Connect with us

Cannabis News

24 Illegal Weed Shops for Every 1 Legal Dispensary

Published

on


ny illegal weed shops

In 2024, after three years of ups and downs, New York’s recreational cannabis market began to gain momentum, notably marked by the opening of approximately 50 licensed dispensaries so far this year.

 

However, these licensed retailers, totaling about 85, find themselves vastly outnumbered by over 2,000 unauthorized head shops. These establishments have drawn complaints for diverting customers, selling to minors, and attracting criminal activity.

 

This swift and audacious incursion has left many frustrated with the government’s slower and more stringent approach to expanding the legal market. It has emerged as the primary challenge confronting the rollout, as authorities grapple with fulfilling the state’s pledge to provide a $5 billion market to a range of small businesses and individuals adversely affected by past anti-marijuana policies.

 

“There needs to be swift action on this,” remarked James Stephenson, co-founder and CEO of oHHo, a wellness brand reliant on dispensaries for distributing its cannabis-infused chocolates, gummies, and seltzers. “There can’t be one group adhering to the rules while others operate outside of them.”

 

Sure, here are some suggested titles for the subheading sections:

 

Challenges in Dispensary Rollout

 

As illicit shops proliferated, the opening of legal dispensaries hit a snag, with months-long delays due to lawsuits, the intricate rule-making process, and the state’s failure to fulfil its commitment to fund the leasing and refurbishing of the initial 150 licensed dispensaries. Currently, only 10 stores are operational with state assistance, while another 375 dispensaries, licensed for nine months or longer, remain closed.

 

Governor Kathy Hochul, expressing growing dissatisfaction, recently initiated a review of the Office of Cannabis Management, the entity overseeing the rollout. Additionally, she proposed legislation to empower local authorities to crack down on unlicensed shops and landlords complicit in their operations. Furthermore, she introduced a bill to reduce taxes that inflate the prices of legal cannabis products, a move widely supported in the State Legislature.

 

The review commenced shortly after Damian Fagon, the cannabis agency’s chief social equity officer, was placed on administrative leave pending a misconduct investigation. This action followed allegations by Jenny Argie, the founder of a licensed cannabis business, accusing Fagon of retaliation after she recorded a conversation with him, subsequently cited in an article criticizing the agency.

 

Argie subsequently filed a lawsuit against the state, joining a slew of legal challenges against the agency. These include allegations that the state’s social equity policies unfairly favor women and minorities over white men, and efforts to halt the use of lotteries in determining the order of new application consideration. Other lawsuits contest decisions regarding dispensary locations and oppose the use of taxpayer funds to support them.

 

Chris Alexander, the executive director of the state cannabis agency, has stood by his agency’s deliberate and systematic approach to licensing businesses owned by a diverse array of individuals, which regulators believe can thrive in a notoriously challenging industry. He highlights the shortcomings experienced by states that rushed their processes. Additionally, officials express frustration that the criticisms of the rollout have overshadowed the accomplishments made in the two years since the agency’s inception.

 

Licensed Dispensaries vs. Illicit Market

 

New York currently boasts more licensed recreational dispensaries than any other state on the East Coast, second only to Massachusetts. These establishments are owned by individuals with diverse backgrounds, including those with criminal records, veterans, women, nonprofits, and individuals of Black, Latino, and Asian descent. These dispensaries have significantly contributed to job creation in a retail sector grappling with the aftermath of the pandemic, alleviated the state’s surplus of unsold cannabis, and generated substantial tax revenue, amounting to millions of dollars. Many of these businesses are profitable and expanding, with numerous newcomers on the brink of breaking even.

 

Despite these achievements, licensed dispensaries face challenges in attracting consumers away from illicit shops, as many consumers are unaware or indifferent to the distinction between licensed and unlicensed establishments. In the first full year of legal sales, state-licensed dispensaries in New York generated approximately $150 million, considerably less than the $673 million generated by dispensaries in New Jersey, where recreational sales commenced eight months prior.

 

Unlike New Jersey and Massachusetts, which permitted medical dispensaries to transition into recreational sales, New York initially prioritized retail licenses for individuals with criminal records and only recently allowed medical dispensaries to serve the public. Critics, including some supporters, argue that this decision exposed the program to legal challenges, leading to delays in the rollout while the illicit market flourished.

 

With limited avenues to sell their products, cannabis farmers in New York are facing financial hardships amidst an expanding market.

 

During a recent Cannabis Control Board meeting in Brooklyn, the first since the governor ordered a review, several applicants and licensees expressed their frustrations. Some defended the regulators, acknowledging the daunting task of developing the industry with insufficient resources.

 

Reform Efforts and Support Initiatives

 

The board passed a resolution that exempts new licensing fees for those wishing to continue cultivation for the state or establish craft businesses.

 

Damien Cornwell, president of the Cannabis Association of New York, which advocated for the exemption, argued that the fees, reaching as high as $40,000, pose a significant barrier for farmers. Many have depleted their funds on taxes while awaiting payment from retailers for product orders.

 

“They’re cash-strapped,” remarked Mr. Cornwell, who also operates a dispensary named Just Breathe in Binghamton. “Their liquidity is insufficient for this endeavor.”

 

Despite numerous raids by local and state authorities on illicit stores, hefty fines and pressure on landlords to evict unlicensed businesses, these retailers persist undeterred. They often reopen shortly after raids and contest fines through lengthy administrative hearings.

 

In addition to Governor Hochul’s proposals for enforcement and tax reform, state legislators are considering measures to provide financial aid to struggling farmers and safeguard a special licensing program for individuals with prior marijuana-related convictions from legal challenges. New York City prosecutors are also seeking expanded authority to evict shops involved in the marketing and sale of cannabis.

 

“I want an effective system,” stated Jeremy Cooney, a state senator from Rochester and chairman of the cannabis subcommittee.

 

Pilar DeJesus, a housing activist and advocate for cannabis legalization, emphasized that the state should offer more assistance to individuals adversely affected by anti-cannabis policies in establishing legal businesses.

 

The demand for such support has surged. Last autumn, the Office of Cannabis Management received 7,000 license applications, with approximately 4,800 applicants qualifying for mandated loans and grants. These funds are designed to aid businesses owned by low-income individuals with previous arrests, as well as by women, minorities, veterans, and struggling farmers.

 

While the Office of Cannabis Management offers some reimbursement to organizations aiding applicants, Ms DeJesus argued for increased funding directed towards grassroots organizations already assisting in developing the necessary skills for operating businesses in the cannabis industry.

 

“We’re talking about a range of skill sets that the community lacks due to barriers created by the war on drugs,” she emphasized.

 

Bottom Line

 

New York’s cannabis industry faces significant hurdles as it navigates the challenges of legalization. Despite progress in licensing dispensaries, the proliferation of illicit shops remains a pressing concern, highlighting the need for swift regulatory action. Governor Kathy Hochul’s proposed reforms and support initiatives signal a commitment to addressing these issues, but substantial work lies ahead to ensure the industry’s equitable and sustainable growth. Collaboration between regulators, legislators, advocates, and industry stakeholders will be crucial in overcoming obstacles and realizing the full potential of New York’s cannabis market.

 

NEW YORK TRIES TO SHUT DOWN ILLEGAL WEED SHOPS, READ ON…

NY TRIES TO SHUT DOWN ILLEGAL MARIJUANA SHOPS

NY TRIES TO SHUT DOWN ILLEGAL CANNABIS SHOPS, GOOD LUCK SAYS CA!



Source link

Cannabis News

California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality

Published

on

By


In a landmark decision that highlights the tension between state and federal cannabis laws, a California appellate court ruled on October 29th that property owners can refuse to allow the transportation of cannabis across their land via easements, even when the cannabis operation is approved by local authorities.

The Second District Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision draws attention to private property rights in a context where cannabis remains federally illegal, but state law allows licensed cultivation, distribution and sale. Presiding Justice Albert Gilbert stated, “No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.” JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, Case No. B333201, 2024 WL 4599304, Oct. 29, 2024.

Unless the California Supreme Court grants review – which I would not rule out – the decision empowers private property owners to refuse to contract with cannabis businesses, and restricts local government from approving cannabis operations that implicate the property rights of neighbors who object.

The case at hand

The dispute centered around a cannabis cultivation operation in Santa Barbara County, where JCCrandall LLC challenged a conditional use permit granted by the County to its neighbor, Santa Rita Holdings Inc. The critical issue was that Santa Rita Holdings could only access its 2.5-acre cannabis farm via an unpaved road crossing JCCrandall’s property through a pre-existing easement. JCCrandall grows oats and barley.

JCCrandall’s primary concern? It raised a number of complaints with the Santa Barbara County Supervisors about truck traffic and night operations, which did not gain traction, but in the Court of Appeal JCCrandall focused on what it claimed was potential liability associated with having federally illegal substances transported across its property, even though County regulators found that the Santa Rita operation was fully compliant with state and local laws.

Key legal findings

The appellate court’s decision hinged on several crucial points:

  1. Property Rights: The court emphasized that “the right to exclude others is the essence of the right of property ownership” and classified it as a fundamental vested right.
  2. Federal Supremacy: The panel determined that allowing cannabis transportation across private property “defies the Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
  3. State vs. Federal Law: While cannabis might be legal under California law, the court ruled that federal law’s prohibition takes precedence in this context.

California cannabis industry implications

Legal experts suggest this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for California’s cannabis industry. Section 1550.5(b) of the California Civil Code makes contracts within California involving cannabis lawful and enforceable, and Santa Rita Holdings bet the ranch on that argument. But the Court of Appeal held that the statute could not compel a landowner to allow cannabis to travel across its property on a pre-existing easement. Licensed operators may find it harder to do business because neighbors who have property rights affected by a cannabis business can object, and, under the JCCrandall ruling, local government must yield to those objections.

An example might be a cannabis dispensary that depends on access to its parking lot via an easement or is located in a shopping center where other lessees have rights to object to tenants notwithstanding the approval of the landlord. In cultivation, many cannabis farms depend on vehicular access through easements because they are remote and do not always have direct access to public thoroughfares, or they depend on water sourced from other properties pursuant to agreements made by prior owners who grew traditional crops. These neighbors might not need to show any negative impact on their property, but can argue that they could be found complicit in federally illegal activities.

I think the most problematic language in the JCCrandall ruling is the following, which might draw the attention of the California Supreme Court and cause it to grant review: “For as long as an easement is enjoyed, its mode and manner of use shall remain substantially the same as it was at the time the easement was created. The County argues the easement was used for agricultural purposes. But there is a vast difference between legal and illegal agricultural purposes.” (Emphasis added.) If California has determined that cannabis cultivation is legal – as it has – and state courts routinely enforce contracts involving cannabis, it is a pretty bold step to declare the use of a lawful pre-existing easement illegal simply because the agricultural crop is cannabis and take away easement access from Santa Rita.

Looking ahead

This decision creates new challenges for cannabis businesses in California, and will result in more disputes among neighbors. While the Biden administration has shown signs of easing federal marijuana restrictions, this ruling demonstrates that the federal-state law conflict continues to create significant legal hurdles for the cannabis industry.

California court decisions also can be persuasive authority in other states, so we might see similar litigation (and decisions) elsewhere in the country where cannabis has been legalized.

The case serves as a reminder that despite California’s progressive stance on cannabis, federal prohibition continues to cast a long shadow over the industry’s operations and development. As the cannabis landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may prompt businesses to reassess their property arrangements and local governments will certainly have to reconsider their permitting processes to give more careful consideration to objections by neighbors who claim that their property rights are implicated by cannabis operations.

Note: This post was first published earlier this month on the Alger ADR Blog.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Autoimmune Conditions Are Rising Fast in American Medicine, Can Cannabis Help?

Published

on

By


cannabis autoimmune problems

Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help

 

Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.

 

In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.

Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.

 

According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.

 

But cannabis can help!

 

How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases

 

Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.

 

In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.

 

Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.


There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.

 

Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis

 

Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

 

The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.

 

“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.

 

In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.

 

According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”

 

“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote. 

 

Anecdotal Evidence

 

While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.

 

In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.

 

Conclusion

Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.

 

AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES THAT CANNABIS CAN HELP

CANNABIS FOR 9 DIFFERENT AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill

Published

on

By


The U.S. Senate’s version of the Farm Bill finally landed this week. They’re calling it the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024 (the “Senate bill”). The Senate bill follows on the House’s proposal, called the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (the “House bill”), offered in May. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill would preempt state or Indian law regarding hemp or the regulation of hemp products. This means states and tribes will retain a lot of latitude in regulating hemp and hemp-derived products– which gets people fired up.

Aside from giving states some runway, the Senate bill and the House bill differ in key respects regarding hemp. Therefore, these august bodies must confer and reconcile their sundry proposals. That could happen in 2024, but seems more likely in 2025 when the new Congress convenes. As of this week, though, we finally have a framework.

The Senate Bill re-defines “hemp” and defines “industrial hemp”

Section 10016 of the Senate bill (“Hemp Production”) amends the definition of “hemp.” Hemp was defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), taking us on a truly wild ride. See: What Happened to Hemp? (“What Happened”). The Senate bill also gives us a definition for “industrial hemp.” Here are those definitions, with points of emphasis in bold:

(1) Hemp. The term “hemp” means (A) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; and (B) industrial hemp.

(3) Industrial Hemp. The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. if the harvested material (A) is only (i) the stalks of that plant, fiber produced from those stalks, or any other manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of those stalks (except cannabinoid resin extracted from those stalks); (ii) whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other compound, manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the seeds of that plant (except cannabinoid resin extracted from the seeds of that plant); or (iii) viable seeds of that plant produced solely for production or manufacture of any material described in clause (i) or (ii); and (B) will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.

The new regime

Again, the definitional stuff in bold is what I want to emphasize.

First, the Senate bill keeps the THC threshold at 0.3 percent, which is an arbitrary number we’ve been advocating against for years. The Senate bill mirrors the House bill in this respect, though, so we are stuck with this, unless Ron Paul gets his way.

Second, the Senate bill keeps the 2018 Farm Bill’s total THC standard, including THCA. The House bill does this too. This was fairly predictable: in What Happened, I wrote that we could “expect the total THC standard to remain, which means that actual Delta-9 THC won’t be the only metric for calculating THC content.”

We’ve also explained on this blog that the 2018 Farm Bill and USDA rules mandate total THC testing on pre-harvest hemp batches, but do not mandate such testing on post-harvest hemp or hemp products. The Senate bill doesn’t change this paradigm, which means the “loophole” for gas station weed remains open. This proposal is a big win for opponents of the House bill’s “Miller Amendment,” which would narrow the definition of “hemp” to exclude intoxicating hemp-derived substances.

Third, the Senate bill introduces a new definition and framework for industrial hemp. The House bill does this too, albeit slightly differently. The idea here is to invite farmers to grow hemp for fiber and grain purposes, while freeing them from regulatory burdens with the Department of Agriculture and criminal exposure with the Department of Justice. More specifically, for “industrial hemp” growers, the Senate bill:

  • removes background check requirements;
  • instates “relaxed regulatory requirements” for sampling and inspection methodologies (which will need to be adopted by rule); and
  • develops a certified seed program. 

The Senate bill also makes any hemp producer ineligible to grow hemp for five years if that producer, “with a culpable mental state greater than negligence, produces a crop of hemp that is inconsistent with that license.”(Hint: use the seed program.) The proof standard here seems like it could be an issue, and even if anyone has been adjudicated as growing marijuana under the guise of hemp, Farm Bill ineligibility seems like a far-off concern.

Bottom line

The big takeaway for me is that the Senate bill leaves the door open for intoxicating hemp products, whereas the Miller Amendment to the House bill does not. Something’s gotta give. And it needs to happen soon, because we’re already long overdue. As I explained in a webinar last week, the Farm Bill deals with the nation’s entire food supply, not just hemp. Therefore, this is not like with the SAFE Banking Act, where we have a proposed law specific to cannabis that may or may not ever pass. The Farm Bill must pass, and soon.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep you updated on any major happenings. For more on this topic, check out our massive hemp and CBD archive, or these specific, recent posts:



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media