This article originally appeared on the High Adam newsletter. Subscribe here.
For 2026, the California Cannabis Awards adds a new category for the backyard farmer. Here’s what you need to know.
Are you a Golden State ganja green thumb with a knack for growing backyard bud? If so, the California Cannabis Awards is giving you a chance to prove your pot prowess thanks to a newly added Home Grow – Flower competition.
According to the organization’s February 23 announcement, the new competition category is “designed to recognize cannabis flower cultivated by California residents for personal, non-commercial use,” and will be judged using the same methods and criteria as the professionally grown flower in the annual agricultural event that awards an assortment of gold, silver and bronze medals in the run up to the California State Fair in mid-July where best-of-the-best Golden Bear awards are handed out.
If you think your home harvest has what it takes, here’s what you need to know — and do — to officially enter the competition:
How much time do I have to grow my potentially award-winning weed?
The submission window for the home grow competition — and the rest of the 2026 California Cannabis Awards categories — is open through May 22, 2026. That means your magical plant needs to have been grown, harvested, dried and cured by then.
The reality of this deadline is that this year’s award-winning weed has almost certainly already been harvested.
How much does it cost?
Each submission requires a $250 entry fee, which covers laboratory testing, chemometric analysis and eligibility for medal awards.
What do I need to do?
Start by filling out the official California Cannabis Awards entry form completely (incomplete forms won’t be accepted). Then, create an SC Labs account either through the link in the registration portal or by going directly to www.sclabs.com.
Next, seal and label seven grams of cannabis flower per entry according to SC Labs’ submission requirements and schedule your sample(s) to be picked up by the lab folks.
What will SC Labs be testing for?
The lab’s analysis will look at potency, terpene concentration and cannabinoid concentration and generate a chemometric report (think of it as a kind of chemical fingerprint), which will be the basis for competition scoring. This is important because the competition medals will be awarded exclusively on those laboratory results.
What categories will medals be awarded in?
Gold, silver and bronze hardware will be handed out in the following categories:
The highest concentration of the following six specific terpenes: limonene, myrcene, beta-caryophyllene, pinene, ocimene and terpinolene
The co-dominant terpene profile MCL (Myrcene-Caryophyllene-Limonene)
Total terpene concentration
Primary cannabinoids CBG and CBD
Overall cannabinoid concentration
Is this the same criteria used for judging the professionally farmed flower categories?
Kind of. The chemotype-based sub-categories are the exact same ones used for judging commercial flower entries. The only difference is that the Home Grow entries won’t be separated by cultivation method; sun-grown, indoor and mixed-light submissions will compete together within each category.
Once I’ve submitted my entry, then what?
All gold medal winners in the Home Grow competition will be invited to participate in a live, on-site judging panel held on Saturday, July 25, at the California State Fair to compete for a Golden Bear trophy and the title of “Best Home Grow in California.”
This is crucial: Since the panel of expert judges — the same ones judging the commercial flower categories — will need to sample the gold-medal herb,it’s important that all entrants keep an additional 14 grams of product on hand until the medal winners are announced.
Where can I find out more information?
An extensive competition guide as well as additional information about the 2026 California Cannabis Awards can be found online at www.calcannabisawards.com/awards.
This article is from an external, unpaid contributor. It does not represent High Times’ reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy.
Explore the hidden tricks grocery stores use to get you to spend more, driven by psychology and smart design.
Ever walked into a grocery store for “just milk and bread” and left with a cart full of snacks, flowers, and a rotisserie chicken you didn’t plan on buying? You’re not alone. Today’s stores are carefully designed to influence how you shop — and how much you spend. From store layout to sensory cues, retailers use subtle psychological tactics to encourage bigger baskets and impulse buys. Here are the hidden tricks grocery stores use to get you to spend more.
Most supermarkets place essential items like milk, eggs, and bread at the back of the store. This forces shoppers to walk past dozens of tempting displays before reaching their intended purchase. Along the way, you encounter seasonal promotions, end-cap deals, and eye-catching packaging designed to trigger impulse decisions.
Wide aisles near the entrance create a relaxed feeling, while narrower aisles deeper inside subtly slow your pace, increasing the time you spend browsing. The longer you linger, the more likely you are to add extra items to your cart.
Product placement on shelves follows a simple rule: eye-level equals sales. Brands pay premium fees to have their products placed at adult eye level, where shoppers are most likely to notice and grab them. Cheaper or store-brand alternatives are often placed on lower or higher shelves, requiring extra effort to find.
For children, sugary cereals and colorful snacks are placed at kid eye level, strategically positioned to spark “pester power” — when kids urge parents to buy what they see.
Grocery stores are sensory environments. Soft lighting and warm colors create a welcoming atmosphere, while background music is often slow-paced to encourage leisurely shopping. Studies have shown slower music can increase time spent in-store — and total spending.
Then there’s the smell of freshly baked bread or rotisserie chicken near the entrance. These aromas aren’t accidental; they stimulate appetite and create a sense of comfort, making shoppers more likely to buy ready-to-eat foods and treats.
Promotions like “Buy One, Get One Free” or bulk discounts create a sense of urgency and value — even when you didn’t need the extra item. Stores also use charm pricing (e.g., $4.99 instead of $5.00) to make products feel cheaper.
Large shopping carts are another subtle tactic. Bigger carts make purchases look smaller, encouraging shoppers to fill the space. Some stores have quietly increased cart sizes over the years for this very reason.
Understanding these tactics can help you stay in control of your grocery budget. Try shopping with a list, avoid shopping when hungry, and stick to the perimeter of the store where fresh staples are typically located. Taking a moment to compare unit prices can also prevent overspending on misleading “deals.”
Grocery stores aren’t trying to trick you — they’re using proven retail strategies to boost sales. But with awareness and a plan, you can outsmart the system and leave with exactly what you came for — milk, bread, and maybe just one treat.
Cannabis is most popular psychoactive substance among those prohibited by the international drug control regime. Yet, at least partly driven by the increased recognition that prohibitionist approaches to cannabis control cause more problems than they solve, cracks are appearing in the historic global consensus of prohibiting cannabis. Recent years have seen an increase in both the number of countries deviating from strict prohibition and the variety of policy approaches underpinning this deviation. As such, cannabis arguably has more variation in legality than any other controlled drug. The aim of this chapter is to explore this variation by outlining some of the key legal and policy deviations from prohibition and reflecting on the implications these have for the future of cannabis as a controlled substance.
Analysis: Many Unregulated Hemp-Derived Intoxicants Contain THC, Synthetic Cannabinoids
Milwaukee, WI: Many commercially marketed hemp products contain THC levels exceeding federal limits as well as synthetically produced novel cannabinoids, according to an analysis published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Reporters purchased 30 unregulated hemp products from area retailers and had them independently tested for purity and potency.
Consistent with the results of prior analyses of commercially available intoxicating hemp products, most products contained THC percentages exceeding legal limits (above 0.03 percent). Half of the products tested positive for the presence of lab-produced cannabinoids, including HHC (hexahydrocannabinol) and THCP (tetrahydrocannabiphorol). Over one-third of the products contained mold and pesticides, while one product tested positive for the presence of the chemical solvent methylene chloride, which is commonly used in paint stripper. At least one product contained a forged COA (certificate of analysis).
In November, federal lawmakers approved legislation recriminalizing the sale of certain hemp-derived intoxicating products. Specifically, the bill redefines federally legal hemp products as only those containing no more than either 0.3 percent or 0.4 milligrams of THC or other cannabinoids that produce similar effects, including THCA. In addition, it criminalizes “any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products which are marketed or sold as a final product or directly to an end consumer for personal or household use” as well as products that are produced following chemical synthesis, such as those high in delta-8 THC content.
In 2021, NORML issued a report on delta-8-THC and other novel synthetically derived cannabinoids, cautioning consumers to avoid these unregulated products because they are often mislabeled and may contain impurities. NORML has urged the FDA to establish regulatory guidelines governing the production, testing, labeling, and marketing of hemp-derived intoxicating cannabinoid products, but has argued against recriminalizing them.
This half day workshop covers the legal foundations and recent developments affecting psychedelic churches and sacramental practices. It focuses on religious freedom protections under RFRA, recent DEA exemptions, and ongoing enforcement risks under the Controlled Substances Act.
Participants will examine practical risks faced by churches and leaders, including criminal enforcement, ethical harms, professional licensing exposure, and threats to tax status, payment processing, and online platforms. The session reflects the growing visibility and spiritual importance of psychedelic sacramental practice.
The workshop maps real world legal pathways and common traps. Topics include the RFRA strict scrutiny framework, lessons from recent federal and state cases, DEA exemption decisions, and the need for clear ethical standards and accountability systems.
This workshop is for church leaders, facilitators, participants, licensed professionals, and attorneys. Participants will leave with a clear, practical understanding of how psychedelic churches can structure practices and prepare for legal challenges.
From early reform efforts to modern legalization fights, these Black leaders helped reshape cannabis law and justice.
Written by Parabola Center for Law and Policy
Today, support for cannabis legalization is widespread. A majority of Black Americans favor reform, politicians now campaign on outdated drug laws, and celebrities speak openly about racial disparities while building careers in the legal cannabis industry. That visibility, however, is the result of decades of work by Black leaders who challenged prohibition at moments when public opinion, policy, and personal risk were far less predictable.
In earlier decades, speaking publicly in favor of legalization carried far greater personal and professional risk. Before public support began to increase, advocates could jeopardize their careers and reputations. Consumers faced criminal prosecution and incarceration. These risks were not borne equally: because the War on Drugs disproportionately targeted Black communities, Black advocates and consumers faced significantly higher legal and social consequences.
Since the 1990s, High Times has celebrated both unsung heroes and well-known activists for bravely standing up for what they believe in. This Black History Month, we continue that tradition by recognizing some of the Black leaders whose early courage and truthfulness were critical to the legalization movement. Without their courage, we might never have secured the rights we often take for granted today.
Parabola Center for Law and Policy, a POC-led cannabis nonprofit that puts people over profits, curated this list to honor the individuals who have done just that–fought for people’s rights without regard for personal risk or gain. From the thousands whose hard work and dedication have led to better marijuana laws, we selected 10 Black champions to honor for their contributions to legalization.
1. Professor Michelle Alexander
In 2010, Michelle Alexander changed the conversation with her bestselling book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. While reshaping the national dialogue in favor of criminal justice reform, she also made a major impact on cannabis policy.
In a memorable address to the International Drug Policy Reform Conference, she criticized the hypocrisy of white men profiting from newly legal cannabis while thousands of Black and brown people remained locked up for the same activity.
In 2015, she inspired a new generation of cannabis leaders when she declined to endorse Ohio’s legalization effort, writing, “Granting an oligopoly for ten wealthy investors is not justice.” The measure failed 65-35.
2. Dr. Joycelyn Elders
An outspoken advocate for public health, Dr. Joycelyn Elders is best known for her steadfast support for comprehensive sex education in public schools. In 1993, she became the first Black person to serve as Surgeon General, nominated by Bill Clinton, and she achieved extraordinary results for underserved communities. Although widely recognized for her moral clarity and candor on many public health issues, it is less well known that she was also an early supporter of marijuana legalization.
In 2010, she supported California’s Prop 19, tellingthe New York Times, “I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol. I feel they cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the prohibition on marijuana.”
3. Major Neill Franklin
After 34 years in law enforcement, Major Neill Franklin began reexamining his role in prohibition and in repairing the harm it had caused. In 2010, well before legalization entered the mainstream, he joined the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and testified in support of marijuana legalization across the country. Over the next decade, using his professional credibility and reputation, he helped broaden the movement by making the case that regulated cannabis was better for public safety.
His groundbreaking leadership didn’t stop at legal cannabis; he also joined United Nations advocacy efforts to end the prohibition of all drugs globally. Dubbed “the cop who broke with the drug war,” Major Franklin was recognized as a High Times Freedom Fighter last year.
4. Dr. Carl Hart
Dr. Carl Hart is a neuroscientist and psychologist at Columbia University who has spent decades challenging myths about drug use through both his research and his acclaimed books. When trace amounts of cannabis in Trayvon Martin’s blood were cited to justify his killing, Dr. Hart publicly dismantled the claim, comparing it to the alarmist narratives of Reefer Madness.
He has also served as an expert witness in family court to protect mothers from having their children removed based solely on a positive cannabis test during pregnancy. By consistently confronting fear-based policymaking and advancing evidence-based research, he has reshaped the legalization debate.
5. Linda Jackson, LVN
A cannabis nurse who was evaluating patients for cannabis approvals as early as 2003, Linda Jackson has been described as “way ahead of the curve.” While nurses’ contributions in the early era of medical cannabis in California received less attention than those of physicians, they were equally essential. In aninterview with the cannabis journal O’Shaughnessy’s, she detailed the process she used for patient intake.
Because medical cannabis regulations had not yet been clearly defined, she and her team developed a framework from scratch to interview patients, assess their history, and obtain their consent–all using telemedicine. Through this approach, she estimated that between 300 and 400 patients received approval to medicate with cannabis.
6. Dr. Renee Johnson
A scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Dr. Renee Johnson would not describe herself as an “advocate.” But as a researcher who looks at substance use in marginalized groups including people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ youth, her work to discover and publicize the true impacts of legalization has been vitally important.
When many of her counterparts were quick to declare that medical cannabis laws increased use, she led astudy showing the opposite: three years after medical marijuana was first approved, rates of use declined. At the same time, she warned that use could rise or fall depending on context, emphasizing that public education would be key. Her commitment to truth over rhetoric has had a meaningful, positive impact on the legalization debate.
7. Professor Beverly Moran, Esq.
The first Black woman to serve on the national board of NORML, Professor Beverly Moran has a wealth of credibility as a professor of law and sociology. A longtime academic affiliated with institutions such as Vanderbilt Law School, she consistently focused on protecting consumers within emerging legal markets.
In aninterview, she explained the distinction that drives her work: “We have to understand that there’s a difference between consumers and the industry. . . [T]obacco consumers do not want tobacco to be more addictive, and yet tobacco companies worked for decades to make it more addictive. Alcohol producers and casinos would be more than happy if everyone was addicted to their products. These are the issues we deal with. . . how to keep it safe, how to keep it legal, how to keep research going, how to keep people out of jail.”
8. Dorsey Nunn
With a three-word question – “What about Pookie?” – Dorsey Nunn challenged the national legalization movement to call for the transition of those in the legacy market into the legal market. Sentenced to life in prison at age 19, he began advocating for the rights of incarcerated people while still behind bars. After his release, he co-founded All of Us or None and became executive director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, helping build a nationwide movement to restore the civil rights of formerly incarcerated people.
Featured in 13th by Ava DuVernay, Dorsey Nunn has changed the conversation by insisting that those most affected by the War on Drugs lead the fight to end it.
9. Deborah Peterson Small
The academic article The War on Drugs is a War on Racial Justice was written by attorney, community organizer, and Harvard Law School graduate Deborah Peterson Small in 2001. When she wrote How We Can Reap Reparations from Marijuana Reform in The Root in 2016, she had been inspiring organizations and activists for over 15 years with her organization Break the Chains, and it was still far ahead of the curve.
As one of the first people to argue that marijuana legalization should serve as a way to compensate the Black communities that the War on Drugs had harmed, Deborah Small has had a profound impact on the way that legalization laws were written and implemented.
10. Clifford W. Thornton, Jr.
Clifford Thornton retired in 1997 to work on drug policy issues. By 2001, he had spoken to over 60,000 people about drug policy reform, focusing on race relations, economics, and public health. In his talks, he shared his own tragic story of drug criminalization, when his mother died from a heroin overdose.
In 2006, he became the first African-American candidate to appear on the general election ballot for Governor of Connecticut. Over the following decades, he continued to appear in the media hundreds of times, serving on the NORML board and helping to remove the DARE program from various districts. Almost 25 years after Clifford began full-time advocacy, his home state of Connecticut finally legalized cannabis.
Honorable Mention: Representative Barbara Lee
No list of this kind would be complete without mentioning Congresswoman Barbara Lee, an iconic marijuana law reform advocate whose outspoken support for change dates back to the 1970s. Rather than holding a static position or claiming vindication as public opinion shifted, Rep. Lee kept innovating and introducing more bills, culminating with the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act.
When the MORE Act passed the U.S. House in 2020, it marked a symbolic but significant milestone: the first federal legalization bill approved by a chamber of Congress explicitly centered on racial justice. Without her decades of strategic and pioneering leadership, cannabis legalization in the US might look very different today.
Authors’ Note: To prevent any conflicts of interest, Parabola Center staff, board members, and advisors were not considered for this list.
All images courtesy of Parabola Center.
This article is from an external, unpaid contributor. It does not represent High Times’ reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy.
I arrived in Tokyo in November for the Japanese International Hemp Expo (JIHE) 2025 with a familiar mix of jet lag, curiosity, and professional reflex. After decades working at the intersection of cannabis, law, and global markets, I’ve learned that the plant reveals more about a society than almost anything else. Where it’s embraced, feared, regulated, or whispered about tells you volumes about culture, history, and power.
Japan tells that story quietly, but unmistakably.
I was in Toronto just a few days earlier, where cannabis had been a focused topic at the International Bar Association (IBA) Annual Conference. In Canada, the discussion around cannabis is mainstream and where lawyers, regulators, and business leaders debate policy, compliance, and international markets with the same seriousness they do banking or intellectual property. Cannabis content that touched on cross-border trade, medical access, and compliance frameworks drew interested audiences, and there was no stigma in asking hard questions about the future of cannabis in global law.
It was striking to see how normalized the conversation had become in Canada over the past several years. But also, how this topic has become embraced by the international legal community which, not too many years ago, refused to discuss the topic due to the conservative nature of the legal profession, in general.
Stepping off the plane in Tokyo, the contrast was immediate. In Canada, cannabis is part of public discourse, policy development, and even social culture. In Japan, even the word is whispered. Enforcement is strict, social tolerance is low, and every interaction is filtered through layers of caution. The contrast was not just legal, but also cultural. Having just come from Toronto’s conference halls, I could see how Japan’s approach reflects a different philosophy entirely: patient, deliberate, and deeply conscious of social cohesion. Where Canada’s approach has been expansive and fast-moving, Japan’s feels like the measured heat of an onsen, with careful preparation, slow absorption, and respect for the process.
Tokyo is not just a city; it’s a living system. More than 30 million people move through it daily with a level of coordination that feels almost choreographed—have you seen the Shibuya Crossing, often referred to as the “Shibuya scramble”? The Shinjuku Ward is widely recognized as one of the most intensely dense and bustling urban places on Earth. Trains arrive on the second. Streets are largely immaculate, and there are rarely trash cans anywhere to be found in public! Courtesy is ambient. You are constantly aware that you are being observed, but not in a hostile way, but in a communal one. Behavior matters here.
That awareness becomes especially pronounced if you come from a cannabis culture, like the United States.
Cannabis in a Culture of Restraint
Despite Japan being one of the world’s largest consumers of tobacco, you rarely see anyone smoking in public. Smoking on the street is prohibited or discouraged in many areas. Instead, smokers retreat into sealed, ventilated rooms—often without windows—where the act is hidden away, compartmentalized, and controlled. Those rooms are actually perfect for catching a ‘puff,’ but that is another story for another day.
Cannabis exists even further outside of public life. No one smokes openly. No one jokes about it casually. No dispensaries. No smell. No visible cannabis counterculture. Now, there were several exceptions to this rule; these were so-called CBD dispensaries, such as “Chillaxy,” which primarily sold converted cannabinoids and hemp derivatives. But marijuana was an elusive concept in Tokyo. Cannabis in Japan is not merely illegal; it is stigmatized. It is treated not like alcohol or tobacco, but like a hard drug; something dangerous, shameful, and career-ending. Possession arrests still make national news.
This cultural backdrop shaped everything about JIHE 2025. The Japanese International Hemp Expo was carefully, deliberately focused on hemp. Industrial hemp. Wellness hemp. Historical hemp. Hemp textiles. Medicinal research pathways. This was not a loophole, but a strategy.
The exhibition floor featured CBD products formulated to comply with Japan’s zero-THC expectations, innovative vape technologies designed for legal cannabinoids, hemp textiles and clothing, building materials, cosmetics, and nutraceuticals. Every booth felt precise, intentional, and well thought out.
What struck me wasn’t what was missing, but how much was present, given the constraints.
Japan has a long and underappreciated hemp history, and JIHE leaned into that truth with quiet confidence. Hemp, which is known as ‘asa,’ has been cultivated in Japan for thousands of years, woven into everyday life, spiritual practice, and national identity. Shinto priests still use hemp fibers in purification rituals; sacred ropes (‘shimenawa’) hung at shrines are traditionally made from hemp, symbolizing cleanliness, protection, and the boundary between the human and the divine. For centuries, hemp clothing was common, durable, and practical—especially in rural communities—valued not for intoxication, but for utility, resilience, and spiritual neutrality. In this context, hemp was never countercultural. It was foundational.
What many forget—particularly outside Japan—is that cannabis prohibition here is not ancient or organic; it is relatively modern. Japan’s restrictive cannabis laws largely took shape after World War II, influenced by U.S.-led occupation policies that collapsed distinctions between hemp and psychoactive cannabis into a single prohibited category. In doing so, a plant with deep agricultural and religious roots was recast as a social threat. JIHE, in many ways, felt like a careful act of historical restoration. This was not an attempt to provoke reform, but an effort to remind Japan of what it already knows. Hemp, framed correctly, is not a foreign idea returning home; it is a native one waiting to be remembered.
In that sense, Japan’s relationship with hemp feels less like a revolution and more like a refrain—I’ve been all around this world—and sometimes the future sounds most familiar when it echoes the past. The expo felt like a place where that memory was being carefully reawakened.
Photo courtesy of Yuika Takamura via Unsplash
Reform Without Provocation
The JIHE speaker lineup reflected the maturity of the conversation. These were not provocateurs. They were translators between cultures, legal systems, and futures.
Aaron Justus delivered a measured, regulatory-forward discussion of cannabinoids and compliance, speaking directly to the Japanese instinct for rules and structure. His message was clear: legitimacy comes from precision.
Sergyei Kovalenkov explored the industrial uses of hemp and building materials.
Morris Beegle brought cultural context and sustainability into the conversation, reminding attendees that hemp has always been about more than products, but about systems, communities, and long-term stewardship.
Paul Benhaim, one of the original architects of the modern hemp industry, offered a historical and economic perspective that felt particularly appropriate in Japan, where legacy and credibility matter deeply.
Riccardo Longato, founder and CEO of Clear, brought a message about technology, standards, and certification requirements.
Mariana Larrea discussed stigma, medicine, and patients, grounding the discussion in human outcomes rather than abstract policy.
Joining them was Olivia Ekenuwke, a German cannabis lawyer whose comparative legal analysis highlighted how Europe has navigated reform through incrementalism, court challenges, and patient-first frameworks. Her presence underscored an important truth: Japan is not alone in taking a cautious path, but it must eventually take a path.
Attiyah Ferrouz was also present, contributing insight on compliance and international hemp policy, rounding out a truly global conversation.
Ryan Bellone brought a message of considering cannabinoids as ingredients and highlighted the global cannabinoid ingredient supply chain.
And weaving through it all was the presence of Laura Ramos, an international cannabis journalist whose reporting continues to document these inflection points as they happen, not after the fact. Witnesses matter.
Many of the speakers—including several of those above—had just participated in the Asian Hemp Expo in Bangkok. The geographical proximity between Japan and Thailand makes the contrast impossible to ignore.
A Regional Contrast
Thailand’s cannabis journey has been fast, loud, and at times chaotic. Legalization cracked open cultural doors almost overnight. Cannabis is visible, commercial, and woven into daily life in ways that would be unthinkable in Japan.
But Thailand is now in a recalibration phase. Regulation is tightening. Medical frameworks are being reasserted. The free-for-all is giving way to structure. But that structure has led to the production of some of the world’s finest cannabis, which is being grown, in large part, for export. Jordan Tyler Herring, the visionary and dynamic leader of Hidden Valley Genetics Thailand, brought his California-based experience to Southeast Asia, which serves as a model for how things should be done. But I digress…
Japan, by contrast, hasn’t cracked at all. Instead, it is studying. Observing. Learning.
That difference was formally acknowledged just days before JIHE, during an event at the Thai Embassy in Tokyo, where officials and industry representatives announced a cooperative framework between Japan and Thailand for the continued development of the hemp industry. The symbolism was powerful: two countries, vastly different in cannabis policy, finding common ground through hemp. At the Embassy, Patrick Atagi, of the U.S. National Industrial Hemp Council, delivered a somber talk at the very moment the U.S. Congress had enacted a Resolution to effectively ban hemp derivatives in the U.S.
While Thailand offers a glimpse of what rapid reform looks like, Japan offers a lesson in patience.
In Tokyo, I was so fortunate to meet Satoshi Morimoto. One of the most memorable people I met went simply by his Instagram handle: @mr_japanese_cannabis. He was thoughtful. Soft-spoken. Fully aware of the risks inherent in even being publicly associated with the plant in Japan. He wasn’t loud. He didn’t posture. He connected people quietly, deliberately, like someone who understands that progress here happens in inches, not miles. He hosted a bunch of us one evening at his friend’s karaoke club (there are possibly 100,000 karaoke clubs in Tokyo, by the way), where songs were sung in English, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, and everything in between.
At one point during my travels, someone discreetly gifted me a small amount of cannabis. It wasn’t very good, but that wasn’t the point. What mattered was the warning that came with it:
“Do not smoke this anywhere someone might see or smell.”
It wasn’t paranoia. It was protection.
In that moment, the abstract idea of stigma became concrete. This wasn’t about enforcement alone, but it was about social consequence. In Japan, shame can be as powerful as law.
Japan’s Cannabis Control Act remains one of the strictest in the developed world. THC is prohibited. Possession arrests are aggressively prosecuted. In 2026, Japan is transitioning towards a new framework for medical cannabis—a pharma-like model—following the passage of legislation in late 2023, which aims to legalize cannabis-derived medicines while strengthening penalties for illegal recreational use. CBD exists only when it is demonstrably THC-free.
Hemp cultivation is permitted under narrow licensing schemes, with strict oversight and limited research pathways. Reform discussions exist, but they move slowly, shaped by cultural conservatism and a deep-seated fear of social disruption.
And yet, the irony is unavoidable: Japan is one of the most orderly societies on earth. If any country could manage cannabis responsibly, it would be this one. But that seems like a faraway sunshine daydream.
Japan as a Masterclass of Intention
Outside the conference halls, Japan was endlessly rewarding. The food alone felt like a masterclass in intention. Sushi that redefined freshness. Yakitori eaten standing in alleyways. Tempura so light it seemed to disappear. Even convenience stores offered meals better than many American restaurants. Eating the multi-course Kaiseki dinners, which seemed to never end.
We were once asked to leave at least one restaurant because of strong perfume scent, which apparently, is a recognized, albeit strict, consequence of violating Japanese dining etiquette. Who knew?! One of my favorites was a ramen counter in an alley that bordered on a spiritual experience.
The sake was always exceptional; it’s clean, complex, ceremonial. Like everything else, it was consumed with care.
Traveling across the country on high-speed trains was a revelation. Silent, smooth, precise. The subways of Tokyo were works of art in efficiency.
We visited Hakone, with its surreal gardens and mountainous scenery, and where the nearby views of Mount Fuji felt unreal; almost like a painting refusing to move. But Hakone offered more than scenery; it offered insight. Soaking in the hot springs there while immersed in onsen culture, wearing a traditional kimono, and moving deliberately through spaces governed by ritual and restraint, I began to understand Japan’s regulatory psyche in a way no policy memo ever could.
The Onsen Theory of Change
An onsen is not something you rush. You do not enter it abruptly. You prepare. You wash. You wait. You respect the space, the people around you, and the accumulated wisdom that says timing matters. And don’t be late for your dinner time, or they will come into your room and get you! And the hot pools, where you need to ease into the temperature slowly, or else!
That, it struck me, is Japan’s relationship with hemp…and eventually cannabis.
Where other jurisdictions plunge headlong into reform, Japan is testing the temperature. Hemp is the warm water at the edge of the pool. Regulation is the preparation. Social trust is the gatekeeper. The process is slow by design, not by ignorance. Change here is not meant to be disruptive; it is meant to be absorbed—much like the sixteen-course dinners!
Standing there, wrapped in a kimono, steam rising into the cold mountain air, I realized that Japan may not be behind, but it may simply be waiting until the conditions are right for the body politic to enter without harm. Reform, like the onsen, will come when it can be sustained, not merely survived. Kyoto was a lesson in reverence: temples, torii gates, geisha history, and layers of history that demanded quiet attention.
And everywhere—no cannabis. No smoke. No scent. No signal.
Playing the Long Game
Looking forward, Japan will change. It always has, but never on anyone else’s clock.
Hemp will continue to lead the way, quietly expanding the perimeter of what is culturally and politically acceptable. Medical necessity will slowly develop, introduced not through activism but through evidence. Science will open doors that rhetoric cannot. And when cannabis reform finally arrives in Japan, it will not look like California, Colorado, or Thailand. It will look Japanese.
Thailand, for its part, will continue to mature, moving from exuberant liberalization toward equilibrium and structure. The initial shock has passed. What remains is the harder work of governance. The two countries, now formally cooperating on hemp development, represent opposite ends of the cannabis reform spectrum, but together they sketch the future of cannabis in Asia: diverse, non-linear, and deeply shaped by culture.
JIHE 2025 was not about rebellion. It was about respect…for history, for law, for social cohesion, and for the long game.
As an American, that was both humbling and instructive. We are accustomed to speed, scale, and disruption. Japan reminds us that legitimacy is built differently—and sometimes more durably—when change is allowed to steep.
There is far more to discover here. And when the light finally shifts in Japan, it will do so quietly at first, until, suddenly, it is everywhere.
This article is from an external, unpaid contributor. It does not represent High Times’ reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy.
In this episode we were nominally talking about the rise of the influencer shaman, retreats and money money money but as always it’s psychedelics so off we head on various tangents.
But those tangents are leading to the same conclusion time again in my conversations with many of those have played a part in the USA’s 20th & 21st century psychedelic history and they are all saying the same thing.
Putting these compounds in boxes and try to make money out of them is not a wise path for humanity
Ilike writing about aspects of the psychedelic ecosystem, as well as interviewing people who I find interesting. I don’t consider myself a journalist in the classic sense simply because I am not objective. I have too many opinions and frequently sprinkle them throughout my work.
I’ve become aware of a troubling trend in the rise of a new breed of content creators: psychedelic journalists who are not only reporting on psychedelic issues but are also rapidly becoming high-profile influencers.
Historically, journalism has served as a critical, objective lens through which the public understands complex issues. In the realm of psychedelics, the past decade has seen an explosion of reporting on clinical trials, personal narratives, retreat centers, and policy reform. The digital age has blurred the boundaries between journalism and social media influence. Some journalists are now building personal brands, amassing large followings, and being tempted to monetize their platforms and receive other benefits without transparency. This shift is particularly pronounced in the psychedelic sphere, where the line between reporting, advocacy, and self-promotion is increasingly indistinct.
Now don’t get me wrong, for I am not without sin. I would love to be offered a free 7-day ibogaine retreat or a comped berth on the recent 9-day Wonder Cruise to Antarctica, where I could rub elbows with the likes of Paul Stamets and Rick Doblin. After all, not having to pay a fee that went as high as $24,000 would be pretty tempting for any journalist. But it just might be crossing the line if anything I subsequently reported did not reveal that I was receiving a benefit and special treatment.
The influencer economy thrives on sensationalism and personal stories. In the context of psychedelics, this often translates into glowing testimonials, dramatic before-and-after accounts, and bold claims regarding healing or enlightenment. While personal narratives can be compelling and relatable, they are not a substitute for rigorous, evidence-based reporting.
Many individuals seeking information on psychedelics are vulnerable, grappling with treatment-resistant depression, PTSD, addiction, or existential distress. For these audiences, the difference between responsible journalism and influencer promotion is not merely academic, it can be a matter of safety. When journalists become influencers, their words carry added weight, and any misrepresentation or omission can have real-world consequences.
Ethical journalism demands a duty of care to the audience, especially when reporting on substances that can profoundly impact mental health. Influencer culture, by contrast, often prioritizes engagement and growth over caution and nuance. This fundamental tension is at the heart of the danger posed by the rise of psychedelic journalists as influencers.
The Temptation of Shilling
‘Shilling’ is defined as promotion without revealing the personal gain received. In the psychedelic world, this most commonly occurs when a well-known figure succumbs to the temptation to report on some aspects of the ‘psychedelic renaissance.’ The danger to journalists is the loss of credibility. When bias, based upon a system of reward, creeps into the picture, the validity of that journalist is diminished. There is also danger that content, influenced by creators, is relied upon by the public who have no idea that there is an underlying spin, conscious or not, tainting the message.
Jim has been involved in healthcare for more than 50 years. He first encountered psychedelics during the Summer of Love in 1967. He has been thinking about them ever since.
Gareth Prince, the legal activist whose name is reflected in the historic Prince Judgement legalising cannabis in 2018, is planning to challenge the constitutionality of the Cannabis Act in court. Prince tells Cannabiz Africa that he is not going to make any input on the draft regulations on the Act, saying he does not intend ‘legitimising an unlawful process”. Prince, who is CDCSA chairperson, said that authorities should expect a formal court challenge against various cannabis-related protocols and regulations in South Africa.
The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (CCC)1 established the delivery exclusivity (DE)2 period to promote equity for communities historically harmed by the “war on drugs.” For this work, the “war on drugs” is understood as a set of U.S. government policies starting in the 1970s aimed at strictly monitoring and sanctioning the illegal drug trade and illegal drug use.
This overarching policy is often criticized for disproportionate enforcement in urban and lowincome areas, particularly among Black and Hispanic communities. The DE program aims to create a viable pathway into the cannabis market for those individuals impacted by the heightened drug prohibition enforcement during this period.
The policy states that delivery-type licenses, which provide a lower barrier of entry compared to more capital-intensive licenses such as retail and cultivation, will only be awarded to businesses with majority ownership comprised of Social Equity Program (SEP) or Economic Empowerment Program (EEP) participants. In turn, the SEP and EEP programs are reserved for those who have been disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs, based on various requirements such as living in disproportionately impacted communities, or having a criminal justice history related to the prohibition of marijuana, among other requirements. The terms disproportionately harmed and disproportionately impacted thus appear throughout this report to describe the population targeted for the delivery exclusivity policy.
These delivery license types were inspired by delivery service models used in other industries, such as Uber Eats or Amazon.com, where drivers deliver goods directly to consumers without the need for a traditional brick and mortar outlet. While home delivery was already allowed under the Commonwealth’s medical marijuana program, the first recreational-use Massachusetts delivery businesses were launched in July 2021.
Massachusetts has three main delivery types associated with the DE program. The marijuana courier license was designed for delivery businesses to partner with existing retailers and deliver a dispensary’s products. The delivery operator license allows businesses to purchase wholesale and store products in a warehouse, to then deliver directly to consumers from their own supply.
The delivery endorsement is a designation that allows marijuana microbusinesses to engage in delivery, as well. The exclusivity period began on the date the first Delivery Operator received a notice to commence operations.3 The delivery exclusivity period was set for a three-year period starting on April 1, 2022 and concluding on April 1, 2025. The CCC voted in March 2025 to extend the exclusivity period for another 12 months, until April 1, 2026.4
For several decades, psychedelic mushrooms were considered nothing more than hallucinogenic drugs. Magic mushrooms, as they were fondly referred to, were treated as a symbol of counterculture for most of the 20th century.
Ironically, psychedelic mushrooms were used by Indigenous cultures for rituals and ceremonies. Most notably, they were used by the Mexican Mazatec people, but other cultures also widely used mushrooms for divination, spiritual insight, and healing. The medicinal and therapeutic benefits of magic mushrooms were known long before Western science began showing an interest in these fungi.
Following the War on Drugs, the modern mental health crisis that quietly began in the 2000s was a catalyst for change. With more people suffering from PTSD, depression, anxiety, and addiction than ever, we began to realize that conventional psychiatric tools and SSRIs were not working for everyone. We needed something better
But these days, magic mushrooms are highly prized for their medical value.
And there’s a lot of established research to back it up.
Scientific Interest In Psilocybin Mushrooms Is Gaining Ground
Yale University is one of the pioneering institutions in psilocybin research. So much so that they have their own multidisciplinary program dedicated to studying the effects of psychedelic agents and their therapeutic potential. They are currently running several psilocybin clinical trials, to better learn about its effects on various aspects of mental health, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic headaches, and cluster headaches,among others.
Recently, the results of studies conducted by researchers from the Yale Program for Psychedelic Science revealed fascinating results. The investigators wanted to learn more about its potential benefits on mental health and psychiatric disorders. According to Christopher Pittenger, director of the School of Medicine’s Program for Psychedelic Science: “We’re also interested in how psilocybin and other psychedelic drugs affect the brain in both animal and human studies, and in what their dramatic effects can tell us about normal brain function and the relationship between brain activity and mental experience,” he tells the News.
Pittenger studied psilocybin’s effects on obsessive-compulsive disorder, or OCD. After which, he found that participants felt disoriented and had sensations altered, but powerful emotions and feelings of connection were reduced. He also noted that some participants reported having religious experiences.
“While under the influence of psilocybin, people can be quite vulnerable, both physically and emotionally,” he added. “Some psilocybin ‘trips’ can be emotionally quite overwhelming, and this can have enduring negative consequences.” For Pittenger, there is an opportunity here: he and his team work to assist research participants to reduce bad experiences and turn them into positive ones.
The ability of psilocybin to induce spiritual or religious types of experiences is well-known. Many users often describe it as a truly meaningful experience, and they aren’t just imagined: they are also well-documented in science, evident through changes in brain activity, self-awareness, and perception.
Barriers to Research
However, Pittenger discusses the barriers to research. More current as well as future studies are certainly needed to better understand the effects of psilocybin, but since doing so requires approval from several regulatory bodies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and various review boards, it can feel almost impossible. The regulatory burden impedes progress in research, especially when it comes to helping us better understand how it can be used to treat different psychiatric disorders.
The Link Between Spirituality and Mental Health
While there are so many interesting things to learn, one of them is the link between magic mushrooms’ spiritual effects, which are the same mechanisms that can drive mental health benefits. For example, several mental health disorders, especially OCD, anxiety, and depression, are triggered by a pattern of negative thinking and extreme self-focus.
But psilocybin can quiet the ego by reducing harsh inner dialogue, extreme self-judgment, and fixed identity narratives.
Additionally, during a good trip, it’s common for individuals to experience lovely feelings of awe. It can be compared to feeling small in the large universe we live in, which thus helps reduce our stress hormones and improves overall emotional regulation.
Psilocybin can also change time perception. This is a great help for trauma victims, who usually feel stuck in time, constantly replaying traumatic events as if they’re still happening. With psilocybin therapy, victims can learn to move beyond the traumatic experience, even replaying the painful memory without the same emotional charge.
Thanks to the work of Yale University and other institutions, we’re slowly but surely getting a better understanding of psilocybin. We know for certain that it addresses many unmet needs in modern mental health.
CONCLUSION
This growing body of research makes it clear that psilocybin is no longer a fringe substance associated with merely getting high.
The work of institutions such as Yale University is doing incredible work in reintroducing psilocybin to the world of modern medicine with an emphasis on patient safety, and with critical guardrails in place, such as ethical oversight and scientific rigor.
Since magic mushrooms work by quieting negative self-thought loops, dissolving the ego, and softening strict images of self-identity, it represents a novel approach to mental health treatment. Instead of working to numb symptoms or require daily use, psilocybin may be effective with just a few doses, leading to lasting psychological change.
That said, we must keep discussing the significance of policy reform to stay in pace. We need to reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers that will speed up research and minimize risk.
Most commentary on the “hemp ban” included in the November funding bill has focused on two related questions: (1) which products and activities may become unlawful on November 12, 2026; and (2) whether Congress will materially amend or delay the ban before then.
I recently discussed another consequence operators should be considering as the deadline approaches: bankruptcy eligibility. But focusing only on insolvency planning misses a much more immediate operational problem: inventory.
Many hemp operators are currently holding large volumes of unsold material. At the same time, portions of the domestic cannabinoid manufacturing sector are already contracting. Some manufacturers are shutting down, others are reducing intake, and many are unlikely to purchase new raw material as November approaches. The closer we get to November without any change or extension to the law, the more unsold inventory will be at risk of destruction rather than sale. The predictable result is that a significant amount of compliant hemp may have no viable domestic buyer before the legal landscape changes.
There is, however, a potential solution receiving far less attention than it should: exporting that material to markets where demand still exists.
Why November 12 creates a domestic market failure
The November 12 deadline is not just a regulatory change. It is a market-structure event.
If the law takes effect as written, hemp plant material exceeding the new statutory threshold of 0.4 mg of total THC will effectively become unlawful to transport across state lines. In addition, operators in states without a closed-loop internal (intrastate) hemp market may be unable to participate in local commerce at all. Even for material cultivated lawfully beforehand, downstream purchasers will not want to hold inventory that may soon become legally risky to process, store, transport, or resell. Businesses operating in states without intrastate markets will be particularly exposed, and even robust state markets are likely to prioritize in-state sourcing to ensure supply stability after November 12.
For operators whose business model depends on interstate distribution, this creates a classic end-of-regulatory-cycle dynamic:
processors stop buying
manufacturers draw down existing inventory
wholesalers delay purchases
prices collapse
cultivators hold unsold stock
In other words, the problem for many operators will not be compliance but liquidity. Starting material that was lawful to grow may simply become commercially stranded.
Why the EU matters
Unlike the rapidly changing U.S. consumable hemp market, many European Union jurisdictions regulate hemp differently. Several EU countries permit the importation of raw hemp plant material. Once imported, goods may circulate within the EU and, in some cases, move into non-EU markets such as the United Kingdom.
These markets often value U.S. hemp for consistency and production scale. As domestic U.S. demand contracts, lawful foreign demand may still exist, but primarily for certain categories of raw material.
Important limits
This strategy is narrow and operators should understand its boundaries.
The opportunity primarily concerns:
hemp flower
hemp biomass
hemp kief
It does not apply to:
finished products
consumable goods, especially those that contain any measurable amounts of THC
vapes, edibles, or retail extracts
It also does not address exporting THCa plant material. That presents a separate and substantially higher-risk legal analysis involving both U.S. enforcement interpretation and destination-country controlled-substance law.
The discussion here concerns exporting raw agricultural hemp material, not cannabinoid consumer products.
Why timing matters
The operational point is straightforward: the legal window may close before many operators act. After November 12, exporting hemp plant material that no longer qualifies as federally lawful hemp will become unlawful, even if the crop was cultivated prior to the deadline. Once the material is treated as non-compliant cannabis under federal law, cross-border shipment, even between U.S. states, becomes problematic simultaneously under federal controlled substances law, customs export procedures, carrier policies, and foreign import certification requirements.
At that stage, inventory may not merely be unsellable but effectively immovable.
The practical implications
The industry has been treating November 12 primarily as a future compliance date. For many operators, it is more accurately a sales deadline.
If, by late summer or early fall, domestic processors shift to in-state sourcing or stop purchasing raw material altogether, cultivators may be left holding product that was lawful when grown but has no viable domestic buyer before the regulatory change takes effect.
Exporting to the EU or other countries may therefore function as a bridge strategy – a way to monetize inventory that might otherwise go unsold. Unlike restructuring strategies, this approach cannot wait for legislative certainty. Exporting agricultural material requires documentation, phytosanitary compliance, logistics planning, import-country regulatory verification, customs coordination, and buyers. Each step requires lead time, and the regulatory deadline is fixed.
Start planning now
Congress may amend the law, delay implementation, or do nothing. Operators should not base operational strategy on legislative uncertainty. If the deadline remains, the purchasing slowdown will likely begin well before November 12, meaning the practical deadline for selling inventory may arrive months earlier.
For some hemp businesses, the question is no longer simply whether they can remain compliant after November. It is whether they can convert existing inventory into revenue before the market disappears.
If you interested in learning more about exporting hemp material, corporate structuring, regulatory compliance, or evaluating how the November 12 deadline may affect your operations, please contact me to discuss your specific situation.
The founder of Culinary & Cannabis didn’t wait for the industry to make room for her. She built her own.
For decades, cannabis was a weapon. A pretext for prejudice, a set of handcuffs dressed up as public safety, a battering ram through the front doors of Black and Brown homes.
The communities that got hit hardest by that weapon are the same ones the legal industry now courts with marketing budgets and influencer campaigns, while the damage done and the dollars chased exist in the same breath, with almost no reckoning in between.
Most people who understood what that weapon did stayed the hell away from anything connected to it, but Tamara Anderson walked straight toward it—RN badge and pastry knife in hand—and decided to turn the whole damn thing inside out.
Before she was running luxury cannabis wellness events across Southern California. Before shipping DIY topical kits to pandemic-locked strangers who needed something to do with their hands besides washing them in fear. Before commanding rooms at Grammy Week with CBD massages and trauma-informed healing conversations—
She was watching people get sick.
Not from cannabis. Sick from the medicine that was supposed to help them.
Eleven years on the administrative and financial side of healthcare before nursing school, watching insurance adjusters decide who got cared for and who deserved to rust on the wrong side of a deductible. Anderson watched, up close, what long-term pharmaceutical “treatments” actually did to a human body.
In some cases, that was liver damage or addiction, even changes in personality. The slow, grinding cost of being managed rather than healed.
“From the very start of my nursing career,” Anderson says, “it has been my mission to change the way we approach healthcare.”
She tried to change it from inside the system first. But she quickly realized, somewhere between the machinery and the bureaucracy, the human element got swallowed up whole.
It always does. Systems aren’t built accidentally.
So Anderson did what you do when someone decides you’re not worthy of a seat at their table.
She built her own table. And made it beautiful enough that people cross state lines for a seat.
Photo courtesy of Emily EizenPhoto courtesy of Emily Eizen
Luxury as a Political Act
Culinary & Cannabis isn’t a dispensary or a weed brand. It isn’t even an app, and everything is an app these days. Life is an app. Anderson calls Culinary & Cannabis an “all-sensory interactive cannabis event production company,” which, while accurate, doesn’t fully capture what it feels like to walk into one of her spaces.
“Like being inside a flower while it’s growing,” is how she puts it. “It’s one of the most relaxing environments you’ll ever experience… filled with options to explore.”
Every station is doing something different. Eucalyptus and cedar. Sound bowls humming through the floor. Someone receiving a CBD massage for the first time. Someone else asking a question they have never trusted a doctor with. You arrive guarded, skeptical, scared, or just curious. But when you’re done, you leave lighter.
Anderson engineered every inch of it.
“Clinical spaces can feel cold or intimidating, which shuts people down,” she says. “When you stage an event with luxury and beauty, it becomes a hug to the community. It creates a sense of safety where people feel comfortable asking the deep questions.”
Anderson carves out rooms where trauma-informed healing conversations for communities of color happen in the same breath as sound baths and bodywork, and people carrying centuries of generational weight could finally set some of it down.
We all deserve to breathe.
At a recent Grammy Week CannaSpa, more than 300 guests found that room to breathe—evidence of just how hungry people are for spaces built with care.
Photo courtesy of The Bryce StudioPhoto courtesy of The Bryce Studio
The Industry Was Never Progressive
Cannabis luxury spaces aren’t built for Black people by default. Hell, cannabis spaces, period, weren’t built for Black people. They were built on the prosecution of Black people. The War on Drugs used cannabis asone of the central tools of Black community destruction for fifty years.
Fifty years of documented policy, documented arrests, documented destruction. The receipts are everywhere.
The “legal industry” that followed moved ridiculously fast to extract record profits and painfully slow to address the damage it was built on.
Anderson knows all of this. It’s etched into her bones. And she builds against it in every detail.
When she launched Culinary & Cannabis, she didn’t show her face publicly until about a month before the first major event, because she knew what it would cost her if they saw her coming.
If they clocked her first.
“I didn’t want the industry’s internal biases to stop brands, chefs, or consumers from walking through the door.”
Read that again.
A Black woman had to obscure her presence to give her own event a fair shot at success in an industry that markets itself as progressive. The sophistication required to navigate that without bitterness—to build when the industry is rooting for you to fail, to create something beautiful despite reality checking you at every turn—is a kind of emotional intelligence most people never have to develop.
Most people would have walked away bitter as hell. Anderson built a spa.
“As a woman of color, I know that in every room I enter, I have to bring a level of excellence that is undeniable just to be considered. That’s not just a challenge; for me, it’s a daily practice.”
Photo courtesy of The Bryce StudioPhoto courtesy of The Bryce Studio
No Blaming the Oven
Anderson came up as a pastry chef.
Baking is pure science. There is no “eyeballing it.” The chemistry either works or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, the soufflé doesn’t rise. Cannabis infusion demands the same precision—specific measurements, controlled temperatures, exact dosing—and Anderson applies the same obsessive rigor to both.
There’s no blaming the oven.
It gives her credibility in a space still lousy with people who treat cannabis cooking like a vibe.
It also shapes the way she teaches. When you’ve spent years understanding that the difference between a perfect result and a failed one is knowing the why behind every step—why the butter needs to be cold, why the temperature matters, why you can’t rush the process—you stop accepting “just try it and see what happens” as a teaching philosophy.
Anderson doesn’t hand people cannabis and wish them luck. She builds the context first. The science. The history. The ritual. Then the experience.
Her target audience is the “canna-curious”, the person who hasn’t touched this plant, or hasn’t touched it since a bad experience in someone’s garage or basement twenty years ago. She calls Culinary & Cannabis “the re-entry event.” And the skin she wants people to shed when they walk out is the stoner stigma.
Lose the fear of losing control.
“I want them to replace those old assumptions with a personal relationship with the plant.”
The clinical world, the insurance world, the pharmaceutical world—none of them traffic in personal relationships. They traffic in protocols. Anderson’s model is the opposite. Completely, deliberately, the opposite.
She meets people where they are, inside spaces that feel like smoke-wrapped gifts rather than sterile waiting rooms.
Photo courtesy of The Bryce StudioPhoto courtesy of The Bryce Studio
The Guest List Was Never Made for Her
On Black entrepreneurship in cannabis, she doesn’t mince words.
“My honest assessment is that we are still largely on the outskirts of the mainstream industry.”
Equity programs? A few are genuine. Most are press releases dressed up as penance. The gap between what those programs promise and what they deliver is where people like Anderson land. Into necessity. The only place where something real gets built.
Every equity program that substitutes a press photo for actual access should have to answer for that gap. Anderson didn’t wait around for any of them to figure it out.
What she built is, by her own design, intentionally inclusive—POC-centered, everyone welcome.
The hug you get when you walk through those doors was never something workshopped in a conference room by someone in a bad suit with an even worse toupee. It just exists, the way warmth exists in a room someone actually gave a damn about building.
Photo courtesy of Emily Eizen
The Woman the Industry Has to Reckon With
The nurse. The pastry chef. The educator who shipped supplies to strangers’ doorsteps during a pandemic because people needed to be doing more than just surviving. The event producer who built luxury healing spaces in an industry that has spent decades either ignoring or exploiting the communities she serves and platforms.
The recent CannaSpa Wellness Lounge also marked a personal milestone: it was Anderson’s first major event following her own battle with cancer, a chapter that sharpened her commitment to intentional self-care and community-centered healing.
All of it in service of the same mission she’s carried since before nursing school: change the way we approach care, and who gets it. Change what it feels like to receive it.
Culinary & Cannabis is growing fast—expanding into North America, the UK, Australia, Asia. People everywhere are tired of clinical apathy, tired of being managed by a system that was never designed to actually make them well, tired of existing inside machines that were architected, from the jump, to exclude them.
DOWNLOAD FOR FREE AT PODOMATIC https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/karmakoalapodcast/episodes/2026-02-24T23_48_30-08_00 We dive in with Steve again and that wonderful age of innocence combined with India, European travels and back to the US to start high school and the discovery of you know what ! Euro Travels Photos
On December 18, 2025, the White House issued an executive order aimed at modernizing US policy on medical marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD).¹ The order emphasized expanding research, improving safety, and initiating regulatory reform.
For pharmacists, the announcement reopened a familiar concern. Cannabis remains one of the few therapeutic agents widely used by patients without pharmacist oversight, standardized dispensing, or routine medication management. This raises a critical question: If cannabis is used as medicine, how should it actually be delivered to patients?
Canada faced this same question nearly a decade ago. Its experience offers a cautionary case study for US policy makers and for the pharmacy profession.
A Cautionary Case Study From Canada
In 2016, Canada expanded nationwide access to medical cannabis under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.2 At the time, I was working at Shoppers Drug Mart, Canada’s largest pharmacy retailer, focusing on new health care ventures. I am a licensed pharmacist by training, and I later launched and led a national medical cannabis distribution platform under the Shoppers banner.
Like many pharmacists, I was initially skeptical of cannabis as a therapeutic agent. That skepticism began to change as I met patients and caregivers managing severe, treatment-resistant conditions. One story that profoundly shaped my thinking was that of Charlotte Figi, a child with Dravet syndrome, a rare and catastrophic form of epilepsy characterized by hundreds of seizures per week. Conventional therapies failed her, but a CBD-based cannabis extract significantly reduced her seizures. Although initially anecdotal, cases like Figi’s later aligned with emerging clinical and preclinical evidence, an association subsequently recognized by federal research bodies including the National Institutes of Health.³ What stood out was not only the therapy’s potential but also the system failure surrounding access. Families were forced to navigate legal uncertainty, inconsistent product quality, and minimal clinical oversight to obtain treatment.
Canada’s decision to federally legalize medical cannabis was significant and, in many ways, forward-thinking. However, the regulatory framework excluded pharmacists from direct patient care, a decision that carried lasting consequences.
Medical Access Without Medical Care
In 2018, Canada legalized recreational cannabis under the Cannabis Act.4 Many health care professionals expected this shift to finally integrate pharmacies into medical cannabis distribution. That did not happen.
Physicians remained unable to write prescriptions for cannabis. Instead, they issued medical documents, authorizations to purchase cannabis that lacked standardized information on dosing, formulation, route of administration, or therapeutic intent. Patients were still required to purchase products directly from licensed producers, by mail, without pharmacist involvement.
At the same time, recreational cannabis became widely available through retail storefronts and online platforms, often with extended hours and faster access. Predictably, many patients, particularly those managing chronic pain, nausea, or neurologic symptoms, began bypassing the medical system altogether. Convenience replaced clinical oversight.
Cannabis, however, is not a benign consumer product for many patients. Appropriate use requires guidance on dosing, drug interactions, contraindications, and adverse effects—areas routinely managed by pharmacists across other therapeutic categories (see Figure 1).
Figure 1.5,6 Cannabis drug interactions, contraindications, and side effects
What Pharmacist-Led Care Made Possible
Within our platform, we attempted to fill the gap left by regulation. Because cannabis could not be dispensed through pharmacies, we operated through e-commerce channels and staffed our patient support operations with licensed pharmacists. Patients could speak directly with a pharmacist about dosing strategies, routes of administration, adverse effects, and potential drug interactions. Pharmacists routinely advised against smoking or inhalation, instead recommending oral or sublingual formulations that offered more predictable pharmacokinetics and reduced respiratory risk. We also applied pharmaceutical quality standards in a category that largely lacked them, reviewing manufacturer claims, assessing batch consistency, and prioritizing dosage forms aligned with Good Manufacturing Practices.
This experience reinforced a simple truth: When pharmacists are involved, cannabis is treated as medicine rather than a retail commodity.
Tax Policy Accelerated the Breakdown
Canada’s tax policy further undermined the medical system. When recreational cannabis was legalized, medical cannabis was taxed at the same rate as adult-use products.7 For many patients, medically authorized cannabis became more expensive, not less.
This pricing dynamic, combined with restricted distribution models, pushed patients further toward recreational channels. Despite clear therapeutic intent, patients increasingly sourced products outside any clinical framework.
A Work-around That Proved Unsustainable
We attempted to preserve pharmacist involvement through centralized counseling models, and patients consistently valued the guidance. Pharmacist interventions most commonly involved dose titration, avoidance of inhalation routes, and identification of potential CYP-mediated drug interactions, particularly with antidepressants and antiepileptics. However, providing clinical counseling while patients accessed products through nonmedical retail channels proved economically and operationally unsustainable. Ultimately, the business was spun out, not because of lack of patient demand, but because policy design made true medical delivery impossible.
A Choice the US Can Still Make
The US now stands at a similar inflection point. Federal policy is evolving to expand research, improve safety, and modernize cannabis regulation.
The question is no longer whether cannabis should be available for medical use. The question is how it should be delivered. Pharmacists must be part of the answer.
A framework that allows pharmacists to dispense and counsel on medical cannabis would immediately raise the standard of care. It would normalize evidence-based discussions about dosing, administration routes, adverse effects, and drug interactions. It would also create natural mechanisms for ensuring labeling accuracy, manufacturing quality, and patient education, functions that pharmacists already perform daily for other controlled and noncontrolled substances.
Canada’s experience demonstrates the risks of sidelining pharmacy in medical cannabis policy. The US has the opportunity to take a different path. If cannabis is to be treated as medicine, pharmacists must be involved in delivering that care.
Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SRB. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2219-2227. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1402309
Ho JJY, Goh C, Leong CSA, Ng KY, Bakhtiar A. Evaluation of potential drug–drug interactions with medical cannabis. Clin Transl Sci. 2024;17(5):e13812. doi:10.1111/cts.13812
Unfortunately they’ve put their opinion behind a paywall so we can’t learn that much
Stakeholders flag safety concerns over “outdated, under-regulated and inadequate” unapproved medicinal cannabis framework Submissions to the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA’s) consultation: reviewing the safety and regulatory oversight of unapproved medicinal cannabis products say the current model needs reform. Stakeholders have noted the current Special Access Scheme (SAS) and Authorised Prescriber pathways are “not fit-for-purpose and not appropriate to the potential safety and
Bayo Alaba is the Labour MP for Southend East and Rochford
When Labour came to power in July 2024, we were clear about our priorities: economic growth, good jobs, energy security and meeting our climate commitments in ways that strengthen communities. The challenge today isn’t in restating those priorities; it’s in making sure the policy framework allows them to happen.
Industrial hemp is a useful case study. This isn’t some new or fringe crop. It has been legally grown in the UK for decades under licence, already used in construction, insulation, textiles, food products and bio-based applications. Yet despite its versatility and fit with what Labour is trying to achieve, the sector remains smaller than it should be. The gap between potential and delivery is why Parliamentarians need to pay attention.
Projects like the proposed hemp-based housing development at Rochford Park in my constituency illustrate what this could look like in practice: locally grown materials, lower-carbon construction, skilled local jobs and investment in places that need it. The wider point is that these are delivery questions, not theoretical ones.
Hemp sits at the heart of several of Labour’s priorities. By reviewing interest in hemp cultivation, especially in rural areas, the crop can contribute to rural development initiatives, which in turn enhances community resilience and creates new local income streams. These new income streams, for farmers and local businesses, will increase employment, green industry, apprenticeships and new skills in rural communities. And let us not forget the inevitable infrastructure that follows.
Modelling cited in recent reports and government briefings suggests that a functioning UK industrial hemp sector could add around £700 million per year to the economy within ten years, with a total market value of £1–1.3 billion by 2030. Based on the UK’s current tax-to-GDP ratio, that suggests a potential annual tax contribution of up to £500 million once fully developed. Employment projections suggest a mature industry could support 20,000 direct jobs across farming, processing, manufacturing and downstream services, and supported by a supply chain that adds an additional layer of resilience that rural communities desperately need.
Other countries, including economic competitors such as France, have integrated industrial hemp into mainstream agricultural and industrial policy. The UK has world-class research, capable farmers and supportive communities, but a regulatory environment that hasn’t kept pace.
As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Hemp Carbon Capture and Rural Development, I hear the same barriers raised repeatedly. Businesses, researchers and farmers aren’t asking for deregulation, they’re asking for clarity, proportionate regulation and alignment across government so that an already-legal sector can function properly.
Four issues come up most often.
The first is uncertainty created by the Proceeds of Crime Act. Current interpretations have had the unintended effect of deterring investors from supporting licensed hemp businesses. Not because those businesses are unlawful, but because of how cannabis-related activity is treated in anti-money-laundering frameworks. The result has been caution and uncertainty amongst potential investors in industrial hemp, despite its lawful status.
The second is the absence of a UK framework to recognise hemp’s carbon capture benefits. Research suggests that hemp crops can sequester 8–15 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per hectare per year, depending on system boundaries and management, while some conventional arable systems are net emitters. At a time when we’re rightly focused on nature-based solutions and whole-life carbon accounting, this contribution remains largely invisible in policy terms.
The third issue is a lack of clarity around biomass use. For advanced applications like sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and marine fuels, hemp is treated internationally as a whole-plant biomass crop. This reflects how energy and materials policy already treats biomass feedstocks, yet current licensing arrangements prevent value being captured from material that would otherwise be wasted.
Finally, there’s the issue of THC threshold risk. Hemp varieties are bred to remain within legal limits, but weather variability can cause marginal fluctuations. Under current rules, compliant crops can face destruction due to minor exceedances, making it harder for farmers to insure. Proportionate tolerance and testing regimes would reduce this risk while maintaining oversight.
None of these issues require headline-grabbing reform. All are solvable through evidence-based adjustments, clearer guidance and better coordination between government departments.
That’s why the APPG is bringing parliamentarians, civil servants, ministers, researchers and industry figures together at a special hemp showcase event in Westminster this week*. The aim is for attendees to see the practical applications and uses of UK hemp, from seed development and agronomy through to manufacturing and housing insulation.
Labour has been clear that economic growth and reaching net zero must go hand in hand. Our rural and farming communities need our support and industrial hemp shows how that can be achieved. But only if policy enables delivery rather than holding it back through inertia or misalignment. Governing well means supporting what already works and helping it to grow. UK hemp must be a part of that.
Cannabis and Autism: The Data Your Doctor Isn’t Telling You About
I’m going to level with you right from the start: if you’re a parent of an autistic child, you’ve already been failed by the medical establishment. Not because they’re cruel or incompetent—though some are—but because the system they operate within is designed to prioritize pharmaceutical profits over patient outcomes.
You’ve probably been offered a rotating carousel of atypical antipsychotics, each with their own delightful cocktail of side effects: weight gain, metabolic syndrome, cognitive dulling, and long-term movement disorders. You’ve been told to try behavioral therapies that cost thousands of dollars and require your child to sit still long enough to participate—which they can’t, because they’re dealing with anxiety levels that would break most adults.
And when you ask about cannabis for autism? You get the stiff arm. The concerned look. The lecture about “not enough research” and “we need more studies.”
Well, I’ve got news for your doctor: the research exists. It’s substantial. And it’s coming from places like Israel, Brazil, and major universities across the globe. The problem isn’t a lack of data—it’s a lack of willingness to challenge pharmaceutical orthodoxy.
Let me show you what they’re not telling you.
The Endocannabinoid Deficiency Nobody Talks About
Here’s something that should fundamentally change how we think about autism and cannabis: autistic children have significantly reduced plasma levels of endocannabinoids.
The endocannabinoid system (ECS) is a ubiquitous neuromodulatory network that regulates socioemotional responses, cognition, seizure susceptibility, pain perception, and neuronal plasticity. In other words, it governs precisely the areas where autistic individuals struggle most.
Clinical research has identified that children diagnosed with ASD have depleted levels of anandamide (AEA), palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), and oleoylethanolamine (OEA)—the brain’s natural cannabinoids. This isn’t speculative. This is measurable biochemical reality.
Think about what that means: we’re not talking about “getting kids high” or using cannabis as some irresponsible experiment. We’re talking about replacement therapy for a documented deficiency—the same conceptual framework we use when we give insulin to diabetics or thyroid hormone to people with hypothyroidism.
In animal models of ASD, restoring cannabinoid signaling has been shown to reverse social deficits. The brain literally functions better when the endocannabinoid system is properly calibrated.
The Excitatory/Inhibitory Imbalance and Why CBD Matters
The autistic brain typically displays a significant imbalance between excitatory glutamatergic and inhibitory GABAergic neurotransmission—what researchers call the E/I imbalance.
This imbalance is linked to the high prevalence of epilepsy in the ASD population (up to 30% of autistic individuals develop seizures) and contributes to symptoms like hyperactivity, sensory sensitivity, and cognitive rigidity.
Cannabidiol (CBD) has been demonstrated to modulate these neurotransmitter systems. Specifically, it can alter the levels of Glx (glutamate + glutamine) and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), helping to re-establish a more neurotypical balance in the brain’s signaling environment.
This isn’t about masking symptoms—it’s about addressing a fundamental neurochemical dysregulation that makes every aspect of daily life more difficult for autistic individuals.
The Israeli Data: A Decade of Real-World Evidence
Israel has been the global leader in medical cannabis research, particularly for autism. They’ve been doing what the United States refuses to do: treating patients and tracking outcomes systematically.
Early retrospective studies on 60 children treated with a 20:1 CBD:THC ratio found that behavioral outbreaks were “much improved” or “very much improved” in 61% of patients. Anxiety and communication problems improved in 39% and 47% of participants, respectively.
A larger prospective study of 188 patients showed that after six months of treatment:
30.1% reported significant improvement
53.7% reported moderate improvement
That’s 83.8% of patients seeing meaningful benefits
But here’s where it gets really interesting: the most robust evidence comes from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials—the gold standard that skeptics always demand.
The 2025 Meta-Analysis: The Science Is Settled
As of April 2025, new meta-analyses presented at the European Congress of Psychiatry synthesized data from multiple randomized, placebo-controlled trials involving 276 participants (mean age 10.5 years).
The findings were statistically significant and clinically meaningful:
Social responsiveness improvement: p < 0.01
Reduction in disruptive behavior: p = 0.02
Reduction in anxiety: p = 0.03
All compared to placebo. And here’s the kicker: adverse events did not significantly differ between the treatment and placebo groups.
Let me translate that for anyone who doesn’t speak statistics: CBD-rich cannabis extracts provide meaningful therapeutic benefits with a safety profile comparable to placebo. That’s not “needs more research”—that’s “this works and it’s safe.”
What This Looks Like in Real Life: Level 2 Autism
The DSM-5 classifies autism into three levels based on support requirements. Level 2 (Moderate) autism involves “substantial support,” characterized by marked deficits in social communication and significant difficulty coping with change.
For these families, the therapeutic aim isn’t cure—it’s stabilization. Creating a behavioral environment stable enough that the child can actually benefit from educational and behavioral interventions.
Clinical studies have specifically observed that CBD-rich treatment can significantly reduce restricted and repetitive behaviors (RRBs), particularly ritualistic and compulsive acts. This effect is often mediated by a reduction in panic and separation anxiety—as anxiety levels drop, the child’s desperate need for “sameness” behaviors also decreases.
Parents report improvements in:
Social engagement: Increased eye contact, attention, and attempts at communication
Self-care independence: Ability to dress and shower independently
Family inclusion: Participation in out-of-home social activities, ability to maintain family routines like eating and sleeping
These aren’t minor quality-of-life improvements. These are transformative changes that allow families to function.
The “Therapeutic Window” for Behavioral Therapy
Here’s something crucial that the medical establishment doesn’t want to acknowledge: for many autistic children, Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and other therapies don’t work—not because the therapies are ineffective, but because the child’s baseline anxiety, hyperactivity, and sensory sensitivity create insurmountable barriers to learning.
You can’t teach a child who’s in a constant state of physiological panic.
Cannabinoid therapy opens what researchers call a “therapeutic window”—a state of physiological calm where the child can actually engage with the therapist, respond consistently to prompts, and tolerate the demands of the learning environment.
In other words, cannabis doesn’t replace behavioral therapy—it makes behavioral therapy possible.
The Medication-Sparing Effect Nobody’s Calculating
The UK Medical Cannabis Registry, which tracks thousands of patients, has reported some fascinating data on autistic adults and children using medical cannabis:
Think about the implications of that. We’re not just talking about adding another medication to an already overwhelming regimen—we’re talking about potentially replacing multiple medications that carry significant side effects with a single, better-tolerated intervention.
The pharmaceutical industry calls this “opioid-sparing” when it happens with pain medications. When it happens with antipsychotics and benzos? They get real quiet.
The Full-Spectrum Advantage: Why Ratios Matter
Here’s where the science gets nuanced: not all cannabis products are created equal.
The “entourage effect” refers to the synergistic relationship between cannabinoids, terpenes (aromatic oils), and other plant compounds that may enhance therapeutic outcomes while reducing adverse effects. Many experts believe that full-spectrum products—typically containing a CBD:THC ratio of 20:1—provide superior results to CBD isolates.
Why? Because different cannabinoids interact with different receptor systems:
Cannabinoid
Receptor Activity
Clinical Implications in ASD
CBD
FAAH inhibitor; 5-HT₁A partial agonist
Reduction in anxiety, social avoidance, hyperactivity
THC
CB₁ and CB₂ full agonist
Management of severe aggression, self-injury, insomnia
CBDV
TRP channel modulator
Social deficits, cognitive function, repetitive behaviors
There’s even emerging evidence that terpene enrichment can address specific symptom clusters. In one documented case, a child who had become unresponsive to pure CBD during puberty saw complete elimination of aggressive events when the oil was enriched with specific anxiolytic terpenes—and they were able to reduce the CBD dose by 50%.
The Safety Profile They Don’t Want You Comparing
Let’s talk about side effects, because this is where the hypocrisy really shines.
The most commonly reported side effects of CBD-rich cannabis in autistic children are:
Somnolence and sedation (14-25% of patients)
Appetite changes
Restlessness and irritability (6.6-9%, often dose-dependent)
Mild gastrointestinal issues
Now let’s compare that to the side effect profile of Risperidone, one of the most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for autism:
Weight gain and metabolic syndrome (extremely common)
Increased risk of type 2 diabetes
Elevated prolactin levels (can cause breast development in boys)
Extrapyramidal symptoms (movement disorders)
Cognitive dulling
Increased risk of tardive dyskinesia (potentially permanent movement disorder)
The risk-benefit calculation isn’t even close. Yet doctors will prescribe Risperidone without blinking while clutching their pearls over CBD.
The International Regulatory Reality
If the research is this strong, why isn’t this standard treatment?
Because regulatory frameworks are designed to protect pharmaceutical business models, not patients.
Israel has the most established pathway: children over five who have failed standard treatments can receive permits from the Ministry of Health. The standard protocol starts at 1 mg/kg/day of CBD, titrating gradually to a target of 10 mg/kg/day.
The United Kingdom allows specialist doctors to prescribe medical cannabis when first-line treatments have failed. The results speak for themselves in their national registry.
Australia provides access through the Special Access Scheme, though most products remain technically “unapproved.”
The United States? As of late 2021, only fourteen states included autism as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis. In a country of 330 million people with 1 in 36 children diagnosed with ASD, we’ve decided that state-by-state lottery systems are an appropriate way to determine who gets access to effective medicine.
The Genetic Future: Precision Cannabinoid Medicine
The cutting edge of this research is moving toward personalized treatment based on genetic profiles.
Innovative research has found that clinical response to CBD may be influenced by methylation of specific genes, such as the Fragile X gene. Participants with full methylation in trials showed significantly decreased irritability and improved social interactions with CBD treatment compared to those without the specific genetic profile.
This suggests that genetic screening could eventually predict which ASD patients will respond best to cannabinoid interventions—the same precision medicine approach we’re already using in oncology and other fields.
What Parents Need to Know Right Now
If you’re a parent reading this, here’s the practical reality:
For Level 2 (Moderate) Autism, the data suggests that CBD-rich formulations (typically 20:1 CBD:THC ratio) can provide:
Reduction in anxiety and behavioral outbreaks
Improved cognitive flexibility
Better social engagement
Decreased need for “sameness” behaviors
Enhanced ability to participate in behavioral therapies
The typical dosing protocol starts at 1 mg/kg/day of CBD, gradually increasing to 10 mg/kg/day based on response and tolerability. This should always be done under medical supervision, preferably with a physician experienced in medical cannabis.
The side effects are generally mild and transient, and the medication-sparing potential means you may be able to reduce or eliminate other medications with far more concerning side effect profiles.
The research exists. It’s peer-reviewed, it’s statistically significant, and it’s been replicated across multiple countries and research groups.
The Sticky Bottom Line
Here’s what it comes down to: we have a documented endocannabinoid deficiency in autistic children. We have replacement therapy available. We have randomized controlled trials showing efficacy and safety. We have real-world registry data showing medication-sparing effects.
What we don’t have is a medical establishment willing to prioritize this evidence over pharmaceutical industry relationships and regulatory inertia.
The question isn’t whether cannabis works for autism—the data has answered that question. The question is how many more years families will have to fight for access to a treatment that could fundamentally improve their quality of life.
Your doctor might not tell you about this research. But now you know it exists. And that knowledge is the first step toward demanding the care your child deserves.
Bar-Lev Schleider, L., et al. (2019). “Real life Experience of Medical Cannabis Treatment in Autism: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy.” Scientific Reports. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37570-y
Silva Junior, E.A., et al. (2024). “Cannabidiol for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” European Congress of Psychiatry. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Junior, N.C.F., et al. (2022). “Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol on Anxiety and Irritability in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. https://journals.lww.com/psychopharmacology
In the last year or two, we have seen a growing number of marijuana businesses take the position that IRC 280E no longer applies to them. Some of these businesses have taken that position in consultation with lawyers and CPAs. This shift in strategy predates Trump’s Executive Order of December 18, 2025, to reschedule marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In any case, I believe this is a misreading of the law and a dangerous position for these businesses to take.
What is IRC 280E?
IRC 280E is a federal tax provision that prohibits businesses engaged in the “trafficking” of Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances from deducting ordinary and necessary business expenses on their federal tax returns. This rule applies to state-legal marijuana businesses, and it forces many of them to pay federal income tax on gross income (revenue minus cost of goods sold) rather than net income (profit). It’s harder on some businesses than others, but overall IRC 280E is a scourge for any marijuana taxpayer.
Has IRC 280E been challenged?
Yes, cannabis businesses have challenged the law repeatedly over the past decade or so, on constitutional and “as applied” grounds. We have supported those efforts, including in litigation brought by clients of this law firm. Still, I’ve explained that “except for Champ v. Commissioner, no cannabis taxpayer has won an IRC 280E case (and there have been a bunch of them).”
I stand by the statement, while acknowledging that parties have achieved limited successes via COGS adjustments and refund requests. Overall, though, courts have consistently upheld the validity of IRC 280E as applied to marijuana businesses, and they have cast aside every constitutional challenge to date. It’s just a very difficult situation.
The current litigation to watch is a tax court case known as New Mexico Top Organics, Inc. d/b/a Ultra Health v. Commissioner (“NMTO”), filed last October. The primary argument is that marijuana is no longer “within the meaning” of Schedule I of the CSA, despite being listed there. The case relies on a 2023 determination by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that marijuana should be placed in Schedule III. It also relies on Congressional spending bills, and finally, on the proposed rescheduling that began under President Biden.
I don’t find the arguments persuasive. Without analyzing the merits, though, it’s important to note that the NMTO plaintiff is a medical marijuana business. The plaintiff is not arguing that IRC 280E doesn’t apply to generalized adult-use sales (which are most sales nationwide, at this point). It’s also important to note that any decision by the tax court could be appealed by either party to the Tenth Circuit, and a ruling likely would not grant immediate relief to anyone–let alone non-litigants.
What advice are marijuana businesses getting these days on IRC 280E?
I’d like to think that most of advice is along the lines of what we tell our clients, viz. that marijuana is still a Schedule I controlled substance, unfortunately, and IRC 280E still applies. And I think that is what a clear majority of attorneys and CPAs are saying. That said, we’ve seen outlying and aggressive advice from professionals on whether marijuana businesses are still subject to IRC 280E, and even on whether marijuana remains in Schedule I (it does). Here’s a prominent example:
I’m not sure what the law firm there was thinking, and to be fair, they deleted the post following my comment. On the CPA side, the position I first vetted last year parrots the arguments in NMTO. The CPA I spoke with argued that marijuana is no longer “within the meaning of Schedule I” (despite its placement there), and that NMTO’s arguments apply equally to income from adult-use sales. The kindest thing I can say, euphemistically, is that it’s an interesting position.
What does the IRS say? What about Congress?
In June of 2024, following the HHS recommendation that marijuana be moved to Schedule III, the IRS published a memo titled “Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance; IRC 280E still applies.” The Service stated that this would be true “until a final federal rule is published.” That never happened under the Biden administration’s flawed rescheduling process, and still hasn’t occurred following Trump’s executive order.
For good measure, the IRS followed on its memo six months later with another straight-ahead publication, observing that “some taxpayers have taken the position of disregarding the section 280E limitation using a variety of rationales that do not constitute reasonable basis.” The term “reasonable basis” is a relatively high standard of tax reporting (see 26 CFR 1.6662-3(b)(3)), and a myriad of penalties may ensue where the standard is not met. Straight talk.
For its part, Congress has failed to pass legislation to nullify the effects of IRC 280E, and every bill to de- or reschedule marijuana has ultimately failed. However, the Congressional Research Service, which I like, issued relevant guidance on IRC 280E earlier this month. The February 6 report is titled: “The Application of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E: Selected Legal Issues.” Notwithstanding the IRS publications discussed above, the CRS report maintains there is “little tax guidance concerning the application of Section 280E.” It then discusses a series of proposals that, if enacted, “would no longer prohibit marijuana businesses from taking deductions and credits.” In other words, without the enactment of any of these proposals, IRC 280E still applies.
Conclusion
I’m sure any business paying tax on gross receipts would love to enjoy the same deductions as other U.S. taxpayers. For this reason, and because certain advisors have jumped the shark with rescheduling in the air, we’ve seen more cannabis businesses filing returns that ignore IRC 280E. We’ve also had clients file amended returns seeking refunds for taxes paid under the IRC 280E regime, contrary to IRS warnings (not to give anyone any ideas!). Some of these refunds have been processed, and our best advice is “set that cash aside, at least through the audit window.”
Let’s hope the rules change for tax year 2026, and that the Department of Justice picks up the ball with President Trump’s rescheduling order. Specifically, let’s hope for a final rule, or better. For now, though, I believe the correct advice is that IRC 280E still applies to marijuana businesses. Unfortunately.
