Connect with us

All about Cannabis

Three Signs of Reduced Cannabis Stigma – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana



What are three signs of reduced cannabis stigma? Don’t get us wrong – cannabis stigma is still alive and well. But in the past week, we’ve encountered three new stories that indicate the needle is moving in the right direction.

From British Columbia declaring that cannabis retail shops don’t have to cover their windows to Switzerland expanding their legal cannabis pilot. Progress may be coming at a snail’s pace, but it’s something.

What is Cannabis Stigma?

We can’t identify reduced cannabis stigma without asking: what is cannabis stigma? What is stigma?

Earlier this year, Dr. Julian Somers told CLN that stigma was like a scarlet letter. “There’s a sign about you,” he said. “Maybe you sound less formally educated or you look like you’re a little undernourished, maybe you’ve got some piercings and ink on your neck or something. Things like that.”

While Dr. Somers was speaking in context to the drug and homelessness problem in all major Canadian cities, you could say the same for cannabis stigma.

Indeed, there’s a stigma associated with reggae music, bongs, Cheech and Chong, and other 20th-century stereotypes about cannabis consumers.

Non-cannabis users tend to view cannabis consumers as more dopey or less intelligent than the more “sophisticated” types that prefer to drink cocktails after work.

There’s a stigma associated with smell: too many medical cannabis patients have been victims of this. Especially during those “sobriety checkpoints” the police like to set up.

There certainly wasn’t any reduced cannabis stigma when Canada legalized cannabis. If anything, cops and public health busybodies amped up the drug war propaganda to eleven.

#3 Reduced Cannabis Stigma: Window Coverings 

reduced cannabis stigma

A significant cannabis stigma in Canada is window coverings. Despite cannabis being legal and hidden behind opaque plastic child-resistant containers – governments demand retailers wrap their windows so no one can see in.

After a series of robberies and break-ins, the British Columbia government finally agreed with cannabis retailers. These opaque window wrappings are more harmful than helpful.

The most obvious example is a robbery in Vancouver earlier this year. Security footage showed the criminal trying to steal from the shop.

Typically, if you try to rob a store in broad daylight, people walking by are witnesses and can call for help. But with opaque window coverings?

Who knows what’s going on in there?

Notably, B.C.’s many public and private liquor stores don’t require window coverings.

#2 Reduced Cannabis Stigma: Switzerland Expanding Cannabis Trials to More Cities

cannabis in Switzerland

Ideally, Switzerland would legalize cannabis completely. If someone is fining you or sticking you in a cell for a nontoxic herbal plant, then that person is the criminal.

Statute law by governments is not the be-all, end-all of what’s right and wrong. You’d think this point would be well-known. But decades of government schooling and the erosion of religious values have us lost in the wilderness.

Regardless, Switzerland’s move to expand its strictly-controlled cannabis industry is toward reduced cannabis stigma.

Long-term, this may prove more advantageous. While many U.S. jurisdictions legalize in a manner more consistent with the values of individual liberty and private property – Switzerland’s top-down approach comes with one significant benefit.

The Swiss’s cannabis trials are decentralized and conducted by different universities. Multiple research findings will root out bias and narrow in on objective observations found in all studies.

In other words: cannabis legalization in Switzerland is a product of multiple researchers in different cities rather than bureaucrats implementing a one-size-fits-all regime based on their definition of “best practices.”

While legalizing in this way still indicates that cannabis stigma is alive and well – just the fact that the Swiss have embarked on this program (followed by the Netherlands and a non-profit German model) shows that reduced cannabis stigma is becoming the norm.

#1 Reduced Cannabis Stigma: Doctors Aren’t Drinking the Koolaid

reduced cannabis stigma

Last week, researchers published a study indicating that “cannabis use disorder” causes schizophrenia. Many in the media repeated this study’s findings without referencing its numerous methodological problems.

We covered it here, but you might be skeptical that a site calling itself “Cannabis Life Network” would give an unbiased account.

So here’s an article from an actual M.D. He, too, comes to the same conclusion.

The study says, “Assuming causality, approximately 15% of recent cases of schizophrenia among males in 2021 would have been prevented in the absence of CUD [cannabis use disorder].”

But as Dr. Chuck Dinerstein wrote: 

“I am not ready to make that leap. There is more science to consider. I am willing to consider cannabis, and for that matter, alcohol gateways to mental disease, but I believe it may be more critical to recognize that the gate swings both ways – that is, schizophrenia, in this instance, is a gateway to substance abuse…The narrative can go in either direction.”

Can cannabis trigger schizophrenia in individuals predisposed to the disease? Yes, all research indicates that. The same is true for any substance, and alcohol looks to be the worst of them all.

Is 15% of schizophrenia due to cannabis?

But will cannabis cause schizophrenia in otherwise healthy young, adult males? “Not likely,” says Dr. Dinerstein.

And for us, that is the number one sign of reduced cannabis stigma. With cannabis legalization becoming a force that governments and pharma lobbyists can’t stop, they are increasing anti-cannabis propaganda to protect their investments.

Like giving children hormone blockers (or homeless addicts free opioids, or criticizing the covid regime), many doctors are too afraid to speak out. We’ve returned to the pre-Christian values of public humiliation.

So for an actual M.D. to read this Danish study and publicly declare that the researchers made “a leap of faith” in connecting cannabis use and schizophrenia is a breath of fresh air.

It’s a sign of reduced cannabis stigma.

The Future of Cannabis

reduced cannabis stigma

We’re not out of the woods yet. Cannabis stigma is alive and well. But these three recent stories indicate that trends are moving in positive directions.

Public health can complain and cry like children all they want. The fact is: people are ditching their meds and alcoholic drinks for cannabinoid therapy. 

Treating cannabis retail like a Great Depression-era bookstore selling “Tijuana bibles” is coming to an end. Even the most conservative European countries (and U.S. states) are moving toward cannabis legalization.

And doctors aren’t afraid to call out drug war propaganda when they see it.

Hopefully, ten years from now, we’ll look back at this period as Reefer Madness 2.0. The era when the people demanded legal cannabis and the powers-that-be did everything to prevent it.

But, as the saying goes, facts don’t care about your feelings. No one says you must consume cannabis, so it’s time to stop worrying about what others are doing with their lives.

That means reducing your cannabis stigma. 

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All about Cannabis

Basic Cannabis Economics – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana




Basic cannabis economics. Wherever you find reefer madness, a poor grasp of basic cannabis economics is right behind it.

For example, public health busybodies demand THC limits. As if adults choosing high-THC strains of cannabis will simply shift their demand to lower-THC strains once public health tells them what their preferences should be.

Most, if not all, government workers lack an understanding of basic economics and, therefore, basic cannabis economics.

So let’s clear up some misconceptions. First, let’s start with a definition from economist Thomas Sowell.

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

Politicians Who Don’t Understand Basic Cannabis Economics

Basic Cannabis Economics

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau legalized cannabis in 2018, three years after pledging to do so.

From the beginning, we covered what Justin Trudeau meant by legalization (i.e. Corporatization) and what he should do instead (remove cannabis from the criminal code and rely on our common law/customary traditions for regulation).

But Justin Trudeau does not understand basic economics, including basic cannabis economics.

The trust-fund prime minister believes federal budgets balance themselves. That economies grow “from the heart outwards,” which must be doublespeak for running up the credit card.

The former drama teacher also thinks inflation isn’t a concern for “families,” which he claims to care about.

Justin Trudeau is a textbook example of a politician that places “compassion” and what sounds good over what works. He is the type of politician that ignores scarcity.

But the problem isn’t only in Canada.

Basic Cannabis Economics

Connecticut, for example, is trying to enforce THC limits unsuccessfully. Retailers can’t sell flower higher than 30% THC; concentrates are capped at 60%.

But convenience stores, gas stations, and CBD-only stores can get around these limits by focusing on delta-8 THC.

Obviously, a politician with an understanding of basic cannabis economics would declare THC limits a failure. They would find another way to persuade people to consume lower-THC cannabis. Maybe by trying a method based on consent rather than coercion.

But Democratic Representative Mike D’Agostino thinks the problem is that the rules aren’t strict enough. As he told the House, 

All we’re trying to do is make sure that any products that are sold with a significant amount of THC in Connecticut are sold in our regulated marketplace through the dispensaries, where there’s labeling requirements, there’s per package requirements, there’s per container requirements.

And all Fidel Castro was trying to do was create a “new socialist man” who would set aside all personal interests, goals, and desires to devote his life to building a communist society.

It may look like a stretch to compare THC limits to systemically dismantling the market economy for a utopian ideal, but the principles are the same.

Politicians who don’t understand basic cannabis economics will destroy the cannabis industry before it can thrive. 

Look at Canada’s cannabis sector. Even large producers struggle to keep up with the government’s criminal excise tax structure.

Politicians who don’t understand basic cannabis economics are the biggest threat to cannabis legalization. The world can now look at Canada and conclude, “I guess cannabis legalization doesn’t work.”

Basic Cannabis Economics in the Edible Market 

Basic Cannabis Economics

Economics studies cause and effect, showing what happens when you do specific things in specific ways. With basic cannabis economics, we should look at the incentives certain decisions create rather than the stated goals.

In other words, consequences matter more than intentions.

Canada’s public health busybodies say because children are attracted to cannabis edibles, THC limits and other restrictions are justified.

It’s easy to declare good intentions and blame others for the problems. But, by understanding basic cannabis economics, you can see how Health Canada‘s strict edible rules have led to counterproductive, even disastrous, consequences.

The Canadian government hasn’t changed consumer demand. People still want potent edibles. The consequences have been

  • a) continued revenue streams for “illicit” edible makers and;
  • b) legal producers are focusing on potent cannabis extracts.

Health Canada sees the consequences of their actions but refuses to take responsibility because they don’t understand basic cannabis economics.

They released a statement decrying “copycat” cannabis edibles, especially since they appeal to children. (Ignoring that refined sugar is generally terrible for children or that teens are experimenting with “safe supply” opioids in B.C. An issue much more severe than illegal cannabis edibles).

And instead of acknowledging that THC limits are counterproductive, they go after potent extracts they consider “edibles.”

Health Canada may argue that child-resistant packaging and THC limits are necessary “for the children.” But, at the same time, they complain that legalization and “privately-owned for-profit” dispensaries have resulted in higher hospitalizations and E.R. visits by children who have accidentally consumed cannabis edibles.

So which is it?

Basic Cannabis Economics 

Basic Cannabis Economics

Many people think economics involves money, finance, and banking. And it does. But at its core, economics, including basic cannabis economics, is about the logic of action.

Consider a clean-up crew arriving after a cannabis festival. Maybe the garbage cans are piled high. Cannabis roaches and lost paraphernalia litter the ground. The clean-up crew is confronted with an economic problem.

Where to start? They must allocate their scarce resources (cleaning supplies and equipment), which have alternative uses. Do they start with the bathrooms or by emptying the garbage cans?

Perhaps a discarded joint starts a small bushfire. The clean-up crew would be wise to begin there.

Human life consists of allocating time and resources efficiently. This is an inescapable fact of reality. 

In this example, no money has changed hands, and there’s no market in the traditional sense. But the choices made by the clean-up crew are necessarily economic.

There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.

Yes, public health can limit THC and demand child-resistant plain packaging. But the trade-off incentivizes others to produce high-THC edibles in packaging that are pleasant to the eye.

Why must ‘copycat’ cannabis edible appeal to children? Are adults not allowed to enjoy the marketing of their favourite chips, candy, and chocolate brands?

Making choices is at the heart of economics. Understanding basic cannabis economics means understanding that you can’t change people’s preferences by affecting supply.

All you do is frustrate consumers and incentive black markets. It’s not like public health is trying to keep the public from consuming tide pods or inhaling aerosols.

In fact, if they took the heavy-handed approach to those issues as they did with cannabis, they would lobby for the prohibition of those goods. 

Which would create a black market (or at least incentivize alternatives, like the popularity of synthetic cannabis in places with strict cannabis prohibition).

Public Health is a Joke

Public health busybodies wonder why some people don’t listen to them.

Imagine going to the doctor, and he gives you financial advice. It may be sound financial advice, but it’s not their place to provide it. Not in that setting.

Likewise, I expect medical professionals to take a cautious, conservative approach to high-THC cannabis edibles. They have every reason as “public health” to provide prudent insights and opinions.

But enforcing these opinions through government laws is one step too far. It ignores basic cannabis economics and reduces individual adults to an infantile state.

It also doesn’t work.

Source link

Continue Reading

All about Cannabis

Cannabis Sending Pregnant Women to Hospital: Study – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana




Cannabis is sending twice as many pregnant “people” to the hospital, says a new study on cannabis use during pregnancy published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

(And yes, the study calls pregnant women “people” in an attempt to be “inclusive” by insulting women and rejecting biological facts.)

The researchers looked at over 950,000 pregnancies between January 2015 and July 2021. They found the rate of ER and hospital visits related to cannabis use during pregnancy doubled.

Ergo, legalization has failed Canada’s pregnant “people.”

Of course, doubling the rate sounds bad until you ask what the baseline is. Before legalization, for every 100,000 pregnancies, hospitals saw 11 women seeking care for consuming too much cannabis.

After legalization? It’s 20 women per 100,000. And as per the study, these women were “very high” and thus seeking help.

In other words: the reefer madness hysteria drummed up by this study is not justified.

Cannabis Sending Pregnant Women to Hospital: Study

cannabis pregnant cannabis use during pregnancy

As per the research, pregnant “people” have “cannabis use disorder” and thus cannot control or stop their use even when they’re pregnant. They came to this conclusion because 22 percent experienced withdrawals.

But how does one casually link physical withdrawals of a substance to physiological dependency? They are two different processes. One is the physical state of the brain and body excreting a drug; the other is the subjective experience of that phenomenon.

The study suggests that “cannabis use during pregnancy is associated with adverse perinatal and neonatal outcomes, including stillbirth, preterm birth and neonatal morbidity and mortality.”

Additionally, they cite “evidence” of an association between cannabis use during pregnancy and autism. But the study they refer to emphasizes a “cautious interpretation” due to confounding factors.

Likewise, the other studies they refer to rely on self-reported cannabis use. One of them doesn’t even support the conclusions they claim it does.

Consider one of the papers they cite: “Maternal marijuana use, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal morbidity.”

It says, “After adjustment for tobacco, clinical, and socioeconomic factors, marijuana use was not associated with the composite adverse pregnancy outcome.”

It goes on to say,

Similarly, among women with umbilical cord homogenate and serum cotinine data (n = 765), marijuana use was not associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.18–5.66). Neonatal intensive care unit admission rates were not statistically different between groups (16.9% users vs 9.5% nonusers, P = .12).

They admit that “marijuana use was still associated with composite neonatal morbidity or death,” but only after controlling for “tobacco, race, and other illicit drug use.”

How cannabis use during pregnancy differs between ethnic groups remains to be seen.

As well as adjusting the results not to include tobacco damage is also suspect. Especially when both cannabis and tobacco use were self-reported.

Methodological Problems with the Study

As always, researchers love to use specific tools that will provide the results they expect. This study is no different from many studies that paint cannabis as a toxic substance.

Here are the issues with the study saying cannabis is sending pregnant women to the hospital:

  1. It’s an observational study. Researchers cannot establish casualty. The other paper referenced (linking cannabis to autism) was aware of this limitation. This recent study ignores the problem and cites observational research as scientific evidence.
  2. This study relies on Ontario, Canada’s population of pregnant “people.” While it’s safe to assume what is true for Ontario‘s pregnant women is true in, say, Montana, the specific population sample limits the generality of the findings.
  3. As mentioned, the data in this study and the others rely on self-reporting. What kind of cannabis did the women consume? Sativa? Indica? Low-THC high-CBD strains? How strong was it? What was the terpene profile like? What were the primary delivery methods? What about other non-cannabis-related hospital visits? Maybe these 20 women out of 100,000 would also visit an ER for a bruise or scrape. What was the mental health of these women like?
  4. The paper mentions using multivariable logistic regression models to identify cannabis and pregnancy risk factors. But the researchers don’t provide details on these models, including the variables used or how they measured them.
  5. This paper focuses on acute care visits related to cannabis, comparing it to acute care visits for non-cannabis substance use as a control. But the researcher’s choice of control introduces biases. Cannabis and other “non-cannabis substances” can’t be compared.

Cannabis Sending Pregnant Women to Hospital: Study

cannabis pregnant cannabis use during pregnancy

Should you use cannabis for morning sickness? That’s a question for you and your doctor. Whether cannabis use during pregnancy causes problems, including stillbirth, the jury is still out.

Toronto Star article on this study interviewed a range of doctors who said cannabis use during pregnancy was a bad idea. They also insultingly referred to pregnant women as “pregnant people.”

But at the end of the article, buried at the bottom, was one doctor, Dr. Lisa Graves, who dared speak the truth.

She said there is too little research on cannabis use during pregnancy.

Of course, “cannabis use” is not a thing. I don’t “use caffeine.” I have a cup of coffee. Sometimes I have two or three. Rarely do I have a fourth.

Likewise, when my sister-in-law was pregnant, her doctor said, “One cup of coffee a day is fine.” Apparently, too much coffee is bad for an unborn child.

And it could be that too much cannabis is harmful to them as well. It could be that in the future, more rigorous studies find that more than 10mg of THC daily is detrimental to healthy development.

The problem is we don’t have any conclusive studies on the topic. Is cannabis sending pregnant women to the hospital? No, women are sending themselves to the hospital. 

Their cannabis consumption use may be the reason for the visit. But this study tells us very little (if anything) beyond that. 

Source link

Continue Reading

All about Cannabis

3 Signs We’re Living in the Darkest Timeline – Cannabis | Weed | Marijuana




What are the three signs we’re living in the darkest timeline?

The “darkest timeline” is a common phrase heard among fans of the TV show Community. Although it’s been off the air since 2015, it’s amassed a cult following in these days of binge-watching and streaming.

The idea refers to the “many worlds” or “multiverse” theory of the universe. Where in the context of the show, a simple rolling of the dice creates six new timelines. 

And one of these timelines is dark. People die, lose limbs, fires break out, and presumably, corporate-state elites use an escaped bioweapon to leverage more wealth and power. 

Although it’s a fictional concept, the idea that we could be living in the “darkest timeline” is fascinating. You don’t need to persuade Americans and Canadians that this may be the darkest timeline.

Americans may be facing the same electoral choices in 2024 as in 2020. Canada has a dangerously unqualified and ideological prime minister.

But incompetent or corrupt leaders are nothing new. What are the three signs we’re living in the darkest timeline? It’s not the politicians who we expect to lie and cheat.

It’s the bureaucracy. That unelected, unaccountable administrative, legal regime. They’ve lost their common sense, risking our liberty and prosperity.

Here are three examples.

3 Signs We’re Living in the Darkest Timeline

3. Alcohol and Cannabis are Bad. Opioids are Good

darkest timeline

The opioid crisis is one of the three signs we live in the darkest timeline. No city in North America seems immune to its effects. People are living on the streets, setting up tents in parks, and doing drugs openly. Violent crime has skyrocketed.

Not a problem, according to the far-left. The drug-addicted homeless need weaker drugs to help them get off the hard stuff. No need for rehab, either. We’ll do it right out there on the street. 

We just need your money whether you consent to it or not. 

If this sounds like questionable reasoning to you, join the club. Recently one of these B.C. activists tweeted about a friend who went to rehab. They returned to Vancouver – clean – and died of a fentanyl overdose within the week.

His death proves why “we” need a safe supply. But Vancouver already has a safe supply. Not to sound too insensitive, but why was this person taking fentanyl when there’s a plethora of weaker opioids available for free via the taxpayer?

Could a taxpayer-funded supply of hydromorphone be saving some lives? Sure, it’s entirely possible that “safe supply” is working for some exactly the way lofty sociology professors said it would.

But, like all government actions, there are unintended consequences. One of which is addicts collect hydromorphone pills and sell them for fentanyl.

At least three different journalists have come to this conclusion. The recent report by Global News shows that it’s not just a rare anecdotal occurrence, as the activists claim. 

Given the mounting evidence, Canada’s Mental Health & Addictions Minister said she is “aware” that there is an “issue” but that the ends justify the means.

In other words: who cares if teens are taking hydromorphone (basically, the strength of heroin) because they think it’s safe? At least they’ve been warned about ‘copycat’ cannabis edibles! 

What About a Safe Supply of CBD?

cannabis for workout recovery

One sign we’re living in the darkest timeline: every so-called “expert” on safe supply ignores the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study showing how CBD reduces cravings for opioids.

If “safe supply” was genuinely safe and compassionate, they’d be handing out CBD capsules, not hydromorphone. 

Instead, governments like to downplay the dangers of opioids and crank up the drug war on cannabis

Nothing says we’re living in the darkest timeline like an out-of-control health bureaucracy freaking out about cannabis edibles but turning a blind eye to teens taking heroin-strength opioids.

We’ve demonstrated the public health crusade against cannabis ad nauseam. Whether it’s the economic illiterate calling for limits on THC or the busybodies making unsubstantiated claims about cannabis and mental health.

The messaging from the government is clear: they’d rather have you on opioids than cannabis. 

When we exchange cannabis outside the legal regime, it’s “diversion,” and proceeds go to “organized crime.” When taxpayer-funded opioids are illegally distributed and sold, it’s “compassionate sharing.”

There is No Such Thing as a Safe Supply of Alcohol

darkest timeline

Cannabis connoisseurs and alcohol enthusiasts tend not to overlap. Sometimes, one side even takes a negative view of the other. But as the saying in medical cannabis goes, “different strains for different pains,” so the same applies here.

If your idea of relaxing after work or on the weekend includes beer or vodka instead of cannabis, that’s fine. You do you.

Wait, my bad. “No amount of alcohol is safe to drink,” says the World Health Organization.

Since declaring the covid scam over, the WHO has moved its sights to alcohol. Just as they thought government policy could stop a flu virus, they believe they can ignore the history of alcohol prohibition.

And to their point, the darkest timeline would eliminate cash (see below). So if we’re in a world where all associations and exchanges are monitored and enforced by a smartphone and an algorithm, governments can limit how much alcohol (or cannabis) we can buy via technology.

I only bring it up because the WHO released a “guide for journalists” regarding alcohol. Never mind that a global bureaucracy shouldn’t be instructing journalists on how to report the news. This guide includes manipulated data, half-truths, and drug war propaganda the West hasn’t seen since the Temperance Movement.

With the WEF’s “young global leader,” Justin Trudeau, at the helm, Canada has already adopted the WHO’s alcohol guidelines. The Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Abuse (CSSA) released its report earlier this year that said if you have more than two drinks per week, you’ve got an alcohol problem.

This prompted the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) to call Canada’s report “a pseudo-scientific amalgamation of selected studies of low scientific validity that fit their preconceived notions.”

No Fun Allowed In the Darkest Timeline

From promoting opioids as “safe” to demonizing a nontoxic natural medicinal herb to gaslighting millions of Canadians into thinking they’re alcoholics.

Public health has gone insane. It would not surprise me to learn that they’ve been consulting with PETA to craft nutritional guidelines regarding meat consumption. 

This is one sure sign we’re in the darkest timeline. 

3 Signs We’re Living in the Darkest Timeline

2. Excise Taxes & Pardons That Help No One

Can Biden Legalize Cannabis without Congress

Another sign we’re in the darkest timeline is Joe Biden. I suppose I should expand on that, but I think “Let’s Go, Brandon” pretty much sums it up.

We’ve covered how his federal cannabis pardons help no one. But that hasn’t stopped the senior citizen from repeating the lie. One wonders if the old man truly believes he set people free.

Of course, three years into the Biden presidency, Americans are no closer to cannabis legalization. They can’t even pass banking legislation, negatively affecting Canadian cannabis companies.

Considering that Donald Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized all minor cannabinoids, including delta-8 THC, one could easily make the case Trump did more for cannabis legalization than Biden.

In fact, if 2024 is Biden vs. Trump again, and Trump wants to win, he needs to point to the billions spent in Ukraine and ask why the Democrats didn’t spend that domestically. 

As well as legalize cannabis.

But don’t legalize the way the Canadians did. As reported by MjBizDaily, Canada’s taxman is getting aggressive with cannabis excise debts.

As we’ve reported, Canada’s cannabis excise tax was designed by morons. It’s systemically bankrupting all the small-to-medium producers. Even the larger ones are losing money. But they can at least weather the storm.

Only in the darkest timeline does Canada Revenue Agency collect so much in taxes that they bankrupt the business they’re taxing.

It takes a special kind of stupidity to work for the government. 

3 Signs We’re Living in the Darkest Timeline

1. Banking. Not Just for Cannabis. Banking in General.

darkest timeline

Of course, our banking sector is the most significant sign we’re living in the darkest timeline.

As mentioned, the banks treat cannabis and cannabis companies like a pariah. This means American cannabis companies can’t take advantage of tax deductions; they have limited access to services like loans, lines of credit, and payment processing.

All this adds up to increased costs and inefficiencies. Additionally, it also means most American cannabis companies are cash-based operations. 

But hang tight, cannabis entrepreneurs! Help is on the way. Not in the sense of passing banking regulation, like U.S. politicians keep promising to do.

But the “other” kind of help. The kind Ronald Regan called the most terrifying words in the English language.

Cannabis companies are dealing with large amounts of cash. Locked out of the banking system? No problem, we’ll just move to a digital economy.

“The Benefits of a Cashless Society,” writes the World Economic Forum. 

“If the private and public sector can work together to harness the latest technology and realize the full potential of a cashless society, there will be enormous benefits,” states the article.

What kind of benefits? “If you visit China today,” says the WEF, “there’s a strong chance you’ll see people paying for things using facial recognition on their phones. This is a radical shift, but it’s just the beginning of the cash revolution.”

Scanning your face to buy cannabis. That’s the future the elites have for you. I don’t think I need to make a case that we’re in the darkest timeline.

The facts speak for themselves.

Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media