Category: Cannabis

About CropKingSeeds

Established in 2005, Crop King Seeds has been perfecting the genetics of the cannabis plant for medical and commercial grower seeking maximum results in THC levels and harvest size.
From classic strains to new age hybrids, our seeds are ideal for beginners and advanced growers wanting the best from the crop.

There are moments in media that cut through the bullshit so cleanly, you can actually hear the narrative collapse in real-time. Combat veteran Staff Sergeant (Ret.) Johnny “Joey” Jones just delivered one of those moments on Fox News—and the network’s desperate attempt to spin it back into prohibitionist talking points was almost as revealing as Jones’ truth bombs.

Let me break down what actually happened here, because buried in this exchange is everything wrong with America’s approach to cannabis policy, media hypocrisy, and the pharmaceutical-industrial complex’s stranglehold on rational discourse.

What the Veteran Actually Said (And Why It Matters)

Jones opened with the kind of moral clarity that only comes from someone who’s seen actual suffering:

“This society is meddling in hypocrisy in a way that makes me furious. I don’t smoke weed. I don’t drink beer or alcohol. But to be in a place where I can sit and watch alcohol commercials on TV and hear someone preach at me about how bad weed is? No. Take that on somewhere else.”

Notice what he’s doing here: he’s establishing credibility by removing personal stake. He doesn’t use either substance. This isn’t about defending his own choices—it’s about calling out systemic hypocrisy.

Then he drops the medicinal bomb:

“On the medicinal side, it absolutely works. It works so well for so many veterans I know.”

This is anecdotal evidence, sure. But when a combat veteran tells you that cannabis is keeping his brothers and sisters alive—keeping them from eating a bullet or drowning in VA-prescribed opioids—maybe we should fucking listen.

The Decriminalization vs. Legalization Distinction

Here’s where Jones demonstrates a deeper understanding of drug policy than most politicians and media pundits combined:

“We didn’t legalize marijuana. We decriminalized the use of marijuana. So it’s unregulated. We’re not looking at it and studying it and saying, at what level of THC does it have the effect we’re looking for? At what level of THC does it have a negative effect by and large that we should try to take out of our society? That’s the problem. We’ve put so much emphasis on keeping it illegal at the federal level that we’ve neutered our ability to actually regulate it.”

This is exactly correct. The federal prohibition doesn’t protect public health—it prevents public health research. We can’t study optimal THC levels, we can’t establish evidence-based dosing protocols, we can’t conduct large-scale clinical trials, because the federal government has classified cannabis as more dangerous than methamphetamine and fentanyl.

That’s not policy. That’s ideological obstruction.

The SSRI Comparison Nobody Wants to Acknowledge

Then Jones goes for the throat:

“In a society, in an industry in this country, where we have no problem with SSRIs, with Zoloft or Prozac or Lexapro, you know, I’m not beating up on these medicines, but for God’s sake, I can sit here and watch somebody become a zombie on that stuff.”

He’s being diplomatic here. Let me be less diplomatic:

SSRIs are prescribed like candy in this country, despite evidence that their efficacy barely exceeds placebo in many cases, despite withdrawal syndromes that can last months or years, despite black-box warnings about suicidal ideation in young people, and despite the fact that we still don’t fully understand how they work.

But we have no problem with that. We advertise them on television between segments about the “dangers” of cannabis. The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

The Alcohol Hypocrisy: The Big One

“We have no problem discussing how bad marijuana is, but don’t attack alcohol because that’s a part of our culture. Well, you know what? People get behind the wheel drinking every day and kill people. It happens every single day. And I’d much rather smell weed on the side of the street than liquor on someone’s breath trying to talk to me.”

Here are the numbers Jones is too polite to cite:

• Alcohol kills approximately 140,000 Americans annually

• Cannabis kills zero

• Alcohol is involved in 40% of violent crimes

• Cannabis is involved in watching Lord of the Rings extended editions and eating too many Doritos

The cultural acceptance argument is particularly absurd when you examine it. Cannabis has been used by humans for at least 12,000 years—roughly the same timeline as alcohol fermentation. Both substances have archaeological evidence dating back to the immediate post-ice-age period, when humans were figuring out agriculture and civilization.

The idea that alcohol gets a pass because it’s “part of our culture” while cannabis doesn’t is pure arbitrary prohibition. Both are ancient. Both are deeply embedded in human history. The only difference is which industries profit from which narrative.

The Deep History: Why This Matters

Here’s something that should fundamentally change how we think about cannabis prohibition: the archaeological evidence suggests that humans didn’t “discover” fermentation or cannabis use in the last 13,000 years—we rediscovered them after a catastrophic climate event.

The Younger Dryas period (approximately 12,800 to 11,600 years ago) was an abrupt return to ice age conditions, possibly triggered by a comet impact. When the world warmed up again, we see the “sudden” appearance of agriculture, fermentation, and cannabis domestication almost immediately.

The “Beer Before Bread” hypothesis suggests that hunter-gatherers were brewing long before they were settled farmers. The oldest direct evidence of beer dates to 13,000 years ago in Israel’s Raqefet Cave—before pottery, before permanent agriculture.

Cannabis was domesticated almost immediately as the world warmed up after the ice age. By the time we see the first organized societies, both cannabis and alcohol were already deeply embedded in burial rites and spiritual practice—suggesting their use was already “ancient” to the people of that time.

What does this mean? It means cannabis and alcohol share the same cultural timeline. The idea that one is acceptable and the other isn’t has nothing to do with history, tradition, or safety—and everything to do with which industries control the narrative in 2026.

The Fox Anchor’s Lie: “Not Proven Medically”

Here’s where Dr. Marc Siegel tries to salvage the prohibitionist position:

“You know, your argument just speaks to why president Trump made it schedule 3 instead of schedule 1 because it’s gonna make it easier to study. Some critics say you should’ve gone to schedule 2, which is in between because it’s not proven medically.”

This is a lie.

Not an opinion. Not a difference in interpretation. A flat-out, demonstrable falsehood.

The United States government holds Patent No. 6630507, titled “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” This patent, awarded to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2003, explicitly claims that cannabinoids have therapeutic utility as antioxidants and neuroprotectants for treating neurodegenerative diseases.

Let me repeat that: the federal government has a patent claiming medical efficacy for cannabis while simultaneously classifying it as having “no accepted medical use.”

That’s not policy contradiction. That’s institutional fraud.

Beyond the patent, we have:

• Randomized controlled trials showing efficacy in pediatric epilepsy (leading to FDA approval of Epidiolex)

• Meta-analyses demonstrating effectiveness for chronic pain, nausea, and spasticity

• Registry data from Israel, the UK, and Australia showing clinical benefits across multiple conditions

• Mechanistic research establishing how cannabinoids interact with the endocannabinoid system

To say cannabis has “not proven medically” in 2026 is to ignore two decades of peer-reviewed research. It’s either willful ignorance or deliberate disinformation.

The Schedule III Shell Game

Moving cannabis to Schedule III isn’t about “making it easier to study.” That’s the propaganda version.

Here’s what Schedule III actually accomplishes:

It maintains federal prohibition while giving pharmaceutical companies the regulatory framework to develop synthetic cannabinoids and patented formulations.

It preserves the criminal justice infrastructure that employs hundreds of thousands of people in law enforcement, prisons, and the legal system.

It protects pharmaceutical market share by ensuring that whole-plant cannabis remains expensive, heavily taxed, and difficult to access while synthetic alternatives get FDA approval and insurance coverage.

Schedule III is a compromise that serves institutional interests—not patients, not veterans, not public health.

Full descheduling is the only policy that makes sense if we’re actually concerned about research, access, and harm reduction. But that would require acknowledging that cannabis was never supposed to be scheduled in the first place—and that 87 years of prohibition was a policy disaster built on racism, corporate protectionism, and moral panic.

The Veteran vs. The System

What makes this Fox News moment so powerful is the contrast between Jones’ moral clarity and the institutional doublespeak trying to contain it.

Jones is speaking from lived experience. He’s seen veterans self-medicate with cannabis instead of eating a bottle of VA-prescribed benzos. He’s watched friends choose between functional life with cannabis or zombie existence on SSRIs and antipsychotics. He’s tired of watching alcohol companies advertise during the same broadcasts that demonize a safer alternative.

Dr. Siegel is speaking from institutional script. He has to maintain the fiction that Schedule III is progress, that medical evidence is still lacking, that the current system makes sense.

One of them is telling the truth. The other is protecting a narrative that serves pharmaceutical profits and prohibitionist ideology.

The Hypocrisy Standard: Apply It Universally or Not At All

Jones’ final point deserves emphasis:

“If we legalize at the federal level the recreational use of marijuana, then we could regulate it. And then we can make sure the THC levels are consistent and below a point that it becomes some of these problems.”

Fine. Let’s accept that framework. Let’s regulate cannabis with extreme scrutiny, establish potency caps, require extensive testing, demand long-term safety studies.

But then apply that same standard to alcohol and prescription medications.

If we’re going to regulate THC content in cannabis, we should regulate alcohol content in beverages. No more 95% Everclear. No more Four Loko. Potency caps across the board.

If we’re going to require long-term safety studies for cannabis, we should require them for SSRIs that have been on the market for decades without clear understanding of mechanism or long-term cognitive effects.

If we’re going to worry about cannabis commercialization and marketing to vulnerable populations, we should ban pharmaceutical advertising entirely—like every other developed nation except New Zealand has already done.

But we don’t do that. Because the scrutiny isn’t about safety—it’s about protecting established industries from competition.

The Sticky Bottom Line

Staff Sergeant Johnny “Joey” Jones just did something remarkable: he cut through decades of propaganda in two minutes on national television. He called out the hypocrisy, identified the regulatory failure, compared cannabis to more dangerous legal substances, and advocated for evidence-based policy.

And the network anchor’s response was to lie about medical efficacy and spin Schedule III as progress.

That exchange tells you everything you need to know about American drug policy in 2026. We have veterans begging for access to medicine that works. We have pharmaceutical companies and alcohol producers funding the opposition. We have media outlets repeating prohibitionist talking points that contradict their own government’s patents.

And we have a system that would rather maintain profitable prohibition than admit it was wrong for 87 years.

Jones is right: we’re meddling in hypocrisy in a way that should make everyone furious. Cannabis and alcohol share the same 12,000-year cultural timeline. The federal government holds patents on cannabinoid medical efficacy while claiming it has none. Veterans are dying because we’d rather protect pharmaceutical profits than provide effective medicine.

The veteran told the truth. The system lied in response.

At some point, we need to decide whether we’re going to listen to the people who actually use these medicines and live with the consequences, or whether we’re going to keep deferring to institutions that profit from maintaining the status quo.

I know which side I’m on. And so does Staff Sergeant Jones.

 

CANNABIS AS A SCHEDULE 3 DRUG, READ ON…

CANNABIS AS A SCHEDULE 3 DRUG, ITS A TRAP SAYS CONGRESSMAN!

 

This article originally appeared on the High Adam newsletter. Subscribe here.

After the plant’s inclusion in the 234-year-old publication’s planting and gardening guide caused a bit of a buzz last month, editor-in-chief Carol Connare helped put it in perspective.

The Old Farmer’s Almanac garnered some serious attention on canna-centric social media last month when it was noticed that the devil’s lettuce had been added to the OFA’s online Planting and Gardening Guide for the first time — listed right there between candytuft and cantaloupes.

“That quiet inclusion,” wrote Beard Bros Media, “marks a cultural milestone — and one that reflects how deeply cannabis has become normalized over the past several decades.”

When I headed over to the almanac’s website to check it out for myself (the below spring planting advice is based on my SoCal ZIP Code), I was surprised to find that the cannabis entry actually hyperlinks to a landing page titled “How to Grow Cannabis Indoors and Outdoors: The Complete Plant Guide” featuring a robust bumper crop of gardening advice.

The lead article is “How to Start Growing a Weed Plant From Seed,” written by Melissa Moore, a cannabis professor and horticulture coordinator at SUNY Niagara, and two of the articles linked at the bottom of the page (one on picking the best feminized seeds and another on autoflower seeds) were penned by Parker Curtis, a cultivation expert and educator with Florida-based Homegrown Cannabis Co. (remember that company’s name, I’ll be coming back to it).

Editor’s note: Mention of advertisers/authors below is for context; no paid relationship is alleged.

Since I’m not used to turning to the Old Farmer’s Almanac for my herb-growing advice (ever since writing about the USDA-grant-funded Grow It From Home gardening workshop program a few years back, I’ve been been lucky enough to get my weed wisdom firsthand from Oregon-based commercial hemp farmer Emily Gogol), I didn’t know how exactly how long the 234-year-old publication had been catering to the ganja greenthumb crowd. Was this as brand new as the gushing on the socials made it seem? Or has it been part of the esteemed publication’s crop rotation in the past and we somehow missed it?

To get the straight dope, I hopped on a Zoom call to ask the almanac’s editor-in-chief Carol Connare who told me it’s actually a little bit of both. It turns out that hemp (which we all know is the exact same plant) has been part of the Old Farmer’s Almanac coverage since founding editor Robert B. Thomas published the first issue back in 1792. Connare pointed me to a handful of mentions in that issue, including this planting guidance for February 1793:

Look to your bees.

See to your doves.

Begin to get out your hemp and flax , as the days begin to moderate.

“I can find regular mentions of hemp in editions throughout the 1800s,” Connare added, “and only one after 1920 , in 1967, which was a reference again to flax/hemp as feed crops.”

After that, she said, cannabis went MIA from the pages of the Old Farmer’s Almanac until just a few years back.

“When I became editor here in 2023, we were just working on the 2024 Garden Guide and there was this story [in play],” Connare said as she held a print copy of Melissa Moore’s “how to grow” story from the 2024 guide up to her webcam. “My predecessor really didn’t want to put it in there,” she continued, “but I had come from Massachusetts, where everybody grew — and I grew — and people were asking for information, so we responded to that [ask]. … Our readers are interested in herbal remedies of all kinds, and growing their own food and so [we decided] let’s give them the information.”

“Our readers are interested in herbal remedies of all kinds, and growing their own food, and so [we decided] let’s give them the information.” — The Old Farmer’s Almanac Editor-in-Chief Carol Connare

“We added cannabis to the planting calendar last November,” she explained, “at the same time we launched the cannabis grower’s guide, which was based on the 2024 story in the annual Garden Guide print edition.”

So the Old Farmer’s Almanac’s relationship with the cannabis plant isn’t exactly new. What is new and noteworthy, though, is that the most recent print edition of the annual OFA proper — the one with the distinctive old-timey yellow cover that was published in September 2025, contains a full-page cannabis ad for the Homegrown Cannabis Co. (I told you I’d be coming back to it). There’s also a smaller ad for the same company later in the almanac (on page 73 if you have a copy of it kicking around), along with a few gardening tips. (Example: “Surround your cannabis with fragrant thyme to attract pollinators and vibrant marigolds to naturally repel pests.”)

In the battle to normalize and destigmatize the magical plant, I agree that cannabis’ inclusion in the print version (in September 2025) and online seasonal planting and gardening guide (beginning in November 2025) are both very symbolic and very visible wins. But the quality of the information? Unfortunately, it isn’t where it should be for such a trusted gardener’s go-to. Some of it is head-scratchingly confusing and some of it feels like it’s repeating claims that experienced growers dispute.

Case in point, this curious advice for when to start your indoor plants: “Start seeds in late winter or early spring (February-March).”

“No,” said hemp farmer Emily Gogol who I’d asked to eyeball the OFA’s advice, “the whole point with indoor is that you can grow anytime you want! I can’t believe I just read that.”

Gogol pointed out a couple other places — some big and some small — where the guidance was sub-par. Among them: germinating a cannabis seed by dropping it in a glass of warm water (one of the article’s three suggested methods), which she called “insane” (I was embarrassed to admit to Gogol that I’d been doing this — wrong — for years in my own home-grow efforts) and the advice to wait to transfer plants from inside to outside until three to four weeks before summer solstice. (“I think they’re confused about light cycles,” she said.)

“I love that they tried, I love that they’re speaking to backyard gardeners,” Gogol said. “There’s a lot of great information — maybe 90% of it is great but it’s very conflicting. But I think any kind of traditional gardening acknowledgement on cannabis for the home grower feels nice and I appreciate that times a million. It makes me so incredibly happy.”

I agree with Gogol that we should celebrate this as a symbolic win it is and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, advice-wise. And, if The Old Farmer’s Almanac wants to up its herb gardening game for next year’s edition?

“I’d be happy to write it for them,” Gogol said.

This is a contributed opinion/news analysis piece. Views are the author’s own.

From dialed-in flower to standout vapes, edibles, and drinks, this year’s Cannabis Cup results highlight the operators setting the pace for New York quality.

Best Sativa Flower: Doobie Labs, White Widow

Doobie Labs brought their flower to market in 2024 after a relentless pursuit to perfect their product. And clearly, it’s paying off. For a newcomer to take home Best Sativa Flower is a serious statement.

White Widow is a legendary ’90s strain. This high-potency, sativa-dominant hybrid delivers peppery pine and citrus notes with a balanced, flavorful smoke and the kind of uplifting effects that made it a classic in the first place.

Check them out at doobielabs.com.

Best Indica Flower: Golden Garden, Blue Zushi

Golden Garden grows flower that gets your attention the second you crack the bag. They work with killer genetics, and only the best buds make their way to the shop.

Blue Zushi is an incredible example of true indica energy. The depth of flavor matches the deep buzz, making it an easy pick for the top spot.

Check them out at goldengardenny.com.

Best Hybrid Flower: The Kaleidoscope Collective, Permanent Marker

Permanent Marker is small-batch craft done the right way. It’s rich and earthy, the kind of terpene experience that sticks with you long after the bowl burns out.

This hybrid hits a clean balance between head and body, so it plays just as well for a social session as it does for a quiet night in.

Check them out at thekaleidoscopecollective.co.

Best Infused Pre-Rolls: RYTHM, Strawberry Shortcake Remix

RYTHM knows how to take a classic pre-roll and turn the volume up. Built on iconic strains and reliable effects, the brand has earned consumer trust through precision rolling and big flavors.

Strawberry Shortcake Remix is a perfect example of that approach. Expect creamy strawberry on the inhale, rich and sweet, followed by an infused kick that pushes it well beyond the average pre-roll.

Check them out at rythm.com.

Best Pre-Rolls: Runtz, Obama Runtz

Of course Runtz is putting out the most fire Runtz. The brand built its name on this strain, and Obama Runtz proves they know exactly what they’re doing.

It’s sweet, gassy, and loud on the palate, with a strong indica lean that hits deep and lasts. The experience evolves as you smoke it, staying euphoric, engaging, and well-balanced from start to finish. Perfectly rolled and packed in a glass tube, this is craft done right.

Best Non-Distillate Vapes: MFNY, Hash Burger

MFNY does everything single-source at its Hudson Valley farm. Seed-to-shelf means they control every step from growing to harvesting to processing. The attention to detail shines through in every hit.

Hash Burger throws a loud cloud of sweet spicy, lemony terps up front, with woody pine and florals on the exhale. Made from fresh-frozen flower using hydrocarbon extraction, this is live resin with full-spectrum cannabinoids and natural terpenes.

Get more at mfny.co.

Best Distillate Vapes: Heady Tree, Gas Leak

Heady Tree is dedicated to delivering top-quality cannabis products to the New York community. They embrace organic farming principles, avoiding synthetic fertilizers and pesticides in their climate-controlled greenhouses.

Gas Leak is a perfect showcase of that commitment. Bold diesel flavor meets earthy pine-box-style undertones that hit smooth and stay true to the classic gas terp profile.

Check them out at headytree.com.

Best Edibles: Incredibles, Empire State Bar

Incredibles has been in the game since 2010. They first launched homemade cookies to help Grandma Noni, and it grew into a brand that helped define what reliable, well-crafted edibles should be.

The Empire State Bar is a perfect expression of that legacy. Dreamy milk chocolate, rich buttery toffee, and the sweetest buzz. Chef’s kiss. This is the kind of chocolate that reminds you why the name Incredibles fits.

Check them out at iloveincredibles.com.

Best Beverages: Layup, Fruit Punch

Layup is perfect when you want something refreshing and easy to drink, with a slow and steady high.

Fruit Punch is sweet and tart, but stays clean and refreshing without trying too hard. Keep your eyes on this brand. Layup feels modern, intentional, and incredibly drinkable.

Check them out at layup.nyc.

There’s a trend increasingly debated in electronic music publications, cultural calendars, and the endless rabbit hole on Instagram and TikTok: UK clubs, the birthplace of some of the most significant countercultural movements of recent decades, are closing one after another.

According to statistics compiled by the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA), between the start of the pandemic and early 2025, 405 nightlife venues closed across the UK. And the number just keeps rising. The organization speculates that, if this trend continues, no British clubs will remain by December 2029, an idea they symbolically call “The Last Night Out.”

Here we have a snapshot not only of a global cultural, social, and economic shift that extends beyond the British Isles, but also of political decisions and economic models that are savagely devouring themselves in this particular region. This phenomenon is on everyone’s lips because, as is well known, the British love their music and fiercely defend it as a cultural capital, and the mythology surrounding clubs in cities like London or Manchester can perhaps only be compared to that of Berlin. But said phenomenon seems to be unfolding before everyone’s eyes in slow motion, with no one able to do anything to stop it.

The UK’s nightlife, and especially its club culture, is undoubtedly going through a profound crisis with multiple causes, which makes it difficult to find a scapegoat (let alone a solution, or at least a modus operandi, to address the situation). And while the pandemic dramatically accelerated it and brought new complications, it is a process that had already begun in the previous decade.

According to a report published by the BBC in March 2025, Sheffield is the hardest-hit city: since 2020, 40% of its nightclubs have closed their doors. The report, published as a YouTube video, cites the lockdown measures and the millions in losses they caused for the entertainment sector as the primary reason for the closures. However, it also attributes the closures to the exorbitant cost of living (which continues to rise) in the UK.

Nevertheless, it fails to mention two far more pervasive and equally relevant factors: gentrification and the shift in consumers’ patterns and habits. These factors, in a  chicken-and-the-egg style, are intertwined with the consequences of the pandemic, a weakened economy, higher levels of job insecurity, and a world increasingly leaning toward far-right politics and moral frameworks, which undervalue ​​(and even demonize) leisure and more rebellious cultural expressions.

This is a point worth paying attention to, because in today’s world, where human labor itself is in crisis, it’s very easy to believe arguments claiming leisure isn’t important. But it is.

Philip Kolvin, a British barrister specializing in licensing law, regulation, and public policy, particularly in areas such as licensing adult entertainment venues and other regulated sectors in the UK, says: “No venue has the right to exist. Before we had cock fights, and they no longer exist because of the law stopping them or because of the lack of demand. We could say same thing about the clubs. One argument is that if clubs can’t make a profit, something else can come instead: streamings, coffee shops, gyms. But there is something about clubs which is special. It’s a place that represents and generates culture, new music styles, new fashion styles, new ways of people to get together, new ways of expression. And it is not necessarily that they are getting squeezed out because people don’t want to do that anymore, they are being squeezed that often because of the way we go for urban areas, the way we tax clubs, the expensive energy and commodities. They are draining away at a very fast rate now, and that makes this conversation really urgent”.

Kolvin is regarded as one of the leading voices on the subject at both the political and economic levels. His report, Darkest Before the Dawn, presented by the NTIA and considered its manifesto, is a defense of and a call to action regarding the Night-Time Economy, highlighting its value and relevance by providing data and suggesting strategies for its development. The lawyer sees the situation of nightclubs as a serious and much deeper problem, encompassing this entire vital sector of the economy itself—the leisure sector: not necessarily the entertainment sector, but rather those spaces where people go to spend time, interact with each other, have a drink, eat, or dance.

“The Night-Time Economy is different from other forms of entertainment because it is where we go to express our joy, and our joy is not curated. When we go to the theatre we are going as consumers, but in the Night-Time Economy includes everything that happens, including the way we build our own joy,” Kolvin explains.

Gentrification: Urban Development or Cultural Displacement?

The case of Corsica Studios is one of the most lamented by the community: the iconic club in Elephant and Castle, South London, will close its doors in March 2026. According to industry sources, this is due to the growth of real estate development in the area, with its respective consequences, such as increased rents, goods and services, and fines for noise pollution. 

According to an article in Mixmag, back in 2018 “it was given £125k by Delancey, the real estate asset management and advisory company behind Elephant and Castle town centre development, in order to soundproof the club.” This corresponds to the Agent of Change Principle, which the NTIA is trying to promote and which is supposedly in effect—but not with the seriousness it should be. The idea is that, if housing is built near an existing club, the developer, not the club, is responsible for soundproofing.

Clubbers, DJs, producers: everyone deems Corsica as an irreparable loss. One of the capital’s darlings, the mid-sized venue, opened in 2002, boasts an extensive history of legendary nights, hosting both local and international artists of the caliber of Bicep, Nina Kravitz, Fred Again, Jamie XX, and Björk, among many others.

However, it seems the club’s future isn’t entirely bleak: official sources assure that the plan for the near future is to relocate, reopen and update the space to comply with all current regulations. But there’s still no solid information, and the community is pessimistic.

“I will be devastated when Corsica Studios in London goes. Some of my fave nights out as a clubber and artist were there and I care about the space so much. There are always the most varied sounds and events happening and the atmosphere is great and staff are wonderful too. We will really lose an absolute treasure with that place and I am genuinely angry about it,” says DJ and producer Shirley Temper. 

The gentrification process and its impact on club culture is more or less the same in all major cities. Historically isolated neighborhoods and areas with an industrial character are now being overtaken by real estate development and transformed into “trendy” zones, where rent and utility prices skyrocket and the rules of coexistence (both noise and traffic regulations) change. This threatens the natural ecosystem of many clubs, deliberately located away from residential areas, putting their survival at risk. 

Faced with a weakened Night-Time Economy, real estate development sharpens its teeth and advances with state complicity, which is conspicuously absent from public policies to protect these spaces; on the contrary, it burdens them with ever-increasing financial weight.

Kolvin points out: “We’ve got some sign that local authorities are understanding the need for a strategic outlook… Where I think we’re fundamentally lacking is at national level, where there’s been a lack of good work from government. Is the Night-Time Economy less important than other elements of industry? (…) I’d argue not: it’s £140 billion worth of economy. It’s one of the biggest employers of young people and it’s one of the biggest reasons why people choose to live, work and invest in the UK and its regions. So the fact that we don’t really have a minister devoted to the promotion of the Night-Time Economy, that we don’t really have a national strategy, I find very disappointing.”

He continues: “We need to side as a nation to care about this and to be supportive, and then we need to put in place measures which operate in the level of planning, licensing, fiscal policies, urban regeneration, and all the governance tools that we use for all the other sectors of our economy. It is not a crime to say ‘What is our vision for the Night-Time Economy?’”

Drugs and Risk Management: Another Point of Alarm

In this scenario of structural neglect, another uncomfortable point of debate emerges: how to manage the risk of substance use within the Night-Time Economy in the absence of public policies. 

The Drumsheds case (which, paradoxically, remains open) has been highly controversial: the mega-club, located in Tottenham, London, and currently considered the largest and highest-capacity club in the world, saw two suspicious drug-related deaths and a stabbing incident between October and December 2024.

Housed in a former Ikea building and with a capacity of up to 15,000 attendees, the club belongs to Broadwick Live, a company that also owns some of the other most important venues in the UK, such as PrinTworks and Manchester’s Depot Mayfield.

The case highlights a stark asymmetry that is difficult to ignore between the large corporate giants and the smaller venues that house the underground scene—historically the breeding ground of British electronic music culture. These mega-clubs have financial resources, institutional backing, and a trusting relationship with the police, local authorities, artists, and the public. And yet, they fail to prevent tragedy.

“Resolving that fundamental disagreement, at the same time as reassuring sceptical sections of the clubbing public, is a substantial challenge before Broadwick Live’s next season of events begins in March. If the UK’s leading club operator can’t make their flagship venue work, then the omens for other venues feel worrying, even if they aren’t operating at the same scale,” Ed Gillet reflects in his article for The Guardian.

At least four drug-related deaths were recorded in nightclubs in the UK during 2025. While information on all cases wasn’t made public, drugs adulterated with nitazenes have been a recurring factor. And, as in the real estate sector, the lack of effective government policies is glaring.

Among the raver community and nightlife workers, there’s a palpable sense of worry, resignation, and cynicism.

N-Type is one of the legendary DJs and producers of London’s dubstep scene. He sees a negative shift in every aspect:  “Any nightclub closing is sad. We have such an amazing nightlife in the UK and it feels it is at risk. Even the way people rave feels different now. Take me back to the sweaty warehouses and euphoric moments”.

Shirley Temper adds:  “UK clubs and electronic music venues are so much more than just spaces. They offer community, escapism, enrichment and enjoyment in a world where people work life balances are consistently encroached upon and there is so much financial pressure on people who are just trying to survive. Music is well known to have positive impacts on the body in mind and having spaces for people to come together and enjoy these things is genuinely a very beautiful and human thing. The fact we are losing more and more of these spaces almost makes it feel like the powers and money in charge don’t want us enjoying our lives anymore.”

Tessa Regueiro, a London-based DJ, promoter, and booker who is part of Antisocial Records UK and Caza Beats, lived in Buenos Aires for the last 12 years and returned to London this year. Her opinions are shaped by the contrast between what London was and what it is now: she also mentions the impact of COVID and how exorbitantly expensive the city has become.

“We saw the same in Argentina with the economic crisis. As promoters, we basically had to put on free events to ensure people would come, because asking people to pay ticket prices in a niche scene was almost impossible. Stopping wasn’t an option, because we felt these spaces are really important for people to come together through music, more so in hard times. I don’t know the stats or anything, but they say Gen Z are also way less likely to go out than we were when we started raving. So maybe it’s also impacted by a societal shift in younger people’s priorities,” she reflects.

The Consumers of the (Gloomy) Future

Another reason that emerges is not only a local phenomenon, but a global one.

Beyond the economic and political dimension of, in this case, the United Kingdom—a situation radically worsened post-pandemic, but which began almost a decade ago—this phenomenon also reflects the current state of consumer habits and social life patterns. This transcends regionalism and refers to changes in human behavior at a transcultural level.

It’s true that Gen Z (the current twenty-somethings, the longtime target of club culture) is going out less and less, and even those who do are drinking significantly less alcohol. This, coupled with the rise of wellness culture and a focus on mental health, which have strongly influenced consumer habits in the post-pandemic era, has shed light on an issue that, being so obvious, seemed invisible: clubs and parties in general depend on attendees drinking alcohol to survive. This is clearly problematic from a common sense and public health perspective, and, in this context of declining intake, also unprofitable. Therefore, the only thing these venues can do to accumulate more money is to raise entrance and bar prices.

As a response and as a symptom, sober raves are slowly but surely emerging: parties in which drug use isn’t encouraged, and alcohol isn’t sold. Not to mention BYOB (Bring Your Own Bottle) parties… Very inclusive initiatives, perfectly suited to new consumers, but still figuring out how to become profitable.

Regarding youth behavior trends, Argentine trends expert Gaba Najmanovich predicts a swift “return of nightlife,” even though it never really went away. First, because DJs and electronic music culture are still on the rise, and second, because social spaces more associated with a healthy lifestyle and wellness culture, such as “social running” (going for a run in groups as a way to meet people), are declining.

“It’s a trend that will soon expire, and people are still looking for spaces to connect. So, I think it’s very important not to confuse ‘clubs’ with ‘nightlife,’ and the important thing is to think about what this new nightlife is like,” she says.

The question is what or who should take action to ensure there’s a place to return to when this is over.

Najmanovich isn’t a scholar of the UK specifically and its political dimensions, but she’s been following the rise and fall of electronic music culture and the party scene for some time now, in terms of global consumer habits. Observing the rise of music festivals in contrast to the decline of clubs, she believes there are key elements the club experience could incorporate to become more appealing: “Festivals offer open air, variety, and the possibility of a break. There might be something about the intensity of the club scene that isn’t working for this generation of young people who grew up accustomed to something else, which I find curious considering the stimulation they receive from screens,” she explains. “But there’s something about the club scene and the social anxiety of this generation, who aren’t so used to socializing in person.”

The economic situation, the cost of living, and job insecurity are undoubtedly another factor driving this shift in consumer habits. Kolvin points out that many consumers simply can’t afford a night out at a club, leading them to bring their own drinks or throw parties at home. In Najmanovich’s words, “Clubs aren’t going to disappear entirely because there will always be a niche market. But consumers are going to change, and we have to change with them or let them go.”

However, regarding habits, Najmanovich anticipates a return to nightlife and “the death of the wellness imperative.” Because she emphasizes that, while this generation is the most impoverished of the millennium so far, spending hasn’t stopped, it’s just changed: “I believe that in the next 5 years nightlife will make a strong comeback, but it will be necessary to create the conditions for these people to want to keep attending. The budget issue will still be complicated. So we have to look at the business model and make sure it’s not so financially overwhelming for these new consumers, although when priorities change and people spend less on sneakers and skincare, perhaps there will be more money to spend going out at night. It depends on the target audience’s priorities.”

A Warning Before the Music Stops

The first thing to understand is that this problem speaks to fundamental issues that affect not only ravers but the entire cultural fabric; it has to do with preserving the few spaces (not only physical, but also temporal and conceptual) where productivity isn’t everything; giving leisure, human connection, and enjoyment an important place in social life. This goes without even considering the sustained loss of jobs, and on a deeper level, the irreparable damage that the extinction of nightclubs inflicts on artistic production.

That’s why it’s important to call things by their name, something Philip Kolvin and the entire NTIA emphasize when using the term “Night-Time Economy”:  “It’s really important to name it because it’ss under threat, in a form of other ways of entertainment are not under threat. By naming and dissecting it we can use all the tools we have, social, political, economical, urban, to protect this Night-Time Economy.”

Failing to support these spaces with government policies during a context of such radical economic and social change—and, on a larger scale, neglecting the country’s nightlife, and more specifically electronic music—is to abandon an invaluable cultural asset. Looking to the future, it’s killing the breeding ground where artists and movements emerge, which then keep cities culturally relevant, attract tourism, and create legends. No one would let museums, film archives, or theaters die. This shouldn’t be so different.

“Be it jungle music in Bristol, dubstep and grime in London, bassline in Sheffield or donk from Wigan Pier, the UK has it all. These sounds and cultures stem largely from the vibrant black, working class and queer communities that we are lucky to have, and they have pioneered so many of these genres. These sounds people enjoy all over the world once started out completely underground and through sound systems,” Shirley Temper reflects. “Smaller venues in the underground scene now allow for a space for these sounds to continue to develop with a community around it. They’re also the way newer artists and promoters can make their impact on their local scenes and become part of something. If we lose these spaces, how are we ever going to discover someone or something new?”

The UK case is paradigmatic and especially alarming because of the speed and depth with which it is developing, given that it is a first-world country with a globally recognized rave culture. But it is merely the tip of the iceberg of a global phenomenon, and it should serve as a cautionary tale for the rest of the world. The future of club culture looks bleak, and while interest in electronic music is growing exponentially, tons of new DJs are appearing every day, and mega-festivals are increasingly prevalent, clubs—the seed and foundation of all electronic culture—, left without state support or a shift in the general awareness of their cultural relevance, will have to reinvent themselves or disappear.

“In times when everything is thriving, the Night-Time Economy will look after itself; in times when it is not, we need to take a concerted approach as a nation for the kind of Night-Time Economy we want to leave to our children,” Kolvin concludes.

Cover photo: McCann London for The Night Time Industries Association (NTIA)

South Carolina

H.3924 (Support Ford Amendment)
We previously reported on H.4758 and H.4759, in SC, and we are hearing that H.3924 is back in rotation in South Carolina and would significantly reshape the state’s consumable hemp market. As introduced, the bill creates a new criminal and regulatory framework for “consumable hemp products,” but in practice limits lawful products to beverages only, excluding other non-beverage hemp product forms from the marketplace.

While framed as a regulatory measure, the practical effect is a beverage-only carveout that would eliminate access to other lawful consumable hemp products and substantially contract the existing market. An amendment to H.3924 (LC-4759.VR0001H) has now been introduced that would replace the beverage-only approach with a comprehensive regulatory framework for full-spectrum and broad-spectrum hemp-derived cannabinoid products that comply with the federal 0.3% THC standard. The amendment establishes product registration, ISO-accredited third-party testing, labeling and packaging standards, 21+ age restrictions, a prohibition on synthetic cannabinoids, licensing requirements, and a 10% excise tax to fund enforcement and oversight.

South Carolina residents: Take Action: Contact lawmakers and urge them to support the Ford amendment (LC-4759.VR0001H) to create a clear, enforceable regulatory framework rather than a beverage-only carveout.

Episode 2799: Scott Eden on a True Story of Love, Murder and California Weed

“The black market exists only because we decided that this form of trade should be illegal.” — Scott Eden

In October 2019, Californian tech executive Tushar Atre was abducted from his Santa Cruz oceanfront home and found murdered on his own property in the redwoods — shot execution-style, hands bound. The serial entrepreneur had spent barely three years in the cannabis business. Investigative journalist Scott Eden’s new book, A Killing in Cannabis, traces how a charismatic Silicon Valley innovator, seeking to “disrupt” the newly legal weed industry, found himself entangled with a cast of eccentric and violent characters — hippie do-gooders, black-market operators, and, surprise surprise, professional killers. We discuss the murky zone between legal and illegal cannabis, why this supposedly booming industry has been such an economic disaster for most founders, and whether America’s half-pregnant approach to legalization created the conditions for Tushar’s death. While Santa Cruz isn’t quite in Silicon Valley, this is nonetheless a quintessential tech bro parable about the darkness of the American dream.

Listen to the podcast

https://keenon.substack.com/p/californian-true-crime-a-killing

About CropKingSeeds

Established in 2005, Crop King Seeds has been perfecting the genetics of the cannabis plant for medical and commercial grower seeking maximum results in THC levels and harvest size.
From classic strains to new age hybrids, our seeds are ideal for beginners and advanced growers wanting the best from the crop.

Schedule III Was Always a Trap: Congressman Says the Quiet Part Out Loud

I’m not going to say “I told you so.”

Wait, yes I am. I told you so.

When the Biden administration announced its plan to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, the entire cannabis reform movement erupted in celebration. Headlines proclaimed it a “historic shift.” Advocates called it “progress.” Politicians patted themselves on the back for their “bold action.”

Meanwhile, I was sitting here screaming into the void: this is a trap.

Now, thanks to Republican Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland, we have confirmation straight from the source. The quiet part has been said out loud. And it’s exactly as cynical and calculated as we feared.

What Harris Actually Said

At a recent town hall meeting, Harris—who chairs the House Freedom Caucus and has been a consistent opponent of cannabis legalization—made a rather remarkable statement about the rescheduling process:

The Justice Department should take “about 20 years” to reschedule marijuana.

Twenty. Years.

Let that sink in for a moment.

He didn’t say “we need careful consideration.” He didn’t say “the science needs more time.” He said the administrative process should be deliberately stretched out for two decades—roughly the length of time it takes a child born today to become an adult.

This isn’t about caution or prudence or evidence-based policymaking. This is about obstruction as strategy.

Harris is openly admitting what prohibitionists have understood from the beginning: rescheduling is a bureaucratic black hole designed to create the appearance of progress while ensuring that nothing fundamentally changes.

Why Schedule III Was Never the Solution

Let’s revisit what Schedule III actually means, because the mainstream media coverage has been breathtakingly superficial.

Moving cannabis to Schedule III does not legalize marijuana federally. It does not end prohibition. It does not expunge criminal records. It does not stop federal prosecution of cannabis businesses or users.

Here’s what Schedule III actually accomplishes:

1. Tax Benefits for Cannabis Companies

Schedule III allows cannabis businesses to take normal business deductions under Section 280E of the tax code. This is significant for the industry’s bottom line, but it does nothing for the millions of Americans who’ve been arrested, incarcerated, or had their lives destroyed by prohibition.

2. Pharmaceutical Control

Schedule III substances require FDA approval for medical use. This means that while pharmaceutical companies can develop synthetic cannabinoids and bring them to market through the regulatory process, the plant itself remains in legal limbo—too restricted for general use, but accessible enough for corporations to profit.

3. Research Barriers Remain

Despite claims that rescheduling would facilitate research, Schedule III substances still face significant regulatory hurdles. Researchers need DEA licenses, institutional review board approvals, and extensive documentation. The barriers are lower than Schedule I, but they’re still substantial enough to limit independent research.

4. State-Legal Markets Stay Illegal Federally

Nothing about Schedule III changes the fact that state-legal cannabis businesses are violating federal law. Banking restrictions continue. Interstate commerce remains prohibited. Federal prosecution remains possible, even if unlikely.

Schedule III is prohibition with a corporate-friendly face. It’s legalization for Pfizer, not for people.

The Political Calculus: Distraction as Strategy

Harris’s 20-year timeline reveals the true purpose of the rescheduling process: to kill momentum for actual legalization by creating the illusion of progress.

Think about the political dynamics at play:

When Biden announced the rescheduling review, reform advocates had genuine momentum. Public support for legalization was at all-time highs—approaching 70% in most polls. States were legalizing at a rapid pace. The conversation was shifting from “whether” to “how” and “when.”

The rescheduling announcement sucked all the oxygen out of that momentum. Suddenly, the conversation became about administrative processes, DEA review periods, public comment windows, and regulatory timelines. The urgency disappeared. The pressure dissipated.

And that was exactly the point.

By routing marijuana reform through the most bureaucratic, time-consuming, politically insulated process imaginable, the administration ensured that actual legalization—the kind that requires Congress to act—could be indefinitely postponed.

Harris is just saying the quiet part out loud: the goal isn’t to reform policy. The goal is to delay reform until political conditions change or public attention moves on.

Why Congress Won’t Act (Unless We Force Them)

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Congress has no intention of legalizing marijuana through legislation unless they’re forced to do so.

Why? Because the current situation serves too many powerful interests:

Big Pharma wants to maintain monopoly control over cannabinoid-based medicines while keeping natural cannabis restricted enough that it can’t compete with their patented products.

The Alcohol Industry doesn’t want a legal competitor that’s safer, less addictive, and doesn’t kill 140,000 Americans annually.

The Prison-Industrial Complex depends on drug war funding, asset forfeiture, and a steady stream of bodies to fill private prisons and justify law enforcement budgets.

The DOJ and DEA need the drug war to justify their budgets, their authority, and their existence.

As long as marijuana reform can be shunted into administrative processes controlled by these same agencies and influenced by these same industries, nothing will fundamentally change.

Congressional action is the only path to actual legalization. And congressional action requires political pressure so intense that maintaining prohibition becomes more costly than ending it.

The Real Target: The Controlled Substances Act Itself

But here’s where I’m going to get really crazy—or really honest, depending on your perspective.

The problem isn’t just marijuana prohibition. The problem is the Controlled Substances Act itself.

The CSA, passed in 1970, is a fundamentally corrupt document. It’s the legislative foundation of the drug war, and it’s been used for over 50 years to justify:

• Mass incarceration of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color

• Militarization of domestic law enforcement

• Erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure

• Civil asset forfeiture that operates as legalized theft

• Destruction of communities and families

• Enrichment of cartels and organized crime

• Obstruction of legitimate medical research

• Corporate capture of drug policy for pharmaceutical profit

The scheduling system at the heart of the CSA gives unelected bureaucrats at the DEA and FDA the power to decide which substances Americans can use, research, or prescribe—with virtually no accountability, transparency, or scientific rigor.

This is not how drug policy should work in a free society.

The CSA needs to be dismantled entirely. Not reformed. Not tweaked. Dissolved.

Replace it with a public health framework that treats substance use as a medical and social issue, not a criminal one. Regulate drugs like we regulate other potentially harmful but legal substances—through consumer protection laws, product safety standards, and evidence-based harm reduction.

Return bodily autonomy to individuals. Restore the right of people to make their own decisions about consciousness alteration, medical treatment, and personal risk tolerance.

What Needs to Happen Now

The rescheduling charade has revealed the truth: we cannot reform our way out of prohibition by working within the system that created and profits from prohibition.

Here’s what needs to happen:

1. Congress Must Act

Forget rescheduling. Forget administrative processes. Force Congress to vote on descheduling marijuana entirely—removing it from the Controlled Substances Act completely.

Make every representative go on record. Make them explain to their constituents why they’re voting to maintain a policy that’s destroyed millions of lives while accomplishing none of its stated goals.

2. State-Level Nullification

States should continue legalizing and implementing robust markets regardless of federal policy. Create such a massive disconnect between federal law and on-the-ground reality that federal enforcement becomes politically and practically impossible.

3. Pressure Campaign

Target pharmaceutical companies, alcohol producers, and politicians who profit from prohibition. Make their financial ties public. Make their hypocrisy visible. Make supporting prohibition toxic enough that the political calculation flips.

4. Demand CSA Reform

Don’t stop at marijuana. The entire Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional, unscientific, and morally indefensible. Demand comprehensive drug policy reform that treats substance use as a health issue, not a criminal one.

The Liberty Argument They Don’t Want You Making

Here’s the argument that terrifies prohibitionists more than any other:

You own your body. You own your consciousness. The government has no legitimate authority to criminalize what you choose to put in your own body, consume with your own mind, or experience with your own consciousness.

This isn’t about whether drugs are “good” or “safe” or “beneficial.” It’s about whether you have the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and cognitive liberty.

The same government that claims you have the right to refuse medical treatment, to make your own reproductive choices, to practice your religion freely—that same government claims it can imprison you for decades for possessing a plant.

That’s not legitimate governance. That’s tyranny with a badge.

The Controlled Substances Act doesn’t protect public health. It doesn’t reduce addiction. It doesn’t make communities safer. It creates a massive black market, enriches violent cartels, corrupts law enforcement, and destroys lives by the millions.

And it does all of this while pharmaceutical companies profit from legal drugs that are objectively more dangerous than most of the substances on the controlled list.

The system is working exactly as designed—just not for you.

The Sticky Bottom Line

Congressman Andy Harris just told you exactly what Schedule III rescheduling is: a 20-year stalling tactic designed to run out the clock on marijuana legalization.

He said the quiet part out loud, and we should thank him for the honesty.

This isn’t about science. It isn’t about safety. It isn’t about protecting children or public health or any of the other rhetorical bullshit they’ve been feeding us for 87 years.

It’s about control. It’s about profit. It’s about maintaining a system that serves powerful interests at the expense of individual liberty.

Schedule III was always a trap. It was designed to look like progress while ensuring nothing changes. And it will continue to serve that purpose for as long as we allow it to.

The only path forward is through Congress. The only solution is descheduling—or better yet, dissolving the CSA entirely.

It’s time to crank up the pressure. It’s time to force representatives to vote on the record. It’s time to make prohibition more politically costly than legalization.

It’s time to take back your liberty. You deserve it.

Not in 20 years. Not after endless bureaucratic review. Not when the DEA decides you’ve waited long enough.

Now.

 

WHAT DOES SCHEDULE 3 ACTUALLY MEAN? READ ON…

THE WINNERS AND LOSER FROM CANNABIS SCHEDULE 3!

This article by Hirsh Jain originally appeared in the Cannabis Confidential newsletter. You can subscribe here.

Last week, the New York Times Editorial Board published an Op Ed titled “It’s Time for America to Admit That It Has a Marijuana Problem,” urging a regulatory crackdown on legal cannabis.

The piece claims to be motivated by the belief that “a society should be willing to examine the real-world impact of any major policy change” and to “respond to new facts.”

But the Op-Ed does precisely the opposite.

It is built on factual errors, selective omissions, and unsupported assertions that misrepresent the evidence on cannabis in order to justify an anti-cannabis posture.

If anything, the Editorial Board failed to respond to the facts about legalization.

Taxes, Economics, and the Illicit Market

Consider the claim that cannabis is undertaxed compared to alcohol and tobacco.

The Op-Ed states that “state taxes are as low as a few additional cents on a joint.” This appears inaccurate. In most legal states, cannabis is taxed at far higher effective rates than either alcohol or tobacco.

In California, legal cannabis is subject to a 15% state excise tax, a local excise tax that often approaches 10%, and standard sales taxes that frequently exceed 10%, pushing the total consumer-facing tax burden above 35%.

These, however, are only the taxes visible to the consumer. They do not include the substantial “hidden taxes” imposed earlier in the supply chain on cannabis cultivators, manufacturers, and distributors, costs that are ultimately passed along to customers at retail.

Nor do they include the exorbitant state and local licensing fees that legal cannabis businesses must pay, which function as a de facto tax on participation in the legal cannabis market.

And they do not include the federal tax burden imposed by IRS Code Section 280E, which forces cannabis companies to pay effective federal tax rates approaching 70%, more than double those paid by other legal American businesses.

By contrast, alcohol in California faces a beer excise tax of roughly 2 cents per drink. Tobacco taxes, while higher than alcohol, still impose a far lower effective burden relative to retail price than cannabis.

This disparity exists despite a glaring difference in risk profile.

Alcohol and tobacco kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year.

Fatal overdose from cannabis alone is extremely rare.

Regardless of one’s personal views on cannabis, the claim that it is undertaxed relative to alcohol or tobacco is not a matter of opinion. It is empirically wrong, and it ignores the far lower risk profile of cannabis compared to the substances our society has normalized and commercialized for decades.

In fact, the persistence of massive illicit cannabis markets in many states where cannabis is legal is itself clear evidence that cannabis is overtaxed relative to alcohol and tobacco.

Alcohol and tobacco do not sustain large illegal markets in the United States because their tax rates are calibrated to keep legal products competitive.

Legal cannabis, by contrast, continues to face substantial illicit competition precisely because taxes and regulatory costs are so high that legal businesses struggle to compete.

The existence of these illicit markets is proof that cannabis is not undertaxed, but just the opposite.

Despite this reality, the Editorial Board proposes raising cannabis taxes further, writing that “if a joint cost $10 instead of $5, it would mean a lot of extra money for someone now smoking multiple joints a day and may change that person’s behavior.”

This claim reflects a startling misunderstanding of basic economics.

Higher taxes do not make cannabis use disappear. They push consumers into illegal markets. This is not theoretical. It is exactly what has occurred in high-tax states like California, where illicit cannabis continues to thrive despite legalization.

The irony is difficult to miss. The Op-Ed laments illegal products like “Trips Ahoy” and “Double Stuf Stoneo” that appeal to children, yet those products typically originate in illicit markets rather than licensed channels.

By advocating policies that weaken legal operators and strengthen illicit sellers, the Editorial Board’s recommendations would directly empower the very actors most likely to sell such products to minors.

THC Caps and the Lessons of Prohibition

This same failure to grapple with incentives and real-world behavior appears again in the Op-Ed’s proposal “to make illegal any marijuana product that exceeds a THC level of 60 percent.”

This suggestion is, once more, dangerously naive. History has already shown what happens when policymakers force consumers out of regulated markets for products they demand.

In 2019, an illicit cannabis vape crisis, driven by unregulated THC cartridges adulterated with vitamin E acetate, hospitalized thousands of Americans and killed dozens of unsuspecting people.

That public health disaster was not caused by legal cannabis. It was caused by prohibition-driven illicit cannabis supply.

Forcing high-potency cannabis products back into the illegal market would repeat that mistake at scale. It would not eliminate demand. It would simply ensure that consumers obtain these products from unregulated sources with no testing, no labeling, and no accountability.

One is left to ask why the Editorial Board does not also propose making hard liquor illegal. Treating potency as the governing principle would mean forcing high-proof alcohol out of licensed stores and back into unregulated production, recreating the era of bathtub gin. We tried that experiment once. It did not end well.

The Op-Ed also indulges in the rhetorical fiction of “Big Weed,” an intentionally loaded phrase meant to evoke “Big Tobacco.”

This comparison collapses under even minimal scrutiny.

Even the largest cannabis companies are tiny compared to major American corporations, and the vast majority of cannabis businesses are small and medium-sized businesses.

More importantly, tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people annually. Cannabis does not cause the hundreds of thousands of deaths seen each year from alcohol and tobacco. Conflating these industries is disingenuous.

Regulation, Commercialization, and Hypocrisy

The same pattern continues in the Op-Ed’s claim that cannabis is less regulated than alcohol. The Editorial Board writes that legalization has produced “a lightly regulated industry” and warns of “a powerful commercial sector” operating with insufficient oversight.

This bears little resemblance to reality.

Cannabis is among the most heavily regulated consumer goods in the United States.

In New York, cannabis advertising is prohibited on billboards and tightly restricted across digital and physical media, while alcohol advertising is ubiquitous.

Alcohol brands saturate professional sports, name stadiums, and dominate Super Bowl commercials watched by millions of children.

Cannabis retailers face extreme zoning restrictions and are often confined to limited corridors, while liquor stores line commercial streets in virtually every town in America.

We live in a society that deliberately structures its “choice architecture” to encourage alcohol consumption, despite alcohol being one of the most destructive substances in our culture.

Alcohol is sold nearly everywhere and marketed as glamorous, social, and essential to celebration. Cannabis, by contrast, is treated as a pariah product, subjected to exhaustive regulation at every step from seed to sale.

The outrage over even minimal cannabis commercialization is not grounded in public health. It reflects a deep hypocrisy in a culture that aggressively commercializes far more harmful substances while treating any visible cannabis market as uniquely dangerous, despite its far lower risk profile.

And if the Editorial Board were genuinely interested in examining real-world evidence, it would not need to speculate.

Canada has had fully legal, federally regulated cannabis sales for nearly eight years. The dystopian outcomes implied by the Op Ed never materialized.

There was no collapse in social order, no explosion in youth use, and no public health catastrophe.

Anyone sincerely curious about the consequences of legalization could look just across the northern border from New York and see that these claims are not borne out in practice.

Medical Evidence and Scientific Misrepresentation

The Op-Ed’s treatment of medical cannabis is even more indefensible. It claims that “decades of studies on the drug have proved disappointing to its boosters, finding little medical benefit.” This assertion is profoundly disconnected from the evidence.

In 2023, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a 252-page scientific review documenting substantial evidence of cannabis’s medical efficacy across a wide range of conditions, including chronic pain, nausea, multiple sclerosis-related spasticity, and appetite loss associated with cancer and HIV.

This report should be accorded extraordinary weight. It comes from the most respected public health authority in the country, if not the world, and reflects a comprehensive review of the global scientific literature.

The New York Times Op-Ed does not mention it at all. That omission is difficult to explain as anything other than a refusal to grapple with the most consequential evidence available because it contradicts the Editorial Board’s narrative.

The Op-Ed cites no credible research to support its claim that cannabis lacks medical value.

It may be implicitly referencing a recent JAMA review titled “Therapeutic Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review,” which has been criticized for serious methodological flaws, including overly restrictive inclusion criteria, failure to account for real-world clinical outcomes, and conflation of recreational and medical use.

Even if one accepted that contested analysis, it would still be dwarfed by the far more comprehensive and authoritative HHS review. Ignoring the latter while asserting that cannabis has “limited medical benefit” is a serious analytical failure.

At one point, the Editorial Board concedes that cannabis is safer than alcohol and tobacco “in some ways,” but conspicuously refuses to say what those ways are.

That omission is telling.

Cannabis is safer in this respect because a fatal overdose from cannabis alone is extremely rare.

It is safer because it does not cause the hundreds of thousands of deaths seen each year from alcohol and tobacco.

It is safer because it does not produce the long-term organ damage associated with alcohol and tobacco, an immense burden on the health care system that all Americans bear through ever-rising insurance premiums.

The unwillingness of the Op-Ed to state these facts plainly reflects a discomfort with acknowledging just how stark the safety differential actually is.

Youth Use, Families, and Work

In addition, the Op-Ed’s concern for children rings particularly hollow in light of real-world evidence.

The December 2025 Monitoring the Future study, conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), found that past twelve-month cannabis use among youth is at its lowest level in three decades.

This is precisely because regulated markets reduce youth access by replacing street dealers with licensed businesses that check IDs and face severe penalties for violations. Regulation works.

The Op-Ed further claims that “people who are frequently stoned can struggle to hold a job or take care of their families.” This is an embarrassing ad hominem assertion unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Alcohol, not cannabis, is the dominant contributor to domestic violence in the United States. Research has shown that cannabis legalization is associated with reduced alcohol consumption, which in practice helps reduce violence against women and children.

To suggest that cannabis is uniquely harmful to families while ignoring alcohol’s well documented role in family destruction and cannabis’ role as a substitute is reckless and irresponsible.

The claim that frequent cannabis users cannot hold jobs is equally unserious.

Many of the most economically productive members of society consume cannabis. Cannabis use is even associated with greater physical activity, directly contradicting the caricature of cannabis users as “lazy.”

A peer-reviewed study published in Preventive Medicine Reports found that adults who use cannabis are significantly more likely to meet recommended physical activity guidelines than non-users.

Additionally, research from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that medical cannabis legalization is associated with statistically significant reductions in workers’ compensation claims, particularly in physically demanding occupations.

One reason why is that some workers substitute cannabis for opioids or other pain medications, improving their capacity to work safely and reducing injury risk.

In short, the naked assertion that “people who are frequently stoned can struggle to hold a job or take care of their families” is beneath the dignity of the New York Times Editorial Board.

What This Is Really About

But above all the substantive reasons this Op-Ed is wrong, it is worth asking what this debate is really about?

It is about democracy and personal liberty. The New York Times Editorial Board does not represent the American people on this issue. Even in very conservative states, overwhelming majorities believe cannabis has legitimate medical value.

This Op-Ed reflects a familiar pattern in American public life, where cultural elites substitute their own preferences for those of their fellow citizens and cloak those preferences in the language of science and public health in order to justify restricting how others live their lives.

That is not evidence-based policymaking. It is a refusal to accept the judgment of a democratic public that has weighed the facts and reached a different conclusion.

The American people are not fooled here. They can distinguish real evidence from motivated reasoning.

Efforts to limit the freedom of others by mischaracterizing data and ignoring lived experience do not elevate public discourse.

If anything, they simply erode trust in institutions like the New York Times that once claimed to stand for truth.

also see: CB1’s cannabinoid research repository.

Hirsh Jain is the CEO of Ananda Strategy, a cannabis-focused business advisory firm that works with cannabis brands, retailers, distributors, technology platforms and other businesses on matters ranging from competitive licensing, legislative strategy, regulatory intelligence, market expansion, business litigation, internal & external communication and other varied corporate initiatives.

This article is commentary from an external, unpaid contributor. Views are the author’s. Edited for clarity and style.

According to Google Trends, searches for “therian” have increased by 5,000%. Why? Mainly, the viral spread of their gatherings and the news coverage in mainstream media. Their bodies are human, but their identity is animal. Wait a minute: as wild as it may sound, completely insane even, we’re witnessing a genuine teensploitation phenomenon. Wherever they go, therians become a sensation: they run, jump, sniff, and sometimes even bite (please don’t, therians). But what are therians, why are they making headlines, and why might they become a symbol of cannabis liberation?

According to the International Anthropomorphic Research Project (IARP), a group of scientists who study the furry fandom, “therianthropy is the phenomenon of individuals who identify as a non-human animal species and can often manifest through shifts, which are changes in mental state or perceived physical sensations.”

Here’s the thing: therians went viral because they evoke something in others that’s difficult to decode. It sparks laughter, anger, curiosity, disdain, discomfort, love, even ignorance. Perfect fuel for the TikTok algorithm.

As such, these days therians are receiving unprecedented attention. And while they are a young community, born in the early heat of the internet, on Usenet forums in the early ’90s, they’ve even surpassed the more established furry community in popularity, a subculture with a deep interest in anthropomorphic animals and common figures at otaku and other fandom events. Technology has changed, but the need for a pack remains.

And, if you’ll allow me (please do, we’re inviting you to think), the connection between therians and cannabis liberation is not arbitrary: both share a root in bodily sovereignty and perception. Cannabis culture fought for decades for the right to alter perception and mental states without being criminalized. Through their “shifts” (the aforementioned changes in mental state in which they connect with their animal identity), therians do something similar, but endogenously. Their experience is both mental and sensory.

So, if cannabis users seek expanded consciousness to see the world “differently” (yes, I know, they also seek so many other things), therians claim the right to inhabit a non-human consciousness. And, in that sense, both groups are labeled by a predominantly “normative” society as “crazy,” “immature,” or people who are “escaping reality.” They share, let’s say, a stigma: “This is right, this is wrong.” And for them, in this clash of prejudices, the ball falls squarely on “what’s wrong.”

And as happened with one of the main slogans of the feminist revolution, the one that established the idea of “My body, my choice,” the cannabis movement also embraced that notion. But, but, but, therians take that postulate to the extreme: they embody a rebellion against their own biological species and carry out an aesthetic disobedience. In short: they crawl around on all fours in public places and wear dog masks that look like your French bulldog Charlie.

So, like all these ruptures born from youth culture, which is the main driving force behind irreverence throughout history, just as smoking weed in a public square was a political act 20 or 30 years ago, today “behaving like an animal” challenges public decency and the behavioral norms imposed by the production system. The system that wants us quiet, consuming industrial waste, ultra-processed food, and AI-powered doomscrolling material. Their mere presence disrupts the system’s productivity contract.

So, at the risk of exaggerating (I encourage exaggeration), therians can become a symbol of rebellion for this liquid 21st century (the term is Zygmunt Bauman’s, not mine), which needs new ways of addressing cries and creating cultural ruptures. And just as there was a fight to prevent cannabis use from being seen as a mental illness, at this very moment, therians are in the “shock” phase against the psychiatric manual. They are navigating a kind of embraced difference. We’ll see what happens to them. In the end, what happens isn’t so much what matters. What matters is the gesture. What remains of all this when all this is over.

And just as they go against the grain of society (a therian recently told me: “I don’t want to fit into this society that imposes all these rules on me”), they invoke a return to nature: “We are not machines,” they seem to shout, enthroning a fierce critique of hyper-technological capitalism from a profoundly primitive place. And if cannabis proposes a return to the earth, here lies another point of connection: woof, woof, meow, meow, with their feet in the grass.

All of that anger, all that discomfort, everything you’re probably feeling while reading this (it’s okay, I understand, really), is the same as what hippies generated during the ’60s, or punks in the ’70s, or those who danced to Tecktonik in the ’00s (probably you). And while the cannabis movement navigates a sea of legality, shops, and ultra-high-end celebrity brands flaunting their privileges, therians represent a new kind of marginality. One that doesn’t ask for permission. Sorry if it bothers you. The truth shouldn’t offend.

Therefore, if “coexisting means accepting others,” perhaps the comparison with therians may feel over the top (it probably is; again: exaggeration is fine, even awesome), but within their existence lies a new form of rebellion, one that doesn’t ask permission to feel, to perceive, or to act outside the norms.

That’s why they stand tall, as if their essence were a spiritual version of that old autonomy the cannabis movement has always tried to defend. Here’s a gentle (dog’s) ear tug to keep us from becoming complacent and to remind us that the fight continues. And that it needs us to be rebellious, resourceful, and disruptive, like a wet cat, like a bat at midday, or like a therian in the Senate.

Cover photo created with Gemini AI.

 

 

 

 

 

DOWNLOAD FOR FREE AT PODOMATIC

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/karmakoalapodcast/episodes/2026-02-16T03_11_00-08_00

Jason has been running the Harris Sliwoski Denver office for a while now and he’s pretty clued into what’s happening around the world in cannabis.

Which is lucky, because every time time i try and get my head around cannabis regulation in France I get…….. le migraine terrible!

Brazil I find equally confusing.

So, Jason has come to my rescue (and yours) and guides us through the current ins and outs of both these jurisdictions.

Although we do try to avoid the topic of Trump’s EO it bubbles up, like the sulphurous smell it is.

So we highlight a few issues.

Jason Adelstone is a seasoned business lawyer, international policy advisor, and problem solver. Based in Denver, Colorado, he provides domestic and international legal counsel to a diverse clientele, including entrepreneurs, corporations, religious organizations, and federal and international cannabis operators. His practice spans corporate law, international policy, and cannabis regulatory compliance, helping clients navigate the complexities of the global cannabis industry and beyond.

A recognized authority in the U.S. on international drug treaties, Jason has collaborated with legal and policy experts worldwide to address evolving cannabis laws, U.S. and EU regulatory challenges, and treaty obligations. His expertise includes corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions, business formation, contract negotiation and drafting, restaurant and franchise law, and state and federal conflicts of law.

Jason’s professional journey is as unique as it is diverse. Before becoming a lawyer, he served as a logistics supervisor for the U.S. Antarctic Program at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, and spent 18 years in the restaurant industry, managing both front- and back-of-house operations. These experiences instilled in him a practical, results-driven approach to solving complex legal and regulatory challenges.

He advises clients on a wide range of corporate and regulatory matters, including:

• Corporate governance and compliance.
• Mergers, acquisitions, and business restructuring.
• Drafting and negotiating commercial contracts.
• Market entry strategies for U.S. and international operators.
• International policy reforms, particularly concerning obligations under the three international drug treaties.
• Cannabis rescheduling and regulatory compliance under the Controlled Substances Act and DEA regulations.

 

https://harris-sliwoski.com/our-team/jason-adelstone/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOWNLOAD FOR FREE AT PODOMATIC

https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/karmakoalapodcast/episodes/2026-02-16T02_27_46-08_00

 

I came across Jarid on Linked In and he’s making inroads with sustainable indoor cannabis grows and developing ideas and systems to do so on larger scaling.

Well worth a chat so we got him on the Karma Koala podcast to see where this stuff is heading.

 

Jarid Turner has held a variety of positions in the engineering and agriculture industries. In 2022, they became Co-Founder of Jersey Smooth CC. In 2021, they were Director of Indoor Ag Technology at PLANT GROUP and Controlled-Environment Agriculture Engineer at Sensei Ag. From 2018 to 2020, they worked at Crop One Holdings (FreshBox Farms) as Construction Project Manager and Jr. Project Manager. In 2016, they were a CAD Engineer at ConforMIS, Inc. and an Engineering Associate at Baltic Trail Engineering, LLC. In 2017, they were a Technical Support Engineer at Fowler High Precision. In 2015, they were a Residential Safety Office Proctor at Northeastern University and a Student Mentor at Bridge to Calculus.

Jarid Turner graduated from Lexington High School in 2007 with a Diploma. Jarid then attended Northeastern University from 2009 to 2015, where they obtained a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering.

About CropKingSeeds

Established in 2005, Crop King Seeds has been perfecting the genetics of the cannabis plant for medical and commercial grower seeking maximum results in THC levels and harvest size.
From classic strains to new age hybrids, our seeds are ideal for beginners and advanced growers wanting the best from the crop.

In Kyiv and the surrounding region, law enforcement agencies, together with the Security Service of Ukraine, dismantled an international cocaine trafficking channel with a multi-million-dollar turnover. In total, 16 suspects linked to the operation have been detained.

The Department of Internal Security of the National Police of Ukraine reported on these events.

“More than fifty searches, 16 arrests and the dismantling of a cocaine distribution network with a multi-million-dollar turnover in the Kyiv metropolitan region – the result of a joint special operation by investigators of the Kyiv region police, operatives of the Department of Internal Security (DIB) of the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine. Cocaine entered Ukraine from Latin American countries via smuggling routes through Europe.”

Who led it and how the network operated

According to investigators, at the head of this group was a 40-year-old man previously convicted of narcotics offenses.

The DIB reported that the suspect recruited three more co-organizers, to whom he delegated duties such as procuring drugs, finding clients, establishing a network of dealers, as well as overseeing participants in the group and financial flows.

“Other suspects, including one native of the Russian Federation, were responsible for packaging, transporting and selling cocaine. The accomplices took orders via the Telegram messenger, and delivery was carried out in rented cars, camouflaged as a taxi service. The narcotic was handed over hand-to-hand, after agreeing in advance on the time and place of the meeting.”

According to investigators, the price of one gram of the narcotic ranged from 150 to 200 dollars, and the monthly profit of the criminal group was about 17 million hryvnias.

Officers from the DIB of the NPU, the SBU, and investigators of the Kyiv Oblast Police conducted a series of simultaneous authorized searches in several regions. During the investigative actions, narcotic substances, cash in various currencies, devices for using drugs, vehicles, draft notes, bank cards, and other evidentiary items were seized.

Sixteen members of the group were detained in accordance with the law, including the organizer.

All of them were notified of suspicion under Part 1 and Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, procurement, storage, transportation, transfer, or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).

The organizer and co-organizers are already in custody. The court ordered detention without the possibility of posting bail. They face up to 12 years in prison.

Procedural leadership in the case is being carried out by the Kyiv Oblast Prosecutor’s Office.

About CropKingSeeds

Established in 2005, Crop King Seeds has been perfecting the genetics of the cannabis plant for medical and commercial grower seeking maximum results in THC levels and harvest size.
From classic strains to new age hybrids, our seeds are ideal for beginners and advanced growers wanting the best from the crop.