Connect with us

Cannabis News

The Cannabis Anti-Monopoly Toolkit – The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

Published

on


anti monopoly weed

Anti-Monopoly Toolkit Analysis – The Good, The Bad, the Ugly

The journey of cannabis throughout human history has been nothing short of remarkable. For millennia, this versatile plant has played an integral role in the development of societies, serving as a source of medicine, textiles, and recreational enjoyment. However, during the 20th century, cannabis fell victim to a global prohibition that was primarily driven by dubious reasons and political agendas. Fast-forward to the present day, and we see the resurgence of cannabis acceptance, as it transforms into a multi-billion dollar industry with a growing global footprint.

The cannabis industry, which once had deep roots in the counterculture and grassroots activism, now finds itself entangled with “money bros” eager to dominate the market. As a result, we see the emergence of cannabis brands that prioritize profit over principles, often exploiting the plant’s newfound legal status to line their pockets. This trend has raised concerns about a few powerful companies monopolizing the industry, stifling competition, and undermining the values that once defined the cannabis community.

In response to these concerns, anti-monopoly policies are being proposed to ensure a more equitable and diverse market for all stakeholders. One such proposal is the “Anti-Monopoly Toolkit,” recently released by the Parabola Center for Law and Policy and covered in MarijuanaMoment. In this article, we will analyze this toolkit and its implications for the future of the cannabis industry, as we strive to create a space that reflects the original ethos of the plant and the people who fought for its legalization.

The Parabola Center for Law and Policy, a nonprofit organization focused on advancing equity-centered reform, has released the “Anti-Monopoly Toolkit” to help lawmakers and advocates effectively prevent the monopolization of the marijuana industry. This toolkit serves as a guide for reform efforts, outlining state and federal policy priorities to protect small cannabis businesses from corporatization and consolidation. By doing so, it aims to preserve the diversity and fairness of the cannabis market.

 

Apart from providing an overview of the policy priorities, the toolkit also offers practical advocacy advice on communicating concerns with policymakers and raising awareness about the potential consequences of allowing large marijuana companies to dominate the market. The document is intended for both policymakers and those interested in advocating for fair cannabis markets that prioritize people over profits.

 

Key highlights from the toolkit include:

 

The importance of setting caps on the number of marijuana business licenses, shops, and canopy space that any one person or entity can obtain. Policies should focus on individual ownership limits rather than capping licensing overall.

The risk of major technology platforms dominating the market and inhibiting competition by promoting select brands within their networks.

A recommendation against allowing vertical integration, where a single business operates at multiple steps of the supply chain, except for microbusiness licensees.

Strong opposition to excluding individuals with prior drug convictions from participating in the legal market, while recommending that corporations with established patterns of harmful conduct be barred.

Encouragement for people to organize and send sign-on letters to policymakers to demonstrate solidarity around anti-monopoly priorities.

The importance of advocating for the right of people to grow their own cannabis in any legalization legislation.

The toolkit acknowledges that not every policy is suitable for every community, and its goal is to raise awareness of important policy considerations often overlooked in conversations around legalization. The Parabola Center has been involved in other policy efforts, including direct engagement with congressional lawmakers and proposing changes to a House-passed federal marijuana legalization bill to ensure an equitable and empowering market for communities most affected by prohibition.

This toolkit is a significant step towards addressing the growing concerns of monopolization in the cannabis industry, aiming to preserve the original values of the movement and promote a diverse, equitable market for all.

The question is, where does it fail to provide equitable rights to all and is this truly going to help keep the playing field level?

The Anti-Monopoly Toolkit released by the Parabola Center for Law and Policy brings several positive aspects to the table, aimed at maintaining fairness, diversity, and equity within the burgeoning cannabis market. By providing a comprehensive guide for lawmakers and advocates, the toolkit empowers individuals and small businesses in the industry and can potentially lead to a more inclusive and competitive market.

 

One of the key strengths of the toolkit is its focus on limiting the influence of large corporations in the cannabis industry. By setting caps on the number of licenses, shops, and canopy spaces that any one person or entity can obtain, the toolkit promotes a level playing field, allowing smaller businesses to compete effectively. This approach prevents the concentration of power and resources in the hands of a few corporations, fostering a diverse ecosystem of businesses that cater to various consumer needs.

 

The toolkit also addresses the potential pitfalls of allowing major technology platforms to dominate the market. By highlighting the risks associated with these platforms promoting select brands within their networks, the toolkit emphasizes the need for a fair and open marketplace. This empowers individual businesses to reach their target audience without being overshadowed by large corporations with deep pockets.

 

In addition to these measures, the toolkit takes a stand against vertical integration, which can lead to monopolies controlling multiple steps of the supply chain. By recommending exceptions for microbusiness licensees, the toolkit allows small businesses to thrive and maintain their competitive edge in the market.

 

One of the most empowering aspects of the toolkit is its support for individuals with prior drug convictions. By advocating for their inclusion in the legal market, the toolkit promotes social equity and offers these individuals a chance to rebuild their lives and contribute positively to society.

 

Furthermore, the toolkit encourages public involvement by urging people to send sign-on letters to policymakers, demonstrating solidarity around anti-monopoly priorities. This not only empowers individuals to actively participate in the policy-making process but also sends a strong message to lawmakers about the importance of preserving a diverse and equitable cannabis market.

 

Lastly, the toolkit champions the right to grow one’s own cannabis in any legalization legislation, enabling individuals to have control over their consumption and reducing their dependence on large corporations for cannabis products.

 

Overall, the Anti-Monopoly Toolkit positively impacts the cannabis market by promoting diversity, equity, and competition. By empowering individuals and small businesses, the toolkit ensures that the original values of the cannabis movement are preserved and that the market remains a vibrant and inclusive space for all players.

While the Anti-Monopoly Toolkit offers several commendable measures to promote equity, diversity, and competition in the cannabis industry, there are potential downsides that could negatively impact the industry, individuals, and society as a whole.

 

Firstly, the introduction of caps on licenses, shops, and canopy spaces may inadvertently stifle growth in the industry. While these measures aim to prevent monopolies and promote fair competition, they could potentially hinder the ability of successful businesses to scale and create new job opportunities. Moreover, the restrictions might lead to a slower expansion of the industry and limit the availability of cannabis products to consumers in certain regions.

 

Secondly, the toolkit’s stance against vertical integration could have unintended consequences. While vertical integration can lead to monopolies, it can also bring about cost-efficiencies and streamlined supply chains, ultimately benefiting the consumer through lower prices and consistent product quality. By discouraging vertical integration, the toolkit might inadvertently create an environment in which prices remain high, making it difficult for some consumers to access cannabis products affordably.

 

Another potential downside of the toolkit is that its provisions may lead to increased regulatory complexity. As more rules and regulations are implemented, compliance costs for businesses may rise, inadvertently placing a burden on smaller operators who may not have the resources to navigate the increasingly complicated landscape. This could ultimately undermine the goal of promoting equity and diversity in the industry.

 

Additionally, the toolkit’s focus on anti-monopoly measures might divert attention away from other pressing issues, such as public health and safety, research, and education. While anti-monopoly policies are important, addressing other aspects of legalization and regulation should also be prioritized to ensure the well-being of society as a whole.

 

The Anti-Monopoly Toolkit, while well-intentioned, might have unintended negative consequences for the cannabis industry, individuals, and society. It is crucial for lawmakers and advocates to strike a delicate balance between preventing monopolies and fostering a thriving, accessible, and well-regulated cannabis market that serves the needs of all stakeholders.

The Ugly

In a theoretical scenario where the ideas from the Anti-Monopoly Toolkit are manipulated to ruin the industry or benefit only a few individuals, several potential outcomes could arise. Major corporations and opportunistic entities may find ways to exploit the toolkit’s provisions to their advantage, effectively undermining the core objectives of the policy.

 

One possibility is that larger corporations could use the licensing caps to their advantage by lobbying for the issuance of a limited number of licenses, while simultaneously working to secure a majority of them. This would allow these corporations to dominate the market and create barriers to entry for smaller players, ultimately defeating the purpose of the licensing caps.

 

Another potential concern is that major corporations could exploit the prohibition of vertical integration by engaging in indirect control of the supply chain. For instance, they could establish exclusive contracts with various suppliers, processors, and retailers, effectively gaining control over the entire supply chain without formally owning the different components. This would allow them to monopolize the market while technically adhering to the toolkit’s recommendations.

 

Furthermore, large corporations may capitalize on the increased regulatory complexity resulting from the toolkit’s provisions. By leveraging their financial resources and legal expertise, they can navigate the complex regulatory landscape more effectively than smaller businesses. This could result in small businesses struggling to compete, leading to the same monopolization and lack of diversity the toolkit aims to prevent.

 

Additionally, major corporations could exploit the toolkit’s focus on anti-monopoly measures by presenting themselves as champions of the cause, all while engaging in anti-competitive practices behind the scenes. This could include predatory pricing, collusion, or acquisition of smaller competitors, ultimately consolidating market power and stifling competition.

 

In summary, the Anti-Monopoly Toolkit, if misused or circumvented by large corporations, could lead to the very outcomes it seeks to prevent. It is crucial for policymakers and industry stakeholders to remain vigilant against such possibilities and continually review and adapt regulations to ensure a fair, competitive, and thriving cannabis market for all.

How to Fix Equity?

In order to create a more equitable and decentralized cannabis market, a two-tier system could be the key to striking a balance between small-scale, local businesses and larger corporations. This system would provide an accessible entry point for individual entrepreneurs and mom-and-pop operations while maintaining appropriate regulatory oversight for larger entities engaging in interstate and international sales.

 

The first tier, designed for individuals and small businesses generating less than $1,000,000 in profits annually, would cater to local and state sales only. These businesses would face limited regulation, and licensing fees would be nominal, making it cost-effective for them to enter the market. This approach would create a fertile ground for small-scale operations to establish their foundations, encouraging diversity and competition within the industry.

 

The second tier, applicable to businesses generating over $1,000,000 in profit annually, would be subject to more stringent regulations and licensing requirements. This corporate tier would allow major retailers to stock products and engage in interstate and international sales. Heavier regulation for these larger businesses would ensure consumer safety, fair competition, and adherence to legal and ethical standards across the industry.

 

By implementing this two-tier system, the cannabis market could self-regulate in a way that fosters a diverse ecosystem of suppliers, cultivators, and retailers. The first tier would support local economies, promote small business growth, and maintain the unique character of regional cannabis markets. The second tier would accommodate the needs of larger corporations and facilitate the expansion of the cannabis industry on a national and international scale.

 

This innovative approach to regulation would effectively decentralize the production and sales of cannabis, ensuring that the industry remains competitive, diverse, and accessible to a wide range of entrepreneurs. In turn, this would help to prevent the monopolization of the market, ultimately benefiting consumers through increased choice and a wider range of high-quality products at various price points.

I’ve written on this before, however, I do believe it’s important to sow the seeds of this system as it’s the only way we can have the legalization we all believed we were getting.

 

MONOPOLIES IN WEED, NO SIR, READ ON…

MASS DELIVERY MONOPOLY

NO MONOPOLY FOR YOU, MASS GIVES DELIVERY LICENESES TO SE AND EE APPICANTS!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Maintaining The Highest Level of Quality and Freshness for THCa Products

Published

on

By


 

thca products

When looking for food, the freshness and quality of the product are essential to the customer. Care must be taken with every product to keep its original qualities. This makes sure that customers have the best experience possible with every buy. Brands ensure their products stay potent and fresh, so to maintain they put them in airtight containers. This gives customers a premium experience that stands out in the market even if they are bought from thca flower clearance. This is especially important when it comes to cannabis goods. Keeping THC-rich flowers fresh ensures every person has a good experience that meets their needs.

The practice of storing things in air-tight containers is very helpful for maintaining their quality. These containers help keep out air, light, and wetness, which can all make the product fresh and effective over time. For people who use cannabis, how fresh the product is can have a big effect on how strong and how long the benefits last. When THC flowers are stored properly, users can expect a better experience that keeps all of the product’s benefits.

The chemicals that give weed its unique tastes and smells, don’t break down when it is stored in an airtight container. Terpenes are very important for improving the taste and making each type unique. The natural qualities of these terpenes can be kept safe by storing them in the right way. This way, every user can enjoy the full range of tastes and smells that the product has to offer.

Why airtight containers are important

Containers that don’t let air in are not only useful, they are necessary for storing things. Over the time, oxygen can break down the product’s cannabinoids and oils. When you use airtight cases, the product stays protected from the outside world. This keeps its chemical structure and makes sure it stays strong.

The users will trust the products only if they feel good about quality. Whether they are used for fun or medical reasons, THC flowers if not stored correctly may have less effect, giving a bad experience for users. To keep the level of quality, it is important to spend money on good storage methods like using airtight containers.

Make sure you have a great time

When a product has been carefully stored in the best possible ways, the experience is more powerful. Whether you are buying flowers to help you feel better or just for fun, they should always be live. With this care, users can get a product that works well like they bought the day it was packaged.

Freshness is at the heart of this process. By making sure that goods are kept in containers that keep air out, businesses can keep up the quality of the goods and make sure that customers can get the best items. Customers are happier and more likely to trust the brand to always provide better goods.

In the end, keeping the product fresh and high-quality isn’t just about keeping it safe, it is also about giving the customer a regular, good experience. Making sure that a product stays fresh and effective from the time it is packed until it gets to the customer is very important. One easy and very effective way to reach this goal is to store things in containers that keep air out. Looking at good storage methods will continue to be important for keeping the quality of THC products even as the cannabis business grows. Customers can be sure that this way of keeping things fresh and effective will make their experience better, whether they are looking for new types or taking advantage of thca flower clearance deals.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Cannabis Code Enforcement Fines Must be Remedial, Not Punitive, Federal Court of Appeal Holds

Published

on

By


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has reinstated a civil rights lawsuit against Humboldt County, California, that challenges the county’s practices in imposing punitive daily fines. It is the first time a federal appellate court has weighed in on local government’s enforcement of code violations involving cannabis farms.

The Court of Appeal decision

The decision, in Thomas v. County of Humboldt, comes after years of complaints by cannabis cultivators that local governments impose unfair fines for technical violations at licensed farms. That counties and municipalities have adopted and are enforcing large fines involving licensed properties is one of many reasons why increasing numbers of farms have given up their licenses and shut down completely or returned to the illicit market. This is hurting state efforts to bolster the legal market and suppress the illicit market for cannabis.

Lessons for industry and regulators

A takeaway from the decision is that local governments need to keep the goal of remediation in mind in establishing penalties, must be more reasonable in allowing cultivators to fix violations, and more flexible in decisions to impose fines and settling disputes. The decision should motivate county and city attorneys, and cannabis licensees and applicants, seek assistance from a mediator with expertise in the cannabis market and regulation. The courthouse might not now be as friendly a venue for local government as it has been in the past.

Most cannabis businesses that run afoul of local codes pay the penalties, no matter how unfair they might seem, because they can’t afford a long legal battle and the administrative and court processes are tilted against the property owner. Administrative hearing officers routinely uphold notices of violations and the penalties imposed by code enforcement officers. Writs of mandate brought against local government in state court, particularly in smaller counties, are extremely difficult to win.

Background on the Thomas case

What has made the Thomas case viable is that several plaintiffs banded together in a civil rights class action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Humboldt County’s penalties for cannabis abatement violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.

Humboldt County established a schedule of daily fines for illegal cannabis cultivation of up to $10,000, with a minimum of $6,000. Upon receiving a notice of violation from the county, the party has 10 days to abate all violations, subject to an appeals process, during which penalties continue to accrue. Violations included not just the illegal cultivation of cannabis itself, but also any other violation that facilitates illegal cultivation of cannabis. The Thomas plaintiffs contended that the county issues violation notices with hefty fines based on imprecise data (such as satellite and drone photos) and for code violations that originated with previous property owners.

The lower District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiffs lack legal standing, because they had not, at the time of suit, paid any penalties. But the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had concrete injuries, providing standing, because they suffered emotional distress and had incurred expenses with engineers and attorneys as they attempted to abate the alleged violations and defended themselves in hearings.

Getting to the merits of the lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had plausible claims under the Excessive Fines Clause because the penalties were punitive, not remedial. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs that the fines were unconstitutionally excessive because (1) the notices were vague, often inaccurate, or involved violations that pre-dated the plaintiffs’ occupation of their properties; (2) lesser penalties could accomplish the same health and safety goals; and (3) the alleged offenses caused no harm beyond a technical lack of compliance with the county’s permitting regulations.

Humboldt provides for an administrative appeal before a hearing officer who determines whether a violation has occurred or continues to exist. The hearing officer can only reduce the penalty for a violation in limited circumstances and cannot reduce it to less than $6,000 per day. Although the Ninth Circuit did not explicitly address it in the Thomas decision, a property owner in most circumstances also can be forced to pay the county or municipality’s abatement costs and legal expenses — including those incurred in a subsequent writ of mandate proceeding in state court. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the Thomas plaintiffs had come under:

“immense pressure to settle due to the County’s issuance of ruinous fines, . . . its undue delay in providing hearings, its denial of permits while abatements are pending, and the cost the County imposes to prove one’s innocence.”

The Ninth Circuit found that Humboldt County’s fines were “clearly punitive, not remedial as argued by the County.” The fines could reach millions of dollars, and, in the case of one plaintiff, the fines dwarfed the value of her property. The appellate court was untroubled by the involvement of cannabis, which remains unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act:

“[I]t seems clear to us that lesser penalties could accomplish the same health and safety goals,” and “the offenses here have caused no harm beyond a technical lack of compliance with the County’s cannabis permitting regulations.”

The Thomas plaintiffs’ strategy pays off

The Thomas plaintiffs’ strategy of going to federal court was fraught, because the court could have just as easily declined to hear the matter under the illegality doctrine, but it paid off here; the Ninth Circuit not only considered the case but also disregarded the problem of whether the plaintiffs were entitled to any remedy under federal law.

The Ninth Circuit concluded by acknowledging that local government is “often at the forefront of addressing difficult and complex issues,” but it should use “flexibility” in decision making and “cannot overstep its authority and impose fines on its citizens without paying heed to the limits posed by the Eighth Amendment.”

Note: This post was first published January 6, 2025 on the Alger ADR Blog



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Are Americans Shifting to Cannabis and Saying Goodbye to Cigarettes for Good?

Published

on

By


no more cigarettes

Are Americans Shifting To Weed And Saying Goodbye To Cigarettes?

 

We live in a time when people are more health-conscious than ever.

 

For the first time in history, we’re seeing a downward trend in the consumption of cigarettes, especially among young adults and adolescents. Just a few decades ago, cigarettes were considered ‘cool’. The link between cancer and cigarettes were established by the 1950’s, though accepting that cigarette smoking was “bad” for you didn’t take root socially until around the late 1990’s.  

 

Now, we know that cigarette smoking is a dangerous, often fatal habit that leads to cancer, respiratory illnesses, and heart disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over 8 million people die prematurely from tobacco use yearly.

 

In the results of a Gallup poll from early 2024, they found that more Americans are more likely to smoke weed than cigarettes, while young people are more than 5 times more likely to choose weed over tobacco. The poll found that 17% of Americans smoke weed, while 12% admitted to smoking cigarettes in the previous week. The more dramatic difference was observed among the 18-34 age range, where 26% admitted to consuming weed while only 5% of them still smoke cigarettes.

 

For the same poll, they also found that the older adults aged 55 and up were more likely to still smoke cigarettes compared to marijuana. “Americans’ reported marijuana smoking has more than doubled since 2013, when Gallup first added the question in its annual Consumption Habits survey,” explained Gallup. “That year, seven percent said they did,” they reported.

 

Improved Public Perceptions Leads To Healthier Choices

 

One can’t deny that there has been a massive shift in the increasing awareness of marijuana’s health benefits, as well as the dangers of cigarette smoking. This leads to changing public perceptions, better and more scientific research as well as clinical studies, and an improvement in the law.


The law, specifically, has been instrumental in mitigating the spread of cigarette use. For example, many governments worldwide have established strict no-smoking policies and placed a massive tax on cigarettes. Tobacco manufacturers are no longer allowed to freely advertise their product. All these have led to a downward trend in cigarette smoking habits and purchasing.

 

The proliferation of legal cannabis throughout North America, not just for medical use but also for recreational use has also contributed to a widespread cultural acceptance of cannabis, which has also improved the public perception of the drug. As we speak, it’s already become a part of society not just in North America but also in countries such as Thailand, several European nations, Uruguay, and Mexico to name a few.

 

In addition, people are also becoming more educated about the use of alcohol. While it may still be the most widely used intoxicant, its days me be numbered: there is a small yet growing number of people who are choosing to replace alcohol with weed, because of the sheer number of studies proving the dangerous link between fatal illnesses and alcohol. Not to mention that alcohol is linked to drunk driving and road fatalities, multiple different types of cancers, horrible hangovers, and so much more.

 

Even Gallup polls from as far back as 2022 revealed that people in the United States have already begun to smoke more weed than cigarettes. Gallup conducted the survey from July 5 through 26 of 2022. The results reveal that 11% of the population smoke cigarettes, while back in the mid-1950’s, 45% of Americans smoked them. Meanwhile, 16% of Americans reported that they smoke weed, and 48% tried it in the past. Back in 1969, just 4% of Americans smoked weed!

 

It’s clear that societal and cultural perceptions around both have changed dramatically. “Smoking cigarettes is on the decline and is most likely to become even more of a rarity in the years ahead,” explains Gallup Senior Scientist Dr. Frank Newport. “This reflects both public awareness of its negative effects and continuing government efforts at all levels to curtail its use,” he said.

 

Unfortunately, the Gallup poll also found that alcohol remains a popular substance for Americans. Despite the increasing studies being published right now that alcohol is a proven carcinogen, one can’t blame the population: it’s legal, easily accessible, and affordable for many.

 

Overall, it seems that the demand for wellness is slowly taking over. Wellness is no longer just a buzzword or a trend; it’s a real pursuit that more, especially young people, are seeking. And cannabis fits very well into that picture: whether CBD or THC, the components of marijuana have proven beneficial for the mental and physical health of people, across a wide age group. From pediatric CBD applications to therapeutic uses for the elderly, cannabis can be beneficial for many people.

It’s so easy to see why thousands of young adults commonly include cannabis as part of their everyday wellness regimen – the same generation that have shunned cigarette smoking for good.

 

Conclusion

 

If you really must have a smoking habit, choose weed over cigarettes. Even then, any type of weed is much healthier than tobacco. Marijuana is so much healthier for your mind and body, and it can function as a medicine and supplement as well.

 

For individuals who are struggling to quit smoking cigarettes, you might even want to consider using cannabis as a cessation aid. Many have found success using cannabis to quit cigarettes, with longer-lasting success rates.

 

CAN CANNABIS HELP YOU QUIT CIGARETTES? READ BELOW…

CAN WEED HELP YOU QUIT CIGARETTES

CAN WEED HELP YOU QUIT CIGARETTES? WE ASKED THE PROS!



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media