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

Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

Cannabis firm Tilray awarded CEO $13.2 million in cash bonuses this year​

Published October 4, 2021 | By Matt Lamers


Image of Irwin Simon

Tilray CEO Irwin Simon has received $13.2 million cash bonuses so far this year.

Canadian marijuana producer Tilray paid CEO Irwin Simon cash bonuses totaling $13.2 million (16.7 million Canadian dollars) so far this calendar year, on top of granting the chief executive a significant salary raise and millions more in share-based awards, according to a recently disclosed regulatory filing.
In total, Tilray’s CEO has received nearly $30 million in total compensation so far in calendar 2021 – almost half of which was paid in cash – a proxy statement filed ahead of the company’s annual meeting on Nov. 22 shows.
Some of the details of the compensation were disclosed in a previous filing.
The company, which has headquarters in Leamington, Ontario, and New York, also said the CEO’s salary “may be increased but not decreased” as part of an annual performance review by the Compensation Committee, according to filings.

Simon was CEO of Aphria while helping engineer the merger with rival producer Tilray.
That deal closed April 30. Simon is CEO of the new company, Tilray.
The proxy outlines compensation for executives for the 2021 fiscal year ended May 31 as well as compensation awarded in the immediate months after that period.
Simon’s total compensation for fiscal 2021 is listed at $13.7 million, consisting of salary, bonuses and “other” compensation, which includes a car allowance.
However, that figure does not include one-time equity grants awarded to Simon around the end of July – after the fiscal year ended.
“As additional incentive to entering into the employment agreement, on July 27, 2021, Mr. Simon received the following one-time equity grants having an aggregate value as of the July 27, 2021, grant date equal to $15,000,000,” according to the proxy.
The value of the equity grants was calculated using the closing price of the company’s shares on the grant date. A Tilray spokesperson said the awards are subject to time-based vesting requirements and achievement of specific performance goals, including synergy goals and significant stock price appreciation targets.
An additional $352,400 cash payment to Simon reflects “a rounding issue.”
All together, Tilray’s CEO has been awarded at least $28.7 million in total compensation so far this calendar year.
For the five-month period ending May 31, Tilray said, the company’s median employee compensation was $15,061.
Bonuses
Simon earned a performance-based cash bonus of $3.18 million, paid on Aug. 15.
The standard bonus is awarded at 200%-350% of base salary if performance benchmarks are met.
The Canadian cannabis producer also paid Simon and other executives what it called a “Transformation Bonus” in exchange for Simon agreeing to remain in his role as CEO “or otherwise provide continued services through mutual agreement with the company until December 31, 2022.”
Simon received a one-time cash payment of $10 million under this classification, which was paid within five days of July 27.
Together, the two cash bonuses equal $13.2 million for this calendar year.
In the proxy, Tilray explained it awarded the bonus “in recognition of each (executive’s) exceptional efforts and in consideration of their unique and significant contributions to Aphria and its transformation that resulted in the (merger with Tilray).”
Denise Faltischek, the company’s head of international and chief strategy officer, and James Meiers, head of Canada, also received “transformation” cash bonuses worth $850,000 while CFO Carl Merton was given $800,000.
Simon’s $10 million transformation bonus has a prorated clawback clause if he voluntarily resigns without “good reason” before Dec. 31, 2022.
The $15 million equity grants bonus, meanwhile, is the second time in the past 18 months that Simon was rewarded for entering into an employment agreement.
In January 2020, Simon agreed to become a full-time employee of Aphria, even though he was already the company’s CEO.
“In consideration of entering this employment agreement, Mr. Simon received a signing cash bonus equal to $1,110,000 and $7,000,000 granted as RSUs that vest over three years,” per a previous regulatory filing.
Other bonuses were paid to current and former executives based on the Annual Performance Bonus Plan.
Retroactive raise
Simon received at least two raises in the past 18 months, bumping his salary to 70% over what it was at the start of 2020.
Simon’s salary was raised to $1.3 million effective June 1, 2020, up from $1 million.
On July 27, 2021, the CEO was given another raise, this time to $1.7 million annually, according to the latest proxy.
The new salary was made retroactive to May 1, 2021.
The regulatory filing notes that Simon earned the raise because of a “significant increase in responsibility” after the merger.
“In determining the base salary levels for each (executive) in connection with their continued employment following the Business Combination, the Compensation Committee considered the significant increase in responsibility of these executives post-Business Combination, their respective relevant experience and achievements and the level of compensation of our peer group companies and other survey data and individual negotiations with each executive,” according to the proxy.
Shares of Tilray trade on the Nasdaq as TLRY.
 
NEWS BRIEF

Report: Female, minority executives lose ground in marijuana industry​

Published October 4, 2021 | By Jenel Stelton-Holtmeier


Graph showing the percentage of female and minority executives in cannabis

The percentage of executive positions held by women and minorities in the U.S. cannabis industry fell between 2019 and 2021, according to a new report now available from MJBizDaily.
Notably, in 2021, the percentage of women who hold executive positions, 22.1%, fell below the average recorded across the larger U.S. business landscape, 29.8%, according to the 2021 report, “Women & Minorities in the Cannabis Industry.”

Previously, the portion of executive positions held by women in the cannabis industry – 36.8% in 2019 – consistently outpaced that of mainstream businesses.
This shift isn’t driven solely by a decline in female cannabis executives.
The latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that women hold a higher percentage of these roles in the broader economy – up to nearly 30% from only 21% in 2018.
Image of Women & Minorities report cover

The new report from MJBizDaily, “Women & Minorities in the Cannabis Industry,” can be downloaded here for free.
The percentage of executive positions held by minorities fell to 13.1% in 2021, down from 28.0% in 2019 but in line with the average across all U.S. businesses.
This is despite increased focus at the state level to improve racial diversity within the cannabis industry.
In previous years, minorities held a higher proportion of executive positions at cannabis businesses than they did at mainstream companies.
Industry experts suggest that competitive markets tend to favor businesses with white men in ownership and leadership positions, primarily because of their established access to capital.
In addition, more executives from mainstream sectors are opting into the cannabis industry as a new opportunity, accelerating the increase of white men in power positions.
The free report, “Women & Minorities in the Cannabis Industry,” can be downloaded here.
 

‘Buds n Bras’: Arizona Dispensary Trading Pre-Rolls for Bras to Fight Breast Cancer​

By Ben Walker

Sep 29, 2021

Mint Cannabis dispensary located in the Phoenix area has announced a partnership with nonprofit organization Check for a Lump to raise funds for breast cancer screenings and related support services. The collaboration recently launched their Buds ‘n’ Bras campaign, which is designed to raise awareness for the vital need for breast cancer screenings and raise money for related services by giving away free pre-rolls to adult recreational cannabis customers who donate a bra.
Customers who shop at any of Mint’s three Phoenix dispensaries will receive a free pre-roll with a donation from now through October 15th. However, there’s a limit for one joint and one shirt per customer per day. Customers who donate 10 bras are eligible to receive a free breast cancer awareness t-shirt in addition to the free joint.
Right now, Mint Cannabis is aiming to collect 4,200 bras to support the nonprofit. They’ll also donate $1 from every pre-roll sale to the nonprofit. At the end of the campaign, the bras will be donated to Check for a Lump, which receives cash donations for every bra they donate.
But why are they doing it? In short, COVID-19 shutdowns led to all sorts of vital health screenings to be delayed this year. A study from the IQVIA Institute of Human Data Science found that there was an 87% decrease in mammograms compared to the last year. It’s expected that over 6000 new cases of breast cancer and 900 breast cancer-related deaths will occur in Arizona this year.

In addition to the fundraiser and donations, the Buds ‘n’ Bras campaign will also hold breast screening events at Mint dispensaries in conjunction with Check for a Lump. Check for a Lump’s mobile mammography bus will stop at The Mint’s Mesa dispensary on Saturday, October 9th from 8 AM to 12 PM. To pre-register for a screening, patients can call (480) 967-3767.
Last but not least, Mint Cannabis will be sharing information about Check for a Lump’s Pink Out 5k walk/run, which will be held Saturday, October 2nd at Steele Indian School Park in Phoenix. They’ll have a booth set up where they can collect more bras for Check for a Lump.
The campaign is already off to a good start. On August 27th, the campaign officially launched with a bra-raising ceremony at Mint’s Tempe/Guadalupe location where cancer patients and survivors hung a string of bras across the dispensary’s parking lot.

However, they’ve seen resounding success already, and have already collected ten large plastic trash bags full of bras. One spokesperson said that one of the bags was too heavy to lift, and it hadn’t even been two weeks since the campaign launched.
October is breast cancer awareness month. If you’re looking for a way to give back to the Phoenix community through the month of October, think about giving. Donate a bra, and get a free pre-roll for helping others raise awareness and funding for vital health services that make a difference in the lives of women every day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bulllee said:



buds n bras breast cancer awareness campaign

‘Buds n Bras’: Arizona Dispensary Trading Pre-Rolls for Bras to Fight Breast Cancer​

By
Ben Walker
-
Sep 29, 2021
215

0

https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://stonerthings.com/buds-n-bras-arizona-dispensary-trading-pre-rolls-for-bras-to-fight-breast-cancer/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=‘Buds+n+Bras’:+Arizona+Dispensary+Trading+Pre-Rolls+for+Bras+to+Fight+Breast+Cancer&url=https://stonerthings.com/buds-n-bras-arizona-dispensary-trading-pre-rolls-for-bras-to-fight-breast-cancer/&via=StonerThingsCom
https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://stonerthings.com/buds-n-bras-arizona-dispensary-trading-pre-rolls-for-bras-to-fight-breast-cancer/&media=https://stonerthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/buds-n-bras-breast-cancer-awareness-campaign.jpg&description=A Phoenix AZ dispensary is raising money to fight breast cancer by trading free pre-rolls for old bras.
Mint Cannabis dispensary located in the Phoenix area has announced a partnership with nonprofit organization Check for a Lump to raise funds for breast cancer screenings and related support services. The collaboration recently launched their Buds ‘n’ Bras campaign, which is designed to raise awareness for the vital need for breast cancer screenings and raise money for related services by giving away free pre-rolls to adult recreational cannabis customers who donate a bra.
Customers who shop at any of Mint’s three Phoenix dispensaries will receive a free pre-roll with a donation from now through October 15th. However, there’s a limit for one joint and one shirt per customer per day. Customers who donate 10 bras are eligible to receive a free breast cancer awareness t-shirt in addition to the free joint.
Right now, Mint Cannabis is aiming to collect 4,200 bras to support the nonprofit. They’ll also donate $1 from every pre-roll sale to the nonprofit. At the end of the campaign, the bras will be donated to Check for a Lump, which receives cash donations for every bra they donate.
But why are they doing it? In short, COVID-19 shutdowns led to all sorts of vital health screenings to be delayed this year. A study from the IQVIA Institute of Human Data Science found that there was an 87% decrease in mammograms compared to the last year. It’s expected that over 6000 new cases of breast cancer and 900 breast cancer-related deaths will occur in Arizona this year.

In addition to the fundraiser and donations, the Buds ‘n’ Bras campaign will also hold breast screening events at Mint dispensaries in conjunction with Check for a Lump. Check for a Lump’s mobile mammography bus will stop at The Mint’s Mesa dispensary on Saturday, October 9th from 8 AM to 12 PM. To pre-register for a screening, patients can call (480) 967-3767.
Last but not least, Mint Cannabis will be sharing information about Check for a Lump’s Pink Out 5k walk/run, which will be held Saturday, October 2nd at Steele Indian School Park in Phoenix. They’ll have a booth set up where they can collect more bras for Check for a Lump.
The campaign is already off to a good start. On August 27th, the campaign officially launched with a bra-raising ceremony at Mint’s Tempe/Guadalupe location where cancer patients and survivors hung a string of bras across the dispensary’s parking lot.
bras-prerolls-1

However, they’ve seen resounding success already, and have already collected ten large plastic trash bags full of bras. One spokesperson said that one of the bags was too heavy to lift, and it hadn’t even been two weeks since the campaign launched.
October is breast cancer awareness month. If you’re looking for a way to give back to the Phoenix community through the month of October, think about giving. Donate a bra, and get a free pre-roll for helping others raise awareness and funding for vital health services that make a difference in the lives of women every day.
Click to expand...
I am confused.......... do the bras cause cancer or is this just a way to free the pups?
 
They’ll also donate $1 from every pre-roll sale to the nonprofit. At the end of the campaign, the bras will be donated to Check for a Lump, which receives cash donations for every bra they donate.
 

Senators Push U.S. Attorney General To Decriminalize Marijuana ‘Now’ As Congress Debates Reform Bills​


As congressional lawmakers pursue marijuana legalization, a pair of U.S. senators is calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to use his own authority to swiftly end federal cannabis prohibition.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) sent a letter on Wednesday making the case that the Justice Department should initiate a descheduling process in order to “allow states to regulate cannabis as they see fit, begin to remedy the harm caused by decades of racial disparities in enforcement of cannabis laws, and facilitate valuable medical research.”

“While Congress works to pass comprehensive cannabis reform, you can act now to decriminalize cannabis,” the letter, which was first reported by The News Station, states.

“It is far past time to decriminalize the use of cannabis in the United States,” it continues, noting that President Joe Biden voiced support for marijuana decriminalization and expungements on the campaign trail. The president has maintained an opposition to adult-use legalization, however.

“Decriminalizing cannabis is also a critical first step in addressing the racial inequities in cannabis law enforcement,” the senators said, as people of color are far more likely to be criminalized over marijuana despite comparable rates of usage among races.

“Federal cannabis policy has disproportionately affected the ability of people of color in the United States to vote, to pursue education, and to build intergenerational wealth,” they wrote. “You can begin to repair the harm that the criminalization of cannabis has wrought on communities of color by using your statutory and regulatory authority to deschedule this drug.”

NORML Political Director Justin Strekal praised the senators’ action, telling Marijuana Moment that it “is imperative that we pursue every avenue possible to end the senseless and cruel policy of marijuana criminalization. Now the question is: How and when will Attorney General Merrick Garland respond?”

There’s a statutory process through which the attorney general can seek a marijuana policy change under the Controlled Substances Act without any additional action required by Congress.

The official can also initiate such a process on their own, requesting a scientific review directly to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would then assess the scientific, medical and public health implications before submitting that review to the Justice Department.

Another method would involve having the HHS secretary or an outside party file a rescheduling petition, which would then be reviewed by the attorney general, who has usually delegated that responsibility to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The senators are recommending the former approach and emphasized that, if the HHS secretary ultimately recommends “retaining a drug in the same schedule or moving it to a different schedule, that recommendation is not binding and the attorney general may still choose to initiate a rulemaking procedure to deschedule or reschedule the drug.”

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra was CCed on the senators’ letter. And for what it’s worth, he does have a considerable record supporting cannabis reform and worked to protect California’s marijuana program from federal interference during his time as the state’s attorney general.

In any case, a reading of the relevant statute raises some questions about whether the attorney general has the explicit authority to unilaterally remove marijuana from the CSA, rather than simply move it to a lower schedule.

Federal law says that if international treaties to which the U.S. is a party require control of any given substance, the attorney general “shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to” the separate HHS review.

Federal agencies like DEA have in the past references international treaty obligations as a reason they’re unable to domestically end marijuana criminalization.

It’s also the case, however, that the country has previously flouted such international consensus in other contexts such as military engagement. But as far as what the U.S.’s own federal statute allows, one interpretation would suggest Garland could be limited to moving marijuana to the lowest enforcement category under the CSA and could not fully deschedule it on his own.

Garland, who was previously nominated by President Obama to serve on the Supreme Court only to have his nomination blocked by Senate Republicans, has only occasionally spoke about cannabis issues. But his judicial record indicates that he believes in deference to DEAwhen it comes to drug scheduling.

During his Senate confirmation proceedings, however, the then-nominee also said in oral and written testimony that it’s a waste of federal resources to go after people acting in compliance with state cannabis laws and recognized racial disparities in marijuana enforcement.

In any case, Warren and Booker now want him to make a bold move by unilaterally ending federal cannabis prohibition.

“We urge the DOJ to initiate the process to decriminalize cannabis,” the senators wrote. “Doing so would be an important first step in the broader tasks of remedying the harmful racial impact of our nation’s enforcement of cannabis laws and ensuring that states can effectively regulate the growing cannabis industry, including by assisting small business owners and those most harmed by our historical enforcement of cannabis laws.”

Warren and Booker requested that Garland respond to their request by October 20.

This letter comes one week after the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill to federally legalize cannabis and promote social equity that was introduced by Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Booker, meanwhile, is working alongside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) on their own legalization proposal that was unveiled in July but is still being finalized.

Just this week, former Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview that the U.S is “clearly on the path to decriminalizing marijuana” at the federal level as more states continue to advance reform.

To read the letter to Garland on federal marijuana policy follow the title link and scroll to the bottom of the article.
 

Impact Of Marijuana Legalization On Crime Reduction Is Being Underestimated, New Study Finds​


Studies have repeatedly identified an association between the legalizing marijuana and reductions in crime—but the impact of the policy change is being significantly understated because of limitations in the research methodology, a new paper co-authored by a federal official asserts.

Most studies looking at crime and cannabis rely on FBI data sourced from local police departments across the country. But reporting that data to the federal agency is entirely voluntary, leaving knowledge gaps that have underplayed the extent to which legalizing medical cannabis reduces violent and property crime.

That’s according to researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service and Appalachian State University, who published a working paper with their findings this month.

“U.S. drug policy presumes prohibition reduces crime. Recently states have enacted medical marijuana laws creating a natural experiment to test this hypothesis but is impeded by severe measurement error with available data,” the abstract states.

To account for those shortcomings, the researchers developed “a novel imputation procedure to reduce measurement error bias and estimate significant reductions in violent and property crime rates, with heterogeneous effects across and within states and types of crime, contradicting drug prohibition policy.”

“We demonstrate uncorrected measurement error or assuming homogeneous policy effects leads to underestimation of crime reduction from ending marijuana prohibition,” the authors said in the paper, which is titled, “Smoke and Fears: The Effects of Marijuana Prohibition on Crime.”

To improve upon existing research, the study authors said they used a “multiple imputation procedure for agency-level crime data to fill in the gaps in the [Uniform Crime Reporting] data that accounts for the inherent uncertainty in these imputed values in the subsequent statistical analysis.”

“Our results indicate that [medical marijuana laws] result in significant reductions in both violent and property crime rates, with larger effects in Mexican border states,” they wrote. “While these results for violent crime rates are consistent with previously reported evidence, we are the first paper to report such an effect on property crime as well. Moreover, the estimated effects of MMLs on property crime rates are substantially larger, which is not surprising given property crimes are more prevalent.”

While the study specifies that the USDA’s official’s involvement in the study “should not be construed to represent” the government’s position on the issue, it’s notable that an agency representative even participated and effectively reached the conclusion that the theory that criminalizing drugs—as the federal government has done for decades—reduces crime seems to be unfounded.

Other data has similarly challenged the notion that prohibition reduces crime.

In 2020, researchers looked at how adult-use marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado affected crime rates in neighboring states, and the resulting study determined that passage of recreational cannabis laws may have actually reduced certain major crimes in nearby jurisdictions.

The previous year, a federally funded study found that legalizing marijuana has little to no impact on rates of violent or property crime. The policy change did seem connected to a long-term decline in burglaries in one state, however.

A 2018 study from the think tank RAND said county-level data from California suggested that there was “no relationship between county laws that legally permit dispensaries and reported violent crime,” the researchers wrote. What’s more, there was a “negative and significant relationship between dispensary allowances and property crime rates,” though it’s possible that’s the product of “pre-existing trends.”

That same year, researchers at Victoria University of Wellington and Harvard University found that medical marijuana laws essentially have a null effect of crime rates, with one big exception: A nearly 20 percent reduction in violent and property crimes in California following the legalization of medical cannabis there.

DEA marijuana seizures have significantly declined as more states have moved to legalize cannabis, a new study led by a top marijuana investigator for the federal government found. And at the same time, marijuana arrests are also dropping across the country, and they dipped significantly in 2020, recent FBI data shows.

Federal marijuana trafficking cases also continued to decline in 2020 as more states have moved to legalize, an analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) that was released in June found.

Federal prosecutions of drug-related crimes overall increased in 2019, but cases involving marijuana dropped by more than a quarter, according to a report released by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that year.

A study released by the Cato Institute in 2018 found that “state-level marijuana legalization has significantly undercut marijuana smuggling.”
 

Marijuana growers face costly labor challenges, seek solutions​


By Bart Schaneman, Editor
October 18, 2021

Image of a marijuana cultivation site

A coronavirus-induced labor shortage among marijuana cultivators is causing production delays, straining workers and costing some companies thousands of dollars in lost profits.
Nirvana Group, a vertically integrated medical marijuana company in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is in the middle of its fall outdoor harvest, and CEO Arshad “Adam” Lasi said the company has had to halt work several times because of worker shortages.
The company is trying to harvest about 80,000 plants and, ideally, would be cutting down a couple of thousand a day, according to Lasi.
But the company has been unable to hit that number with its current workforce.
Lasi estimates Nirvana will lose upwards of half a million dollars because the plants won’t be cured, harvested and processed in time.
“It’s spoiling in the field,” he said. “That’s a half-million dollars that’s not in my pocket.”
Sweetening the pot
Across the country, cannabis cultivation companies are raising wages and offering more benefits to recruit and retain workers as the industry experiences the same labor challenges facing mainstream businesses across the U.S. economy.
The U.S. Labor Department reported that U.S. companies added 194,000 nonfarm jobs in September, far below Wall Street expectations.
Also, roughly 180,000 fewer people looked for work last month compared to the previous month.
Many Americans have exited the labor force because of concerns over COVID-19, child care needs, career changes and other factors.
Still, even offering several dollars over minimum wage for entry-level employees and field workers isn’t enough for some cannabis cultivation companies to meet staffing needs.
“We’re willing to pay them, we have the money to pay them, they just don’t want to work,” Lasi said.
Do you have a ticket MJBizCon in Las Vegas, October 19-22?
Tens of thousands of cannabis executives already have reservations for the most anticipated event of the year:
  • 1,100 exhibits for cultivators, manufacturers and retailers.
  • 70+ presentations, plus a keynote by Shark Tank’s Daymond John
  • Networking and partnerships

Workers seem reluctant to get back into the market, according to Lasi, who said he’s paying $10-$15 an hour. The minimum wage in Oklahoma is $7.25 an hour.
He’s also adding performance bonuses based on the amount of work each day. He’ll add a dollar per each plant harvested, for example.
But he’s still struggling to find help
Most of the work is outside, so Lasi doesn’t believe the workers are staying home because they’re concerned about catching the coronavirus.
He blames the federal government’s pandemic aid in the form of stimulus money and increased unemployment benefits for the worker shortage.
But other experts say those factors aren’t the cause. The expiration of higher unemployment benefits last month, for example, failed to produce a big increase in labor force participation.
More with less
At Denver-based vertically integrated company Native Roots, Chief Operating Officer Beth Kotarba said the company cut cultivation staff during the early days of the pandemic and has struggled to rebuild its workforce ever since.
“We are feeling the pain, that’s for sure,” Kotarba said.
At any given time, the cultivation department could be down 10 or so employees.
“But we haven’t seen a drop off in production,” Kotarba added, commending her workers for picking up the slack.
Those workers who have shown loyalty are being rewarded, according to Kotarba.
“I’d rather have less people and reward them better,” she said. “The cost structure stays the same, and we’re paying our employees better.”
The hiring challenges are myriad, according to Kotarba. Applicants submit resumes, then don’t show for interviews. Workers are moving back to their home state or deciding to pursue other interests.
To combat that, Native Roots is also trying to attract entry-level workers with higher-than-base wages, despite the added labor costs.
“We’ve gone to upwards of $17 an hour,” Kotarba said. Minimum wage in Colorado is $12.32 an hour.
“We’re trying to consistently raise our hourly pay so we’re above the minimum wage and stand out in the cannabis industry.”
As for other benefits, the company offers a referral bonus for employees who recommend a successful hire.
For full-time workers, Native Roots offers health care and paid time off that begins to accrue as soon as the employee starts work.
Part-time workers will be eligible for health care next year.
“We’re just making the environment a good place to work so they enjoy it,” Kotarba said.
Safety at the forefront
In the less mature recreational cannabis market of Massachusetts, Southbridge-based vertically integrated cannabis company Green Meadows is offering workers above-market pay, medical and dental insurance as well as a 401(k) plan.
That’s according to Corey Bellrose, senior vice president of human resources, who said she’s paying close attention to the market and what the competition is paying.
Bellrose said Green Meadows looks for workers with passion and enthusiasm for the cannabis industry, which results in less turnover and a better overall culture for the team.
Cultivation workers also want to know they’re safe when they come to work.
“We have a very robust COVID policy on how we do things here,” she said.
The company closely follows guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Workers wear masks, socially distance and adhere to strict hygiene and cleaning procedures.
As the company grows, Bellrose is considering other ways to keep workers safe, including staggered shifts or more weekend work.
If a worker tests positive for COVID-19, everyone is notified and the company uses federal financial assistance so the worker can stay home and recover.
“More often than not, they appreciate how transparent we are,” Bellrose said.
Cutting out trimming
At Chalice Brands in Portland, Oregon, Chief Operating Officer Meghan Miller tries to keep workers safe by running a lean operation.
One way she’s done that is to outsource the trimming process.
Instead of having an additional 15-20 people on-site and adding to the risk of exposure as they prune and shape flower, she sends the plant material to another facility.
“Any time you add trimming to the scene, it adds to the head count and can lead to a volatile experience,” Miller said.
While another company might consider automating the process, Miller prefers the old-fashioned way.
“Machine-trimmed weed is not my jam,” she said.
“Until there’s a machine that’s as good as a human, we have to have some humanity left in the process.”
 

Unhappy Croptober: Sungrown Prices Crash to Historic Lows​


$150 a pound for sun-grown cannabis? That’s 2021 for you.


By
Chris Roberts
Published on October 12, 2021

The mood was somber at this year’s Hall of Flowers, the annual early fall trade show in Santa Rosa, California that’s become a de-facto preview of the yearly sungrown cannabis harvest.

For years prior to legalization and the opening of California’s adult-use cannabis market in January 2018, even if indoor-grown buds glistening with trichomes commanded higher prices, outdoor farmers still enjoyed reliably healthy appetites for their lower-THC, distinctly aromatic cuts. A pound of trimmed outdoor could fetch thousands of dollars; trimmers could expect $100 and $150 for every pound they prepared for market.

Not anymore. Since the opening of legal markets, outdoor prices have fallen, but fluctuated just enough to keep people in business. But this year, with the early light-deprivation harvest competing with enormous auto-flowering hauls from the airliner-hangar-sized greenhouses in the Salinas Valley and Santa Barbara County, as well as the usual indoor supply, things were different.

As one outdoor entrepreneur grimly joked, someone could wear a t-shirt offering “$50 packs,” and instead of eliciting knowing, sad laughs, they would probably entertain serious offers.

For a pound of outdoor cannabis in 2021 in early October, before the annual “Croptober” harvest, a pound of outdoor is demanding around $500 on the market. But most are asking for even less.

“The average is probably $500, but the drop from $500 to $150 is super quick,” said Nicholas Smilgys, who owns a Mendocino County-based distribution company.

His estimates were confirmed with other outdoor growers and distributors contacted by Cannabis Now. If someone has the most gorgeous outdoor anyone has ever seen—truly flawless AAA-grade weed—that might fetch $800. But that would be for what most growers, just a few years ago, would have reserved for their private head stash. And that’s still a price so low as to make outdoor cannabis farming a losing value proposition, as Tina Gordon, the founder and CEO of southern Humboldt County-based Moonmade Farms said.

While the flooded market means wholesale buyers can be outrageously selective, for producers, production costs have increased. There’s state excise taxes to pay before a single gram has been sold to consumers as well as state and county licensing and permit fees. With all that, combined with prices this low, how does anyone using the sun to produce cannabis make money?

“You can’t,” Gordon said.

Though this is an economic disaster, none of this should come as a surprise. The slow-motion demise of California’s small craft cannabis growers has been documented in excruciating detail over the past few years.

In addition to market competition and regulatory burdens, a litany of natural disasters like wildfires and drought, added to farmers’ woes—though at least fires offered a mixed blessing: if one farmers’ crop was ruined by smoke damage, that meant less competition for the farmer on the next ridge over whose crop was untouched.

But with more and more large-scale greenhouses entering the market—a single 87-acre grow was approved in Santa Barbara County earlier this summer, and county authorities reported more than 1,575 total acres in unincorporated Santa Barbara devoted to cannabis production or cultivation—California may produce three times as much cannabis as it can consume, industry observers and experts have said.

Exactly how much legal cannabis California produces remains a literal state secret; state law allows industry regulators to keep those numbers known only to themselves and select others, including law enforcement.

That might not matter if small farmers could sell directly to consumers or market their crops across state lines—neither of which is legal under state and federal law.

Small farmers, then, have two options. They can return to the illicit market, chasing higher prices along with increased risk. After all, the high prices that some fondly remember from a decade ago were in a way artificial, inflated by the risk of prohibition. Or they can offer only a few drops into an onrushing river that’s threatening to carry away their mode of production, as well as their way of life.

“These big swings are tough for a smaller company,” Smilgys observed. “You have to scramble to make up that lost revenue somewhere else.” That might be cutting wages for workers (or releasing staffs entirely). That might be cutting corners on supplies like fertilizers. Or it might mean giving up entirely on trying to satisfy a market that, to date, simply hasn’t been efficient in the way a small, bootstrapped producer using the sun needs.
 
"THC in saliva, however, reflects marijuana use within the past 12 hours, said Hakho Lee, the senior researcher on the new study."

Yeah, 12 hours which means it has zero ability to determine/discriminate for current state of actual impairment unlike an alcohol test.



Scientists Develop Quick Test for Cannabis Use​


Researchers may be one step closer to developing the equivalent of a Breathalyzer for detecting Cannabis use.​

In an early study, scientists found that their rapid test was able to reliably detect THC in people's saliva in under 5 minutes. THC, short for tetrahydrocannabinol, is the active ingredient in cannabis.
Right now, the "gold standard" for detecting cannabis use is to measure THC in the blood or urine. But those tests can take days to process. The other drawback is that unlike alcohol, THC can linger in the bloodstream for days or even weeks -- so a "positive" blood test does not necessarily reflect recent use.

Those facts have made it hard to develop a roadside test for marijuana use, akin to the Breathalyzer used to measure drivers' alcohol levels. THC in saliva, however, reflects marijuana use within the past 12 hours, said Hakho Lee, the senior researcher on the new study.

There are some existing saliva tests for THC, but they are hampered by issues like slow processing time or giving "binary" results -- similar to a yes/no on a pregnancy test.

Lee said his team was able to develop a test that not only quickly detects THC in saliva, but quantifies the amount.

In initial testing with 43 marijuana users and 43 non-users, it accurately picked up THC in saliva samples from all users of the drug.

It took about 3 minutes from "sample in, result out," according to Lee, who is based at Massachusetts General Hospital's Center for Systems Biology in Boston.
The researchers also used the test to monitor how marijuana users' THC levels changed over time. Overall, THC in saliva declined fairly quickly after people smoked the drug -- though 6 hours later those levels remained above 1 ng/ml. That's the cutoff recommended by the European Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines project.
A broader issue is that unlike the case with alcohol, there is no one THC level that defines "intoxication." That's complicated, Lee explained, because the level of impairment associated with a given THC concentration varies -- based on, for example, how the marijuana is ingested and whether the person is a regular user.

Still, with further refinement, Lee said his team's rapid test could prove useful for roadside testing of drivers suspected of being impaired. And there are even potential applications for the public, he noted. One is to check breast milk, so that babies are not inadvertently exposed to THC.

The initial performance of the test is "very encouraging," said Dr. Guohua Li, a professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York City.

Li, who was not involved in the research, studies the role of drugs in traffic accidents and other injuries.
"The evidence is overwhelming and consistent in showing a relationship between [marijuana] use and an increased risk of being involved in a fatal crash," Li said.
The risk associated with marijuana use alone is not as great as that of drunk driving, Li noted. But on average, he said, drivers who've used marijuana have about double the risk of being involved in a fatal crash as non-users do.
Plus, Li pointed out, there's the rising prevalence of marijuana use. In the past couple decades, he said, there has been a marked increase in the proportion of fatally injured drivers who are found to have THC in their systems.
The latest findings, Li said, offer a "proof of concept" that a rapid roadside test for THC is possible. But, "much more work is needed before it can be used in the field," he added.
The findings were published Wednesday in the journal Science Translational Medicine. Lee and several co-researchers are listed as inventors on a patent application that covers the test.
 

Top Federal Drug Agency Tells Congress About Marijuana Research Barriers Caused By Restrictive Scheduling​


The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) told Congress in a report obtained by Marijuana Moment that the Schedule I status of controlled substances like cannabis is preventing or discouraging research into their potential risks and benefits. It also said that current restrictions that block scientists from studying the actual cannabinoid products that consumers can purchase at dispensaries is impeding research to an extent that constitutes a public health concern.

In a document that was submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, as requested under previously enacted spending legislation, NIDA discussed “barriers to research with Schedule I substances” such as the “administratively complex” process scientists must follow in order to receive federal authorization from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to study the drugs.

“Researchers have reported that obtaining a new registration can take more than a year, that modifying a registration can also be time consuming, and that differing interpretations of the Schedule I registration requirements among local DEA field offices, research institutions, as well as distinct federal and state registration requirements, greatly complicate the process,” the federal agency told lawmakers. “These challenges can impede critical research on Schedule I substances and deter or prevent scientists from pursuing such work.”

It added that “an overarching concern expressed by researchers is a lack of transparency regarding registration requirements for Schedule I and Schedule II-V substances, and differing interpretations of those requirements by DEA field agents and research institutions.”

NIDA listed a series of issues that scientists have raised about Schedule I research barriers:

-When a drug is classified in Schedule I, that can result in “unexpected delays in ongoing research.”

-Researchers who need to change course in a study of a Schedule I substance—including something seemingly minor like adjusting the quantity being used—must re-register with DEA, causing further delays.

-Previously, just one person in a team of investigators would need to be registered with DEA. That’s apparently changed over time, with researchers telling NIDA that all members of the team require separate registration.

-DEA in some cases has required researchers to obtain multiple registrations for every physical site at which they carry out studies into Schedule I drugs, even if all the research is contained to a single campus.

-Complications surrounding access to different formulations and dosages of Schedule I drugs have also proved challenging, such and have caused confusion about whether a separate and more expensive manufacturing registration is needed for researchers whose studies require, for example, dissolving marijuana extracts in ethanol or oil before they can be used.

A separate section of the report focuses specifically on “challenges associated with conducting marijuana research, which go beyond those related to the registration process” and thus deserve “separate mention in light of the increasing availability and potency of marijuana and the proliferation of new marijuana products.”

It notes that researchers are currently limited to a supply of cannabis that’s grown exclusively at the University of Mississippi, which is currently the only federally authorized marijuana manufacturer. Lawmakers and scientists have long argued that the cannabis grown at the facility is inconsistent with products available in state-legal markets, raising questions about the validity of research that depends on the government’s marijuana.

DEA said this year that it is taking steps toward approving additional applications to become federally authorized marijuana producers for research purposes. At the same time, it is proposing significant increases in the production of research-grade Schedule I drugs like marijuana, psilocybin and MDMA for 2022.

But NIDA pointed out that even while approving new manufacturers would “increase the diversity of products and formulations available to researchers,” it still wouldn’t shed light on the kinds of products that consumers are purchasing from legal markets in a growing number of states.

“Researchers supported by NIDA and other federal agencies are unable to use federal funds to purchase marijuana available through state marijuana dispensaries,” the agency said.

“Moreover, some universities have expressed reticence about allowing investigators to purchase dispensary products with non-federal funds or do research with these products on university grounds for fear of violating federal law,” it said. “These products may differ from the actual products being sold to consumers. The inability of researchers to access marketed products may pose barriers to studying the health effects of products that individuals are using in real-world settings.”

NIDA Director Nora Volkow made similar remarks in a recent interview with Marijuana Moment, saying that she thinks “it would be theoretically ideal to understand the actual products that people are consuming, as opposed to trying to understand it with a different compound—a different plant that will vary in terms of the contents of ingredients.”

Several measures to address the issue are being considered in Congress.

Last week, a bipartisan group of House members filed one such bill which, in addition to generally streamlining the research registration process, would allow scientists to study dispensary cannabis. Late last year, the House approved an identical version of the marijuana science legislation. Days later, the Senate passed a similar bill but nothing ended up getting to the president’s desk by the end of the last Congress. Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of senators refiled their marijuana research measure for the current 117th Congress.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are also advancing a separate strategy to open up dispensary cannabis to researchers. Large-scale infrastructure legislation that has passed both chambers in differing forms and which is pending final action contains provisions aimed at allowing researchers to study the actual marijuana that consumers are purchasing from state-legal businesses instead of having to use only government-grown cannabis.

The existence of the newly revealed NIDA overview of Schedule I research barriers was made public in a Senate Appropriations Committee report attached to a spending package that was released last week. The panel expressed concerns about “restrictions associated with Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act which effectively limits the amount and type of research that can be conducted on certain Schedule I drugs, especially opioids, marijuana or its component chemicals and new synthetic drugs and analogs.”

“At a time when we need as much information as possible about these drugs and antidotes for their harmful effects, the Committee believes we should be lowering regulatory and other barriers to conducting this research,” it said.

However, the committee said it “appreciates NIDA’s completion of a report on the barriers to research that result from the classification of drugs and compounds as Schedule I substances including the challenges researchers face as a result of limited access to sources of marijuana including dispensary products.”
 

Columbia Care partners with boxing great Mike Tyson on cannabis brand​


By MJBizDaily Staff
October 27, 2021

New York-based Columbia Care said Wednesday it plans to launch a new cannabis brand in partnership with former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson.
The brand line – which will be called Tyson 2.0, according to a news release – will be sold across Columbia Care’s 99-dispensary network in 18 states and will include flower, concentrates and “consumables.”
The line will also be sold wholesale to other retailers.
The brand launch – no date has been announced – will be overseen by Adam Wilks, former CEO of One Plant, and Chad Bronstein, CEO and founder of Chicago-based Fyllo.
The new Tyson 2.0 brand has completed a $7 million seed round, Forbes reported.
The funds will be used to “solidify cultivation agreements, develop proprietary strains, and build a national sales team,” according to the release.
Tyson is not new to the marijuana industry. In 2018, he announced his plans for a 40-acre California cannabis ranch and production facility as well as a brand, Tyson Holistic.
 

Army Recruits Who’ve Used Marijuana ‘Perform No Worse’ Than Other Soldiers, Military-Funded Report Finds​


Findings from a new government-funded analysis of U.S. Army recruits suggest that past cannabis use has relatively little impact on overall performance. Recruits with documented histories of marijuana use were just as likely as their peers to make sergeant, for example, and while they were more likely to leave the Army over drug use, they were less likely to separate as the result of health or performance concerns.

Further, there’s no strong evidence that the continuing trend of legalization across the country has significantly affected recruit outcomes.

“Contrary to expectations, waivered recruits and recruits with a documented history of marijuana or behavioral health conditions are not uniformly riskier across all dimensions,” says the analysis, from the RAND Corporation. “In some cases, they are historically more likely to perform better.”

The nearly 200-page report centers on waivers, which allow the Army to reconsider applicants who are initially disqualified for various reasons. Among those reasons is cannabis use. Applicants who test positive for marijuana or with a documented history of use—including court records and self-disclosure—require waivers to enlist. The same goes for people diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety disorders or depression, who in some cases may not even qualify for a waiver.

“Without waivers, a failed drug test for marijuana would block the one-third of American 18-year-olds who say they have used marijuana at least once in the past year,” a RAND official wrote in a blog post about results. “Recruits who make it into the U.S. Army despite low-level histories of marijuana use perform no worse, overall, than other soldiers. That should be welcome news in recruiting offices nationwide.”

“Recruits with a history of marijuana were just as likely as other recruits to complete their first term and make sergeant, and they were less likely to leave the Army for health or performance reasons.”
Click to expand...
The Army asked RAND’s Arroyo Center, its sole federally funded research and development center, to analyze the performance of the recruits who receive waivers. “The Army was also interested in the extent to which increasing the share of recruits who receive waivers (or who have a documented history of marijuana, ADHD, or depression/anxiety) affects the overall performance of that accession cohort,” the report notes.



The analysis collected records on every recruit who entered the Army from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal 2012, tracking them through 2018. Researchers looked at “the application waiver screening process through enlistment until either separation…or reenlistment.”

Overall, the performance of a cohort of recruits “would change relatively little if waivers were increased,” researchers found. Aggregate effects would be “relatively small for the accession cohort as a whole, and, in some cases, the effects are improvements, not reductions, in performance.”

RAND authors acknowledged those findings ran “contrary to expectations,” while other conclusions reinforced their existing views.

“The result that most closely conforms to our expectations are in cases of recidivism,” the report says. Recruits with weight- or health-related waivers, including those with behavioral health conditions, were more likely to leave the Army for health-related reasons, for example. Recruits with a documented history of using marijuana or other drugs were more likely to separate due to drug use.

A high-school diploma or equivalent “often mitigates, at least partially,” those adverse outcomes, the analysis found.

The report should quell concerns that state-level moves to legalize cannabis has hurt the quality of incoming recruits. “The legalization of marijuana has not resulted in worse recruit outcomes,” it says succinctly. The trend might actually be helping, though it’s still hard to say.

“Although we find some indications that legalization could be associated with an improvement of outcomes, these results are not robust,” says one finding. “The key conclusion, then, is that there is no strong evidence that changes in marijuana legalization have substantially changed recruit outcomes.”

Currently, applicants can request waivers for positive tests for marijuana during their physical exam, in which case they must wait 90 days and then test negative. Waivers can also be requested for misdemeanor convictions for possession of cannabis or paraphernalia (provided they pass the drug test at the exam) and misdemeanor convictions for driving while under the influence of marijuana or while impaired.

With regard to cannabis specifically, the analysis found no statistically significant relationship between a documented history of use and a recruit’s performance in most cases. “However, in the cases where we do estimate a substantive and statistically significant effect, the estimates generally show that these recruits are more likely to have adverse outcomes.”

Recruits with a documented history of using cannabis and a non-traffic offense waiver, for example, are 32.7 percent more likely to separate from the Army due to misconduct regarding something other than drug abuse and 72.9 percent more likely for drug abuse specifically. They’re also 81 percent more likely to receive a demotion and 16.1 percent more likely to receive a favorable person status.

On the other hand, those with a documented history of marijuana and a non-traffic offense waiver who did separate were 47 percent less likely to leave due to health-related reasons and 40.8 percent less likely to do so for performance reasons.



The RAND report suggests the Army adopt some changes to how it handles waivers. Among them, analysts suggest the branch “distinguish between recruits with only a documented history of marijuana and those who also have misconduct offenses,” noting that outcomes are meaningfully different between the two groups.

“For example, separation for drug abuse is less likely for recruits with only a documented history of marijuana without any misconduct offenses,” the report says, “and (unlike those who also have misconduct offenses) they are no more likely to have a suspension of favorable person status than any other recruit.”

“The implication,” authors conclude, “is that the Army should continue to carefully screen recruits with a documented history of marijuana but should be less concerned with these recruits if they have no misconduct offenses.”

The report attributes some of the mixed findings, including the negligible impact on overall recruit outcomes, to the waiver process itself. The Army by rule is supposed to “apply the ‘whole person’ concept,” RAND notes. The concept centers on whether a person “has overcome his or her disqualifications,” it observes, although “no formal definition of the whole person concept is provided.” In practice the decision is made by individuals with authority to approve the waiver, who decide based on personal judgement.

It would take a much, much greater proportion of recruits with documented histories of cannabis use to make a meaningful impact on military performance, the report notes. But in what the report calls “extreme” cases—for example the rate of documented cannabis use among recruits rising from the historical rate of 0.2 percent between 2001 and 2012 to a whopping 20 percent (which RAND selected arbitrarily)—there might be at least some cause for concern.

“The share of recruits who are projected to separate for drug-related misconduct reasons would increase (from a baseline of 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent), as would the percentage of recruits who are projected to be demoted (from 14.1 percent to 16.1 percent). We also find that the percentage of recruits who would reenlist is projected to fall (from 36.6 percent to 35.8 percent).”

Another recommendation aims at a better understanding—as well as less stigma—around what a waiver means. “The term waiver is not well understood by policymakers and the press, and the term is often confused to mean that the Army is lowering standards and enlisting unqualified soldiers,” the report says. In fact, the allowance for a waiver is part of the enlistment process itself. “The Army should create, disseminate, and use a clear definition that highlights that all waivered recruits are qualified and eligible to enlist, even if they do not meet every enlistment standard.”

Meanwhile at the federal level, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under the Biden administration last month continued its opposition to a bill that would require VA to conduct clinical trials into the therapeutic potential of marijuana for military veterans. The department said that while it isn’t ideologically opposed to the measure, it views it as “redundant” and excessively prescriptive.

“The proposed legislation is not consistent with VA’s practice of ensuring scientific merit as the basis for a randomized clinical trial,” VA’s David Carroll said in testimony before a House subcommittee.

In September, meanwhile, a U.S. House committee passed a defense-spending bill that includes a report voicing concern about racial disparities in military drug testing, ordering the Pentagon to review the issue.

Unlike in past sessions, however, committee lawmakers did not file an amendment requiring the secretary of defense to issue regulations clarifying that military branches can grant reenlistment waivers to service members who have committed a single low-level marijuana offense.

The House passed a version of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act with a provision that urged leaders to exercise discretion in penalizing service members for marijuana use.

The changing state-level legal status of marijuana—and nationally, hemp (defined by federal law as cannabis that contains less than 0.3% THC)—has sometimes led to tension between lawmakers and military leaders. In July 2020, the House approved a measure to allow service members to use products containing hemp and its derivatives, including CBD. But the Navy replied by, just four days later, expanding its ban on CBD and hemp products for sailors to cover topicals like shampoos and soaps.

The Navy offered an explanation for the policy change: “The move was done to protect Sailors from potential tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) exposure that could negatively impact mission readiness and disqualify a Sailor from continued service,” it said. “It is impossible for consumers to determine how much THC a product actually contains in the current environment where label claims are not trustworthy.”

The House-passed protection was not brought up in the Senate and did not make it into law.
 
But what are the odds that he would? :thinker:

Biden Administration Can Legalize Marijuana Without Waiting For Lawmakers, Congressional Researchers Say​


President Joe Biden can grant mass amnesty to people who have violated federal marijuana laws, congressional researchers said in a new report, adding that his administration can also move to federally legalize cannabis without waiting for lawmakers to act.

The new analysis published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on Tuesday examines the question: “Does the President Have the Power to Legalize Marijuana?” It’s an idea that’s been raised repeatedly in recent years, including after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pledged to take executive action to end prohibition on day one in the White House during his 2020 presidential campaign.

While CRS found that the president cannot in fact deschedule cannabis unilaterally with an executive order, “he might order executive agencies to consider either altering the scheduling of marijuana or changing their enforcement approach.” That includes having federal officials start a process to completely remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) without requiring any additional action from Congress.

Further, the president could also use his pardon powers to either individually, or on a mass scale, grant clemency to people facing charges over federal marijuana offenses, CRS concluded. That blanket amnesty could apply even to people who have committed, but have not yet been charged with, a federal cannabis crime.

The new analysis from Congress’s research arm is welcome news for advocates who’ve been pushing Biden to exercise executive authority to provide relief to people who’ve been criminalized over cannabis, as he previously pledged during the presidential campaign.

“This new report affirms what advocates have long called for when it comes to taking decisive, consequential actions to end the senseless and cruel policy of marijuana criminalization,” NORML Political Director Justin Strekal told Marijuana Moment. “Should the Biden administration wish to be in line with the political, economic and moral realities surrounding cannabis policy, it should take action with haste.”

When it comes to federal legalization, “either Congress or the executive branch has the authority to reschedule or deschedule marijuana under the CSA,” the CRS report says. However, while it is not in dispute that Congress has that ability, and the administration can take action to reclassify cannabis out of Schedule I to a different category, some analysts have questioned whether the executive branch can completely deschedule the drug under current statutes.

The attorney general can initiate a process to push for the rescheduling of marijuana under the CSA by requesting a scientific review directly to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would then assess the scientific, medical and public health implications before submitting that review to the Justice Department.

The HHS secretary or an outside party could also file a rescheduling petition, which would then be reviewed by the attorney general, who has usually delegated that responsibility to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

Executive authority on full descheduling is another matter, however. Attorney General Merrick Garland recently received a request from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) to initiate a descheduling process, but a close reading of the relevant law raises questions about whether he can actually accomplish that legally.

Federal law says that if international treaties to which the U.S. is a party require control of any given substance, the attorney general “shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to” the separate HHS review.

Federal agencies like DEA have in the past referenced international treaty obligations as a reason they’re unable to domestically end marijuana criminalization.

It’s also the case, however, that the country has previously flouted such international consensus in other contexts such as military engagement. But as far as what the U.S.’s own federal statute allows, one interpretation would suggest the attorney general could be limited to moving marijuana to the lowest enforcement category under the CSA and could not fully deschedule it on his own.

The CRS report does not specifically weigh in on the international treaty complications and related federal laws implicated by them. The author directed Marijuana Moment to a prior CRS report on broader international implications of drug scheduling that doesn’t appear to directly address the part of U.S. code that some analysts say could prevent executive descheduling.

Beyond the question about broader administration powers, Biden himself as the president is not able to unilaterally deschedule marijuana, CRS said. While some like Sanders have suggested that it’s something the president could do through an executive order, legal experts say that it’s not so simple.

“The CSA does not provide a direct role for the President in the classification of controlled substances, nor does Article II of the Constitution grant the President power in this area (federal controlled substances law is an exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce),” the report states. “Thus, it does not appear that the President could directly deschedule or reschedule marijuana by executive order.”

However, while the president is limited in what he can do about existing federal laws, the report notes that “he has substantial control over how the law is enforced.”

“For instance, the Constitution grants the President the power ‘to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.’ That clemency power extends to all federal offenses, ‘except in Cases of Impeachment,'” the report says. “The President may grant a pardon at any time after an offense is committed: before the pardon recipient is charged with a crime, after a charge but prior to conviction, or following conviction. The power is not limited to pardons for individual offenders: the President may also issue a general amnesty to a class of people.”

As congressional lawmakers push to enact comprehensive legalization legislation, that’s an alternative approach that advocates want Biden to pursue in the meantime.

A group of more than 150 celebrities, athletes, politicians, law enforcement professionals and academics signed a letter that was delivered to Biden in September, urging him to issue a “full, complete and unconditional pardon” to all people with non-violent federal marijuana convictions.

That letter came just as the administration started encouraging about 1,000 people who were temporarily placed on home confinement for federal drug offenses to fill out clemency application forms.

Early in his administration, Biden received a letter from 37 members of Congress that called on him to use executive authority to mass pardon all people with non-violent federal marijuana convictions.

The ask for this unique form of presidential clemency is modeled on actions taken by Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in the 1970s to categorically forgive Americans who avoided the draft for the Vietnam War.

CRS said in the new report that it “appears that the President could provide clemency for some or all past federal marijuana-related offenses without making any changes to the CSA. However, such an exercise of the clemency power might not address all possible collateral legal consequences of marijuana-related activities, because some of those consequences do not depend on a person being charged with or convicted of a CSA violation.”

“Clemency also would not prevent prosecution of future offenses if the same President or a future administration ended the policy of amnesty,” the report says. “Furthermore, the presidential clemency power extends only to federal offenses; it does not affect offenses under state law.”

Another option at Biden’s disposal would be to “direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to exercise its discretion not to prosecute some or all marijuana-related offenses.”

“Although DOJ generally enjoys significant independence, particularly with respect to its handling of specific cases, the President has the authority to direct DOJ as part of his constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'” CRS said. “DOJ is primarily responsible for prosecuting criminal violations of the CSA and possesses significant prosecutorial discretion in doing so.”

It did exercise that discretion under the Obama administration by issuing guidance to federal prosecutors that laid out federal enforcement priorities for marijuana-related offenses. That guidance was rescinded under the Trump administration’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, however.

The CRS report also provides analysis on the broader powers that Congress has when it comes to controlled substances.

“If Congress wishes to remove or scale back federal legal restrictions on marijuana beyond what the executive branch chooses to pursue, it has significant authority to do so,” it said. “While the CSA does not grant the President the power to change the status of a controlled substance or the punishments for controlled substance offenses, Congress unquestionably holds the power to amend the CSA to reschedule or deschedule a controlled substance or change applicable penalties.”

In both the House and Senate, there are efforts underway to use those powers to end marijuana prohibition.

A key House committee in September voted in favor of a bill to federally legalize cannabis, and Senate leadership is separately working on marijuana reform legislation.

CRS also said that “while Congress cannot directly change state laws, it may be able to override state laws via preemption or enact measures designed to encourage the states to change their own laws.”
 
Makes you wonder what the hold up is.

Another Poll Shows Majority Support For Marijuana Legalization, Including Most Republicans​


A majority of U.S. adults, including most Republicans, support national marijuana legalization, another poll has found. It’s the second such national survey to be released over the past week.

Rasmussen Reports asked Americans if they support the “national legalization of marijuana,” and 62 percent of respondents said yes.



One of the more notable demographics to voice support for the policy change was Republicans, 54 percent of whom said they back legalization. That’s compared to 68 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of those who said they had an “other” political affiliation.

The survey also looked at whether respondents felt legalization should be a federal, state or local decision.

About half (47 percent) said the federal government should be in charge of legalizing cannabis, 32 percent said the states should decide and 11 percent favor local action on reform.

Fifty-three percent of respondents said they live in a state where marijuana is legal, compared to 38 percent who said they didn’t. Also, 50 percent said they’ve smoked cannabis versus 45 percent who said they haven’t.

The only demographics that didn’t express majority support for national legalization were those 65 or older (40 percent) and those with incomes of $200,000 or more (38 percent).

The survey involved interviews with 1,000 Americans from October 21-24. The margin of error is +/-3 percentage points.

This is the second poll in recent days to show majority public support for legalization.

A survey from Gallup found that 68 percent of U.S. adults said they back legalizing cannabisin this latest survey.

That’s the same percentage that the firm reported for its last poll in November 2020, where support had reached its highest level since 1969.

The release of these poll results comes as congressional lawmakers continue to pursue reform. A key House committee approved a legalization bill in September, and Senate leaders are also pushing a plan to end federal cannabis prohibition. Additionally, a new Republican-led effort to federally legalize and tax cannabis will soon be introduced in the House.

Yet, despite the solid public support for reform, particularly among Democrats, President Joe Biden continues to oppose adult-use legalization. Instead, he’s supportive of more modest proposals to federally decriminalize cannabis, legalize the plant for medical use and let states set their own policies.

While the president is personally against comprehensively ending prohibition, the Congressional Research Service released a report on Wednesday explaining steps he and his administration could take to repair the harms of cannabis criminalization.

Recent state and local polling has also continued to show the public backing broad marijuana reform.

For example, as multiple Pennsylvania lawmakers introduce bills to legalize cannabis, support for the reform is at a record high in the state, according to a new survey.

Marijuana legalization is more popular in Maryland than Biden and the state’s two U.S. senators, a poll released late last month found.

At the national level, Gallup released a survey in August showing that nearly half of American adults have tried cannabis.

Last year, the firm also published a survey finding that about 70 percent of Americans view smoking cannabis to be a morally acceptable activity. That’s higher than their views on the morality of issues such as gay relationships, medical testing of animals, the death penalty and abortion.
 
momofthegoons said:
Makes you wonder what the hold up is
Click to expand...
Asshole politicians who think they are our parents and not our representatives….as in representing OUR views and desires
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsored by
VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top