Cannabis News
The Other Side of the Schedule 3 Story
The other side of the story: Schedule III from a former DEA official
Readers know I’ve mostly argued hard against rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III instead of fully descheduling. I’ve seen it as a sneaky way to keep prohibition harms to benefit pharma profits over public health. But keeping an open, ethical perspective means questioning your own assumptions. However convincing we sound to ourselves, truth comes from good faith back-and-forth, not ignoring folks who disagree.
So when a former DEA lawyer recently argued Schedule III could ease some restrictions without kicking off more enforcement, the nuance demanded attention. My gut still recoils at frames accepting arbitrary federal controls over safer stuff than legal alcohol. And the money conflicts letting suffering go on require no debate here.
However, progress lies not in louder fist pounding from trenches but building understanding bridges spanning divides. If rescheduling aspects could concretely better real lives for the unjustly jailed while avoiding extra opioid-style fallout, it merits consideration. The people deserve relief by any ethical means necessary.
Thus today we’ll explore in depth this different view on possible cannabis scheduling shifts, weighing claims around lower risks and symbolic wins against lingering worries like fairness and access. I stay skeptical, but open to where facts and reason lead. The issues matter more than ideology or identity.
By shining light from all angles to catch blind spots, perhaps some agreement emerges on acceptable middle stages between descheduling fully and endless Schedule I misery. My aim is neither slamming other views nor boosting any one stance, but clarifying whatever enables living freely as responsible adults. If that demands updating assumptions, so much the better to lose outdated dogmas.
So let’s dive in openly and see where nuanced thinking guides us. The truth hides from no honest perspective genuinely seeking to end needless suffering. Where facts and compassion meet, locked doors open. I welcome being proven wrong in the service of right.
NOTE: I have taken the same questions from the original POLITICO article, and summarized the points and added my own thoughts.
According to former DEA official Howard Sklamberg, the cannabis rescheduling process involves multiple government agencies before final determination. First, the FDA conducts a scientific and medical evaluation, then provides a scheduling recommendation to Health and Human Services (HHS). If HHS agrees, they pass the suggestion to the DEA, which makes the ultimate scheduling decision under authority of the Controlled Substances Act.
Sklamberg explains that once the DEA gets the rescheduling recommendation, they undertake an administrative process allowing for public hearings and comments. By statute, the DEA must defer to the FDA and HHS’s scientific and medical determinations. However, they may consider other factors in their final policy decision beyondphysical and mental health effects.
From the perspective of this commentator, the convoluted bureaucracy described elicits skepticism. Relegating decision-making to unelected agency technocrats contradicts principles of democratic accountability. And opportunities for industry lobbying look rife within opaque machinations happening almost entirely behind closed doors on such a culturally-charged issue. It appears a formula enabling institutional inertia serving elite special interests rather than voters.
I question the wisdom of granting overriding deference to agencies like the DEA regarding a substance less harmful than alcohol, as policies enacted through this anti-democratic process led us to the disastrous status quo in the first place. Such a framework cannot inspire public confidence in equitable outcomes, only procedural theater ignoring common sense and popular will.
When asked whether the DEA must accept HHS’s scientific recommendation or could diverge, Sklamberg clarifies some nuance. While the DEA cannot override or ignore the medical and scientific rationale behind rescheduling, they may consider additional factors beyond health in their policy decision-making. So if HHS provides documentation that cannabis no longer meets Schedule I criteria per relevant research, the DEA cannot claim contrary scientific opinions but could cite other concerns leading them to alternative actions.
Sklamberg notes the DEA has never rejected an HHS scheduling suggestion historically. He considers it unlikely now but admits anything remains possible. This supposedly strict deference sounds proper in theory for impartiality.
However, from this commentator’s lens, additional loopholes and ambiguity in processes (like unspecified “other factors” the DEA may invoke to ignore science-based recommendations) reinforce perceptions of an institutional captured environment biased toward prohibition. What constitutes legitimate rationale beyond medical science gets decided behind the pine curtain rather than democratically.
Bureaucratic discretion creates one-way ratchets upholding status quos against change. And vague decision criteria north of transparent invite more capriciousness retaining reactionary policies despite facts. Such frameworks offer staging rather than solutions to long broken systems. The people deserve better.
When asked about fears of increased enforcement crackdowns on state cannabis programs if marijuana gets moved to Schedule III, Sklamberg dismisses the concerns as “particularly illogical.” He argues rescheduling to recognize reduced health risks would not spur sudden policy reversals toward aggressive policing of existing industries previously tolerated.
However, history shows assuming government agencies consistently act logically rather than under shifting political incentives risks naivety. IRS tax policies and reporting rules offered tools taking down Capone after other charges failed. And the federal Controlled Substances Act itself emerged in reactionary political moments, not as scientifically objective solutions.
Regulatory policies frequently get weaponized for unrelated aims when incentives align. And vague technical compliance matters routinely enable targeting disfavored groups when enforcers cannot directly attack them otherwise. So while rescheduling itself may not automatically modify the enforcement calculus, it could still provide tools indirectly achieving similar agendas if certain factions wished it.
This is not to claim some conspiracy orchestrating cannabis crackdowns. But citizens have seen segmentation of markets to protect establishment interests when disruptive innovations appear. It seems reasonable guarding against more subtle maneuvers indirectly attacking legalization’s gains to favor special interests, even if not through direct DEA raids. A new positive sounding step could still hide mechanics carrying unintended consequences absent equal application of laws. Cynicism remains warranted.
When asked about worries over the FDA regulating state cannabis programs more under Schedule III, Sklamberg admits the technical power already exists but questions why rushing to use it would happen without past action, regardless of schedule. He also cites limited resources preventing huge federal enforcement beyond symbolic slaps.
But this Commentator considers those assumptions around steady priorities and funding only apply in stable times. Today’s social and political mood feels anything but predictable, with radical views gaining ground and economic instability challenging budgets. What seems farfetched now could reshape fast under populism or more reefer madness.
Remember sudden federal finance moves weaponizing banks and IRS against gun owners and others. Official powers often expand quickly post-crisis to consolidate power and distract citizens from failures of leadership causing turmoil in first place. Assuming best case stability and enforcement logic feels naive given past pretext switcheroos.
While FDA takeovers of existing cannabis infrastructure stay unlikely, rule churns and selectively targeting certain producers to complicate operations can’t get ignored. Complication tripping up less sophisticated players advantages corporate interests, which is sometimes the underlying tactical goal beyond just direct control through blanket burdensome policies doomed in court. Impartiality stays dream despite best intentions.
When asked about worries over Big Pharma co-opting cannabis after potential rescheduling, Sklamberg doubts major takeovers of existing operators, though acknowledges clinical trials and FDA approvals could develop for targeted medications. However the time and costs likely limit sweeping change. He believes the current landscape would persist alongside prescription cannabis drugs covered by insurance if economically viable.
This commentator agrees major disruption seems unrealistic given the wide array of recreational goods, the entrenched industry and continuing non-medical demand. However, Pharma influence on regulators and lawmakers still poses concerns if it translates into rule changes disadvantaging small providers to inflate corporate strongholds.
Past registration expenses or restrictions on treats like edibles could hit smaller entities lacking armies of lawyers and lobbyists to contest barriers or pay tolls. So while full scale takeovers appear unlikely, backdoor efforts cementing moneyed establishment factions above home grower markets warrants vigilance. Segmentation serves corporate appetites.
Frankly the plant’s very nature resists complete usurping into top-down monopolies, and citizens tend embracing traditional use rights if pushed excessively by officious commercial or regulatory interests. But decentralized markets thrive on freedom from meddling overseers, so scrutiny endures over ongoing independence versus consolidated creep post-rescheduling. Big pharma may enhance lives through medicine, yet must be barred from definitional limiting access from less toxic non-medical applications.
When asked whether Schedule III status would ease research roadblocks, Sklamberg acknowledges some hurdles lowered but maintains significant time and monetary barriers regardless. On benefits for the cannabis industry, he highlights pivotal tax code changes enabling normal business expense deductions previously blocked under Schedule I. Beyond finances, he considers rescheduling largely symbolic however.
This commentator concurs that the tax implications could provide substantial relief on burdensome policies that intrude on enterprise viability. And even symbolic wins matter to broader public acceptance. However, the lingering reality of operating within a federally prohibited environment means fundamental instability and hardship continue haunting businesses compared to fully legalized goods.
Rescheduling can’t conjure the banking accessibility, investment opportunities and transparency available even in “vice” industries like alcohol or tobacco. And the technical illegality sticks firms in limbo between worlds, meaning hassles and stigma persist. So whileSchedule III brings selective progress, it seems a band-aid on the inherent unworkability of trying to scale obstructed, banned-yet-tolerated markets. It puts lipstick on a pig yet leaves the underlying absurdities.
True normalization likely requires Congress passing comprehensive laws around cannabis rather than technocratic agency maneuvering. But tax relief does assist provided the incremental change prefigures more transformational freedom down road.
When asked whether moving cannabis to Schedule III affects criminal penalties around federal marijuana enforcement, Sklamberg indicates distribution remains illegal akin to Schedule I, while noting federal action stays rare compared to state and local policing.
This commentator agrees clear prosecutorial changes seem unlikely given existing rarity of federal charges for simple possession absent broader trafficking concerns. However, the question of equity persists around leaving small operators under intensified scrutiny unable to navigate complex compliance burdens like taxes, regulations and corporate competition barriers.
While rescheduling offers no direct sentencing relief, the shift from illegality frames could trickle down discouraging local charging for minor offenses currently considered moral indicators of degradation. Then again perhaps removal from DEA’s exclusive “no medical value” Schedule I classification cuts arguments against state social justice efforts like convictions expungement, reentry programming or community reinvestment.
The devil lurks in details left unaddressed. But optics guide outcomes, so watching messaging around enforcement intents and demographic consequences matters greatly. Schedule III walks a tightrope between signaling tolerant evolution and reaping lopsided advantages to establishment factions at the roots. The now unmentionable C-word – corporate cannabis – lingers chiefly as priority, not populace. Tensions surely mount on greed vectors.
When asked about fully descheduling cannabis through rescheduling procedures, Sklamberg considers it highly unlikely given restrictions around approving substances with any abuse potential under the CSA. Regarding timelines, he guesses Schedule III action may arrive mid-2023 based on past patterns of election-year politics influencing policy moves.
This commentator remains less confident on precise timetables given fractious politics and conflicting state/federal motions. But the desire for pre-election wins aligned to public opinion makes 2023 plausible if bureaucratic entities coordinate efficiently.
However, the considerable red tape detailed seems purpose-built to undermine rapid shifts against engrained interests. And the administration appeared caught flat-footed by initial descheduling media leaks, suggesting low eagerness for action. Descheduling always faced longer odds for threatening too many pillars of the prohibition-industrial complex; half-measures like Schedule III divert just enough pressure to sport progress.
Cynics expect more paralysis by analysis with weighty declarations awaiting endless further research. That pattern looks all too familiar after decades of bad faith arguments by agencies benefiting mightily from inertia. Perhaps political and economic instability forces hands toward less authoritarian leverage over free markets and free people making autonomous choices conflicting with technocratic worldviews. But given past behaviors, this Commentator braces for stonewalling despite any facade agreements on need for change.
It’s important to learn from others. I think that Sklamberg hit many things right on the nose, and others I believe his lifelong affiliations with the system blinds him from the bad faith and corruption that lingers at the top.
One thing is certain, the writing is on the walls. Cannabis is here to stay, but how that will look is anyone’s guess. If there’s one thing I learned is that these days making predictions about things is a fools game. I personally sit back and just watch the game unfold, and at the end of the day, I just play my own game.
What’s your thoughts on it all?
SCHEDULE 3 WINNERS AND LOSERS, READ ON…
Cannabis News
The US Suddenly Has Two Pro-Marijuana Legalization Candidates, But Only One is Believable 60 Days Before the Election
“Don’t Believe the Hype” – Public Enemy
In a surprising move, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the legalization of cannabis, arguing that the criminalization of marijuana “ruins lives” and “wastes taxpayer dollars.” Speaking at a rally in Florida, Trump expressed confidence that voters will support a marijuana legalization initiative on the November ballot, stating, “I really believe it’s the right thing to do.”
Trump’s comments come at a time when public support for cannabis legalization is at an all-time high, with recent surveys indicating that approximately 78% of American adults favor legalization. The economic implications of this shift are significant, with the cannabis industry currently employing around 500,000 people and generating $29 billion in sales last year, a figure projected to rise to $37 billion by 2027.
The Harris camp immediately accussed the Trump camp of a “brazen flip-flop” on marijuana legalization just before the election in order ot try and lure swing voters. Based on Trump’s past presidency and his work with Attorney General Sessions during his first term, he is certainly no fan of marijuana, marijuana legalization, or was in any rush to support states that establisted legal, medical cannabis programs. As they say in life, “watch what someone does, not what they say 60 days before an election”, Trump had his chance as Commander-In-Chef and put the marijuana movement back 5 steps when he was in office.
This certainly smells fishy from the start based on his track record on drugs, alcohol, and marijuana legalization. Remember, he actually took steps in his Presidency to shut the marijuana movement down in America according to the New York Times.
Harris, on the other hand, claims to be for rescheduling cannabis and even legalizatio,n and a large clemency program. While she has been Vice-President for 4 years and legalization has not happened, her boss, President Biden, is no fan of drugs and has been on a founding memeber of the “War on Drugs” for over 40 years in office. So no, Harris has not “had her chance” the way Trump has had his chance as the actual President. As many know, the Vice-President’s roll in some instances is more for show and to take tours and visits the president does not have time or want to to do.
Harris has a “yet to be determined, yet things look good” on her marijuana legalization report card.
As MJBIZ covered in their artice on who would be better for marijuana reform going forward..
During a relatively quiet few years as vice president, Harris stumped for Biden’s generational advances in marijuana reform.
She was out front on the Biden administration’s pardons for former federal marijuana offenders as well as the October 2022 executive order that culminated in the Justice Department’s proposal this spring to move marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances Act.
“She’s actually gone further than (Biden),” said Bryan Barash, vice president of external affairs and deputy general counsel at Dutchie, an Oregon-based online cannabis sales platform.
“She’s said, ‘We can’t stop until there’s full legalization,’ which he has never said.”
In other words, Harris has the best record on marijuana reform of any major presidential candidate, including Biden.
Economic Implications of Legalization
The economic implications of cannabis legalization are substantial. The cannabis industry has rapidly evolved into a multi-billion dollar market, employing around 500,000 people and generating $29 billion in sales in the past year alone. Projections indicate that this figure could rise to $37 billion by 2027, highlighting the potential for job creation and economic growth in states that choose to legalize cannabis.
-
Job creation: Legalizing cannabis could create thousands of jobs across various sectors, significantly boosting the economy. In agriculture, the cultivation of cannabis will require a workforce for planting, harvesting, and processing. The retail sector will also expand, as dispensaries will need staff for sales and management roles. Additionally, manufacturing jobs will emerge to produce cannabis-infused products, such as edibles and oils. Overall, legalization can lead to substantial job creation in agriculture, retail, and manufacturing, benefiting local communities and economies.
-
Tax Revenue: Legalizing cannabis could create thousands of jobs across various sectors, providing a significant boost to the economy. In agriculture, the cultivation of cannabis will require workers for planting and harvesting. The retail sector will also expand, as dispensaries will need staff for sales and management roles. Additionally, manufacturing jobs will emerge to produce cannabis-infused products like edibles and oils. Overall, legalization can lead to substantial job creation, benefiting local communities and economies.
-
Economic Growth: A legal cannabis market has the potential to stimulate economic growth, especially in economically disadvantaged areas. By establishing regulated cannabis businesses, communities can attract investment and create new revenue streams, leading to job creation and increased local spending. This influx of economic activity can revitalize struggling neighborhoods, providing opportunities for entrepreneurship and supporting ancillary businesses, such as suppliers and service providers. Additionally, the tax revenue generated from cannabis sales can be reinvested into public services, infrastructure, and community development projects, further enhancing the overall economic landscape. Ultimately, legalizing cannabis can serve as a catalyst for sustainable growth and revitalization in areas that need it most
Health Benefits and Opioid Reduction
Trump also emphasized the health advantages of legal cannabis, particularly its potential role in managing chronic pain and reducing reliance on opioids. This point is especially relevant given the ongoing opioid epidemic, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in recent years.
-
Mental Health Benefits: Emerging research suggests that cannabis may also have therapeutic benefits for mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, further supporting its legalization.
Disproportionate Impact on Communities of Color
Trump’s advocacy for cannabis legalization also reflects a growing awareness of the disproportionate impact of cannabis criminalization on communities of color. Over 40,000 individuals remain incarcerated for non-violent cannabis offenses, with Black and Hispanic individuals being significantly more likely to face prosecution and harsher sentences for cannabis-related crimes.
-
Social Equity Programs: Many states that have legalized cannabis have implemented social equity programs aimed at helping communities disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs, providing opportunities for entrepreneurship and economic participation in the legal cannabis market.
-
Expungement of Records: Legalization efforts often include provisions for expunging the records of individuals previously convicted of non-violent cannabis offenses, allowing them to reintegrate into society without the stigma of a criminal record.
Shifting Political Landscape
Trump’s endorsement of cannabis legalization represents a significant shift in the political discourse surrounding the issue. Historically, the Republican Party has been more resistant to legalization efforts, with many conservatives expressing concerns about the potential for increased drug use and public safety risks. However, as public opinion has shifted and the economic and social benefits of legalization have become more apparent, some Republican leaders have begun to reconsider their stance.
-
Influence of State-Level Legalization: The success of state-level legalization efforts has provided a blueprint for national policy changes, demonstrating that cannabis can be regulated effectively without compromising public safety.
Potential Impact on the 2024 Election
Trump’s support for cannabis legalization could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential election, particularly if he decides to run again. By aligning himself with a popular issue that enjoys broad bipartisan support, Trump may be able to attract a wider range of voters, including younger and more progressive-leaning individuals who have traditionally been skeptical of Republican candidates.
-
Engaging Younger Voters: Younger voters, who are more likely to support cannabis legalization, could be crucial for Trump’s campaign, potentially swaying their votes in his favor.
-
Broadening the Republican Base: By embracing cannabis legalization, Trump may be able to broaden the Republican base and attract independent voters who prioritize social justice and economic reform.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s endorsement of cannabis legalization marks a significant milestone in the ongoing effort to end the criminalization of marijuana in the United States. By acknowledging the negative impact of prohibition on individuals, communities, and taxpayers, and highlighting the potential benefits of legalization, Trump is adding his voice to a growing chorus of advocates who believe that it is time for a new approach to cannabis policy. As the 2024 election cycle approaches, it will be fascinating to observe how Trump’s stance on this issue shapes the political landscape and influences the debate over the future of cannabis in America. With public support at an all-time high and the economic and social benefits becoming increasingly clear, the momentum for cannabis legalization appears poised to continue growing in the years to come.
TRUMP FOR 4 MORE YEARS BUT YOU GET CANNABIS LEGALIZATION, YES OR NO? SEE BELOW!
Cannabis News
What State Just Dropped Below $80 an Ounce for Legal Cannabis? A. Florida B. Michigan C. California D. New York
In a significant development for Michigan’s cannabis industry, retail prices have fallen below $80 per ounce as of September 4, 2024. This historic milestone, reflecting a nearly 14.5% decline from the previous year, signals a major shift in market dynamics.
The price drop is driven by increased competition among licensed dispensaries, a growing supply of cannabis products, and the maturation of the market since the legalization of recreational use in 2018. More dispensaries and cultivation facilities have led to competitive pricing and greater product availability, making cannabis more affordable for consumers and potentially boosting legal sales.
As a leader in the Midwest’s cannabis landscape, Michigan’s regulatory framework supports both medical and recreational markets, generating significant tax revenue and job opportunities. As the industry evolves, stakeholders must navigate challenges and capitalize on emerging opportunities.
Factors Behind the Price Drop
The surge in the number of licensed dispensaries in Michigan since the legalization of recreational cannabis in 2018, coupled with the expansion of cultivation facilities, has led to a significant increase in the supply and availability of cannabis products. With more dispensaries offering a wider variety of choices for consumers, the market has become increasingly competitive, with retailers employing pricing strategies to attract customers. This growth in the number of dispensaries and cultivation facilities has enabled dispensaries to offer lower prices to consumers, making cannabis more accessible and affordable.
As the cannabis market matures, both producers and retailers have optimized their operations, leading to reduced costs that are often passed on to consumers. Enhanced cultivation techniques and economies of scale have played a crucial role in lowering production expenses, allowing businesses to improve efficiency and increase output. This combination of operational optimization and cost reduction not only benefits producers and retailers but also makes cannabis products more affordable and accessible for consumers, fostering a healthier and more competitive market environment.
The market has become oversaturated with cannabis products, particularly following significant outdoor harvests. This oversupply has led to a decrease in prices as producers and retailers compete to sell excess inventory.
Michigan currently has no statewide cap on the number of cannabis business licenses, resulting in explosive growth in both supply and demand. This unrestricted licensing has intensified competition among businesses, driving prices downward as they vie for market share.
Implications for Consumers and the Industry
The recent drop in cannabis prices has made the product more affordable for a broader segment of the population, enabling consumers to access quality cannabis without financial strain. This increased affordability not only allows more individuals to enjoy legal cannabis but also promotes responsible use and consumption, as people are more likely to make informed choices when quality products are within reach. By removing financial barriers, the industry is fostering a healthier relationship with cannabis among consumers, contributing to a more informed and responsible market.
The potential boost in sales volume is another significant implication of the lower cannabis prices in Michigan. As the cost of cannabis becomes more affordable, more consumers are likely to enter the market, leading to an increase in overall sales. Dispensaries may experience higher foot traffic as a result of this increased interest in cannabis products, directly benefiting from the lower prices. This influx of new consumers and higher sales volume could further solidify the industry’s growth and sustainability in the state, as businesses capitalize on the greater demand for their products.
The competitive pricing of legal cannabis products in Michigan has the potential to curb illegal sales by making regulated options more attractive to consumers. As the cost of legal cannabis becomes more affordable and accessible, individuals may be more inclined to purchase from licensed dispensaries rather than the black market. This shift towards regulated products not only supports the legal industry but also enhances public safety and quality assurance. By choosing legal cannabis, consumers can be confident in the safety, purity, and potency of the products they purchase, reducing the risks associated with unregulated, illicit markets. As more consumers opt for legal cannabis due to the competitive pricing, the state can expect to see a decline in illegal sales and an improvement in overall public health and safety.
Michigan’s Cannabis Landscape
Since the legalization of recreational cannabis in Michigan, the state has become a pioneer in cannabis reform within the Midwest. With a comprehensive regulatory framework in place, Michigan supports both medical and recreational markets, fostering a thriving industry that has generated significant tax revenue and job opportunities.
The cannabis industry in Michigan has significantly contributed millions in tax revenue, which is allocated to vital areas such as education, infrastructure, and public health initiatives. Additionally, the industry’s growth has led to job creation across cultivation, distribution, and retail sectors, providing numerous employment opportunities for residents. This dual impact not only supports the state’s economy but also enhances community well-being through improved public services and increased job availability.-
As cannabis prices continue to decrease in Michigan, making the products more accessible to a wider consumer base, there is a growing need for comprehensive consumer education. Dispensaries are increasingly taking on the responsibility of educating their customers on responsible use, product selection, and the effects of various cannabis strains. By offering workshops and informational resources, dispensaries aim to help consumers make informed choices and develop a deeper understanding of the products they consume. This proactive approach to consumer education not only promotes responsible use but also fosters a more informed and engaged cannabis community in the state.
Conclusion
The decline in cannabis prices to below $80 per ounce is a significant development for Michigan, highlighting the success of Its regulatory framework and the positive impact on consumers. As the market matures, stakeholders will need to remain vigilant in addressing challenges while capitalizing on the opportunities presented by this dynamic industry.
MICHIGAN CANNABIS PRICES PLUMMET, READ ON…
MICHIGAN CANNABIS FLOWER PRICES DROP BELOW $122, IS $80 NEXT?
Navigating Product Options at the Dispensary
How Long Do Delta 8 Gummies Take To Kick In?
I Ate Magic Mushrooms and Nothing Else for 10 Straight Days – Finding My Soul and Eternal Love
CBD Mushroom Tea – GanjaVacations Jamaica
The US Suddenly Has Two Pro-Marijuana Legalization Candidates, But Only One is Believable 60 Days Before the Election
What State Just Dropped Below $80 an Ounce for Legal Cannabis? A. Florida B. Michigan C. California D. New York
The Best Refreshing Cocktails
Key Tips For Consuming Marijuana At The Local Fair
Loper Comes for the DEA. Will it Matter, Though?
essential elements create suitable germination environment
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
City Of Oakland Issues RFP For Employee Training Programs
UArizona launches online cannabis compliance online course
-
Cannabis News1 year agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders1 year agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing9 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Marijuana Business Daily1 year agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis1 year agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
California1 year agoA new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse