesses have been deemed essential during this pandemic. But at the federal level, they are being cast aside by Congress. Those small cannabis businesses facing tough economic times are essentially being told by Congress to shutter their doors and fire their employees.”
He added: “While larger, better capitalized players may be able to weather this storm, smaller cannabis businesses may not be able to do so absent some economic stimulus. By continuing to deny these small businesses eligibility to SBA assistance, it is possible that we could see an acceleration of the corporatization of the cannabis industry in a manner that is inconsistent with the values and desires of many within the cannabis space.”
In the majority of jurisdictions that regulate cannabis marketplaces, lawmakers in recent weeks have designated these operations to be ‘essential’ to the health and well-being of the community. In others, regulators have either relaxed protocols or moved forward with new, emergency rules to facilitate expanded access – such as permitting patients to seek telemedicine appointments and allowing dispensaries to permit curbside pick-up and home delivery.
A separate reform provision included in the package is Section 90009, which requires that the SBA not discriminate against applicants for the “solely because of the applicant’s involvement in the criminal justice system.” NORML’s Strekal praised the proposed change, stating, “This development will help individuals who have suffered under the lasting legacy of marijuana criminalization, and will ensure that they no longer face undue economic discrimination when it comes to being eligible for SBA assistance.”
Under the SBA’s current rules, individuals are automatically disqualified from receiving aid if they’ve been convicted, pleaded guilty, pleaded nolo contendere, placed on pretrial diversion or placed on parole or probation in the last five ye
House Leadership unveiled legislation today, the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (aka the ‘‘HEROES Act”), to provide additional economic resources and support in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Included in the language of the bill is HR 1595: The SAFE Banking Act, which amends federal law so that explicitly banks and other financial institutions may work directly with state-legal marijuana businesses. Members of the House of Representatives voted 321 to 103 in favor of the Act in September. Reform advocates, including NORML, had lobbied leadership to include banking reform in the latest COVID relief measure.
NORML also encouraged leadership to include separate provisions in the Act to permit state-licensed cannabis businesses to be eligible to receive loans and other types of financial assistance via the Small Business Administration (SBA). The state-licensed cannabis industry employs more than 240,000 American workers, over four times the number of American workers as does the coal industry. The majority of these businesses are small-to-medium in size.
Over 40 members of Congress signed multiple letters to Congressional Leadership demanding SBA reform.Representative Earl Blumenauer has introduced legislation to address this matter, and in recent days a coalition of reform advocates? along with criminal justice and civil rights groups urged this reform.
Nonetheless, language to amend SBA eligibility was not included in the bill.
NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said: “The inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in the CARES 2 package is a positive development, but one that’s akin to applying a band-aid to a gaping wound. In the majority of states, these cannabis businesses have been deemed essential during this pandemic. But at the federal level, they are being cast aside by Congress. Those small cannabis businesses facing tough economic times are essentially being told by Congress to shutter their doors and fire their employees.”
He added: “While larger, better capitalized players may be able to weather this storm, smaller cannabis businesses may not be able to do so absent some economic stimulus. By continuing to deny these small businesses eligibility to SBA assistance, it is possible that we could see an acceleration of the corporatization of the cannabis industry in a manner that is inconsistent with the values and desires of many within the cannabis space.”
In the majority of jurisdictions that regulate cannabis marketplaces, lawmakers in recent weeks have designated these operations to be ‘essential’ to the health and well-being of the community. In others, regulators have either relaxed protocols or moved forward with new, emergency rules to facilitate expanded access – such as permitting patients to seek telemedicine appointments and allowing dispensaries to permit curbside pick-up and home delivery.
A separate reform provision included in the package is Section 90009, which requires that the SBA not discriminate against applicants for the “solely because of the applicant’s involvement in the criminal justice system.” NORML’s Strekal praised the proposed change, stating, “This development will help individuals who have suffered under the lasting legacy of marijuana criminalization, and will ensure that they no longer face undue economic discrimination when it comes to being eligible for SBA assistance.”
Under the SBA’s current rules, individuals are automatically disqualified from receiving aid if they’ve been convicted, pleaded guilty, pleaded nolo contendere, placed on pretrial diversion or placed on parole or probation in the last five ye
NCIA Asks The DEA Is Removed From Research Approval Process For Cannabis Research
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) submitted comments this week in response to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Request for Information on Controls to Enhance the Cultivation of Marihuana for Research in the United States issued in March. The association argues that public health agencies are far better suited to determine the qualifications of parties engaged in medical or scientific research or production and recommends that the DEA be removed as the agency in charge of final approval for such applications. The comments also cite years-long delays in approving existing applications as additional justification for transferring control of application approval away from law enforcement, and point out several issues in the rule-making process that will likely hinder research.
The full comments are available here.
Despite publicly stating in 2016 that it was interested in expanding production of cannabis for research purposes and streamlining study application review, none of the more than 30 applications that have been submitted since then have been approved by DEA. Under current policy, there is only one legal federal supplier of cannabis located at the University of Mississippi. Researchers and experts have repeatedly claimed that the cannabis produced there is substandard, insufficient for research purposes, and not representative of what is available to consumers in either regulated or illicit markets around the country.
“It is painfully clear that the DEA is either unable or unwilling to meet the increasing demand for cannabis research from voters, policymakers, and the scientific community,” said Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association. “By continuing to make this agency the gatekeeper for studies and research production, we are doing a disservice to the nation at a time when we need as much health-related information as possible. Federal agencies should be actively facilitating research that could reveal more about the medical benefits of cannabis, not hiding behind outdated policies to delay or discourage the pursuit of knowledge.”
In January, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing featuring representatives of federal agencies involved in approving cannabis research and production, including the DEA. Several members of the committee expressed frustration at the inability of witnesses to provide substantive information about how the process would be improved or timelines for approval of existing applications.
“On behalf of its nearly 2,000 members, NCIA hereby requests that these proposed regulations be amended and/or withdrawn… and that a qualified public health agency be appointed to serve as the coordinating agency instead,” the comments conclude. “We also request that the applicant pool be expanded to include companies that are or have cultivated cannabis in accordance with the laws of any state, regardless of whether the DEA concludes such actions did or did not technically violate the [Controlled Substance Act]. Most importantly, NCIA requests that the U.S. Government incentivize research and create a pathway for less restrictive means by which the country can access important information about the medicinal properties of cannabis.”
Cannabis is legal for adults in eleven states as well as the District of Columbia and the territories of CNMI and Guam, and 33 states as well as several territories have comprehensive medical cannabis laws. The substance is legal in some form in 47 states.
The National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) is the largest cannabis trade association in the U.S. and the only organization broadly representing cannabis-related businesses at the national level. NCIA promotes the growth of a responsible and legitimate cannabis industry and works toward a favorable social, economic, and legal environment for that industry in the United States.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) submitted comments this week in response to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Request for Information on Controls to Enhance the Cultivation of Marihuana for Research in the United States issued in March. The association argues that public health agencies are far better suited to determine the qualifications of parties engaged in medical or scientific research or production and recommends that the DEA be removed as the agency in charge of final approval for such applications. The comments also cite years-long delays in approving existing applications as additional justification for transferring control of application approval away from law enforcement, and point out several issues in the rule-making process that will likely hinder research.
The full comments are available here.
Despite publicly stating in 2016 that it was interested in expanding production of cannabis for research purposes and streamlining study application review, none of the more than 30 applications that have been submitted since then have been approved by DEA. Under current policy, there is only one legal federal supplier of cannabis located at the University of Mississippi. Researchers and experts have repeatedly claimed that the cannabis produced there is substandard, insufficient for research purposes, and not representative of what is available to consumers in either regulated or illicit markets around the country.
“It is painfully clear that the DEA is either unable or unwilling to meet the increasing demand for cannabis research from voters, policymakers, and the scientific community,” said Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association. “By continuing to make this agency the gatekeeper for studies and research production, we are doing a disservice to the nation at a time when we need as much health-related information as possible. Federal agencies should be actively facilitating research that could reveal more about the medical benefits of cannabis, not hiding behind outdated policies to delay or discourage the pursuit of knowledge.”
In January, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing featuring representatives of federal agencies involved in approving cannabis research and production, including the DEA. Several members of the committee expressed frustration at the inability of witnesses to provide substantive information about how the process would be improved or timelines for approval of existing applications.
“On behalf of its nearly 2,000 members, NCIA hereby requests that these proposed regulations be amended and/or withdrawn… and that a qualified public health agency be appointed to serve as the coordinating agency instead,” the comments conclude. “We also request that the applicant pool be expanded to include companies that are or have cultivated cannabis in accordance with the laws of any state, regardless of whether the DEA concludes such actions did or did not technically violate the [Controlled Substance Act]. Most importantly, NCIA requests that the U.S. Government incentivize research and create a pathway for less restrictive means by which the country can access important information about the medicinal properties of cannabis.”
Cannabis is legal for adults in eleven states as well as the District of Columbia and the territories of CNMI and Guam, and 33 states as well as several territories have comprehensive medical cannabis laws. The substance is legal in some form in 47 states.
The National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) is the largest cannabis trade association in the U.S. and the only organization broadly representing cannabis-related businesses at the national level. NCIA promotes the growth of a responsible and legitimate cannabis industry and works toward a favorable social, economic, and legal environment for that industry in the United States.
C No Ego
runnin wild, runnin true, found, lost, There
DEA answers to the UN and the Treaties in place to make criminals out of people who ingest nature ... the UN Drug war in a world wide UN driven War on nature and people who imbibe in nature .. until we unsign the UN treaties from parliament nothing @ all will change ... How exactly Did Canada go full legal right out of the starting Gate ? they somehow got out of UN control enough to do that , propbably by not taking in UN money to enforce drug laws .. UN is runnjing this war from uncharted waterz = Piracy
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Congress could save 10,000+ cannabis jobs with access to stimulus funds
A new national survey conducted by Leafly and the National Cannabis Roundtable has found that tens of thousands of jobs could be saved if Congress were to allow federal COVID-19 stimulus funds to flow through to state-legal companies.
The survey of 484 cannabis retailers, growers, processors, and hardware and service providers was conducted across all legal states between April 20 and May 5, 2020. Of those companies, 85% said they would be able to save jobs with access to stimulus money, and 30% said they will go out of business without access.
The National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR) is a trade association that promotes cannabis legal reform on the federal level. Members of NCR include Leafly, Cresco Labs, Schwazze, Trulieve, CannaCraft, Kiva, and law firm Greenspoon Marder.
Fed relief denied to cannabis companies
When the COVID-19 pandemic sent the national economy into an unprecedented freefall, Congress responded with a series of billion-dollar relief bills aimed at saving millions of American jobs.
Those funds were denied to the nation’s thousands of cannabis companies, though, because most banks refuse to serve cannabis-related companies due to the conflicted status of cannabis—legal under state law, illegal under federal law. Federal banking and Small Business Administration rules prevent all cannabis and cannabis-adjacent companies from applying for funds available to all other American companies impacted by the pandemic.
Those funds make a real difference. Just one example: Last Thursday, Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bank announced that it had secured more than $5.5 billion in funding approval for more than 31,000 non-cannabis businesses through the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program. Those loans have the potential to support up to 555,000 jobs.
The Leafly/NCR survey follows a push by a coalition of cannabis advocacy and industry organizations, which on Friday sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to include the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act or similar language in the next pandemic relief package. That would create a safe harbor for banks and other financial services providers to work with cannabis and ancillary businesses that are in compliance with state law.
Yet cannabis is USA’s great job creator
Legal cannabis has been the fastest growing industry in the US for the past four years, according to the 2020 Leafly Cannabis Jobs Report, the only comprehensive count of cannabis jobs in the absence of federal legalization. As of February 2020, a record-high 243,700 Americans were employed in the legal cannabis industry, making the $10.7 billion legal cannabis industry America’s single greatest job creation engine in recent years.
“Before this crisis began, the cannabis industry represented the fastest growing jobs market in the US, despite restrictions on access to banking services,” said Saphira Galoob, NCR Executive Director.
“Our businesses are going to be critical to the country’s economic recovery, and we are asking to be treated like every other small business in the country,” Galoob added. “Not only should cannabis businesses have access to economic stimulus and relief funds, they should have access to fundamental banking services through the SAFE Banking Act.”
Essential to states, but not to Feds
“The cannabis industry is considered essential in nearly every state that has legalized, providing crucial jobs and tax revenue to their communities,” said Yoko Miyashita, Leafly’s General Counsel. “Yet, the industry can’t access traditional banking services and the impact from that denial of access is compounded in this pandemic, where access to federal stimulus funds, like the Paycheck Protection Program, is only available through banks.”
“This is the time for common sense solutions,” Miyashita added. “We need to pass the SAFE Banking Act and give these tax-paying, job-creating businesses the stimulus and relief funds that will keep thousands of Americans employed during these unprecedented times.”
58% have reduced staff
The survey found that 58% of cannabis companies have reduced staff. Of those companies, 22% have lost employees in permanent layoffs.
Interestingly, a large percentage of companies are holding on to valued staff members in hopes of bringing them back. More than half (57%) of all companies that have reduced staff said their employees were on “temporary layoff,” indicating an intention to re-hire as soon as economic conditions allow. Another 23% said they had furloughed staff members, which means employees have been suspended from work without pay for a fixed period of time.
In some cases, companies may elect to lay off workers instead of furloughing them because a laid-off worker can apply for and receive state unemployment benefits—whereas a furloughed worker remains technically employed.
The survey also captured the fact that the cannabis industry still remains dominated by thousands of independent start-ups, despite a trend toward consolidation by multi-state operators. Small businesses with less than 100 employees represented 92% of those surveyed, and 85% of companies had reduced staffing by one to ten employees.
A new national survey conducted by Leafly and the National Cannabis Roundtable has found that tens of thousands of jobs could be saved if Congress were to allow federal COVID-19 stimulus funds to flow through to state-legal companies.
The survey of 484 cannabis retailers, growers, processors, and hardware and service providers was conducted across all legal states between April 20 and May 5, 2020. Of those companies, 85% said they would be able to save jobs with access to stimulus money, and 30% said they will go out of business without access.
The National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR) is a trade association that promotes cannabis legal reform on the federal level. Members of NCR include Leafly, Cresco Labs, Schwazze, Trulieve, CannaCraft, Kiva, and law firm Greenspoon Marder.
Fed relief denied to cannabis companies
When the COVID-19 pandemic sent the national economy into an unprecedented freefall, Congress responded with a series of billion-dollar relief bills aimed at saving millions of American jobs.
Those funds were denied to the nation’s thousands of cannabis companies, though, because most banks refuse to serve cannabis-related companies due to the conflicted status of cannabis—legal under state law, illegal under federal law. Federal banking and Small Business Administration rules prevent all cannabis and cannabis-adjacent companies from applying for funds available to all other American companies impacted by the pandemic.
Those funds make a real difference. Just one example: Last Thursday, Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bank announced that it had secured more than $5.5 billion in funding approval for more than 31,000 non-cannabis businesses through the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program. Those loans have the potential to support up to 555,000 jobs.
The Leafly/NCR survey follows a push by a coalition of cannabis advocacy and industry organizations, which on Friday sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to include the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act or similar language in the next pandemic relief package. That would create a safe harbor for banks and other financial services providers to work with cannabis and ancillary businesses that are in compliance with state law.
Yet cannabis is USA’s great job creator
Legal cannabis has been the fastest growing industry in the US for the past four years, according to the 2020 Leafly Cannabis Jobs Report, the only comprehensive count of cannabis jobs in the absence of federal legalization. As of February 2020, a record-high 243,700 Americans were employed in the legal cannabis industry, making the $10.7 billion legal cannabis industry America’s single greatest job creation engine in recent years.
“Before this crisis began, the cannabis industry represented the fastest growing jobs market in the US, despite restrictions on access to banking services,” said Saphira Galoob, NCR Executive Director.
“Our businesses are going to be critical to the country’s economic recovery, and we are asking to be treated like every other small business in the country,” Galoob added. “Not only should cannabis businesses have access to economic stimulus and relief funds, they should have access to fundamental banking services through the SAFE Banking Act.”
Essential to states, but not to Feds
“The cannabis industry is considered essential in nearly every state that has legalized, providing crucial jobs and tax revenue to their communities,” said Yoko Miyashita, Leafly’s General Counsel. “Yet, the industry can’t access traditional banking services and the impact from that denial of access is compounded in this pandemic, where access to federal stimulus funds, like the Paycheck Protection Program, is only available through banks.”
“This is the time for common sense solutions,” Miyashita added. “We need to pass the SAFE Banking Act and give these tax-paying, job-creating businesses the stimulus and relief funds that will keep thousands of Americans employed during these unprecedented times.”
58% have reduced staff
The survey found that 58% of cannabis companies have reduced staff. Of those companies, 22% have lost employees in permanent layoffs.
Interestingly, a large percentage of companies are holding on to valued staff members in hopes of bringing them back. More than half (57%) of all companies that have reduced staff said their employees were on “temporary layoff,” indicating an intention to re-hire as soon as economic conditions allow. Another 23% said they had furloughed staff members, which means employees have been suspended from work without pay for a fixed period of time.
In some cases, companies may elect to lay off workers instead of furloughing them because a laid-off worker can apply for and receive state unemployment benefits—whereas a furloughed worker remains technically employed.
The survey also captured the fact that the cannabis industry still remains dominated by thousands of independent start-ups, despite a trend toward consolidation by multi-state operators. Small businesses with less than 100 employees represented 92% of those surveyed, and 85% of companies had reduced staffing by one to ten employees.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Cannabis Industry Demands That the DEA Keep Out of Marijuana Research
A national cannabis trade group is publicly calling for the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to keep its hands off of medical marijuana research. Doctors and public health officials—not law enforcement—should be in charge of regulating clinical cannabis research, they say.
“One of the many qualified public health agencies in the federal government (i.e. Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, etc.) should manage all of the processes related to research into the medicinal benefits of cannabis, including making decisions about who might qualify to grow and sell the product to researchers,” said the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) in a May 8 statement to the DEA. The lobbying group represents cannabis businesses nationally.
“This is perfectly consistent with US [global drug control] treaty obligations,” NCIA continued. “Furthermore, the US should adopt a regulatory framework that encourages and facilitates further research, rather than chilling it.”
NCIA’s demand comes after the DEA released a long-awaited proposed rule-change to its medical marijuana research regulations in late March. The agency proposed to license more institutions to grow marijuana for research purposes, and to let them produce different types of marijuana products and derivatives, like CBD. But under this proposal, the DEA would assume full ownership over all marijuana produced for research. A public comment period on this rule-change continues until May 22.
If accepted, the proposal would be a major departure from the status quo. As Filter has reported, currently the only institution that can legally produce marijuana for research in the US is the University of Mississippi, and they don’t have to forfeit ownership of the product to the DEA. The DEA first allowed other institutions to apply for a license to grow research cannabis in August 2016. More than three years later, the DEA has failed to consider 37 outstanding applications. This inaction prompted pressure from members of Congress and a lawsuit.
The NCIA is arguing that any rule-change the DEA adopts will ultimately slow down medical cannabis research and prevent positive outcomes for patients nationwide. The group cited the overwhelming public support for medical marijuana among Americans—at least 90 percent among both Democrats and Republicans. NCIA also noted that there are at least 3 million US medical marijuana patients across 47 states with some form of legal access.
That number is certainly an underestimate, however. A 2017 Yahoo News and Marist College survey found that 55 million American adults are “current” marijuana users, with 35 million “regular” users. A proportion of this huge population is undoubtedly using marijuana for medical purposes, whether or not they are doing so legally or with a doctor’s recommendation.
The NCIA argues that the DEA has an inherent conflict of interests in overseeing medical marijuana research, because the agency’s mandate is to enforce the federal prohibition of marijuana. The DEA seized 4 million cannabis plants in 2019—a 42 percent increase from the year prior.
“Unreasonable barriers placed on research, including limiting the number of qualified applicants or further delays in the process, increases the risks to millions of patients who use cannabis, contributing to ongoing uncertainties related to inaccurate dosing, inappropriate formulation application, interactions with pharmaceutical drugs and botanicals, and basic safety monitoring,” the NCIA stated.
Unwelcome regulatory complexities have been built on the fact that smoking is only one way of many to consume cannabis, which can also be eaten, vaporized, applied topically or consumed in an alcoholic tincture, to name a few. “Cannabis” is also not just one drug—there are hundreds of active components in the same plant, including cannabinoids like THC and CBD, as well as aromatic compounds called terpenes, like linalool and myrcene. “Cannabis” includes two species and a large variety of different strains, each with their own therapeutic and medicinal effects.
Filter has reported on some of the controversies that animate medical marijuana science: Can medical marijuana treat opioid use disorder, and can it help people who also use buprenorphine or methadone in recovery? Does it help young kids with epilepsy? And what does addiction to cannabis look like, and how could we treat it?
Rigorous, unhindered and widespread research into medical marijuana can answer a lot of questions about what it can or can’t do, and who can benefit. Few outside of the government would argue that the DEA is an appropriate agency to oversee this.
“There is no putting the genie back in the bottle,” stated the NCIA. “It is clear the American public wants regulated, tested and safe cannabis.”
A national cannabis trade group is publicly calling for the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to keep its hands off of medical marijuana research. Doctors and public health officials—not law enforcement—should be in charge of regulating clinical cannabis research, they say.
“One of the many qualified public health agencies in the federal government (i.e. Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, etc.) should manage all of the processes related to research into the medicinal benefits of cannabis, including making decisions about who might qualify to grow and sell the product to researchers,” said the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) in a May 8 statement to the DEA. The lobbying group represents cannabis businesses nationally.
“This is perfectly consistent with US [global drug control] treaty obligations,” NCIA continued. “Furthermore, the US should adopt a regulatory framework that encourages and facilitates further research, rather than chilling it.”
NCIA’s demand comes after the DEA released a long-awaited proposed rule-change to its medical marijuana research regulations in late March. The agency proposed to license more institutions to grow marijuana for research purposes, and to let them produce different types of marijuana products and derivatives, like CBD. But under this proposal, the DEA would assume full ownership over all marijuana produced for research. A public comment period on this rule-change continues until May 22.
If accepted, the proposal would be a major departure from the status quo. As Filter has reported, currently the only institution that can legally produce marijuana for research in the US is the University of Mississippi, and they don’t have to forfeit ownership of the product to the DEA. The DEA first allowed other institutions to apply for a license to grow research cannabis in August 2016. More than three years later, the DEA has failed to consider 37 outstanding applications. This inaction prompted pressure from members of Congress and a lawsuit.
The NCIA is arguing that any rule-change the DEA adopts will ultimately slow down medical cannabis research and prevent positive outcomes for patients nationwide. The group cited the overwhelming public support for medical marijuana among Americans—at least 90 percent among both Democrats and Republicans. NCIA also noted that there are at least 3 million US medical marijuana patients across 47 states with some form of legal access.
That number is certainly an underestimate, however. A 2017 Yahoo News and Marist College survey found that 55 million American adults are “current” marijuana users, with 35 million “regular” users. A proportion of this huge population is undoubtedly using marijuana for medical purposes, whether or not they are doing so legally or with a doctor’s recommendation.
The NCIA argues that the DEA has an inherent conflict of interests in overseeing medical marijuana research, because the agency’s mandate is to enforce the federal prohibition of marijuana. The DEA seized 4 million cannabis plants in 2019—a 42 percent increase from the year prior.
“Unreasonable barriers placed on research, including limiting the number of qualified applicants or further delays in the process, increases the risks to millions of patients who use cannabis, contributing to ongoing uncertainties related to inaccurate dosing, inappropriate formulation application, interactions with pharmaceutical drugs and botanicals, and basic safety monitoring,” the NCIA stated.
Unwelcome regulatory complexities have been built on the fact that smoking is only one way of many to consume cannabis, which can also be eaten, vaporized, applied topically or consumed in an alcoholic tincture, to name a few. “Cannabis” is also not just one drug—there are hundreds of active components in the same plant, including cannabinoids like THC and CBD, as well as aromatic compounds called terpenes, like linalool and myrcene. “Cannabis” includes two species and a large variety of different strains, each with their own therapeutic and medicinal effects.
Filter has reported on some of the controversies that animate medical marijuana science: Can medical marijuana treat opioid use disorder, and can it help people who also use buprenorphine or methadone in recovery? Does it help young kids with epilepsy? And what does addiction to cannabis look like, and how could we treat it?
Rigorous, unhindered and widespread research into medical marijuana can answer a lot of questions about what it can or can’t do, and who can benefit. Few outside of the government would argue that the DEA is an appropriate agency to oversee this.
“There is no putting the genie back in the bottle,” stated the NCIA. “It is clear the American public wants regulated, tested and safe cannabis.”
bulllee
Well-Known Member
Cannabis banking reform included in latest Congressional COVID relief bill
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a new $3 trillion coronavirus relief package on Tuesday that includes long-sought banking reform for the legal cannabis industry. While the bill includes more relief for impacted businesses, cannabis companies will not likely be eligible to receive those funds.
The 1,800-page bill, named the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or HEROES Act, represents the next phase of COVID-19 relief aimed at helping Americans struggling through the current public health and economic shock.
The bill would:
The new bill does not include small business relief that cannabis companies can access. Previous rounds of coronavirus relief funding were denied to cannabis companies based on the illegal status of marijuana under federal law. Specifically, an outdated Small Business Administration (SBA) policy prohibited cannabis businesses from applying for federal COVID-19 relief funds. Language to amend SBA eligibility was not included in the bill.
In late April, more than 40 members of Congress signed multiple letters to Congressional leaders demanding SBA reform. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) has introduced legislation to address the problem, and a coalition of reform advocates along with criminal justice and civil rights groups have urged members of Congress to adopt this reform.
“The inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in the CARES 2 package is a positive development, but one that’s akin to applying a band-aid to a gaping wound,” said NORML Political Director Justin Strekal. “In the majority of states, these cannabis businesses have been deemed essential during this pandemic. But at the federal level, they are being cast aside by Congress. Those small cannabis businesses facing tough economic times are essentially being told by Congress to shutter their doors and fire their employees.”
Relief funds could save thousands of jobs
That funding could make a huge difference in the lives of cannabis workers nationwide. A national survey conducted by Leafly and the National Cannabis Roundtable, released earlier today, found that tens of thousands of jobs could be saved if Congress were to allow federal COVID-19 stimulus funds to flow through to state-legal companies. Nearly one-third of cannabis companies surveyed said they could go out of business without COVID-19 relief.
The survey of 484 cannabis retailers, growers, processors, and hardware and service providers was conducted across all legal states between April 20 and May 5, 2020. Of those companies, 85% said they would be able to save jobs with access to stimulus money, and 30% said they will go out of business without access.
“Cannabis businesses are dealing with the same hardships as other small business without the same critical financial tools and reliable banking services,” said Saphira Galoob, executive director of the National Cannabis Roundtable. “Providing access to banking services removes some of the shackles that are holding back the full potential of the fastest growing sector of the US economy.”
Related
Congress could save 10,000+ cannabis jobs with access to stimulus funds
This is why cannabis is a cash-only business
House Democrats folded the language of the SAFE Banking Act within the HEROES Act. The SAFE Banking Act would allow banks and other financial institutions to work with state-legal cannabis companies without fear of federal reprimand. The SAFE Banking Act passed the House in September 2019, but remains stalled in the Senate.
As a consequence, customers can’t use credit cards or debit cards at most legal stores. Many cannabis companies have had their accounts closed without notice. Some workers in the industry can’t get home or car loans.
In some states, smaller banks and credit unions do offer simple deposit accounts for state-licensed cannabis companies. But those accounts come with extremely burdensome documentation requirements, and are expensive to maintain as a result.
Safe harbor in the bill
The cannabis banking language in the HEROES Act would offer what’s known as “safe harbor” to depository institutions that work with cannabis companies. That means the FDIC and the NCUA, the two federal banking guarantors, may not cancel or limit a bank or credit union’s depository insurance solely based on the fact that the bank provides financial services to a cannabis business or service provider.
The bill also specifies that federal regulators can’t penalize “or otherwise discourage” a bank from providing services to a cannabis company, or to state and local authorities who regulate the cannabis industry.
There are protections for individual workers, too. The bill prohibits federal regulators from recommending or encouraging banks to refuse or cancel the personal accounts of clients who work for legitimate cannabis companies.
The full bill is available here: BILLS-116hr6800ih
Mod note: Post edited to insert link to original article in title.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a new $3 trillion coronavirus relief package on Tuesday that includes long-sought banking reform for the legal cannabis industry. While the bill includes more relief for impacted businesses, cannabis companies will not likely be eligible to receive those funds.
The 1,800-page bill, named the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or HEROES Act, represents the next phase of COVID-19 relief aimed at helping Americans struggling through the current public health and economic shock.
The bill would:
- Offer hazard pay to health care workers fighting the pandemic
- Send a second $1,200 payment to most taxpayers
- Extend the weekly $600 boost to unemployed workers through January 2021.
- Provide relief to students burdened with college debt
- Bolster state budgets hammered by COVID-19 costs
- Provide safe harbor for banks that serve state-legal cannabis companies
The new bill does not include small business relief that cannabis companies can access. Previous rounds of coronavirus relief funding were denied to cannabis companies based on the illegal status of marijuana under federal law. Specifically, an outdated Small Business Administration (SBA) policy prohibited cannabis businesses from applying for federal COVID-19 relief funds. Language to amend SBA eligibility was not included in the bill.
In late April, more than 40 members of Congress signed multiple letters to Congressional leaders demanding SBA reform. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) has introduced legislation to address the problem, and a coalition of reform advocates along with criminal justice and civil rights groups have urged members of Congress to adopt this reform.
“The inclusion of the SAFE Banking Act in the CARES 2 package is a positive development, but one that’s akin to applying a band-aid to a gaping wound,” said NORML Political Director Justin Strekal. “In the majority of states, these cannabis businesses have been deemed essential during this pandemic. But at the federal level, they are being cast aside by Congress. Those small cannabis businesses facing tough economic times are essentially being told by Congress to shutter their doors and fire their employees.”
Relief funds could save thousands of jobs
That funding could make a huge difference in the lives of cannabis workers nationwide. A national survey conducted by Leafly and the National Cannabis Roundtable, released earlier today, found that tens of thousands of jobs could be saved if Congress were to allow federal COVID-19 stimulus funds to flow through to state-legal companies. Nearly one-third of cannabis companies surveyed said they could go out of business without COVID-19 relief.
The survey of 484 cannabis retailers, growers, processors, and hardware and service providers was conducted across all legal states between April 20 and May 5, 2020. Of those companies, 85% said they would be able to save jobs with access to stimulus money, and 30% said they will go out of business without access.
“Cannabis businesses are dealing with the same hardships as other small business without the same critical financial tools and reliable banking services,” said Saphira Galoob, executive director of the National Cannabis Roundtable. “Providing access to banking services removes some of the shackles that are holding back the full potential of the fastest growing sector of the US economy.”
Related
Congress could save 10,000+ cannabis jobs with access to stimulus funds
This is why cannabis is a cash-only business
House Democrats folded the language of the SAFE Banking Act within the HEROES Act. The SAFE Banking Act would allow banks and other financial institutions to work with state-legal cannabis companies without fear of federal reprimand. The SAFE Banking Act passed the House in September 2019, but remains stalled in the Senate.
Ever since the beginnings of the legal cannabis in 1996, this has been a cash-only industry. That’s due to outdated federal banking laws that were intended to curb money laundering by illegal drug cartels. Those laws didn’t foresee the coming of state-legal cannabis, so a grower or retailer licensed by a legal state today is still seen as an illegal drug runner within the context of federal banking laws.
As a consequence, customers can’t use credit cards or debit cards at most legal stores. Many cannabis companies have had their accounts closed without notice. Some workers in the industry can’t get home or car loans.
In some states, smaller banks and credit unions do offer simple deposit accounts for state-licensed cannabis companies. But those accounts come with extremely burdensome documentation requirements, and are expensive to maintain as a result.
Safe harbor in the bill
The cannabis banking language in the HEROES Act would offer what’s known as “safe harbor” to depository institutions that work with cannabis companies. That means the FDIC and the NCUA, the two federal banking guarantors, may not cancel or limit a bank or credit union’s depository insurance solely based on the fact that the bank provides financial services to a cannabis business or service provider.
The bill also specifies that federal regulators can’t penalize “or otherwise discourage” a bank from providing services to a cannabis company, or to state and local authorities who regulate the cannabis industry.
There are protections for individual workers, too. The bill prohibits federal regulators from recommending or encouraging banks to refuse or cancel the personal accounts of clients who work for legitimate cannabis companies.
The full bill is available here: BILLS-116hr6800ih
Mod note: Post edited to insert link to original article in title.
Last edited by a moderator:
bulllee
Well-Known Member
San Francisco gets alcohol, tobacco and marijuana for addicts quarantined in hotels
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco is using private donations to deliver alcohol, tobacco and medical marijuana to a few dozen people dealing with addiction as they isolate or quarantine in city-leased hotel rooms during the pandemic, officials confirmed Wednesday.
There are about 270 people, mostly homeless, staying in hotel rooms to recover from COVID-19 or to wait out possible exposure to the virus. Nearly a dozen people have received alcohol and more than two dozen have received tobacco, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
In this Thursday, April 2, 2020, file photo, workers in hazardous material suits clean inside a private hotel the city has contracted with to take vulnerable people who show symptoms or are awaiting test results for the coronavirus in San Francisco. San Francisco is using private donations to deliver alcohol, tobacco and medical marijuana for a few dozen people dealing with addiction as they isolate or quarantine in city-leased hotel rooms during the pandemic, officials confirmed Wednesday, May 6, 2020. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco is using private donations to deliver alcohol, tobacco and medical marijuana to a few dozen people dealing with addiction as they isolate or quarantine in city-leased hotel rooms during the pandemic, officials confirmed Wednesday.
There are about 270 people, mostly homeless, staying in hotel rooms to recover from COVID-19 or to wait out possible exposure to the virus. Nearly a dozen people have received alcohol and more than two dozen have received tobacco, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
In this Thursday, April 2, 2020, file photo, workers in hazardous material suits clean inside a private hotel the city has contracted with to take vulnerable people who show symptoms or are awaiting test results for the coronavirus in San Francisco. San Francisco is using private donations to deliver alcohol, tobacco and medical marijuana for a few dozen people dealing with addiction as they isolate or quarantine in city-leased hotel rooms during the pandemic, officials confirmed Wednesday, May 6, 2020. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
Baron23
Well-Known Member
While I am a rabid advocate for MJ legalization, I do not personally support tacking non-related items to larger legislation to...well, bascically circumvent open debate and democrat vote on the particular issue being added as a rider.
This is exactly how we end up with pork barrel projects approved and funded. Its wrong, IMO, in every case though it done all of the time.
Surprise! There's Cannabis Reform Legislation in the Latest COVID-19 Relief Bill
For more than two months now, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted economic activity to a degree we've never previously witnessed. All told, the U.S. unemployment rate is nearing 15%, which is a level unseen since the Great Depression.
With the understanding that things may not be "normal" for a while, Congress passed and the president signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act into law on March 27. Among other things, the $2.2 trillion CARES Act provides $100 billion to hospitals, $500 billion for distressed industries, almost $350 billion for small business loans, and $260 billion for a four-month expansion of the unemployment benefits program.
But the most memorable aspect of the CARES Act is the $300 billion directed toward stimulus payouts.
Image source: Getty Images.
A second round of stimulus payments has been proposed
These payouts, officially known as Economic Impact Payments, were sorely needed by Americans and their families to help purchase essential goods, as well as pay rent, mortgage, or utility bills. Unfortunately, surveys have shown that the vast majority of stimulus recipients burn through their payout in four weeks or less. Thus, for many folks, a second round of stimulus is very much needed.
Understanding these concerns, the Democrat-led House of Representatives introduced the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act last week. At $3 trillion, it would surpass the CARES Act as the biggest relief package in history, if approved.
The HEROES Act puts money to work in a variety of ways. It provides $1 trillion to at-need states, creates a $200 billion Heroes' fund to provide hazard pay to essential works, extends the unemployment benefits program expansion through January 2021, and allots $175 billion to help struggling families pay their rent, mortgage, or utility bills.
Additionally, the HEROES Act would mark round two of direct stimulus payouts. Using the same adjusted gross income eligibility requirements as the CARES Act, another maximum payout of up to $1,200 would head toward single taxpayers. However, changes in the bills' language, as well as in how much dependents can add to what a parent or household receives, could boost household payments to as much as $6,000.
But putting money into the pockets of Americans isn't all the HEROES Act would do. A deeper dive into the 1,815-page bill uncovers, of all things, cannabis banking reform legislation.
Image source: Getty Images.
Surprise! The SAFE Banking Act is contained within the 1,815-page HEROES Act
For those who may recall, the House made history in September 2019 when it passed the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act in a landslide (321 yea votes to 103 nay votes). It was the first piece of stand-alone cannabis legislation to ever reach any congressional floor for vote -- and it passed.
As the name entails, the SAFE Banking Act would provide permanent protections to financial institutions that want to offer basic banking services, such as a checking account, line of credit, or term loan, to marijuana businesses in legalized states. Although some states are currently allowing banks and credit unions to provide these traditional forms of access to financial services, marijuana remains a Schedule I substance at the federal level, and is therefore illicit. Since most financial institutions report to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a federally created entity, they risk criminal or financial penalties by offering services to businesses engaged in a federally illicit activity.
In addition to many pot stocks being unable to access lines of credit or loans, they've been forced to deal in cash, which is both a security concern and a growth inhibitor.
Further, since cannabis is a federally illicit substance, marijuana businesses haven't been eligible for any of the federal assistance tied to the CARES Act or other small business loan initiatives.
But beginning on page 1,066 of the HEROES Act, and continuing through page 1,091, you'll find the exact language used in the SAFE Banking Act that passed on the House floor in September. In other words, as the HEROES Act is written now, its passage would free up banks to provide financial services to pot stocks without the fear of federal prosecution or monetary penalties, as well as make pot businesses eligible for COVID-19 financial relief.
Image source: Getty Images.
Sorry, but cannabis banking reform won't pass muster
On paper, it sounds great. But the reality is that the HEROES Act contains numerous provisions that the Republican-led Senate and/or President Trump are unlikely to agree with. This makes the chance of the SAFE Banking Act becoming law very slim.
Putting aside the numerous other provisions contained within the HEROES Act that primarily concern the COVID-19 relief effort, the SAFE Banking Act would first have to get by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Following Jeff Sessions' departure as attorney general, there's probably not a more ardent opponent to reforming cannabis legislation than McConnell. As Senate Majority Leader, he can block the HEROES Act from coming to vote, or block the addition of certain riders to legislation.
Another key concern would be Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). Like McConnell, Crapo has long had reservations about marijuana. In December, Crapo offered up an amended version of the SAFE Banking Act, calling for financing to only go to businesses that retail products containing less than 2% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive cannabinoid that gets users high. This limitation would, effectively, eliminate almost all pot businesses from gaining access to traditional forms of financing.
About the only means of obtaining consistent financing for U.S. multistate operators (MSO) of late has been through sale-leaseback agreements via Innovative Industrial Properties (NYSE:IIPR). Innovative Industrial has taken advantage of Capitol Hill's unwillingness to reform cannabis banking laws to become a core provider of cash to MSOs. In a sale-leaseback arrangement, an MSO sells a cultivation farm or processing site to Innovative Industrial in exchange for cash. IIP then turns around and leases the property right back to the selling party, thereby locking in a renter for an extended period of time. As long as the SAFE Banking Act remains a proposal and not a law, IIP will continue to hold this financing arrangement advantage.
This is exactly how we end up with pork barrel projects approved and funded. Its wrong, IMO, in every case though it done all of the time.
Surprise! There's Cannabis Reform Legislation in the Latest COVID-19 Relief Bill
For more than two months now, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted economic activity to a degree we've never previously witnessed. All told, the U.S. unemployment rate is nearing 15%, which is a level unseen since the Great Depression.
With the understanding that things may not be "normal" for a while, Congress passed and the president signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act into law on March 27. Among other things, the $2.2 trillion CARES Act provides $100 billion to hospitals, $500 billion for distressed industries, almost $350 billion for small business loans, and $260 billion for a four-month expansion of the unemployment benefits program.
But the most memorable aspect of the CARES Act is the $300 billion directed toward stimulus payouts.
Image source: Getty Images.
A second round of stimulus payments has been proposed
These payouts, officially known as Economic Impact Payments, were sorely needed by Americans and their families to help purchase essential goods, as well as pay rent, mortgage, or utility bills. Unfortunately, surveys have shown that the vast majority of stimulus recipients burn through their payout in four weeks or less. Thus, for many folks, a second round of stimulus is very much needed.
Understanding these concerns, the Democrat-led House of Representatives introduced the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act last week. At $3 trillion, it would surpass the CARES Act as the biggest relief package in history, if approved.
The HEROES Act puts money to work in a variety of ways. It provides $1 trillion to at-need states, creates a $200 billion Heroes' fund to provide hazard pay to essential works, extends the unemployment benefits program expansion through January 2021, and allots $175 billion to help struggling families pay their rent, mortgage, or utility bills.
Additionally, the HEROES Act would mark round two of direct stimulus payouts. Using the same adjusted gross income eligibility requirements as the CARES Act, another maximum payout of up to $1,200 would head toward single taxpayers. However, changes in the bills' language, as well as in how much dependents can add to what a parent or household receives, could boost household payments to as much as $6,000.
But putting money into the pockets of Americans isn't all the HEROES Act would do. A deeper dive into the 1,815-page bill uncovers, of all things, cannabis banking reform legislation.
Image source: Getty Images.
Surprise! The SAFE Banking Act is contained within the 1,815-page HEROES Act
For those who may recall, the House made history in September 2019 when it passed the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act in a landslide (321 yea votes to 103 nay votes). It was the first piece of stand-alone cannabis legislation to ever reach any congressional floor for vote -- and it passed.
As the name entails, the SAFE Banking Act would provide permanent protections to financial institutions that want to offer basic banking services, such as a checking account, line of credit, or term loan, to marijuana businesses in legalized states. Although some states are currently allowing banks and credit unions to provide these traditional forms of access to financial services, marijuana remains a Schedule I substance at the federal level, and is therefore illicit. Since most financial institutions report to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a federally created entity, they risk criminal or financial penalties by offering services to businesses engaged in a federally illicit activity.
In addition to many pot stocks being unable to access lines of credit or loans, they've been forced to deal in cash, which is both a security concern and a growth inhibitor.
Further, since cannabis is a federally illicit substance, marijuana businesses haven't been eligible for any of the federal assistance tied to the CARES Act or other small business loan initiatives.
But beginning on page 1,066 of the HEROES Act, and continuing through page 1,091, you'll find the exact language used in the SAFE Banking Act that passed on the House floor in September. In other words, as the HEROES Act is written now, its passage would free up banks to provide financial services to pot stocks without the fear of federal prosecution or monetary penalties, as well as make pot businesses eligible for COVID-19 financial relief.
Image source: Getty Images.
Sorry, but cannabis banking reform won't pass muster
On paper, it sounds great. But the reality is that the HEROES Act contains numerous provisions that the Republican-led Senate and/or President Trump are unlikely to agree with. This makes the chance of the SAFE Banking Act becoming law very slim.
Putting aside the numerous other provisions contained within the HEROES Act that primarily concern the COVID-19 relief effort, the SAFE Banking Act would first have to get by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Following Jeff Sessions' departure as attorney general, there's probably not a more ardent opponent to reforming cannabis legislation than McConnell. As Senate Majority Leader, he can block the HEROES Act from coming to vote, or block the addition of certain riders to legislation.
Another key concern would be Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). Like McConnell, Crapo has long had reservations about marijuana. In December, Crapo offered up an amended version of the SAFE Banking Act, calling for financing to only go to businesses that retail products containing less than 2% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive cannabinoid that gets users high. This limitation would, effectively, eliminate almost all pot businesses from gaining access to traditional forms of financing.
About the only means of obtaining consistent financing for U.S. multistate operators (MSO) of late has been through sale-leaseback agreements via Innovative Industrial Properties (NYSE:IIPR). Innovative Industrial has taken advantage of Capitol Hill's unwillingness to reform cannabis banking laws to become a core provider of cash to MSOs. In a sale-leaseback arrangement, an MSO sells a cultivation farm or processing site to Innovative Industrial in exchange for cash. IIP then turns around and leases the property right back to the selling party, thereby locking in a renter for an extended period of time. As long as the SAFE Banking Act remains a proposal and not a law, IIP will continue to hold this financing arrangement advantage.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Biden’s opposition to marijuana legalization is at odds with most Americans’ views
A majority of Americans, especially Democrats, support legalization. Biden doesn’t.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, still opposes federal marijuana legalization — putting him at odds not just with the majority of Democrats but also Americans overall.
In debates, in his criminal justice reform plan, and in his “Plan for Black America,” Biden has said he supports the federal decriminalization of marijuana, which would maintain fines but do away with prison or jail time for possession. But he remains opposed to full legalization, which would remove all penalties and, typically, allow sales for recreational purposes.
The position is more reform-friendly than that of President Donald Trump, who opposes both legalization and decriminalization. But it’s still out-of-step with the views of US voters, especially Democrats.
Based on surveys by Gallup and the Pew Research Center, roughly two-thirds of US adults support marijuana legalization. Support for legalization has increased steadily over the years, up from about 12 percent when Gallup first started polling on the question in 1969.
When US adults are asked about their support for marijuana legalization in greater detail, only 8 percent say it shouldn’t be legal at all, according to Pew; 59 percent say it should be legal for medical and recreational use, while 32 percent say it should be legal for medical use only.
Democrats are even more in favor of legalization, with average support of 78 percent across four generations, according to Gallup and Pew’s surveys, though a majority of Republicans also support it. Based on Pew’s findings, every generation of Democrats surveyed support marijuana legalization.
In other words, Biden is out of step not just with other Democrats, but also a majority of Democrats in his own generation.
The Biden campaign did not respond on the record to Vox’s request for comment.
Supporters of legalization argue it eliminates the harms of marijuana prohibition: the hundreds of thousands of arrests around the US, the racial disparities behind those arrests, and the billions of dollars that flow from the black market for illicit marijuana to drug cartels that then use the money for violent operations around the world. All of this, legalization advocates say, outweigh any potential downsides — such as increased cannabis use — that may come with legalization.
Opponents, however, claim legalization will enable a huge marijuana industry that would market the drug irresponsibly. They point to America’s experiences with the alcohol and tobacco industries in particular, which have built their financial empires in large part on some of the heaviest consumers of their products. This could result in more people using pot, even if it leads to negative health consequences.
Throughout the primary campaign, other Democratic candidates took far more aggressive positions on marijuana reform. Before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) released a marijuana legalization plan, which would not only legalize marijuana at the federal level but also encourage states to legalize it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) released a detailed plan to legalize and regulate marijuana — at 4:20 pm, because humor is alive and well.
In fact, Biden was alone among the top-polling Democratic campaigns in his opposition to federal marijuana legalization. Biden’s position led to a particularly colorful exchange at the Democratic debate in November — at which Booker, commenting on Biden saying he opposes federal legalization, remarked, “I thought you might’ve been high when you said it.”
But despite the support for legalization among Democrats and Americans overall, the issue, apparently, wasn’t a major priority for Democratic voters during the primary. Biden still walked away with the most delegates to became the presumptive nominee.
With a coronavirus pandemic and recession still underway, perhaps Biden is hoping the same will hold up in the general election too.
A majority of Americans, especially Democrats, support legalization. Biden doesn’t.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, still opposes federal marijuana legalization — putting him at odds not just with the majority of Democrats but also Americans overall.
In debates, in his criminal justice reform plan, and in his “Plan for Black America,” Biden has said he supports the federal decriminalization of marijuana, which would maintain fines but do away with prison or jail time for possession. But he remains opposed to full legalization, which would remove all penalties and, typically, allow sales for recreational purposes.
The position is more reform-friendly than that of President Donald Trump, who opposes both legalization and decriminalization. But it’s still out-of-step with the views of US voters, especially Democrats.
Based on surveys by Gallup and the Pew Research Center, roughly two-thirds of US adults support marijuana legalization. Support for legalization has increased steadily over the years, up from about 12 percent when Gallup first started polling on the question in 1969.
When US adults are asked about their support for marijuana legalization in greater detail, only 8 percent say it shouldn’t be legal at all, according to Pew; 59 percent say it should be legal for medical and recreational use, while 32 percent say it should be legal for medical use only.
Democrats are even more in favor of legalization, with average support of 78 percent across four generations, according to Gallup and Pew’s surveys, though a majority of Republicans also support it. Based on Pew’s findings, every generation of Democrats surveyed support marijuana legalization.
In other words, Biden is out of step not just with other Democrats, but also a majority of Democrats in his own generation.
The Biden campaign did not respond on the record to Vox’s request for comment.
Supporters of legalization argue it eliminates the harms of marijuana prohibition: the hundreds of thousands of arrests around the US, the racial disparities behind those arrests, and the billions of dollars that flow from the black market for illicit marijuana to drug cartels that then use the money for violent operations around the world. All of this, legalization advocates say, outweigh any potential downsides — such as increased cannabis use — that may come with legalization.
Opponents, however, claim legalization will enable a huge marijuana industry that would market the drug irresponsibly. They point to America’s experiences with the alcohol and tobacco industries in particular, which have built their financial empires in large part on some of the heaviest consumers of their products. This could result in more people using pot, even if it leads to negative health consequences.
Throughout the primary campaign, other Democratic candidates took far more aggressive positions on marijuana reform. Before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) released a marijuana legalization plan, which would not only legalize marijuana at the federal level but also encourage states to legalize it. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) released a detailed plan to legalize and regulate marijuana — at 4:20 pm, because humor is alive and well.
In fact, Biden was alone among the top-polling Democratic campaigns in his opposition to federal marijuana legalization. Biden’s position led to a particularly colorful exchange at the Democratic debate in November — at which Booker, commenting on Biden saying he opposes federal legalization, remarked, “I thought you might’ve been high when you said it.”
But despite the support for legalization among Democrats and Americans overall, the issue, apparently, wasn’t a major priority for Democratic voters during the primary. Biden still walked away with the most delegates to became the presumptive nominee.
With a coronavirus pandemic and recession still underway, perhaps Biden is hoping the same will hold up in the general election too.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Attorneys General Push for Marijuana Banking Reform
Attorneys Generals from 34 states and territories sent a letter today to Congressional leadership urging members to expeditiously pass The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act so that state-licensed cannabis business can explicitly engage in relationships with banks and other financial institutions.
In their letter, AGs opine: “The current predicament of a rapidly expanding national marketplace without access to the national banking systems has resulted in an untenable situation. We stress that current legislative models are available to fix this situation. In advancing these legislative goals, Congress is not necessarily endorsing any state or territory’s legalization of marijuana-related transactions; similarly, the enactment of the SAFE Banking Act is not a call for the legalization of medical or retail marijuana in those jurisdictions that choose not to pursue such an approach. Rather, it reflects a recognition of the realities on the ground and an embrace of our federalist system of government that is flexible enough to accommodate divergent state approaches.”
They further acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened need for Congress to act quickly. “The COVID-19 pandemic has sharply focused the need for legislative relief in three key respects,” they write. “First, threats to public safety caused by a cash-intensive business model, often the target of criminal activity, have intensified in the months since the pandemic began. Next, the presence of large cash transactions places law enforcement, tax regulators, consumers, and patients at heightened risk of exposure to the virus. Finally, the ability to efficiently collect tax revenue from the marijuana industry, estimated to have generated $15 billion in sales in 2019, will provide critical relief for state and local governments predicting budget shortfalls due to the pandemic.”
Currently, federal laws mandate that this rapidly growing legal industry operates on a cash-only basis – an environment that makes businesses more susceptible to theft and more difficult to audit. It also places the safety and welfare of these businesses’ employees, customers, and patients at risk, as they must carry significant amounts of cash on their persons in order to make legal purchases at retail facilities or via recently authorized delivery services.
NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said, “The need to provide federal legitimacy to the emerging state-legal cannabis industry is paramount in an era where marijuana has been deemed ‘essential’ in the majority of jurisdictions where its commerce is regulated. This is only further highlighted by the bipartisan nature of the makeup of the 34 Attorneys General who signed this most recent letter. Passage of the SAFE Banking Act would represent a significant step forward towards a rational and evidence-based national cannabis policy.”
The AGs from the following US states and territories signed the letter: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Members of the House of Representatives in November voted 321 to 103 in favor of the Act. More recently, House members again approved the legislation, which was included in the proposed COVID-19 relief package, the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act.
Attorneys Generals from 34 states and territories sent a letter today to Congressional leadership urging members to expeditiously pass The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act so that state-licensed cannabis business can explicitly engage in relationships with banks and other financial institutions.
In their letter, AGs opine: “The current predicament of a rapidly expanding national marketplace without access to the national banking systems has resulted in an untenable situation. We stress that current legislative models are available to fix this situation. In advancing these legislative goals, Congress is not necessarily endorsing any state or territory’s legalization of marijuana-related transactions; similarly, the enactment of the SAFE Banking Act is not a call for the legalization of medical or retail marijuana in those jurisdictions that choose not to pursue such an approach. Rather, it reflects a recognition of the realities on the ground and an embrace of our federalist system of government that is flexible enough to accommodate divergent state approaches.”
They further acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened need for Congress to act quickly. “The COVID-19 pandemic has sharply focused the need for legislative relief in three key respects,” they write. “First, threats to public safety caused by a cash-intensive business model, often the target of criminal activity, have intensified in the months since the pandemic began. Next, the presence of large cash transactions places law enforcement, tax regulators, consumers, and patients at heightened risk of exposure to the virus. Finally, the ability to efficiently collect tax revenue from the marijuana industry, estimated to have generated $15 billion in sales in 2019, will provide critical relief for state and local governments predicting budget shortfalls due to the pandemic.”
Currently, federal laws mandate that this rapidly growing legal industry operates on a cash-only basis – an environment that makes businesses more susceptible to theft and more difficult to audit. It also places the safety and welfare of these businesses’ employees, customers, and patients at risk, as they must carry significant amounts of cash on their persons in order to make legal purchases at retail facilities or via recently authorized delivery services.
NORML Political Director Justin Strekal said, “The need to provide federal legitimacy to the emerging state-legal cannabis industry is paramount in an era where marijuana has been deemed ‘essential’ in the majority of jurisdictions where its commerce is regulated. This is only further highlighted by the bipartisan nature of the makeup of the 34 Attorneys General who signed this most recent letter. Passage of the SAFE Banking Act would represent a significant step forward towards a rational and evidence-based national cannabis policy.”
The AGs from the following US states and territories signed the letter: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Members of the House of Representatives in November voted 321 to 103 in favor of the Act. More recently, House members again approved the legislation, which was included in the proposed COVID-19 relief package, the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act.
bulllee
Well-Known Member
https://www.leafly.com/news/industr...ail_news&utm_campaign=Newsletter_05202020_Wed
Los Angeles explosion shows perils of illicit cannabis market
David Downs May 18, 2020
Yesterday’s explosion in the center of Los Angeles’ illegal wholesale cannabis manufacturing supply market illustrates the price of ongoing prohibition in the United States.
Los Angelenos consume thousands of pounds of cannabis extracts every year. Those products are made with industrial gases like butane or carbon dioxide. But in the four years since the passage of legalization in 2016, the city and county of L.A. have yet to license a single cannabis manufacturer to safely make butane extracts like vape cartridge oil and hash.
That official neglect blew up in the city’s face Saturday when an unlicensed, wholesale supplier of butane to the illicit market—SmokeTokes—exploded, injuring 12 firefighters.
“The tragic events of Saturday’s explosion are a direct consequence of cannabis prohibitionist policies combined with lax enforcement against illegal retail and manufacturing operators,” said Wesley Hein, a licensed cannabis company executive at Mammoth Distribution. “The only plausible reason for a vape supply company in downtown L.A. to be wholesaling butane canisters is to serve the needs of illegal extractors.”
On Monday, police and fire investigators launched a criminal probe into the cause of the explosion, the AP reports.
Detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department’s major crimes division were working with the L.A. Fire Department’s arson investigators to determine what might have sparked the blast that shot a ball of flames out of the building Saturday night and scorched a fire truck across the street, police spokesman Josh Rubenstein told the AP.
“We’re in the very early stages of the investigation … to understand what happened and figure out how to move forward,” he said.
Experts said the illicit market has a long history of explosions and other harms to consumers.
Blast at the epicenter of VAPI
In 2019, Leafly identified L.A.’s Toy District as ground zero for America’s vaping-associated pulmonary injury outbreak (VAPI). The 12 square-block area is a huge marketplace for wholesale cannabis manufacturing supplies.
Businesses there diverted cosmetics and dietary supplement ingredients into the lungs of illegal THC vapers—sickening thousands and killing at least 64.
Experts say a huge butane explosion in an unregulated warehouse is exactly what can happen when city leaders neither regulate legal cannabis manufacturing, nor confront the massive illicit market.
Related
Journey of a tainted vape cartridge: from China’s labs to your lungs
“Legal cannabis manufacturers undergo a litany of safety reviews and inspections. Illicit manufacturers, on the other hand, operate in a manner that is akin to bomb factories,” said Hein.
“The sole reason there is even an illegal manufacturing market is because far too many jurisdictions inside and outside of California maintain bans against commercial cannabis activities thereby ceding the market entirely to illegal operators,” Hein added. “Even in Los Angeles, which has approximately 180 licensed dispensaries, there are far more illicit dispensaries and delivery services in business creating a large market for illegal manufacturers thereby setting the stage for more devastating events like we saw over the weekend.”
No one is blowing themselves up selling ethanol to illegal whiskey distillers, because there is a legal supply of Jack Daniels, said Nate Bradley, a former police officer and head of Cannabis Consumer Policy Council.
“The consumer demand for extracts is not going away. The city needs to regulate all aspects of the industry or these kinds of things are going to keep happening,” he said.
Toy District’s second major fire in 4 years
According to the AP, in 2016 there was another major fire at a business called Smoke Tokes at a nearby address. The Los Angeles Times reported at the time that it took more than 160 firefighters to put out the blaze and that they encountered pressurized gas cylinders that exploded in the fire. No one was injured in that fire. It’s unclear whether that business and the one that burned Saturday are connected.
This time, firefighters first thought they were battling a routine structure fire, city fire Capt. Erik Scott told KNX Radio, but as they got a little farther in the building they started to hear, “a loud hissing sound and a significant rumbling that you could feel vibrating throughout the area.”
Three firefighters were released after spending the night in the hospital, fire department spokesman Nicholas Prange said Sunday. Of the eight who remained hospitalized, two were in critical but stable condition, he said. Officials initially announced that 11 firefighters were injured. But Prange said a 12th was treated and released for a minor injury.
All were expected to survive.
“Things could have been so much worse,” said Los Angeles Fire Department Medical Director Dr. Marc Eckstein, who helped treat the injured at Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center.
Firefighters caught fire
According to the AP, there was light to moderate smoke when firefighters entered the one-story building in the city’s Toy District and went on the roof—normal procedures to try to quickly knock down any flames.
Los Angeles Fire Chief Ralph Terrazas told the AP one of the firefighters inside the building thought things didn’t seem right—the pressure from the smoke and heat coming from the rear of the building were increasing. He directed everyone to get out, and they quickly started exiting the building as it was rocked by the explosion.
Firefighters on the roof scrambled down ladders with their protective coats on fire. The wall of flames shot out the building and burned seats inside a fire truck across the street.
More than 200 firefighters rushed to the scene, and dozens of engines, trucks and rescue vehicles clogged the streets. The fire spread to several nearby buildings, but firefighters were able to douse it in about an hour.
Regulated markets are safer by design
Illegal hash labs routinely blow up in prohibition states. That stands in contrast to legal extractors, which face 107 pages of regulations for materials safety. Since 2017, the state of California and many cities have licensed hundreds of cannabis manufacturers who’ve operated safely, said Bradley.
“Name one licensed manufacturer or a licensed wholesale supplier like AirGas where something like this happened. You can’t,” said Bradley. “This only serves to show that painful consequence of not regulating cannabis nationally.”
Los Angeles explosion shows perils of illicit cannabis market
David Downs May 18, 2020
Yesterday’s explosion in the center of Los Angeles’ illegal wholesale cannabis manufacturing supply market illustrates the price of ongoing prohibition in the United States.
Los Angelenos consume thousands of pounds of cannabis extracts every year. Those products are made with industrial gases like butane or carbon dioxide. But in the four years since the passage of legalization in 2016, the city and county of L.A. have yet to license a single cannabis manufacturer to safely make butane extracts like vape cartridge oil and hash.
Instead, a national multi-billion dollar illegal market is supplied by local ‘hash blasters,’ who buy volatile gases from wholesalers operating out of downtown storefronts next to Skid Row in a long-neglected area called the Toy District.
That official neglect blew up in the city’s face Saturday when an unlicensed, wholesale supplier of butane to the illicit market—SmokeTokes—exploded, injuring 12 firefighters.
“The tragic events of Saturday’s explosion are a direct consequence of cannabis prohibitionist policies combined with lax enforcement against illegal retail and manufacturing operators,” said Wesley Hein, a licensed cannabis company executive at Mammoth Distribution. “The only plausible reason for a vape supply company in downtown L.A. to be wholesaling butane canisters is to serve the needs of illegal extractors.”
On Monday, police and fire investigators launched a criminal probe into the cause of the explosion, the AP reports.
Detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department’s major crimes division were working with the L.A. Fire Department’s arson investigators to determine what might have sparked the blast that shot a ball of flames out of the building Saturday night and scorched a fire truck across the street, police spokesman Josh Rubenstein told the AP.
“We’re in the very early stages of the investigation … to understand what happened and figure out how to move forward,” he said.
Experts said the illicit market has a long history of explosions and other harms to consumers.
Blast at the epicenter of VAPI
In 2019, Leafly identified L.A.’s Toy District as ground zero for America’s vaping-associated pulmonary injury outbreak (VAPI). The 12 square-block area is a huge marketplace for wholesale cannabis manufacturing supplies.
Businesses there diverted cosmetics and dietary supplement ingredients into the lungs of illegal THC vapers—sickening thousands and killing at least 64.
Experts say a huge butane explosion in an unregulated warehouse is exactly what can happen when city leaders neither regulate legal cannabis manufacturing, nor confront the massive illicit market.
Related
Journey of a tainted vape cartridge: from China’s labs to your lungs
“Legal cannabis manufacturers undergo a litany of safety reviews and inspections. Illicit manufacturers, on the other hand, operate in a manner that is akin to bomb factories,” said Hein.
“The sole reason there is even an illegal manufacturing market is because far too many jurisdictions inside and outside of California maintain bans against commercial cannabis activities thereby ceding the market entirely to illegal operators,” Hein added. “Even in Los Angeles, which has approximately 180 licensed dispensaries, there are far more illicit dispensaries and delivery services in business creating a large market for illegal manufacturers thereby setting the stage for more devastating events like we saw over the weekend.”
No one is blowing themselves up selling ethanol to illegal whiskey distillers, because there is a legal supply of Jack Daniels, said Nate Bradley, a former police officer and head of Cannabis Consumer Policy Council.
“The consumer demand for extracts is not going away. The city needs to regulate all aspects of the industry or these kinds of things are going to keep happening,” he said.
Toy District’s second major fire in 4 years
According to the AP, in 2016 there was another major fire at a business called Smoke Tokes at a nearby address. The Los Angeles Times reported at the time that it took more than 160 firefighters to put out the blaze and that they encountered pressurized gas cylinders that exploded in the fire. No one was injured in that fire. It’s unclear whether that business and the one that burned Saturday are connected.
This time, firefighters first thought they were battling a routine structure fire, city fire Capt. Erik Scott told KNX Radio, but as they got a little farther in the building they started to hear, “a loud hissing sound and a significant rumbling that you could feel vibrating throughout the area.”
He said “one significant explosion” shook the neighborhood around 6:30 p.m. Firefighters inside had to run through a wall of flames he estimated as 30 feet (9 meters) high and wide, and those on the roof scrambled down a ladder that was engulfed in flames.
Three firefighters were released after spending the night in the hospital, fire department spokesman Nicholas Prange said Sunday. Of the eight who remained hospitalized, two were in critical but stable condition, he said. Officials initially announced that 11 firefighters were injured. But Prange said a 12th was treated and released for a minor injury.
All were expected to survive.
“Things could have been so much worse,” said Los Angeles Fire Department Medical Director Dr. Marc Eckstein, who helped treat the injured at Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center.
Firefighters caught fire
According to the AP, there was light to moderate smoke when firefighters entered the one-story building in the city’s Toy District and went on the roof—normal procedures to try to quickly knock down any flames.
Los Angeles Fire Chief Ralph Terrazas told the AP one of the firefighters inside the building thought things didn’t seem right—the pressure from the smoke and heat coming from the rear of the building were increasing. He directed everyone to get out, and they quickly started exiting the building as it was rocked by the explosion.
Firefighters on the roof scrambled down ladders with their protective coats on fire. The wall of flames shot out the building and burned seats inside a fire truck across the street.
More than 200 firefighters rushed to the scene, and dozens of engines, trucks and rescue vehicles clogged the streets. The fire spread to several nearby buildings, but firefighters were able to douse it in about an hour.
Regulated markets are safer by design
Illegal hash labs routinely blow up in prohibition states. That stands in contrast to legal extractors, which face 107 pages of regulations for materials safety. Since 2017, the state of California and many cities have licensed hundreds of cannabis manufacturers who’ve operated safely, said Bradley.
“Name one licensed manufacturer or a licensed wholesale supplier like AirGas where something like this happened. You can’t,” said Bradley. “This only serves to show that painful consequence of not regulating cannabis nationally.”
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Why The Senate, And Not The Presidency, Is The Race To Watch This Election Year For Major Cannabis Legislation
As the country slowly opens up and returns to a semblance of normalcy, many Americans may struggle to remember that this year is also an election year—and unsurprisingly a pivotal one at that. Beyond the important matters of protecting the lives of our citizens and rebuilding the economy, the future of the cannabis industry will also be determined in this year’s election, although not in the branch of government that many might expect.
Several experts agree that if a major piece of cannabis legislation—such as federal legalization—is able to pass successfully through both chambers of Congress, then either a Trump or Biden administration would be supportive of enacting that bill into law, given the overwhelming majority of U.S. adults (91%) believe that some form of adult recreational use or medical use cannabis should be legal, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center.
In fact, both Trump and Biden have openly stated that they would sign cannabis legislation into law if Congress, or more importantly, the U.S. Senate sends it to them. As a result, the real election race that the industry is watching are the seats that are “up for grabs” in the Senate, where a Republican majority has repeatedly strangled the prospect of any meaningful cannabis legislation from being brought to the floor for a vote.
When the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAFE Banking Act in September 2019 by an overwhelming 3-to-1 ratio of votes, which included 91 Republicans voting in favor of the bill, many (rightly) believed that the bill would have a much harder time getting onto the floor of the U.S. Senate. Key among the many challenges is the fact that Senator Mike Crapo, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has argued in opposition of the bill in its current form, which would allow banks, credit unions, and financial institutions to legally serve cannabis firms without any fear of federal reprisal.
Senator Crapo suggested in December 2019 that the bill would have to be significantly modified in order to be considered in the Senate, including imposing stringent requirements that would be infeasible for the industry (or the supporting financial institutions) to meet, such as the proposed potency cap on THC in cannabis products.
In addition to Crapo, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has also opposed the bill, which has hindered the SAFE Banking Act’s progress in the Senate, especially in the current COVID-19-driven environment. Yet, before anyone writes off the possibility that major cannabis legislation will be passed this election year, there are a couple of important catalysts to note.
The first is the SAFE Banking Act’s increased likelihood for finally getting passed by the Senate. The bill was recently included in the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, which is a $3 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May 2020.
After the bill was passed in the House, The Senate Republican Conference (SRC) tweeted—and then quickly deleted—a post that characterized the SAFE Banking Act as a “political-pipe-dream.” Hours later, however, the SRC was reminded that Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado is actually a chief advocate of the SAFE Banking Act, and is running a tight reelection race this election year against current Democratic frontrunner, former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, with a recent poll showing Gardner falling behind significantly.
This political faux pas demonstrates the intriguing quagmire the Republican party is in this year: should it continue its anti-cannabis stance on ideological grounds or does Senator McConnell use this bill as a way to score points for Gardner, whose seat is pivotal to the GOP maintaining its control of the Senate and Senator Crapo maintaining his Senate Chairmanship? Based off the SRC’s decision to quickly delete their tweet, the evidence would probably suggest the latter. Yet, fortunately for the cannabis industry, the fight for Cory Gardner’s seat is not the only catalyst for more favorable legislation.
Given the devastating economic damage COVID-19 has caused—and is continuing to cause—state and federal budgets have been decimated, unemployment continues to soar, and consumer sentiment is completely shaken. Even obstinate opponents of cannabis can not deny the industry’s profound positive impact on the U.S. economy, having employed nearly 240,000 Americans and creating nearly $2 billion in tax revenue in 2019 alone.
For that reason alone, Senate Republicans might have no choice but to approve the HEROES Act, or a similar alternative more amenable to them, for fear that not doing so may irrevocably impair their popularity among their constituents, many of whom have been severely impacted by the economic turmoil COVID-19 has unleashed. Any signs of “not playing ball” on this and other cannabis-friendly bills—including “full-on” federal legalization—may cause the Republicans to lose their majority in the Senate, an outcome that hardly any Republican Senator is willing to accept.
So, while the jury is still out on the exact course that cannabis legislation will take in the next few weeks and months, one thing is certain: the race for the Presidency this year is far less pivotal for the cannabis industry than the race for the U.S. Senate, which remains a significant blockade for the SAFE Banking Act and, ultimately, federal legalization.
Only time will tell how the GOP will try to maintain their coveted status in the Senate—time that is slowly running out and forcing the political party to unwillingly hand the industry its biggest political victory to date.
As the country slowly opens up and returns to a semblance of normalcy, many Americans may struggle to remember that this year is also an election year—and unsurprisingly a pivotal one at that. Beyond the important matters of protecting the lives of our citizens and rebuilding the economy, the future of the cannabis industry will also be determined in this year’s election, although not in the branch of government that many might expect.
Several experts agree that if a major piece of cannabis legislation—such as federal legalization—is able to pass successfully through both chambers of Congress, then either a Trump or Biden administration would be supportive of enacting that bill into law, given the overwhelming majority of U.S. adults (91%) believe that some form of adult recreational use or medical use cannabis should be legal, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center.
In fact, both Trump and Biden have openly stated that they would sign cannabis legislation into law if Congress, or more importantly, the U.S. Senate sends it to them. As a result, the real election race that the industry is watching are the seats that are “up for grabs” in the Senate, where a Republican majority has repeatedly strangled the prospect of any meaningful cannabis legislation from being brought to the floor for a vote.
When the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAFE Banking Act in September 2019 by an overwhelming 3-to-1 ratio of votes, which included 91 Republicans voting in favor of the bill, many (rightly) believed that the bill would have a much harder time getting onto the floor of the U.S. Senate. Key among the many challenges is the fact that Senator Mike Crapo, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has argued in opposition of the bill in its current form, which would allow banks, credit unions, and financial institutions to legally serve cannabis firms without any fear of federal reprisal.
Senator Crapo suggested in December 2019 that the bill would have to be significantly modified in order to be considered in the Senate, including imposing stringent requirements that would be infeasible for the industry (or the supporting financial institutions) to meet, such as the proposed potency cap on THC in cannabis products.
In addition to Crapo, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has also opposed the bill, which has hindered the SAFE Banking Act’s progress in the Senate, especially in the current COVID-19-driven environment. Yet, before anyone writes off the possibility that major cannabis legislation will be passed this election year, there are a couple of important catalysts to note.
The first is the SAFE Banking Act’s increased likelihood for finally getting passed by the Senate. The bill was recently included in the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, which is a $3 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May 2020.
After the bill was passed in the House, The Senate Republican Conference (SRC) tweeted—and then quickly deleted—a post that characterized the SAFE Banking Act as a “political-pipe-dream.” Hours later, however, the SRC was reminded that Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado is actually a chief advocate of the SAFE Banking Act, and is running a tight reelection race this election year against current Democratic frontrunner, former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, with a recent poll showing Gardner falling behind significantly.
This political faux pas demonstrates the intriguing quagmire the Republican party is in this year: should it continue its anti-cannabis stance on ideological grounds or does Senator McConnell use this bill as a way to score points for Gardner, whose seat is pivotal to the GOP maintaining its control of the Senate and Senator Crapo maintaining his Senate Chairmanship? Based off the SRC’s decision to quickly delete their tweet, the evidence would probably suggest the latter. Yet, fortunately for the cannabis industry, the fight for Cory Gardner’s seat is not the only catalyst for more favorable legislation.
Given the devastating economic damage COVID-19 has caused—and is continuing to cause—state and federal budgets have been decimated, unemployment continues to soar, and consumer sentiment is completely shaken. Even obstinate opponents of cannabis can not deny the industry’s profound positive impact on the U.S. economy, having employed nearly 240,000 Americans and creating nearly $2 billion in tax revenue in 2019 alone.
For that reason alone, Senate Republicans might have no choice but to approve the HEROES Act, or a similar alternative more amenable to them, for fear that not doing so may irrevocably impair their popularity among their constituents, many of whom have been severely impacted by the economic turmoil COVID-19 has unleashed. Any signs of “not playing ball” on this and other cannabis-friendly bills—including “full-on” federal legalization—may cause the Republicans to lose their majority in the Senate, an outcome that hardly any Republican Senator is willing to accept.
So, while the jury is still out on the exact course that cannabis legislation will take in the next few weeks and months, one thing is certain: the race for the Presidency this year is far less pivotal for the cannabis industry than the race for the U.S. Senate, which remains a significant blockade for the SAFE Banking Act and, ultimately, federal legalization.
Only time will tell how the GOP will try to maintain their coveted status in the Senate—time that is slowly running out and forcing the political party to unwillingly hand the industry its biggest political victory to date.
|
Sponsored by |
|---|
|
|
|