Connect with us

All about Cannabis

Cannabis Hospitalization of Children – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana

Published

on


Have cannabis-related hospitalizations increased in Canada since legalization? Does this mean government should reduce the country’s THC limits? Maybe ban edibles altogether?

What if I told you a published study funded by Big Oil revealed half-a-million birds died every year by running into wind turbines? (That’s true, by the way).

And because of this study, Big Oil recommends the government restrict the production and use of wind turbines.

You’d be suspicious, right?

It has nothing to do with whether you like or dislike wind turbines. Or whether you trust or distrust big oil companies.

It’s obvious this study would be biased. We would need a second opinion on the matter.

Well, that just happened with cannabis… again.

Cannabis Hospitalization: Don’t Believe the Hype 

Cannabis Hospitalizations

It’s becoming routine for Canada’s public health busybodies and corporate presstitutes to denounce cannabis as a dangerous, toxic, addictive substance. 

This year alone, we’ve seen headlines about cannabis causing heart disease, psychosis, depression, and even mass shootings.

And hospitalization. This isn’t our only article on the subject.

Interestingly, we’ve seen very little about cannabinoids blocking COVID-19 infections in the corporate press.

In fact, it’s downright shocking since the corporate press beat the covid drum consistently for two years. Never once questioning the wisdom of public health or the spineless nature of our modern politicians.

It truly is shocking.

Take, for example, this recently released study in the New England Journal of Medicine. Funded by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. 

In other words, an anti-green tech study funded by a big oil company. 

Here’s what they found.

This is How Dumb the “Experts” Think You Are

Hospitalizations for cannabis are up. For children. By six times!

The rate was pretty uniform across the country. Except for the provinces that permit edibles. In these provinces, the surge was more than double.

It’s almost like strict anti-marketing rules, child-resistant packaging, and the 10 milligram THC limit had ZERO effect. 

Of course, the total number of hospitalized children over these seven years was 581. Not bad for a nation with 5.6 million children under 14.

In that sense, you could argue Canada’s strict edible approach was a success. Children are always going to get into trouble. Don’t you remember being a kid?

But the public health busybodies see this as a failure. Less than one hundred kids yearly out of a nation of 5.6 million is too much.

They like to blame Ontario Premier Doug Ford and his “wild west” of private-sector cannabis retailers. What Ontario needs, they’ll argue, is a Crown monopoly. Fewer outlets. Less consumer choice.

Forgetting one little important fact.

Most of these hospitalizations occurring after legalization are not because of Doug Ford.

A vast majority of these hospitalizations occur after legalization because before legalization if you showed up to the hospital and said your kid got into your cannabis, they’d likely take your kid and call the police.

Cannabis was illegal. It wasn’t worth the risk. It’s only cannabis. They’ll be fine.

Nobody has ever died from cannabis.

The stoners taking their kids to hospital likely fall into two categories:

a) serious connoisseurs with 100mg+ homemade edibles who are genuinely concerned for their child.

b) legal 10mg shoppers who wear a mask outside in the sun or alone in their cars with the windows up.

Cannabis Hospitalization Study is Trash

This cannabis & hospitalization study was not an experimental, randomized control trial. It didn’t need to be. They were simply reporting the facts.

Since legalization, more parents have taken their kids to the hospital than before legalization. From this, I deduce that these parents do not understand phytocannabinoids or the endocannabinoid system.

If you’re a parent and your child eats a lot of THC, pump ’em full of CBD and wait it out.

But if you’re a researcher and want to do science, you must demonstrate cause and effect.

An observational study cannot do that. Any research finding from this method is trash. It only shows the bias of the researcher.

Consider masking, for example. Here’s a list of 49 observational studies showing that everybody wearing a mask helps stop the flu virus spread.

That list is what confirmation bias looks like.

Here are a couple of randomized control trials on masking for COVID-19. They found it’s beneficial for older adults and the immunocompromised. No one else.

Your Opinion, My Opinion, Who’s Holding the Gun? 

Police at the ready with batons and paramilitary equipment in Ottawa

Public health “experts” make recommendations to the government based on trash studies. That’s what makes them busybodies.

These people are not experts. I might trust them to do heart surgery or conduct an x-ray. But I don’t want them recommending public policy. 

They’re not experts in what we oughta do. 

The problem is the government – the state – is an institutional monopoly of violence. It has the legitimate use of force in society. 

This makes the institution particularly dangerous. If not kept under the control of its subjects, it can work against those subjects’ interests.

In fact, this happens every day. And it’s been going on for centuries. The history of society is a struggle between civil society and the state.

So long as the state holds the gun, that is, enforces its monopoly by the threat of violence – we will be a two-class society. 

State power only increases at the expense of its subjects’ freedom and prosperity. The larger the state, the less freedom the people have.

History is not kind to those who place their faith in the state. There is an entire history of violence and bloodshed to prove it.

Public health busybodies are useful propaganda tools. Lenin would call them useful idiots, but I don’t want to be rude.

I prefer moron. 





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All about Cannabis

A Conservative Cannabis Act?  – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana

Published

on

By


Is it possible a Conservative Cannabis Act can fix the damage of Justin’s legalization?

On October 17th, 2018, the government of Canada legalized cannabis with strict conditions on who could sell it, how to access legal products, and how much you could grow for personal use.

This top-down public health scheme split BC Bud into two camps. Those who wanted to follow the rules and try to become legitimate. And those who saw the corporatization of their medicinal herb and said, “no, thanks.”

Four years later, even large licensed producers are worried about the future of the cannabis industry. It seems you can’t take a public health approach and have a thriving commercial sector.

The two are incompatible, as evidenced by the continued existence of the illicit market.

Canadians aren’t buying moonshine made in bathtubs. Alcohol regulations across the country are liberal enough to prevent black markets.

This truth is so evident that only the “right-wing” parties of the country understand this. Unfortunately, only one of them is capable of winning the next election.

And it’s led by a leader who believes drugs are inherently harmful and that “addicts” need treatment and recovery.

A Pierre Poilievre Conservative government likely won’t touch the Cannabis Act with a ten-foot pole. But let’s say they do. What would a Conservative Cannabis Act look like?

The Cannabis Act is Already Conservative

A Conservative Cannabis Act? 
Joseph Copley/Canva

If we travel back to, let’s say, 1972, and I told you Canada would legalize cannabis in 2018. Then I explained how the regime looked. You might wonder: did the Conservative Party legalize cannabis?

Traditionally, liberals have been for individual rights. A true, small-L liberal government would legalize cannabis for the same reason they don’t ban abortions: you own your body.

Wanna fill your lungs with cannabis smoke? That’s your prerogative. Just as you have every right to evict a trespasser using your uterus, rent-free.

Liberals, in the classical sense, are about decentralization.

We already have laws on the books to deal with the legal cannabis industry. There’s no reason to create a task force or an “expert panel,” to study the issue.

Health Canada does not need to enforce the rules.

If the Conservative Party legalized cannabis, they would do it for all the reasons Justin Trudeau’s Liberals outlined in 2015.

We gotta protect the children. We gotta remove the profits from criminal gangs.

Cannabis legalization, as envisioned by the Cannabis Act, is an egalitarian idea. A conservative reaction to the failure of the drug war as it pertains to weed.

Justin’s legalization is a Conservative Cannabis Act. From the erroneous claims about public health and safety to the anti-marketing, plain-packaging, child-resistant plastic containers legal cannabis is sold in.

The Cannabis Act fits squarely into the conservative camp. 

Will Justin Run on the Weed Ticket Again? 

Justin Trudeau could face an election when this Cannabis Act review wraps up in 18 months. He could run the weed ticket again, as that’s the only real success he’s had with young people.

And young people are leaving the Liberals and NDP in droves to join Poilievre’s common sense revolution.

We know Justin loves using wedge issues to divide Canadians amongst themselves.

The Cannabis Act review might suggest increasing the 10mg edible THC limit to displace the black market. But public health busybodies won’t be for it because it doesn’t protect “the children.” 

What do you think Justin will say? He’ll go wherever the polls lead him.

We know what Poilievre will do. Despite his condemnation of public health for lockdowns and vaccine passports, he’s on board with their addiction, recovery, and treatment rhetoric.

Fortunately, if this is part of Justin’s reelection plan, I don’t think it’ll work.

For starters, it’s not 2015 anymore. Justin’s “sunny ways” have come and gone without anybody noticing they were here to begin with.

It’s 2022, and people are struggling with the cost of living. Liberal commentators talk about inflation not being an election issue if (or when) Canadians go to the polls in 2025.

But that’s ridiculous. The people saying this are those who didn’t see the inflation crisis coming. And when it hit, they called it “transitory.”

The reality is we’re entering the stages of economic depression the likes the world hasn’t seen since the 1930s.

Suppose Justin tries to run on a more liberalized legalization scheme. 

It’s unlikely that young people living with their parents or putting 80% of their income into their living costs will care.

What Pierre Poilievre Told Me 

A Conservative Cannabis Act? 

I don’t see a Poilievre government touching the Cannabis Act.

If the 18-month review wraps up in time for an election, perhaps a Poilievre government will implement its findings. Part of that continuity of government, where Harper’s medical cannabis regulations aren’t so different from Justin Trudeau’s conservative Cannabis Act.

What will Pierre Poilievre do? I decided to ask him. It took over a month for a reply by e-mail. And I suspect this was probably a staffer or a bot, not Pierre himself.

Nevertheless, he signed his name to it, so this must be his opinion.

He wrote: “Dangerous and addictive drugs tear families apart, promote criminal behaviour, and destroy lives. Instead of making it easier for drug addicts to consume drugs, the Liberal Government should support treatment and recovery programs to get addicts off drugs.”

(Which, on further inspection, is taken verbatim from what Harold Albrecht said in the House of Commons on February 26th, 2019).

So basically, the same narrative when Ottawa and B.C. announced the decriminalization of drugs like opioids and cocaine.

Of course, politicians are going to politic.

I don’t expect Poilievre to have an opinion on cannabis legalization anymore than he has on abortion or gay marriage.

These topics aren’t worth disrupting the narrative that Liberals raise the cost of living while Conservatives will bring it down.

Anything counter or irrelevant to this narrative won’t see the light of day. That is the nature of democratic politics.

A Conservative Cannabis Act

Courtesy of GreenCuisineCBD.com

Can a Conservative Cannabis Act bring down the cost of living? It sounds a little ridiculous, but it’s a subject I’ve covered here before.

Centuries of selective breeding have split the cannabis sativa genus into two identifiable crops: consumable cannabis and industrial hemp.

Hemp may be the most sustainable crop on the planet. It certainly is one of the fastest-growing. It requires little water, no pesticides, and returns nutrients to the topsoil. 

Instead of banning plastic bags and straws, the government can promote hemp-derived plastic with targeted tax breaks and subsidies. 

Hemp is suitable for textiles, as well. Our current approach uses cotton, which requires pesticides that build up in the soil and contaminate drinking water.

Deforestation is a problem solved by hemp farming. 

Hemp farming can also supplement our oil production and eventually overtake it. Hemp biodiesel isn’t some fringe, unworkable idea.

A Conservative Cannabis Act could look at cannabis and hemp as undeveloped resources. 

Essential for protecting the planet’s topsoil and conserving Canada’s resources while reducing plastics, pollution, and waste.

All without a carbon tax.

Poilievre’s Conservatives may not make this an election issue this time around. But this is the way if they want to decimate the Liberals and NDP in future elections. 

The Liberal Cannabis Act treats cannabis as a drug worse than heroin and subjects it to taxes and regulations that end up doing more harm than good. 

A Conservative Cannabis Act could work to conserve the environment. 

Footnote(s)





Source link

Continue Reading

All about Cannabis

George Smitherman on Cannabis in Canada – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana

Published

on

By


If you believe Justin Trudeau sold cannabis in Canada out to a Laurentian Elite, then George Smitherman is your boogeyman.

A former politician and now licensed producer, he’s also President and CEO Cannabis Council of Canada (C3). 

When the Trudeau government announced a review of the Cannabis Act, C3 released “Five Big Asks.”

They are:

  1. Address the financial viability of Licence holders by fixing the excise tax, provincial distributor mark-ups and fees.
  2. Level the playing field with the illicit market.
  3. Allow Licence holders to communicate with consumers, including about the effects of cannabis.
  4. Eliminate costly “red tape” and unnecessary “Nanny State” regulations.
  5. Strengthen patient access to medical cannabis.

Except for #2, these are all reasonable asks.

But what about #2? 

What does “level the playing field” mean? I asked George Smitherman this, and here’s what he said.

George Smitherman on “Levelling the Playing Field” with Illicit Cannabis 

George Smitherman on Cannabis in Canada

Just when you think Justin’s Liberals couldn’t be any more incompetent, you discover new depths. 

The C3 doesn’t like illegal cannabis stores in the GTA for obvious reasons. They’re also not big fans of illicit online sales and delivery. 

Their call for more enforcement is entirely logical from their viewpoint.

“I can’t use a website,” George tells me over the phone, “If I’m in the licensed industry, I can’t sell my weed for delivery across the country via website.”

Why aren’t the police doing something? They are, as you can tell from the headlines. Police tend to go after the source, not the retailer.

But George’s problem is that he’s got bureaucrats breathing down his neck (although he didn’t use such blunt language).

“We’re playing by the rules,” George Smitherman says. “We’re paying all the fees. And it’s expensive, it’s not cheap.”

The problem is the Cannabis Act isn’t worth the trouble. Get licensed, and you’re regulated to death by public health busybodies. “The regulators and the lawmakers have nothing but attention for you,” says George. 

Or don’t get licensed and risk fines and imprisonment. And since the legacy cannabis market has an extensive history with the latter option…

George on BC Bud 

George Smitherman on Cannabis in Canada

George Smitherman agreed that the federal government could displace the cannabis black market. If they addressed #1 and #3 of the “Big Five Asks” (dialing down the taxes and regulations).

Our disagreement was on what that would entail.

I am undoubtedly part of the “regulatory liberationists,” who would like to see a commercial cannabis industry.

George Smitherman is “practical” and wants incremental steps to balance public health with a profitable cannabis sector.

Nevertheless, Health Canada has made it clear it thinks its micro-licensing scheme is the proper path forward for BC Bud.

C3 agrees, “We believe that the amount of growing space for micros needs to be increased,” says George.

And while he does try to be mindful of the different cannabis cultures, especially on the West Coast, George ultimately says he doesn’t think the grey market exists.

“I think that’s just fuzzy branding,” he says.

It’s one thing to be a small mom-and-pop farm, but not going through the legal means becomes a problem at some point.

Ultimately, it’s a disagreement over testing and safety. As evidenced by some impure cannabis from illicit markets, it seems restrictive regulations are better than no regulations.

And not doubt a lot of Ontario‘s black market weed sucks.

But in British Columbia? Especially in the smaller connoisseur market? The lack of regulations has created a culture of customary rules. And this cannabis tests just fine with or without Ottawa’s bureaucracy.

George on the “Nanny State” Cannabis Regulations 

George Smitherman on Cannabis in Canada

What does that mean when George Smitherman and the C3 ask the government to eliminate costly red tape and unnecessary Nanny State cannabis regulations?

George Smitherman is admittedly “motivated” by the public health goals of the Cannabis Act. Removing Nanny State regulations is about increasing the THC limits on edibles.

“It’s missing the mark for the regular consumer of cannabis edibles,” says George. If the government is serious about displacing the black market, “they need to raise the edible limit.”

But as for delegating production licenses to the provinces? George isn’t aware of any movement to make this happen. He is critical of the idea we need to start over again with less focus on public health.

“Obviously that’s not the approach of the Cannabis Act, but I definitely get where those arguments are coming from.”

George on the Cannabis Act Review

George Smitherman Cannabis

What does George Smitherman think of the Cannabis Act review? The same thing we’re all thinking: hurry up!

We agreed that small producers and manufacturers suffer under excise taxes and prohibitive regulations.

Won’t they be bankrupt by the time this cannabis review wraps up?

“Cynically, I might say, anything that starts late is in a bad spot,” he says. “If 18 months of a report results in that report being sent somewhere else for consideration, that’s not a formula for the timely response that the sector needs.”

We can agree on urgency. And both George and I are pleased to see the review board will at least listen to consumers and the industry rather than narrowly define the scope of its mandate.

In Summary

Justin Trudeau promised to license, restrict, and regulate cannabis. His government managed to license it. They certainly regulate it to death. 

But restrict? That was always an impossible feat. You can’t dictate consumer demand.

This Liberal government isn’t likely to remove cannabis regulatory gatekeepers. Therefore, the illicit market will likely have no incentive to join the legal regime.

And so guys like George Smitherman and the C3 will continue to call for greater cannabis enforcement. 

In the words of Ringo Starr, “Everything government touches turns to crap.”

Footnote(s)

https://cannabis-council.ca/media/bcgeu





Source link

Continue Reading

All about Cannabis

Cannabis Industry vs ESG “Woke” Cartel  – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana

Published

on

By


What role does the ESG “woke” cartel play in the cannabis industry?

Despite legalization efforts across western nations, cannabis still gets a bad rap. Authorities call it addictive and claim it causes psychosis and poor mental health.

They’ll say that the cannabis industry uses too much water, causes too much pollution, and point to other dismal environmental practices that developed during prohibition.

Therefore, the Environmental Social Governance (ESG) woke cartel has come to save the day. People like growing and consuming cannabis. We can’t have that!

Instead of measuring success based on happy customers and growing profit margins, proponents of ESG say business owners must weigh the cannabis industry’s success against environmental, social, and governing aspects.

But, as Elon Musk correctly tweeted, “ESG is a scam.”

ESG Investing vs. Common Sense 

Cannabis Industry vs ESG "Woke" Cartel 

Environmental, social governance (ESG) investing is a type of activist index fund the cannabis industry should avoid like the plague. 

Traditionally, you assess a company’s viability with balance sheets, cash-flow statements, income statements, shareholders’ equity statements, etc.

Typically you calculate ratios to give you a glimpse of the business’s financial health.

A debt-to-equity ratio indicates the proportion of equity and debt used to finance the company’s assets.

A cash asset ratio that compares current assets with liabilities. A return on equity is the net income return as a percentage of shareholder equity.

Or net profit margin. This one indicates the business’s efficiency in controlling costs. A higher net profit margin shows more efficiency in converting revenue into actual profit.

A lot of people struggle with these concepts. Or they remain entirely ignorant of them. And not just your average joe.

Consider political leaders who have been blaming inflation on “corporate greed.” Major grocery store chains are reporting record profits. This has left-leaning demagogues calling for a wealth tax.

But if you look beyond the headlines, you’ll see that net profit margins are either the same or, in some cases, less. 

Or, take Canada’s licensed producers of cannabis. How many are cash-flow positive? 

There’s more to the complex capitalist economy than just “profit and loss.” Yet critics of capitalism don’t usually think through the problem this far.

This leads us to environmental, social governance investing, or ESG. 

What is the ESG Investing?

Cannabis Industry vs ESG "Woke" Cartel 

The cannabis industry would be wise to avoid ESG-centric investing if it can.

Like labour unions reducing productivity in pursuit of political goals, a situation where ESG investing becomes mandatory is problematic.

Suddenly, the financial health of a business isn’t dependent on whether they serve consumers effectively but rather on the standards set by politicians. 

The Environmental, Social, and Governance Index is a Chinese-style social credit score for corporations.

Many might cheer on that “we” are policing corporations. But this is a simplistic reading that doesn’t require anything beyond surface-level analysis.

ESG has one goal: to create a woke cartel. 

Like how governments divided citizens with domestic covid vaccine passports, ESG aims to split the cannabis industry into two.

There will be those who go along with the woke demands of ESG. And then, some will prefer to run their business based on their customers’ input.

Of course, just like how you couldn’t perform basic activities without a vax-pass, cannabis companies not complying with ESG will find investment dry up.

It’ll be harder to do business when you’re a “noncompliant.”

Proof ESG is a Scam 

Cannabis Industry vs ESG "Woke" Cartel 

Who is this ESG woke cartel? And why is it a scam for everyone, not just the cannabis industry? 

Take Elon Musk, for example. He pulled Tesla from the S&P 500’s ESG Index earlier this year. 

Tesla has produced more electrical vehicles people want to buy and drive than any other car manufacturer.

That should have ranked Tesla at #1 in the ESG index, right?

No, Exxon Mobil ranks higher than Tesla, as does JP Morgan, the world’s largest investor in oil producers.

Why did Tesla rank lower than literal greenhouse gas producers and investors?

Apparently, it had to do with Tesla’s carbon strategy and codes of conduct. Tesla didn’t have a “low carbon strategy.” Which is seemingly more important than actually producing lower tons of carbon.

As well, Tesla suffered from claims of racial discrimination and poor working conditions at its Fremont factory.

Now, no one is saying these aren’t issues that should or shouldn’t affect the bottom line. But who decides? The buying public? Or an ESG index run by corporations and global technocrats at the World Economic Forum? 

ESG is a political spectacle. It’s meant to separate the woke from the non-woke. And since calling out the covid lockdowns as the fascist policies they are, Elon Musk has been in the “non-woke” category.

BlackRock & Vanguard: Should the Cannabis Industry be Worried about ESG?

https://www.caixinglobal.com/2020-08-29/blackrock-approved-to-set-up-first-wholly-foreign-owned-mutual-fund-company-in-china-101598812.html

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, and Vanguard comes in second. Both are behind what they call “stakeholder capitalism,” a belief that companies should benefit “stakeholders,” instead of their shareholders.

In his “2021 Letter to CEOs,” BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, declared that “climate risk is investment risk.” 

“The creation of sustainable index investments has enabled a massive acceleration of capital towards companies better prepared to address climate risk.

“And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock.” 

Or, as World Economic Forum founder and chairman Klaus Schwab put it: “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Or, to quote Fink, “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism.”

But this is very clearly corporatism, also known as economic fascism. A handful of large companies coordinate production and special interest groups dictate society’s norms. 

Corporate power combines with the power of the state to push for ideological agendas. In this case, they are dismantling small businesses and creating a social credit system.

The end result will be a further concentration of corporate power, fewer individual freedoms, and a lot more propaganda about how your suffering is good for the planet.

Yes, the cannabis industry should be worried about ESG. ESG isn’t some future hypothetical. It’s already here.

Cannabis Industry already infected by ESG

You don’t have to go far to find the cannabis industry already infected by ESG-centric ideas.

Canadian company HEXO has publicly stated they want to be carbon neutral. Same with edible maker Wyld, who wants to produce biodegradable packaging.

Now, this sounds fine. And in many cases, it is. Justin Trudeau’s legalization has created so much plastic waste. If someone gave his government an honest ESG score, it would have to be in the negatives.

But, of course, that’s not how ESG works.

Cannabis company Trulieve has a dedicated ESG report. They even have an ESG board committee and flaunt their “Diversity, Inclusion and Equity” commitments.

Cannabis companies are jumping into the ESG world without thoroughly understanding its meaning.

On one side, you’ll lose the autonomy of your business to unelected bureaucrats and corporate asset managers. 

On the other side, you’ll lose customers. “Get woke, go broke,” is a mantra repeatedly being proved true.

Cannabis consumers want quality cannabis. Only racists care about the skin colour or ethnicity of the grower or budtender.

ESG is an index to measure compliance with the world elite. 

And some take the propaganda at its word. That ESG is about climate change. That those who disagree with Schwab and the WEF are “far-right extremists.”

These people are in for a rude awakening.

Footnote(s)

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letterhttps://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/2021-larry-fink-ceo-letterhttps://www.indexologyblog.com/2022/05/17/the-rebalancing-act-of-the-sp-500-esg-index/https://seekingalpha.com/article/4512804-rebalancing-act-of-sp-500-esg-indexhttps://www.gobankingrates.com/investing/strategy/if-your-money-is-in-these-banks-you-might-be-invested-in-oil-gas/https://www.statista.com/statistics/272709/top-10-oil-and-gas-companies-worldwide-based-on-market-value/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/tesla-s-removal-from-s-p-index-sparks-debate-about-esg-ratingshttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526958110023245829https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/08/2243398/0/en/HEXO-Corp-commits-to-ESG-leadership-starts-by-offsetting-100-of-carbon-emissions-and-plastic-packaging.htmlhttps://www.trulieve.com/esg-dei-initiatives





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media