Cannabis News

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
I just don’t know how BigAg could get cannabis quality consistent when I can’t even get a consistent quality tomato? if you look at cannabis analytical testing they are getting wildly different cannabinoid profiles from the same clone grown in different greenhouses. Jack Daniels is distilled, distilled cannabis is also easier to keep consistent but it’s also kind of mediocre because of the distillation IMO.
In fairness, BigAg doesn’t care if the tomato they put on sale is a *good* tomato or not: they care about color, uniform size/shape, bruise resistance, slow ripening (aka ‘never actually ripe’). People looking for food clearly don’t understand the advantages of big business...
 

florduh

Well-Known Member
Um, yeah, but which do you prefer: a fine or getting thrown in jail? Biden offers you a wink and a nod and maybe a fine. The Obama/Biden administration made a point of staying out of the way of states wanting to legalize and I think it is safe to say Biden will do the same. What are the repubs offering? It is still true that if you want federal legalization your best bet is dems up and down the ticket. But in these times who can be a single issue voter? Come on, vote out the fascists.

And I don't think Ramahs has a point. (Tranq I ignore. He might as well be Eric Trump he is so predictable). He says Dems don't care about people. Wrong. That would be the republicans. As you look around you at a society in ruins - 50 million people are unemployed (as the repubs pull the plug on their unemployment insurance) and the virus is still winning, unlike in most other developed nations; we are in a worse position now than we were in April - please allow me to remind you who has been in charge for the last 4 years.
I don't really disagree with any of that. I just believe coming out in favor of full legalization would be a net political benefit. No one who would plausibly vote for the Dems is not going to do so because of weed. In 2020. So just do the right thing.

Federal decriminalization is a step in the right direction though. A step forward is better than standing still.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
(Tranq I ignore. He might as well be Eric Trump he is so predictable).
This forum is a near exact microcosm on the larger aspects of society. In this case, the cancel culture. There are those on the Left in the culture who are so unable to even handle another point of view, they do all they can to prevent others from making it. People are tearing down Jesus statues because they express white supremacy in state's today for gosh stakes. Maybe it's time to raise discussion beyond fallacious reasoning. As to my predictability, I suspect fewer here can make my arguments than I can make theirs. Orangemanbad is not that difficult to predict.

As you look around you at a society in ruins - 50 million people are unemployed (as the repubs pull the plug on their unemployment insurance) and the virus is still winning, unlike in most other developed nations; we are in a worse position now than we were in April - please allow me to remind you who has been in charge for the last 4 years.
In a joking sense that would need more discussion to show; who has been "in charge" for the last 4 years? (#Resist) But, I accept the buck stops with the president and there needs to be an assessment. Not now. But an assessment.

I think you'll find the federalism impulse of the president means we will have 50 little laboratories of democracy trying to get through this pandemic. There will be federal support. That support will be decided by normal process. (See: How a bill becomes a law.) There is no single party or person who can pass that support bill. But, each laboratory will have to make decisions that affect their people based on that shared support.

When we someday look back at which of those experiments served their people best, I think there will be a true divide between states depending on party leadership. (Again, whatever that means. Just governor? Full legislature too? Less?) Those states that locked down hardest and were slowest to open up and were the highest level of regulation will have a less good economic recovery. A less good economic recovery means more people in despair and the diseases of despair and soul crushing effects of job loss are going to die, suffer and have less joy because of it. I think we'll find those who choose the less regulation more freedom path will be more successful than the more directed regulatory approach during recovery and that will be a big part of the experiment to take place.

But, changing everything and throwing money in the air might work too. It's not like we have any experience with this unique event.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm disappointed too that Biden didn't come out in favor of federal legalization. The position is probably a good deal more popular than he is! And there were times when the Holder justice dept could be a real pain in the ass in regard to raiding dispensaries. (shrugs). What can you do? There are bigger, fundamental issues this year - like whether we are going to remain a democracy and whether the president is above the law - and there is simply no parity between the parties, which is what got me started about Ramahs' post.
 
Last edited:

florduh

Well-Known Member
I think you'll find the federalism impulse of the president means we will have 50 little laboratories of democracy trying to get through this pandemic.
At this point, it's more like 50 little petri dishes of democracy.

I'm disappointed too that Biden didn't come out in favor of federal legalization. The position is probably a good deal more popular than he is!
Absolutely. That's why, in my opinion, they should've just went for it.
 

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
What a bunch of pathetic losers. The majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans favor legalization.
Honestly, I do not believe “the majority of Republicans favor legalization”: more like that majority is always happy to find new ways to tangle the laws to their profit; give them a license to print money and keep it, and they’ll gladly run with the most ridiculous legal tangles and the highest barriers to entry.

Case in point, there is not a SINGLE legal state that has done *anything* but institute sanctioned monopolies/cartels while tightening the screws on the ordinary citizen/voter - or am I misreading the wall-to-wall complaints on virtually every site about ‘legalization’ in every state with a ‘legal’ framework?
At this point, it's more like 50 little petri dishes of democracy.
The myth of states as “laboratories of democracy” is just another layer on the original myth of “sovereign states” - a myth that should have been buried after the Slaver rebels stopped fighting. Our states are run like plantations - not like ‘democracies’ at all
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Here We Go! Feds Sue California for Cannabis Business Records
State legal cannabis businesses are used to the specter of the federal government in the rear view mirrors of their lives and businesses. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that cannabis remains federally illegal. And it’s not so much the case anymore that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or Department of Justice (DOJ) are coming to knock down your door and arrest and prosecute you as a cannabis business owner for open violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). These days, life can be fairly miserable as a cannabis business owner due to the legal conflict between the states and the feds, resulting in a lack of access to financial institutions, onerous federal income tax obligations, no federal trademark protection, asset forfeiture, etc.


Rarely, though, do we get to see a state agency and the feds openly fight over these commercial cannabis democratic experiments (which is mainly due to the acting Attorney General’s “hands-off” approach to state legal cannabis, “Second Requestsscandal notwithstanding). When these confrontations happen, it’s fascinating to see how the respective governments behave and is always educational regarding evolving federal enforcement priorities.


And that is what made last week’s new so interesting. It seems that a beef has developed between the DEA, DOJ, and California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), which the BCC oversees and licenses retailers, labs, distributors, and delivery companies in California. Keep in mind that to warrant federal attention at this point (at least per the rescinded 2013 Cole Memo and U.S. A/G Barr’s testimony regarding the same) a cannabis business would likely need to be engaged in fairly serious criminal conduct beyond just trafficking in cannabis pursuant to a state-issued license.


The basic gist of the fight between the feds and the BCC (per the DOJ’s July 20th court petition filing) is that the DEA and DOJ want specific information about six “entities” (which really means three corporations and each corporation’s “presumed owner”) that hold BCC licenses. The feds are conducting a criminal investigation (for violations of the CSA), and the BCC is refusing to provide that information.


Specifically, at the end of last year, the DEA served an administrative subpoena on the BCC (which it later withdrew and then re-issued an identical subpoena in January of this year) requesting unredacted cannabis licenses, cannabis license applications, and shipping manifests for these licensees from January 1, 2018 (when licensing began in California) through January 9, 2020. In the January subpoena (which is standard and boilerplate), the DEA wrote that “the information sought . . . is relevant and material to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry . . .”


In response, the BCC responded (via letter) that it wouldn’t produce the desired documents because the subpoena “does not specify the relevancy” and requested information that is “confidential, protected, and part of pending licensing investigations.” The DEA then, for a matter of months, tried to persuade and negotiate with the BCC and the California Attorney General to cooperate, but the BCC wouldn’t budge, so the feds took the matter to federal court for enforcement of the subpoena against the BCC.


In its July filing, the DOJ/DEA mainly relies on DOJ/DEA compliance with its subpoena power and authority to investigate pursuant to the CSA, the corresponding procedural components, and that all was in line with the Fourth Amendment (which institutes a “reasonableness” requirement based on relevancy and scope of the subpoena, itself). The DOJ/DEA also uses the Supremacy Clause in its arguments to bypass the application of any California cannabis or privacy laws or regulations previously touted by the BCC in its letter earlier this year.


In response to the DOJ/DEA petition, on July 29th (as first reported by Marijuana Moment with a copy of the filing), the California Attorney General fought back, arguing that the DEA/DOJ failed to prove either the relevance or reasonableness of the subject subpoena (and also revealed that the DEA/DOJ is targeting distributors in this investigation). Importantly, the BCC admits that the DEA/DOJ complied with procedural requirements and that the DEA has the requisite authority from Congress to investigate violations of the CSA accordingly.


The BCC’s lone (and probably best) attack under federal law is that the DEA/DOJ failed to prove that the requested records are “relevant to the investigation,” and that the DEA “failed to include a statement [in the subpoena] describing how the subpoenaed records are in fact relevant to the DEA investigation.” California is taking the position that, at minimum, the DEA needs to produce an affidavit of an investigating DEA agent as to how and why the requested records are relevant to the current criminal investigation. The DEA’s/DOJ’s position on this is that the subpoena on its face demonstrates the records’ relevance to the DEA investigation.


The California A/G also cited California State laws regarding confidentiality, trade secrets, and privacy laws as justifications for non-disclosure, but it’s seemingly only raising those “defenses” in its role as a state administrative agency that’s obligated to take those positions regardless of federal law.


The main question at issue in this case is whether the subject subpoena demonstrates relevance on its face without further substantiation by the DEA (namely, via an affidavit by an agent on the investigation). My take is that the BCC will likely lose this battle and will eventually have to comply with the subpoena. The reason being that federal courts have no choice but to enforce federal administrative subpoenas unless (and this is a big unless) “the evidence sought by the subpoena is plainly incompetent or irrelevant to any lawful purpose of the agency,” which is a pretty low bar. On this point, DOJ/DEA cite to solid federal case law regarding how “unconstrained” this relevance standard is in application regarding administrative subpoenas. Plus, there is no requirement under federal law that a subpoena be accompanied by an affidavit or a declaration to achieve relevance.


While we’re certainly proud of the BCC for defending itself and forcing the DOJ/DEA through the paces of total and complete compliance around the federal administrative subpoena power, this isn’t one where we see the federal court siding with the State of California (but we’d be happily surprised if it did!). Several interesting things are bound to come out of this case/investigation, and this highlights most for cannabis businesses (especially in California) that the feds are indeed alive and well and still watching.
 

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
The “illicit” weed market IME has always been a matter of friendship networks...with some links in that chain being stronger and others weaker; it makes sense that it would bow to necessity and convenience in ways that the “licit” state-sanctioned profit-driven system simply *will not*. Profit industries depend on abuse of poorly paid and poorly regarded “essential” workers to do all the work and be replaced when they ‘break’.

“legal like tomato’s” is the only real solution to this rubbish.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
It's all coming together:
COVID Causes Rise In Cannabis Consumption

The differences between Baby Boomers (i.e. those born during a marked rise in birth rate, thought to be 1946-1964) and Millennials (born 1981-1996 or thereabouts) vary from the subtle to the stark. With the common friction points of politics, economics, and culture escalating to bare-knuckled debates over human rights and life-or-death public safety issues, polarization is increasing both within and between these generations.

Marijuana dispensary chain Verilife, (a subsidiary of PharmaCann, one of the county’s largest vertically integrated cannabis companies) recently conducted a study to map just one small piece of the Boomer/Millennial divide— the difference in marijuana consumer habits between the two.
The results of the study (which surveyed 1,000 Millennials and 1,000 Baby Boomers regular marijuana consumers) reflect not only some predictable differences (yes, Boomers are twice as likely to use marijuana in the morning), but commonalities as well, some of which have emerged during the Covid-19 pandemic. Notably, both generations report using marijuana significantly more during the Covid crisis (44% more for Boomers and 36% more for Millennials).

The biggest difference in consumption occurs around motivation for use, with nearly half of Millennials using for recreational reasons, while Baby Boomers are twice as likely to use marijuana solely for medical purposes. This despite a discrepancy that shows that more Millennials than Boomers believe that cannabis has medical benefits. A correlation might be drawn between Boomers’ higher rate of use for medical issues and the gravity of the illnesses for which they most commonly consume: arthritis, chronic pain, and cancer.
For Millennials, the top three medical reasons are migraines, chronic pain, and managing nausea. Whether the use is medical or recreational, one in five Millennials consider themselves daily users as opposed to only 12% of Baby Boomers.

A review of the report reveals some solid differences but a preponderance of similarities as well, including inhalation as the most preferable way to consume marijuana and the fact that both generations cite relaxation, social use, and anxiety as their three top reasons for recreational use, albeit in different orders of importance. Millennials are twice as likely to use before going to a public gathering or large event to ease social anxiety– a complaint far less frequent among members of the older generation. There is only a $3 difference in monthly spending between Boomers ($75) and Millennials ($78), and only a 2% difference between the Boomers (26%) and Millennials (28%) who said they have consumed marijuana before work. The divide grows a bit larger as far as toking up with the boss is concerned, with Boomers edging out Millennials with a 16% lead.
No doubt these numbers will prove useful to advertisers when crafting their marketing strategies to lure specific demographics to their client brands, but the study also points to the possibility that marijuana may be one tract of common ground upon which Boomers and Millennials can meet without rancor, or at least quite so many scathing memes.
 

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
another study that completely ignores the protective role of the phytocannabinoids ... along with the harmful smoke products in cannabis plant when smoked are the protective plant lipids too... of course then there would be confusion as to wether it is healthy or harmful , can't have that now can we ?
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
This is not a one-off casual statement that will be forgotten in a week or two. It will be referenced for years as it brings together some basic science. I think the statement itself is better read than the reporting on it.

Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health

A lot of questions I've read in other threads seem to be addressed in the statement.

To me, this is something to read and to understand. Just because cannabis use has risk as well as reward, does not make it bad. Understanding that risk is the best way to manage it. Reading the statement will help everyone's understanding no matter how knowledgeable they were before.
 

C No Ego

Well-Known Member
This is not a one-off casual statement that will be forgotten in a week or two. It will be referenced for years as it brings together some basic science. I think the statement itself is better read than the reporting on it.

Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health

A lot of questions I've read in other threads seem to be addressed in the statement.

To me, this is something to read and to understand. Just because cannabis use has risk as well as reward, does not make it bad. Understanding that risk is the best way to manage it. Reading the statement will help everyone's understanding no matter how knowledgeable they were before.
a lot of info there . may I ask the Statement you are referring to ? not sure what I'm missing but missed that one
 
C No Ego,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
a lot of info there . may I ask the Statement you are referring to ? not sure what I'm missing but missed that one
Not replying to any specific statement. It's just that many of the posts I've read here and other threads have been pretty dismissive based on prior experience of drug warrior "studies" and other like arguments. It seems clear to me this was an attempt to bring together current basic science to come to a conclusion.
 
Tranquility,
  • Like
Reactions: C No Ego
Top Bottom