Connect with us

Indica, Sativa, Hybrid & More

Published

on


CBD Seeds

CBD marijuana seeds share characteristics with feminized, regular, or autoflowering varieties, but are distinguished by their higher CBD content compared to conventional varieties. Additionally, in many cases, the aim is to minimize the THC level so that they can be used for medicinal purposes.

However, these seeds never contain the adequate concentration of THC for use in legal CBD product production, which currently must be below 0.2%. For this purpose, hemp seeds are used. Despite this, CBD marijuana seed varieties still offer more relaxing and stress-relieving effects than other varieties.

Hemp Seeds

Unlike CBD seeds, hemp seeds always contain THC levels below 0.2%, ensuring a predominance of CBD. Also known as industrial hemp, this variety is used for CBD extraction and the production of therapeutic products. However, the CBD levels obtained from hemp never reach those achieved with CBD seeds.

Hemp seeds are not only used for obtaining cannabidiol but also for extracting strong fibers used in various industries, such as textile, paper, insulation, rope manufacturing, fuel, paints, cosmetics, among others. Additionally, hemp seeds are edible and can be consumed as oil, whole, raw, toasted, or ground into flour.

Fast Version Seeds

Like CBD marijuana seeds, Fast Version seeds have similar characteristics to regular or feminized varieties, but their life cycle is shorter than usual, allowing for harvesting before the first October frosts.

Indeed, many of these types of seeds can be combined. Sativa, indica, hybrid, or ruderalis varieties can be presented in feminized, regular, autoflowering, or Fast Version forms. Hemp seeds, on the other hand, belong to the sativa group.



Source link

Cannabis

4 Ways Marijuana Can Help You Have A Better Thanksgiving

Published

on

By


If going the family Thanksgiving route, these gatherings can sometimes be stressful, especially when dealing with relatives you don’t see often or navigating potentially tense conversations. Marijuana can help reduce anxiety and create a more relaxed atmosphere. Microdosing is a popular trend with the younger generations, and it could be helpful in during the holiday. Numerous studies have demonstrated that cannabinoids such as THC and CBD can effectively reduce anxiety. By helping to calm nerves and ease social tension, cannabis can contribute to a more pleasant and harmonious family gathering.



Source link

Continue Reading

Aquafina

Can Big Alcohol Help The Cannabis Industry

Published

on

By


It has been a rough few months for the cannabis industry…could Big Alcohol help during another rough patch?

The cannabis industry was worth $33 billion in 2023 and is filled with mom and pop businesses. With the majority of the population having access to legal marijuana, consumer use is up, states are filling their coffers, and more patients are using medical marijuana.  It has become so mainstream, even the staid AARP has acknowledge a signifiant portion of boomers are using it for medical reasons.  But federal restrictions are crippling the industry, despite the growth. The industry needs federal help, can Big Alcohol help the cannabis industry. Alcohol is in a majority of grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, resorts, planes and homes.  They understand the consumers and sell $260 billion in booze a year, not counting the second level market up.  The alcohol industry spends over $20 million annually on lobbying, a drop compared to the $220+ million pharmaceutical spends, but an impressive amount. But Congress, the DEA, and members of the administration are not fans…and help is needed.

Alcohol has a $14+ billion investment in the industry and has a voice in the Congress. Cannabis is a brand and revenue extension for alcohol rather than a competitor. A major change in the beverage industry came with the introduction of purified waters by PepsiCo (Aquafina) in 1994 and Coca-Cola (Dasani) in 1999.  Seeing it as way to reach more consumers and revenue, the two soda giants are now the owners of the top two bottled water companies in the North America. WIth a stake in the outcome, the big liquor companies could guide Congress to open up more for cannabis. This would provide both industries access to more customers and more revenue for everyone, including government entities.

marijuana legalization
Photo by Alexander Sanchez/Getty Images

“While alcohol and cannabis can play in the same sandbox, we more often see consumers using cannabis as a replacement for more harmful substances like alcohol. In cannabis, we find a paradigm shift—entertainment and relaxation without the costs of alcohol’s physical and social tolls.” shares Jesse Redmond, managing director at Water Tower Research, LLC.

Like bottled water, alcohol could open up markets to an additional set of consumers.  They have the expertise and relationships most cannabis businesses lack. Already, hemp beverage are in mainstream retailers like Total Wine (Texas) and in convenience stores.

The incoming administration has few cannabis champions with both the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and the cabinet doesn’t seem to be focused on marijuana legalization at all. But the majority of members are a fan of booze and that can be used to marijuana’s advantage.

Both would benefit from product development,  producing and marketing cannabis-infused beverages and edibles. From a marketing point of view it also makes sense consider the consumer reach.  In addition, research shows that people often pair cannabis with alcohol rather than replacing one with the other. The proportion of consumers pairing cannabis with spirits or liquor increased from 12% in 2018 to 22% in 2022. The next 14 months will shape the cannabis industry path for years to come, let’s see if Big Alcohol plays a role.



Source link

Continue Reading

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
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media