Category: Cannabis

Really?

Now it is specifically Canadian Bankers.

Somehow American bankers wouldn’t have been as speculative if they were allowed to be

Here’s taste of this garbage.

The inevitable post-mortems have been just as fast and furious: Incompetent and corrupt politicians. State taxes. Federal taxes. Cost of capital. Regulations. The black market.  The bankers. The gangsters. The lawyers. And while all of these may have had a hand in the U.S. cannabis market’s downfall, they are simply symptoms of the real problem: Canadian capital markets.

Canadian investment bankers, to be precise. These penny-stock mining hucksters knew a perfect storm when they saw one and took the industry for a ride.

There are four primary …….

and so on and so forth

All the people borrowing the money wanted to get rich quick, somehow Canadain bankers are hucksters but not USA ones .

Financiers by their very nature are generally assholes doesn’t matter where they are from. The cannabis people bought into get rich quick too.

Once again High  Times have done their new favourite disclaimer

This article is from an external, unpaid contributor. It does not represent High Times’ reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy.

Which is why you shouldn’t read it or pay much attention to what high times has to say.

If they were smart they would have commissioned John Lanchester at the LRB and author of Capital to write something

Read more of their trash at  https://hightimes.com/culture/who-killed-the-us-cannabis-market/

At least when the writers there were under the stewardship of an American financier who literally gangraped the publication to death they still attempted to publish some half decent reports. Now it’s under a very wealthy owner who obviously thinks of himself as an underdog and outsider it is going from bad to worse.

CBD increases the effects of THC claims new study

For years, cannabis enthusiasts and medical professionals alike have subscribed to a simple narrative: THC gets you high, while CBD chills you out. This conventional wisdom has shaped everything from product development to dosing recommendations. But what if we’ve had it all wrong?

A recent study published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics is challenging this long-held belief. Contrary to popular opinion, the research suggests that CBD may actually intensify the effects of THC, not dampen them. This revelation is sending ripples through the cannabis community and forcing us to reconsider our understanding of how these cannabinoids interact.

But should we really be surprised? Those familiar with the concept of the “entourage effect” have long understood that cannabinoids don’t exist in isolation. This phenomenon, first proposed by Israeli researchers in 1998, suggests that the various compounds in cannabis work synergistically, producing effects that are greater than the sum of their parts.

This interplay between cannabinoids isn’t just a matter of academic interest – it has real-world implications for medical cannabis users. It’s one of the primary reasons why “whole plant extracts” often demonstrate superior therapeutic efficacy compared to isolated cannabinoids. The complex dance of compounds in full-spectrum products can provide a more comprehensive and potentially more effective treatment option for many conditions.

As we delve into the details of this groundbreaking study, we’ll explore how it challenges our preconceptions about CBD and THC. We’ll examine the methodology, unpack the findings, and consider what this means for both recreational and medicinal cannabis users. Most importantly, we’ll contemplate how this new understanding might shape the future of cannabis research and product development.

So, strap in, fellow cannabis enthusiasts. We’re about to embark on a journey that might just change everything you thought you knew about CBD and THC. Let’s dive into the science and see what this study really has to say.

The groundbreaking research, published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, challenges our long-held beliefs about the interplay between CBD and THC. The study, conducted by a seven-person research team from the Netherlands and the U.S., employed a rigorous methodology to explore this complex relationship.

At its core, the study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 37 healthy volunteers. The researchers set out to test the hypothesis that CBD would reduce the adverse effects of THC, potentially making therapeutic THC more tolerable for chronic pain patients. However, the results painted a very different picture.

The study’s findings were unequivocal: “In contrast to what is commonly hypothesized in (popular) literature, CBD did not reduce the adverse effects of THC.” In fact, the researchers found that high doses of CBD actually amplified THC’s effects. As they stated, “This study found no evidence of CBD reducing adverse THC effects. On the contrary, THC effects were significantly increased by 450 mg of CBD.”

One of the most intriguing aspects of this study is the apparent dose-dependent nature of CBD’s interaction with THC. The researchers observed that smaller doses of CBD (10 mg and 30 mg) did not significantly alter THC’s effects. However, when participants took a high dose of CBD (450 mg) alongside a smaller 9-mg dose of THC, they experienced “significantly increased subjective, psychomotor, cognitive, and autonomous effects of THC.”

This dose-dependency suggests a complex relationship between these cannabinoids. It appears that CBD’s potential to enhance THC’s effects only kicks in at higher concentrations, a finding that could have significant implications for both recreational users and medical patients.

But the story doesn’t end with cannabinoids. The researchers also touched on the role of terpenes, another crucial component of the cannabis plant. While this particular study didn’t focus on terpenes, the authors acknowledged their potential importance, referencing other research that has explored the impact of these aromatic compounds.

For instance, they cited a separate study that found D-limonene, a terpene commonly found in cannabis and citrus fruits, could reduce anxiety and paranoia in people who took THC. This highlights the intricate dance between cannabinoids and terpenes in shaping the overall cannabis experience.

The inclusion of terpenes in this discussion underscores the complexity of cannabis pharmacology. As the researchers noted, “The complex interaction between phytocannabinoids and biological systems offers hope for novel treatment approaches.” This statement echoes the growing recognition in the scientific community that whole-plant cannabis medicine, incorporating the full spectrum of cannabinoids and terpenes, may offer unique therapeutic benefits.

In conclusion, this study serves as a stark reminder of how much we still have to learn about cannabis. It challenges our assumptions, forcing us to reconsider the relationship between CBD and THC. Moreover, it highlights the need for further research into the intricate interplay between cannabinoids, terpenes, and other compounds found in the cannabis plant.

As we continue to unravel these complex interactions, we may discover new ways to harness the therapeutic potential of cannabis. The journey of understanding is far from over, but studies like this one are lighting the way forward, revealing the depth and complexity of this remarkable plant.

JG

Now let’s write a section called “What we know about the entourage effect”

In this section focus on:

• What is the entourage effect?

• How diverse cannabinoids interact with our endocannabinoid system

• Why isolates still have their place within the medical world (especially in making pharmaceutical medication based on cannabis)

• Yet, due to the entourage effect, this is what makes cannabis a good medicine, it’s complex, diverse, and considering that the whole plant acts for superior health, accessible by anyone with a bit of dirt, water, sun and love.

Certainly! Here’s a section on “What we know about the entourage effect” based on your outlined points:

What We Know About the Entourage Effect

The entourage effect is a fascinating concept that’s been buzzing around cannabis circles for years. In essence, it’s the idea that the various compounds in cannabis work together synergistically, producing effects that are greater than the sum of their parts. It’s nature’s own chemical cocktail party, and we’re just beginning to understand the complex interactions at play.

When we consume cannabis, we’re not just getting a dose of THC or CBD. We’re ingesting a complex mixture of cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, and other compounds. Each of these components interacts with our endocannabinoid system in unique ways. THC might be binding to CB1 receptors in our brain, while CBD is modulating that interaction. Meanwhile, terpenes like myrcene might be enhancing the passage of these cannabinoids through the blood-brain barrier.

It’s like a carefully orchestrated symphony, with each compound playing its part to create a harmonious whole. This is why many users report that whole-plant extracts often provide more comprehensive relief than isolated cannabinoids.

Now, don’t get me wrong – isolates still have their place in the medical world. They’re especially useful when it comes to developing pharmaceutical medications based on cannabis. Isolates provide consistency and standardization, which are crucial in clinical settings. They allow for precise dosing and can be helpful for patients who need specific effects without the influence of other compounds.

But here’s the kicker – while isolates have their uses, the entourage effect is what makes cannabis such a versatile and effective medicine. The plant’s natural complexity allows it to address multiple symptoms simultaneously, often with fewer side effects than synthetic alternatives. It’s like the Swiss Army knife of natural medicine.

And perhaps the most beautiful aspect of all this? Cannabis, in its whole-plant form, is incredibly accessible. Anyone with a bit of dirt, water, sunlight, and love can grow this remarkable medicine. It’s a testament to nature’s ingenuity – packaging a complex pharmacy into a single plant that can be cultivated in your backyard.

As we’ve explored in this article, the relationship between CBD and THC is far more complex than we once thought. The recent study challenging our assumptions about CBD’s ability to counteract THC’s effects serves as a potent reminder of how much we still have to learn about cannabis.

The entourage effect continues to fascinate researchers and enthusiasts alike, highlighting the intricate dance of cannabinoids and terpenes that makes cannabis such a unique and versatile plant. While isolates have their place in medical applications, the power of whole-plant medicine cannot be overlooked.

For those intrigued by cannabis’ potential as a medicine, now is an exciting time to dive deeper. Consider exploring different strains and their unique cannabinoid and terpene profiles. Keep a journal of your experiences, noting how different products affect you. This personal data can be invaluable in finding the right cannabis medicine for your needs.

Don’t shy away from asking questions at your local dispensary or seeking out a cannabis-friendly healthcare provider. As our understanding of cannabis evolves, so too should our approach to using it medicinally.

Remember, everyone’s endocannabinoid system is unique. What works for one person may not work for another. Patience and careful experimentation are key.

As we continue to unravel the mysteries of this remarkable plant, one thing is clear: cannabis has much more to teach us. Stay curious, stay informed, and above all, listen to your body. The journey of discovery is just beginning, and the potential benefits are as vast as the plant’s complexity itself.

REF: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/cbd-may-actually-increase-thcs-intoxicating-effect

-new-marijuana-study-finds-contrary-to-conventional-wisdom/

HOW DO CBD AND THC WORK TOGETHER? READ ON…

DOES CBD MUTE THE EFFECTS OF THC, OR JUST THE OPPOSITE?

A 15-minute film follows one season of sun-grown cannabis in Maine and a partnership built to survive outside the corporate model.

In King’s Field, the story begins with a simple problem. King Bishop cannot grow enough cannabis to keep his shop stocked. The solution does not arrive through expansion capital or industrial infrastructure. It arrives through trust, experience, and a shared understanding of the land.

Directed by Joe Carter, King’s Field – A Maine Cannabis Story is a 15-minute short documentary that follows one full outdoor season of sun-grown cannabis in Maine. It is observational, unhurried, and grounded in the daily realities of cultivation. There is no narration guiding the viewer. The people involved speak for themselves, and the plants do the rest.

Bishop introduces himself, standing just outside Belfast, where his dispensary sits on the city dock. He traces his cannabis life from early caregiver days, when plant counts were tightly capped, through the transition to a dispensary model that finally allowed him to grow without artificial limits. Even then, demand outpaced supply.

“I ran out of cannabis every year,” he says plainly.

The film follows his partnership with Matt of Northern Sol, a sun-grown farmer who has spent years acclimating genetics to Maine’s specific climate. That process is explained not as branding but as survival. Humidity, mold pressure, cold weather, and short seasons demand plants that belong where they are grown. Genetics bred for California or Colorado do not automatically thrive in New England.

Over the last decade, Matt refined Maine-adapted genetics built to handle local pressures like humidity, mold risk, and the realities of a short outdoor season. The result is a densely planted field without traditional walking rows, designed to be planted and largely left alone until harvest. It is a shift from hands-on horticulture toward a more agricultural approach.

The scale is striking without feeling inflated. King argues a single person can manage an acre planted with roughly 12,000 to 15,000 plants. Harvest moves fast with a small crew, measured in days, not weeks, and the crop is processed into biomass that he says will show up in edibles and vape pens within about three weeks.

What gives the film weight is not scale, but restraint.

Carter’s camera captures moments that feel almost accidental. Jokes about surfing trips timed around early harvests. Quiet walks through the field. A pool beside the greenhouse, where the view is nothing but cannabis plants stretching to the horizon. There is humor, pride, and disbelief, especially when Bishop reflects on how, not long ago, this same field could have meant prison time.

“If this was my last grow,” Bishop says near the end, looking out over the colas, “I could retire on this note.”

That line lands because the film has earned it. King’s Field is not framed as nostalgia or resistance. It is presented as a working model for how small operators might survive a future dominated by corporate cultivation. Dense planting, region-specific genetics, low labor overhead, and deep familiarity with the plant.

There is a moment when Matt explains his philosophy simply. The path forward is found by working with present circumstances, not fighting them. Focus on the plant in front of you. Trust the genetics you have bred. Accept the scale of the task without being overwhelmed by it.

For High Times readers, King’s Field feels like a reminder of something essential. Cannabis did not start as a corporate product. It started as a plant shaped by place, people, and patience. This film does not argue that this way is the only way. It simply shows that it is still possible.

Sometimes the most radical thing a cannabis story can do is slow down, watch the season unfold, and let the field speak for itself.

There was a time, not so long ago, when cannabis was categorized simply by “Indica,” “Sativa,” or “Hybrid.” If you were lucky, you knew the name of the strain. If you were even luckier, it actually smelled like what it was supposed to.

But in 2026, the game has changed entirely. We have entered the Terpene Revolution.

Today’s cannabis consumer is a connoisseur, much like a wine sommelier. We don’t just ask about THC percentages anymore (though we still check); we ask about the profile. We hunt for flavors. The market has bifurcated into two dominant flavor camps that define the modern era of genetics: Team Gas and Team Candy.

On one side, you have the pungent, fuel-soaked aromas that defined the East Coast underground for decades—the “Gas.” On the other, you have the creamy, doughy, sweet profiles that exploded out of California’s genetics boom—the “Candy” or “Dessert” strains. And sitting comfortably in the middle are the fruity, tropical explosions that bridge the gap.

But what actually creates these flavors? And more importantly, which one is right for your palette? This is your ultimate guide to the “Gas vs. Candy” wars of 2026.

The Science of Smell: It’s All About Terpenes

Before we dive into the specific strains, we have to understand the engine behind the flavor: Terpenes. These are the aromatic oils secreted in the same resin glands (trichomes) that produce THC and CBD.

While there are over 100 terpenes found in cannabis, a few key players dictate whether your bud smells like a mechanic shop or a bakery.

• Myrcene: Earthy, musky, and herbal.
• Limonene: Citrusy, sharp, and mood-elevating.
• Caryophyllene: Spicy, peppery, and the only terpene that interacts directly with your endocannabinoid system.
• Linalool: Floral, lavender-like, and sedative.

The combination of these terpenes creates the “entourage effect,” modifying not just the taste, but the high. That’s why a gassy Sour Diesel feels different than a sugary Wedding Cake, even if they have the same THC level.

Team Gas: The East Coast Roar

If you grew up smoking in New York City in the 90s or 2000s, you know exactly what “Gas” is. It’s that smell that punches you in the nose the moment a bag is opened. It’s skunky, sharp, and smells distinctly like diesel fuel or burnt rubber.

The Profile: Gas strains are typically dominated by a high concentration of Caryophyllene and Myrcene, often with a sharp cut of Limonene. This combination creates a “loud” aroma that is notoriously difficult to hide.

The Strains:

• Sour Diesel (Sour D): The King of NY. It’s energetic, cerebral, and tastes like pure lemon-fuel.
• Chemdawg: The genetic backbone of almost all gas strains. It hits hard and fast with a chemical, heavy smoke.
• Motorbreath: A modern heavyweight that combines Chem D with SFV OG for a pure industrial fume profile.

Why People Love It: “Gas” lovers are usually chasing potency and nostalgia. These strains tend to be heavy hitters. The flavor is aggressive, coating the mouth and throat. It’s not subtle, and it’s not trying to be.

For the New Yorker, this flavor profile is home. It’s the scent of the city. While the exotic desserts are popular, New York runs on Diesel. If you are hunting for that pungent, gassy aroma that screams “authenticity,” you need to check the menu at High Fashion Smokes and Prints Cannabis Delivery. They specialize in curating the kind of loud, gassy genetics—like the newest cuts of Sour and GMO—that satisfy the old-school craving for power.

Team Candy: The West Coast Dessert Revolution

While the East Coast was perfecting the gas, California was in the kitchen baking.

Over the last decade, West Coast breeders revolutionized cannabis genetics by breeding for “Dessert” profiles. This movement was led by the “Cookies” family of genetics. Suddenly, weed didn’t smell like skunk anymore; it smelled like vanilla frosting, berry tart, and fresh-baked dough.

The Profile: Dessert strains rely heavily on Limonene (lemon/citrus) mixed with Linalool (floral/sweet) and Humulene. When these mix with the creamy, earthy undertones of OG Kush genetics, you get that distinct “Cake” flavor.

The Strains:

• Ice Cream Cake: A cross of Wedding Cake and Gelato https://www.google.com/search?q=%2333. It’s creamy, cheesy, and sweet, with a sedative high.
• Sunset Sherbet: The strain that started the fruity-creamy craze. It tastes like berries and mint.
• Wedding Cake: Tangy, sweet earth, and pepper. It’s the ultimate “dough” strain.

Why People Love It: The smoke is smoother, thicker, and richer. It feels decadent. These strains are often associated with relaxation and “chill” vibes rather than the racy energy of a Sour Diesel.

California essentially invented the dessert strain, and it remains the best place to find them. The humidity and curing processes in SoCal are perfect for preserving these delicate, sweet terpenes. Places like Evergreen are the gold standard for Dispensaries In OC carrying authentic Sherbet and Cake genetics. When you shop in a mature market like Santa Ana, you aren’t getting knock-offs; you are getting the original cuts of Ice Cream Cake and Gelato as the breeders intended them to be tasted.

Team Fruit: The Hybrid Sweet Spot

If Gas is the fuel and Candy is the dessert, then “Fruit” is the appetizer. This category has exploded recently with the rise of Zkittlez and Runtz.

These strains aren’t just sweet; they are tart. They mimic the profile of artificial candy flavoring. This is the era of “Terps over THC,” where smokers are valuing the mouth-watering flavor more than raw potency.

The Profile: This is pure Limonene dominance, often paired with Terpinolene (fruity/lilac). It creates a profile that smells like a bag of tropical candy.

The Strains:

• Runtz: The most popular strain of the 2020s. It tastes exactly like the candy—sugary and fruity.
• Zkittlez: A mix of Grape Ape and Grapefruit. It has a distinct “purple” candy taste.
• Forbidden Fruit: A mix of Cherry Pie and Tangie. It smells overwhelmingly like passionfruit and mango.

Why People Love It: It’s the most approachable flavor profile. It’s social, fun, and tasty. It’s the perfect middle ground between the harshness of Gas and the heaviness of Cake.

New York’s boroughs have adopted these flavors rapidly. The Bronx and Queens, in particular, have become hotbeds for the Runtz culture. If you prefer the fruity terpene profile of a White Runtz or a Blue Zushi, Say Less Dispensary specializes in these flavor-forward hybrids. They understand that for the modern smoker, the “bag appeal” isn’t just about how it looks, but how much it smells like a fruit basket when you crack the seal.

How to Choose Your Lane

So, are you Gas, Candy, or Fruit?

Choose Gas (High Fashion Smokes) If:

• You want a high-energy, euphoric effect.
• You love earthy, spicy, and pungent flavors.
• You have a high tolerance and want a “heavy” smoke.
• Go-To Order: Sour Diesel, Chemdawg, GMO.

Choose Candy (Evergreen) If:

• You want to relax, de-stress, or sleep.
• You prefer a smooth, creamy smoke that doesn’t make you cough.
• You enjoy the taste of vanilla, dough, and sweet earth.
• Go-To Order: Ice Cream Cake, Wedding Cake, Gelato 41.

Choose Fruit (Say Less) If:

• You are a “flavor chaser” who wants the tastiest smoke possible.
• You want a balanced hybrid high—not too sleepy, not too racy.
• You want to impress friends at a social gathering.
• Go-To Order: Runtz, Zkittlez, Super Boof.

The Verdict

The beauty of the 2026 market is that you don’t have to choose just one. The best pantries are stocked with a little bit of everything: some Gas for the morning wake-and-bake, some Fruit for the afternoon social session, and some Candy for the late-night movie marathon.

Whether you are navigating the streets of NYC or cruising the coast of Calif

Last month, we hosted a webinar on federal cannabis law and policy in 2026. While things are not where we’d like them to be, it’s amazing to consider everything that has happened over the years. From a lawyering perspective, it’s almost unbelievable.

I have worked as a business lawyer in the cannabis industry for over 15 years. It’s been a long, strange trip as the poet said. And I’m grateful for it. Below is a long-form piece on how it all went down.

2011

I was a second-year lawyer at a business firm downtown when a medical marijuana dispensary owner came through our office. (Back then, nobody said “cannabis.”) His shop was here in Portland, with a grow in the back, and the owner had been passed along by two other law firms that felt uncomfortable advising him. This gentleman had received a bankruptcy trustee’s notice on his door, advising that his landlord was in a Chapter 7 (I think). He desperately wanted to stay in the building. Maybe even buy it, somehow.

We looked at the lawyer ethics rules, called the state bar association, read the Ogden memo, etc., and it was unclear whether we could assist the client—even regarding compliance with state and local laws. It was unclear whether our malpractice insurance extended coverage. It was unclear whether our bank would take the deposits. It was unclear if his business even complied with Oregon law to begin with. Everything was unclear; no one would opine. The first Cole memo issued that summer, making things even more confusing. But, the answers were not clearly “no” and my boss invited me to try. I had no problem with any of it.

I ended up helping the client reach a deal to pay cash rent to the Trustee—which would never happen at this point: the payment part is wild; the cash protocol, outrageous—and then I started helping him with business agreements and everything else. Back then, there were virtually no lawyers working on non-criminal cannabis issues. He started sending me industry referrals, one after another. It was a crazy time—the work was less sophisticated but also more challenging in some respects than much of what we do today.

Seems like all of those people are gone now.

2012

Oregon was not licensing medical marijuana dispensaries, but people were boldly opening collective-style storefronts, like the guy I just mentioned, ostensibly under the state’s decades-old medical marijuana statute. That law was not designed for commerce, at all. The policy idea was to simply to confer an affirmative defense to “patients” and “caregivers” from prosecution under state law for cannabis possession and use. That’s as far as it went.

A lot of the businesses I dealt with in those days had self-organized as non-profits and collectives and such, as borrowed from the California model. I couldn’t find accountants for them, or anything really. It was such a mess.

That fall, Oregon’s Measure 80 narrowly lost at the polls, 47% to 53%, while Colorado and Washington passed legalization measures. Measure 80 would have legalized cannabis for adult use statewide in Oregon, established a licensing and taxation system, etc.—which ultimately happened a few years later under Measure 91. Elsewhere, industry pioneers like California’s Harborside dispensary (who would later become a client; then go public; then fail) were going at it with the feds. In those days, everything was a rock fight.

2013

The Oregon legislature passed a law called HB 3460 that August, directing the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to write rules and launch a registry system for medical marijuana operators. This was a big deal! Clients seemed nervous: there was no industry lobby to speak of, and everything coming from Salem seemed reactive.

The second Cole Memo also issued that summer, in response to the pending Washington and Colorado adult use programs. It felt like things were changing pretty fast. My boutique business law firm “merged” with a mid-sized law firm downtown that catered to financial institutions and did not like cannabis. I continued to quietly do the work. A lot of that work was unsupervised; somehow it all worked out.

2014

OHA issued its rules, which were skeletal, unenforced and ass-backwards on certain things. There were no cannabis testing requirements; no grandfathering protections for current storefront operators; a rule that people who had been convicted for “manufacture or delivery of [cannabis]” couldn’t be “responsible for” a cannabis store (?!); and I can’t even remember what else. But I recall clients coming to us with so many questions and problems which were essentially unanswerable, because the framework wasn’t there. That November, Measure 91 passed, legalizing cannabis for adult use in Oregon. Finally.

On the federal side, the Department of the Treasury issued the FinCen Memo on “BSA Expectations Regarding Marijuana-Related Businesses.” This was accompanied by another DOJ memo titled Guidance Regarding Marijuana Related Financial Crimes, and a DOJ memo on “Marijuana Issues in Indian Country.” The latter two directives were rescinded four years later by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but the FinCen Memo is somehow still in effect. More than a decade later, I would find myself advising banks, credit unions and even the federal government on that cumbersome guidance.

2015

The Oregon legislature started messing with Measure 91 almost immediately in drastic ways (e.g. tax structure, residency requirement). Some of my clients started to ramp up to transition into the OLCC program, but many sat back and waited. People were getting bigger and bolder on the medical side. We began to see a proliferation of medical marijuana processors and “wholesalers” around this time, although none of this was contemplated in the rules. Lots of crazy stories.

The Oregon State Supreme Court amended the attorney ethics rules in February, to expressly allow us lawyers to work with marijuana business “regarding Oregon’s marijuana-related laws.” Most lawyers remained on the sidelines, though. I left my old firm in June, and started the Portland office of what would become Harris Sliwoski LLP. A lot of people seemed to think that was a crazy move, but it was really fun. I started writing intensively here on the blog and I wrote the first of 100 columns for the Portland Mercury. I stopped doing litigation entirely.

Adult use and possession became legal on July 1, which was awkward in the sense that OLCC had not yet licensed stores. The state eventually capitulated and allowed early sales through existing medical dispensaries on October 1. The whole system was still vexing from a contracts perspective—the cannabis being bought and sold all came in through the OHA supply chain, which meant it was theoretically the property of medical marijuana patients, at least to start.

I worked with another lawyer in my firm on one of the OLCC rules advisory committees, and the first batch of the OLCC program rules dropped in October of 2015. The Commission made a valiant effort there, but business acumen was lacking. The “financial interest” and “residency” rules were terribly confusing, and basic commercial concepts were not addressed, from convertible notes to security interests. The City of Portland was even worse.

Folks started lining up to submit OLCC applications on January 1, 2016. I recall organizing and incorporating a dizzying number of little companies in the months leading up to that date. Back then, a common setup was someone with property, a guy who knew how to grow cannabis (always a guy), and maybe an investor with $200,000 or so. Really simple stuff. I testified before various cities and counties with respect to cannabis-related zoning ordinance proposals. Some of those hearings were well-run and respectful; a few went off the rails.

2016

We muddled through licensing and the system began to launch. I recall one of our producer (grow) clients being told they were the “third licensee in the state.” The legislature began to fiddle with the system further, including through repeal of the residency requirement (HB 4014). It’s hard to overstate how important this was: no other jurisdiction in the world had a cannabis program where non-residents could be owners. Calls started coming in from everywhere and people could not seem to get their minds around it. But the rules were clear: you could be from Oregon or California or Israel or Spain. You could be from Mars.

We answered a lot of questions about federal law enforcement back then, which hardly happens anymore. The fear factor ticked up substantially again in November, when Donald Trump was elected President. That same election night, California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts all went recreational (and Arkansas, Florida and North Dakota all adopted medical programs), making the state/federal dynamic more dissonant than ever. Locally, more and more OHA program participants made their way into the OLCC system, while others stayed put or went off the grid altogether.

OHA finally got its act together and started licensing medical marijuana processors, even though the medical program was clearly on the way out. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) passed a key law to propel the stalled state hemp program, and we had a few clients start in on that. They had logistical problems you wouldn’t believe, including finding seeds.

2017

Jeff Sessions was confirmed as Attorney General to kick off the year. People will say that didn’t scare anyone, but I’m here to tell you that investment slowed a bit. By mid-year, though, the OLCC program began to hit its stride. Things felt mostly “built” for the first time, even if a testing lab bottleneck persisted, with other program kinks.

By December 2017, there were almost 900 licensed farms in Oregon, and the M&A market started to gain steam. There was a lot of press at this point about oversupply, unlicensed cannabis and diversion. The faddish and wasteful RICO lawsuits were in full swing. Here at the law firm, we were also fielding fewer calls from “medical marijuana growers,” although it was known that folks were still stacking cards and everything else. That said, all of those 90-plant medical grows were going the way of the buffalo.

Elsewhere, many of the newer businesses were already failing and folks started suing one another in earnest. Reporters still called whenever lawsuits were filed. I recall posting ads for litigators, and wondering if OLCC licensees would figure out how to make money in the regulated market. I also sat for a series of lunches with lawyers in mid-sized and large law firms who were poking around the Oregon space. Finally, I took a few calls from the FBI and U.S. Attorneys on client-related investigations. Not great.

On the hemp side, we saw more and more clients pursuing CBD sales, which were coming into vogue notwithstanding confusion about the 2014 Farm Bill and everything else. Under Oregon’s pilot program people got crops in the ground, however. And with federal discussion looming, it felt like hemp was finally on the way.

Elsewhere, I became an owner at the law firm on January 1, and we opened offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, which were highly productive for a time. That summer, I was cynically sued in circuit court for “civil conspiracy” by a poorly supervised colleague at a large law firm. The allegations were based on advice he assumed I’d given to a cannabis client. That claim went nowhere.

I began teaching a Cannabis Law & Policy course in the fall, which continued over a five-year period. We had Earl Blumenauer come speak and things like that. In 2017, it was the second or third such class on offer nationwide. Class was sold out and then some.

2018

Jeff Sessions kicked off the year by rescinding the Cole Memo, which got people jittery once again. The local “oversupply” conversation was coming to a head, such that Oregon U.S. Attorney Billy Williams felt the need to author a memo of his own. Immediately thereafter, the OLCC “paused” its intake of marijuana license applications—possibly as a result of the memo, but also because the Commission was just so far behind.

The Canadian invasion was also in full swing at this point. Many of our local clients were rolling up on the Canadian Stock Exchange through reverse mergers, or wondering how to do this, or talking with someone about doing it. Other clients despised the whole thing. And still other clients WERE the Canadians. Foreign dollars were also pouring into other western states by this point, mostly California and Nevada.

I cannot tell you how many mergers, reverse mergers, option agreements, stock sale agreements, asset purchase agreements, convertible debt agreements, etc. etc. we papered around this time—even as prices tanked. It was incredibly dynamic and incredibly fast. Around this period, we also were hired by a series of large-cap, bellwether U.S. companies trying to understand the CBD market and what could be done there. Lots of opinion work, with corporate campus visits. We did a series of celebrity collabs, too; a few of those are still going strong.

Outside of Oregon, I doubt there was ever a bigger year for cannabis than 2018. California commenced its adult use marketplace, the U.S. legalized hemp through the 2018 Farm Bill and Michigan became the first midwestern state to go full rec. Internationally, Canada legalized marijuana federally, Mexico announced its plan to do the same, and the U.N. announced it would revisit cannabis scheduling. Oh, and Jeff Sessions was sent on down the road. It was awesome.

2019

Hemp was probably the biggest story locally in 2019. Nearly 2,000 growers registered to plant over 63,000 acres, a nearly 6x acreage increase from the year prior. Then the problems came. Much of the hemp went unharvested due to bad weather and inexperience. Prices also fell through the floor along the supply chain, from seeds to finished products. Our office handled more litigation on the hemp side than on the THC side. And people started to use ODA licenses as cover for diversion, rather than persisting in the OHA (medical marijuana) system.

Federally, USDA seemed to slow walk the rules, and FDA was as useless as ever. The ODA’s adoption of a “total THC” testing standard was also hard for operators. Nationwide, the CBD craze was in full swing. Some of the country’s largest grocers, distributors and CPG companies hired us and flew us around, after buyers and marketing departments got ahead of themselves. The high point was being flown to D.C. and advising the National Credit Union Administration on guidance it issued for hemp banking.

On the THC side, the Oregon legislature finally passed a law to curtail the award of cannabis production licenses, bowing to pressure from all sides. It was too late to have much impact, although the effort did create a strong secondary market for producer license transfers (which we continue to trade in today). The legislature passed another forward-looking law to allow cannabis exports; the idea here was to set up local growers for the end of prohibition. Finally, vaping came into the regulatory crosshairs, resulting in more litigation.

2019 was the first year that the OLCC market seemed to really settle out and there was less compliance work than before. We had paralegals covering most of the licensing. Beyond that, it was just deals and deals and deals.

2020

This was the first year that Oregon passed the $1 billion sales mark (cresting at $1.1 billion), driven by COVID-related factors. The pool of retail licensees continued to grow, but other license categories remained static. OLCC finally streamlined its application process to some extent, a theme the Commission would return to in future years. OLCC also adopted a short-lived “fix it or ticket” approach to certain rules violations, and enacted a ban on certain vape products.

We were still doing a lot of M&A work, most memorably for a private equity firm that swooped in to buy and operate expansive verticals; and which five years later, we put into receivership. Other clients plodded along; but with prices still low, it was a volume proposition up and down the supply chain. Overall, Oregon cannabis M&A really peaked around this time. We also saw renewed interest from tribes, including intergovernmental agreements between the Cow Creek Tribe and Oregon.

Wildfires were terrible in the fall, with one in every five licensed marijuana businesses (or 408 businesses) in evacuation protocols. A large number of producers were forced off site entirely. The fires hit the hemp grows hard too, as they were heavily concentrated in the affected areas. It was a terrible time for many outdoor hemp and marijuana licensees, many of whom lost crops and equipment, and were un- or underinsured.

Unlike the THC market, the hemp market continued to sputter. Biomass pricing hovered at $2.50 or less per pound, versus $40 to $45 just two years prior. We still had many litigations in the office arising from businesses failing and investors losing money. Some of the work also involved SBA lending issues and bankruptcy proceedings, which was novel in the cannabis space.

I had been writing about international cannabis on the blog for a while, and we had some interesting matters come through the office. One of them required us to register with DOJ under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; others involved battling Customs and Border Patrol on wrongly embargoed shipments. The firm was uniquely suited for all of that, with our international trade lawyers lending a hand. I felt I was learning a lot.

Finally, this was the year that Oregon’s Measure 109 and Measure 110 passed. I was somewhat critical of Measure 109, which created a cottage psilocybin services industry, and which we would advise on in coming years. Measure 110 decriminalized possession of all drugs in small amounts. That experiment faltered, though, and the legislature rolled it back four years later. They did leave in provisions that siphoned off marijuana tax revenue for addiction services.

2021

Pricing and regulated marijuana sales plateaued in 2021, although the pool of licensed retailers continued to grow, from 719 to 760. The number of producers also increased from 1,177 to 1,388—which wasn’t needed at all. But OLCC’s streamlined licensing process was cutting through the backlog, following a very pregnant three-year “pause.” All in all, the industry continued to grow, despite a challenging labor market.

During this time, we helped people buy and sell producer licenses in the $250K – $300K range. A few years later, prices would fall as low as $30K. One of our clients liquidated something like 6 licenses on adjoining tax lots around this time; and though his timing was impeccable, he was arrested driving weed around Texas shortly thereafter. He went bust entirely. Anyway, many of the license buyers were Eastern European around this time; Chinese nationals were another sizable demographic and eventually moved into the lead.

“Artificially derived cannabinoids” were in the regulatory crosshairs, and OLCC was tasked with regulating these compounds. OLCC and ODA also got more enforcement funding, and launched Operation Table Rock. It targeted mostly southern Oregon grows, and predictably found a majority of licensed hemp producers growing marijuana. The legislature then met in a one-day special session to grant $25 million more to enforcement. I wrote that it “wouldn’t be enough,” and it wasn’t.

Certain administrative and criminal litigation ensued, though we didn’t have any of that here in the office. On the national level, the enshittification of hemp was well underway, with delta-8 and other intoxicating products being shipped nationwide under dubious color of law and with scant regulation. We decided as a law firm not to take that work, which means we decided to leave a lot of money on the table. I’m still good with that.

I got into a groove of taking on expert witness matters in state and federal court, which got me back to my litigation roots and was fun. I ended up testifying before a jury in one of them, and submitting a report for federal court use in another. All of these were disputes on the standard of care for lawyers in the cannabis space. Strikes and gutters as they say.

Some big names made the news in locally 2021. Dutchie, the cannabis Ecommerce platform out of Bend, raised an impressive $350 million in a closed Series D, at a $375 billion value. Curaleaf, which we later represented on international cannabis shipping, was sued up and down for selling a THC product in CBD packaging—among other things. And GoldenLeaf, the first Oregon cannabis outfit to roll up onto a Canadian stock exchange, came back from the dead to acquire five Home Grown Oregon stores.

We opened a New York office, which was fun and lasted a couple of years. I was also cited by U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren in correspondence to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, regarding a plea to decriminalize cannabis.

But my favorite lawyering memory, ever, was being invited to speak for NORML down in Key West, Florida that December. After my presentation—but before we went for beers with a judge who had played himself in The Wire—I sat at a folding table in the back, next to an older gentleman. He was wearing a tank top and a Support the Troops cap. He said well done and shook my hand, and introduced himself as Phil Hirschkop. There was something about the interaction; I Googled him under the table; I damn near blacked out.

2022

The pandemic era tailwinds petered out, and annual Oregon sales fell to under $1 billion. Our retail clients began to report less demand for marijuana flower specifically, and adjusted to meet growing demand in the edible and cartridge categories. Wholesale pricing dipped below the 2018 market nadir, which was a shock to many operators.

House Bill 4016 passed, enacting a sweeping moratorium on new cannabis licenses in the state. This was a big deal! There were grandfathering provisions and such, but HB 4016 was a formal enactment of what OLCC had been trying to do—and what industry had been clamoring for—for years. At last, OLCC had the statutory authority to pull the plug.

OLCC also started talking tough about “bad actors” in the space, and the Commission’s practice of allowing these businesses to sell their licenses while facing revocation proceedings, all but faded to black. In concert with HB 4016, this policy change seemed informed by an underlying goal to cull licenses. That said, the State also rolled out a limited social equity program, where “qualified applicants” could receive license preference in certain contexts. From what I can tell, it never had much impact.

OLCC stopped complying with public records requests around this time, pleading organizational and staffing issues. After some back and forth, we dragged them before the Oregon DOJ. The system was eventually cleaned up, and I’m pleased to report that it continues to work as it should. The other cause I undertook in 2022 was abuse of service agreements, after seeing a series of clients damaged.

Around the county, a few of our lawyers were invited to legislative panels in states looking at cannabis regulation. We shared our thoughts there and on the blog. I started going after President Biden a fair bit too, for failing to meet his campaign promises on cannabis. He would eventually initiate an ill-fated rescheduling process, and issue some pardons. None of that squared with his promises (“decriminalization”), and it felt like a big chance missed.

Beyond cannabis, we were working with psilocybin business under Oregon’s Measure 109, and writing about psychedelics on the firm’s Psychedelics Law Blog. There was a resident ownership requirement there, like the early days of cannabis, so naturally people started gaming it. I was also invited to write a separate piece for a Harvard Law journal online. They flew me out to speak to the students—another thing I never could have imagined doing.

2023

Oregon sales fell again coming off COVID peaks, and the number of licensees finally fell too. Tracking data, I continued to note a years-long trend of consumers migrating away from flower, toward edibles and other products. That trend continues today.

I started speaking up on behalf of smaller businesses locally early in the year—they were taking it in the shorts from larger outfits and from OLCC. And I felt so badly for some of them.

Things really came to light when the La Mota scandal broke early in the year. That chain wasn’t paying its share of taxes, or its workers or vendors per widespread allegations. OLCC also let them skate following major compliance citations that would have sunk most anyone else. La Mota did have the Oregon Secretary of State quietly on payroll, we learned, which led to her ouster from public office.

Launching off that scandal, I wrote a critical piece regarding OLCC’s disparate treatment of large and small operators. A lawyer named Amy Margolis called me on behalf of Nectar, another chain operator, requesting I pull the piece. I declined. This resulted in a shabby ethics complaint against yours truly. The Bar swatted it away; Nectar appealed; and Nectar lost again.

Finally, another larger operator, Chalice, went belly up and pursued a coordinated receivership workout with its related, Canadian creditors. Local assets were eventually sold off to company insiders, who started anew. The optics on that one were also terrible, with many small operators getting shafted on payments. Receivership is an equitable remedy, of course, but the old saying is still apt: “it’s not a court of justice, it’s a court of law.”

For its part, OHA had a rough year, too, after passing a rule to mandate aspergillus testing. The rule was challenged by industry, and it was “stayed” pending judicial review. Rather than defend its rule at a hearing, OHA withdrew it, and abandon the effort. Setting aside any debate on public health, this was a real boon for the consolidated Cannabis Industry Association of Oregon.

2024

Sales and pricing remained relatively static, and the industry continued to limp along. In that respect, Oregon was similar to all of the established states, and the western states in particular. Croptober came in with Oregon’s largest METRC harvest ever at 5,733,288 pounds, which was a full 900,000 pounds more than the same month in 2023. Prices predictably suffered, though I’m guessing not all of that weed stayed in state.

We absorbed a couple of boutique cannabis firms at this time; or parts of them. Like operators and other vendors, cannabis law firms were on the decline. The small firms were withering and the larger firms—which had entered the space late—were exiting early. On the client side, we put a couple of larger outfits into receivership.

That fall, OLCC sent enforcement notices to seven of the eleven testing labs regarding THC inflation. This issue was getting a lot of coverage nationally; the local investigation had been going for a while; and the notices were no surprise. We saw a couple of labs shutter as a result.

A few notable rules landed in 2024 as well. Ballot Measure 119 took effect, which required all OLCC retailers, processors and labs to sign a labor peace agreement with a “bona fide labor organization.” I was relentlessly critical of the Measure on the blog, calling for a challenge. That finally happened and BM 119 was declared unconstitutional—that case is still up on appeal. Finally, we got new testing rules for hemp, and a bill making OLCC’s licensing moratorium permanent.

Federally, we had elections of course. Elections with consequences. Donald Trump was re-instated as President, and the Republican Party claimed majorities in both houses of Congress. This was generally viewed as unwelcome news for the cannabis industry, and for Biden’s flawed rescheduling effort. Everything came to a head a few weeks into 2025, which is where I’ll leave off.

2025

If you made it this far, thanks and I applaud you. My 2025 “State of the State” post on Oregon cannabis can be found here. It gives a solid overview of how things went last year, and where we stand today.

How speculative finance and distorted incentives hollowed out American weed.

On a sunny afternoon in Santa Monica in the spring of 2018, I sat on a hotel patio with the owners of two up-and-coming cannabis businesses: one a popular low-cost brand and the other a NorCal farming co-op. I had an all-cash offer from investors in Toronto for roughly $100 million to acquire both their companies in a ‘roll-up-go-public’ play. They told me they were waiting for something closer to ten times that amount. 

I wasn’t that surprised—cannabis was hot, and stories of massive paydays were being recounted with hushed excitement in grow rooms and boardrooms alike. With Canadian public companies like Canopy Growth reporting multi-billion-dollar investments from multinational liquor conglomerates and their market caps surging to around $12 billion, the excitement was infectious.  

Magical Thinking 

As the next years would show, this magical thinking pervaded the whole industry, the result of a tried-and-true scheme that made a bunch of Canadian investment bankers very rich, while poisoning the heart of U.S. cannabis.

As California cities rolled out their retail application processes, my own little cannabis company was acquiring licenses and making small investments along the supply chain, attempting to build a robust and resilient “anti-fragile” ecosystem, uncertain about how this industry would shake out. 

We had partnered with the largest cannabis retailer in California, helping them expand state-wide while turning cheaply acquired local licenses and elbow grease into a meaningful ownership stake in the company. Its California sales approached roughly a quarter-billion dollars in 2020, and we had front-row seats to the spectacular crash that followed.  

The market and its promise peaked during the first two years of COVID, as Americans hunkered in their homes. Our on-demand delivery platform took full advantage of the concurrent surge in delivery services and broader recreational drug use. But as government stimulus money started to dry up and America tentatively emerged from lockdowns, it became clear that the California market was in shambles. Retail dispensaries couldn’t pay invoices, wholesale cannabis prices cratered, killing cultivators from Ventura to Humboldt, and capital dried up.  

In some cases, the black market had figured out how to get legally grown cannabis out of the California track-and-trace system and onto trucks destined for other states, distorting demand signals and leading to massive over-production and subsequent price crash. A flurry of quixotic, yet existential, mergers and acquisitions began as receiverships and bankruptcies rocked the industry. 

Harborside Dispensary, a bedrock of California anti-prohibitionist activism, was repackaged by a former Barclays Bank executive and smashed together with San Diego retail giant Urbn Leaf and legacy brand Loud Pack. By the end of 2024, the new entity, State House, had filed for bankruptcy, ending 20 years of business in the Oakland weed scene. 

Around the same time, Jay Z’s brand, Monogram, and its parent company tipped into insolvency and were stripped for parts. Flow Kana and Medmen, companies that were held up as exemplars of “new” cannabis, followed suit, having burned through hundreds of millions of dollars by industry estimates, their ubiquitous billboards yellowing in the Californian sun.

What the Hell Happened?

By 2025, the list of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and receiverships had grown to include many of the companies that had picked up the pieces of the previous year’s insolvencies. At the same time, retail sales, which peaked in 2021 at almost $6 billion, shrank to around $4 billion. The decline was disorienting in its alacrity.

The inevitable post-mortems have been just as fast and furious: Incompetent and corrupt politicians. State taxes. Federal taxes. Cost of capital. Regulations. The black market.  The bankers. The gangsters. The lawyers. And while all of these may have had a hand in the U.S. cannabis market’s downfall, they are simply symptoms of the real problem: Canadian capital markets.

Canadian investment bankers, to be precise. These penny-stock mining hucksters knew a perfect storm when they saw one and took the industry for a ride.

There are four primary culprits that enabled this grift.  

1. Investors were conditioned by the Tech sector into using something called “gross revenue” to assess the potential value of a company, rather than how much it actually made.

2. Federal illegality in the U.S. constricted access to traditional banking and liquidity, creating a dangerous and desperate blindness to risks associated with the types of funding on offer and the strings attached. 

3. Soaring speculative valuations in the Canadian cannabis market served as “proof of concept,” propping up even the riskiest deals. 

4. As the informal market transitioned into a legal market, investors, without sufficient historical data, were unable to properly assess the road ahead.

These conditions meant bankers could convince the industry to build companies that looked like big companies. Rather than building lean, nimble businesses able to adjust and withstand the challenges and uncertainty facing the new U.S. cannabis market, entrepreneurs tinkered with board composition, leadership teams with fancy CV’s (and even fancier salaries), and complicated financing structures.  

Instead of considering rational infrastructure needs or operating efficiencies, entrepreneurs were fed narratives by men with disarming Canadian accents, designed to inflate cannabis companies for the stock market rather than build sustainable businesses. Canadian investment bankers and stock promoters delighted in the fact that, because of cannabis’ illegality at the U.S. federal level, companies with American assets were blocked from both the U.S. stock market and the Toronto Stock and Venture Exchanges (TSX and TSXV). That meant that the most attractive place for these listings was the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE), which had significantly lower disclosure and oversight requirements.

In the years prior to the 2023 collapse, there were signals that the hyper-focus on building BIG companies was driving an insatiable need for more capital, requiring stock prices and company valuations, increasingly untethered to any rational analysis, to spiral up. As an example, one company we worked with literally built a cannabis storage refrigerator the size of an airplane hangar.  

By 2020, California cannabis businesses had purchased an estimated $600 million worth of THC oil extraction equipment, when closer to $70 million would’ve been sufficient to supply the entire California market with THC oil. Success was just around the corner, said the bankers. American novelist Upton Sinclair once wrote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

A senior executive from Flower One, a large-scale indoor cultivator that had roared to massive success in the early days of Nevada’s recreational cannabis market, told me they planned to spend around $100 million on a California facility.  When I asked why the cost was so high, he said, “Our investors want a state-of-the-art facility with robots assisting operations.”  

After 50 years of being grown in musty basements and remote backwoods, one of the most competent growers in the world had been convinced by bankers that the future was robots. 

By 2022, the company was filing for bankruptcy protections in a British Columbia court and was delisted from the CSE.  Creditors got back roughly 10 cents on the dollar, while common shareholders got nothing.  The investment bankers walked away with millions.

California Cannabis Up in Smoke? 

Billions of dollars appear to have gone up in smoke, and rusting cannabis infrastructure now litters California’s cities. Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Arizona, and Colorado face similarly dire straits. Communities formerly flush with black and gray market jobs now have shuttered main streets as weed prices collapsed and cannabis businesses closed. Even the businesses that survived these initial crashes were left infected by the market’s structural faults, unable to pivot fast enough to respond to the new reality. 

As inflation surged and the global economy contracted, capital spigots turned off, leaving these lumbering giants, no longer supported by the scaffolding of financial markets, to collapse under their own weight. 

So here we sit, in the ruins of an industry that had once held so much promise. Descheduling, banking, and federal tax relief all sit just on the horizon, bumping cannabis stocks around like a pinball machine. But as we watch the world now fret about the AI investment bubble, I’m left asking myself, was what happened and may happen, to U.S. cannabis the fault of greedy Canadian investment bankers, or is there a more pernicious problem at the heart of our economic system?  Like so much of this age of late-stage capitalism, for cannabis, the tails seem to be wagging the dogs.

This article is from an external, unpaid contributor. It does not represent High Times’ reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy.

A group of Dutch MPs from ChristenUnie, SGP and Groep Markuszower has submitted an amendment to the national budget law calling for the start of a phase out of the Experiment Gesloten Coffeeshopketen, the Dutch regulated cannabis supply chain experiment. The amendment asks that the phase out be anchored in legislation and includes a €100,000 allocation for public prevention campaigns on drug use.

In the explanatory note, the MPs refer to figures from the Landelijk Alcohol en Drugs Informatie Systeem, LADIS, which list cannabis as the second most common substance connected to addiction treatment among people under 25. They also point to written statements from the Minister of Justice and Safety and the State Secretary for Health, Welfare and Sport on possible links between early cannabis use and effects on brain development, anxiety, concentration and performance.

The amendment does not propose an immediate end to the experiment, but a gradual winding down, combined with funding for awareness and prevention. The three parties behind it hold around 13 seats in the Tweede Kamer, limiting its chances of approval.

Read More at 

https://www.mmjdaily.com/article/9807896/dutch-mps-propose-amendment-to-begin-phasing-out-cannabis-supply-chain-experiment-but-coalition-backs-continuation/?utm_source=policy-decoded.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=dailybrief&utm_campaign=policy-decoded

RICHMOND — A Senate committee advanced legislation to create a marijuana retail market this week. But along the way, the committee voted to adopt changes that some advocates say will unfairly penalize marginalized communities and undermine marijuana decriminalization efforts.

Amendments to the legislation create a felony penalty for anyone distributing more than five pounds of marijuana, carrying a prison sentence of five to 30 years. New language would also bump the penalty for purchasing cannabis from an unlicensed distributor from a Class 2 to a Class 1 misdemeanor and impose a minimum fine of $500 or at least 50 hours of community service.

“It triggers mandatory minimums, which we should be moving away from,” said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Lashrecse Aird, D-Henrico, during remarks to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee Wednesday. “It increases the likelihood of adding felonies to records for non-violent conduct in this way.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/senate-committee-advances-cannabis-legislation-230400241.html

Marijuana, or its derivative THC, continues to be a treacherous quagmire for security clearance holders and adjudicators alike. The latest complication occurred on December 18, 2025, when President Donald Trump signed a new executive order regarding the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III controlled substance: “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research”

Was marijuana reclassified as a Schedule III drug?

Not yet. While numerous media outlets reported that President Trump’s executive order reclassified marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III controlled substance, it did nothing of the sort. Rather, the EO directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the [Controlled Substances Act].” In other words, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance (for now).

The real push behind this initiative is for the federal government to recognize medicinal uses for marijuana, thereby legally permitting medicinal research and use. The change, if and when it arrives, would usher in a significant shift in the regulation of marijuana. Schedule I substances are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, and no currently accepted medical use in the United States, including under medical supervision. In other words, there is no federally legal way to use a Schedule I substance, such as marijuana, heroin, DMT, LSD, psilocybin, and MDMA.

What does it mean for marijuana to be a Schedule III drug?

Schedule III substances have a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I and II drugs, have an accepted medical use in the United States, and may cause moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. Schedule III substances include Tylenol with less than 90 milligrams of codeine, ketamine, anabolic steroids or testosterone. If marijuana was reclassified to a Schedule III controlled substance, it would open the door for security clearance holders to use marijuana with a valid medical prescription.

Would rescheduling marijuana change the rules for security clearance purposes?

Not necessarily. The Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 4 has three possible categories of concern with the use of marijuana found in Guideline E (personal conduct), Guideline H (drug use), and Guideline J (criminal conduct). Reclassification from Schedule I to Schedule III does not eliminate the use of marijuana as a national security concern. The misuse of a prescription or non-prescription drug in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose raises a question of a person’s reliability, trustworthiness and good judgment. Further, every agency and federal government contractor may have its own policy prohibiting the use of medicinal marijuana, thereby making a violation of that policy a security concern.

Can security clearance holders access medical marijuana?

Potentially, in some cases. A change from Schedule I to Schedule III means that marijuana, according to the federal government, would have an accepted medical use in the United States. Whereas previously, federal employees, military members and security clearance holders could not use marijuana under any circumstances (legal or not at the state level), Schedule III reclassification could potentially allow for the use of marijuana under the specific restrictions and supervision of a medical provider.

Yet the changing legal landscape, at the state and federal level, introduces ambiguity. If reclassification were to occur, security clearance holders would still need to consider a multitude of factors before stepping into a quagmire that could place their clearance in jeopardy.

Chris Snowden, Esq. is an associate attorney at the Ladera Ranch office of Tully Rinckey PLLC, where he focuses his practice on national security law and federal employment.

Source: 

What the executive order on marijuana reclassification means for security clearance holders

THC Beverages and the Billion-Dollar Panic: Why Alcohol Companies Are Funding Your Favorite Prohibitionist

Source: PsyPost

Let me hit you with a statistic that probably won’t surprise you, but should piss you off: cannabis beverages are making people drink less alcohol. And the alcohol industry is absolutely losing their shit over it.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Drug Policy examined the drinking habits of cannabis beverage consumers and found something the alcohol industry has been dreading for years—people who consume THC-infused drinks report significant reductions in their alcohol consumption. We’re not talking about a negligible dip. We’re talking about people actively substituting a non-toxic, non-addictive substance (cannabis) for one of the most dangerous drugs legally available (alcohol).

But here’s where it gets interesting—and by interesting, I mean infuriating. The alcohol industry has known this was coming. They’ve seen the writing on the wall for years. And rather than adapt their business model or, I don’t know, maybe produce a product that doesn’t kill 95,000 Americans annually, they decided to dump millions into anti-cannabis propaganda and lobbying efforts to protect their market share.

Today, we’re going to connect the dots. We’re going to talk about why THC beverages represent an existential threat to Big Alcohol. Then we’re going to zoom out and identify the three industries that have spent decades—and billions of dollars—ensuring that cannabis remains illegal, demonized, and inaccessible.

Spoiler alert: it’s not about public health. It’s never been about public health.

The THC Beverage Threat: Why Alcohol Execs Can’t Sleep at Night

The research from International Journal of Drug Policy isn’t groundbreaking in the sense that anyone paying attention didn’t already know this. But it’s groundbreaking in that it provides empirical evidence for what cannabis consumers have been saying forever: given the choice, people prefer cannabis to alcohol.

Why? Let’s count the ways:

1. No Hangover. You can consume a THC beverage, have a pleasant evening, and wake up the next day feeling… fine. No pounding headache. No nausea. No regret-induced existential crisis at 3 AM.

2. No Calories (or Far Fewer). Most THC beverages are low-calorie or zero-calorie. Compare that to beer, wine, or cocktails, which can pack hundreds of empty calories per serving.

3. No Liver Damage. Alcohol is literally poison. Your liver has to work overtime to metabolize it, and chronic consumption leads to cirrhosis, fatty liver disease, and a host of other medical nightmares. THC? Not hepatotoxic.

4. No Addiction Potential (Comparatively). Alcohol is physically addictive. Cannabis is not—or at least, not in any way comparable to alcohol. Withdrawal from alcohol can literally kill you. Withdrawal from cannabis means you might be irritable for a few days.

5. Controlled Dosing. THC beverages typically contain 5-10mg of THC per serving, allowing for predictable, manageable effects. Alcohol? Good luck knowing exactly how drunk you’ll be after two IPAs versus two light beers. The variability in alcohol content, individual tolerance, and consumption speed makes alcohol dosing a crapshoot.

So yeah, when people discover they can achieve a similar relaxing, social buzz from a cannabis beverage without the downsides of alcohol, they start making the switch. And the alcohol industry knows this.

But instead of competing on product quality or innovation, they’ve chosen a different strategy: regulatory capture and propaganda.

Alcohol companies have been quietly funding anti-cannabis research, lobbying against legalization efforts, and bankrolling “concerned parent” groups that warn about the dangers of cannabis—all while their product kills nearly 100,000 Americans every year and contributes to countless cases of domestic violence, drunk driving fatalities, and alcohol-related diseases.

The hypocrisy is staggering. But it’s also just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

The Unholy Trinity: The Three Industries Waging War on Cannabis

Big Alcohol isn’t alone in their fight to keep cannabis illegal. They’ve got company—powerful, well-funded, deeply entrenched company. Let’s meet the other members of the anti-cannabis alliance.

1. Big Pharma: The Monopoly Keepers

Let’s start with the biggest villain in this story: Big Pharma.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), enacted in 1971, didn’t just criminalize drugs—it granted pharmaceutical companies a de facto monopoly on drug production, research, and distribution. Under the CSA framework, only FDA-approved drugs can be legally manufactured and sold. And guess who controls the FDA approval pipeline? That’s right—Big Pharma.

Here’s how the scam works:

The FDA approval process costs millions of dollars. Small companies, independent researchers, and non-profit organizations can’t afford to navigate the regulatory labyrinth. Only massive pharmaceutical corporations have the capital to bring a drug to market. This creates a system where Big Pharma controls what gets studied, what gets approved, and ultimately, what gets prescribed.

Cannabis threatens this entire model.

Cannabis is a plant. You can’t patent a plant. Sure, you can patent specific extraction methods, formulations, or delivery mechanisms—but you can’t patent the raw plant itself. This means anyone with seeds and soil can grow their own medicine. No prescription required. No pharmacy middleman. No insurance co-pay. No pharmaceutical CEO getting his third yacht.

And Big Pharma hates this.

Every state that legalizes medical marijuana sees a corresponding decrease in opioid prescriptions. Studies have shown that legal cannabis access reduces opioid use, opioid overdose deaths, and even prescriptions for medications treating chronic pain, anxiety, insomnia, and nausea. That’s billions of dollars in lost revenue for pharmaceutical companies.

Let me give you a concrete example: according to research, in states with legal medical cannabis, Big Pharma loses approximately $10 billion annually in prescription drug sales. Ten. Billion. Dollars. Per year. Per state with medical access.

Multiply that across the 38 states with medical programs, and you’re looking at a catastrophic revenue loss for an industry that has spent decades building a monopoly.

So what does Big Pharma do? They lobby. They fund “research” designed to find negative health effects. They bankroll organizations like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) that spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about cannabis. They influence the DEA to maintain cannabis as a Schedule I substance, ensuring that independent research remains nearly impossible.

And now, with the push to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III, Big Pharma is positioning itself to dominate the cannabis market through FDA-approved, patented cannabis-derived medications—cutting out small businesses, craft growers, and patients who’ve been using cannabis for decades.

Schedule III isn’t legalization. It’s a corporate takeover.

2. Big Alcohol: The Market Share Protectors

We’ve already covered why Big Alcohol fears cannabis beverages, but let’s dig deeper into their specific tactics.

Alcohol companies have been funding anti-legalization campaigns for years. In 2016, court documents revealed that the alcohol industry donated money to anti-legalization groups in states like Arizona and Massachusetts. They’ve also lobbied heavily against cannabis legalization at the federal level, knowing that nationwide legal access would devastate their market share.

But it’s not just about lobbying. It’s about narrative control.

Ever notice how alcohol advertising focuses on fun, social connection, and celebration, while cannabis is still portrayed as dangerous, lazy, and irresponsible? That’s not an accident. The alcohol industry spends billions on advertising to maintain its cultural dominance, while simultaneously funding media campaigns that demonize cannabis.

And it’s working—at least, it was working. But the tide is turning.

As more people discover THC beverages, the comparison becomes unavoidable. One product makes you sick, addicted, and potentially violent. The other makes you relaxed, hungry, and sleepy. The choice isn’t complicated.

The alcohol industry knows they can’t win on product quality. So they’re fighting a rear-guard action through regulation, propaganda, and political influence—desperately trying to delay the inevitable market shift away from alcohol and toward cannabis.

3. The DOJ/Prison Industrial Complex: The Enforcement Profiteers

And now, the ugliest piece of the puzzle: the prison industrial complex and its symbiotic relationship with the Department of Justice.

Despite the so-called “legalization” movement, people are still being arrested for cannabis. Thousands of them. Every single year.

In 2023, even with 38 states having medical programs and 24 states with adult-use legalization, there were still over 200,000 cannabis-related arrests in the United States. Let that sink in. Two hundred thousand people arrested for a plant that’s legal in half the country.

Why? Because prohibition is profitable.

Here’s how the scam works:

1. Asset Forfeiture. When law enforcement arrests someone for cannabis, they can seize cash, cars, homes, and other property under civil asset forfeiture laws. This property is then sold, and the proceeds go directly to the police department. No conviction required. Just an arrest.

Cannabis prohibition is a funding mechanism for law enforcement. It’s free money, taken directly from citizens without due process.

2. Private Prisons. The private prison industry—companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group—make money by incarcerating people. More inmates = more profit. Cannabis arrests provide a steady stream of non-violent offenders to fill prison beds. These companies have spent millions lobbying against cannabis legalization because legal cannabis means fewer prisoners, which means less profit.

3. Federal Grants and Funding. The federal government distributes billions in grants to state and local law enforcement agencies for drug enforcement activities. This includes funding for drug task forces, equipment, training, and personnel. If cannabis is descheduled or legalized federally, that funding dries up.

Law enforcement agencies are financially incentivized to maintain cannabis prohibition. It’s not about public safety. It’s about budget justification.

The DOJ and the prison industrial complex represent the most cynical aspect of cannabis prohibition: the willingness to destroy lives, families, and communities in order to protect a revenue stream.

The Media Connection: Who Controls the Narrative?

Here’s where it all ties together: Big Pharma owns the media.

Pharmaceutical companies are the largest advertisers on television news networks. In 2022 alone, Big Pharma spent over $6.5 billion on TV advertising. When you’re spending that kind of money, you buy more than ad slots—you buy influence over editorial content.

This is why you see news segments fearmongering about “high-potency THC” and “marijuana-related emergency room visits,” but you rarely see investigative reports on opioid overprescription or the FDA’s cozy relationship with pharmaceutical executives.

The media narratives around cannabis aren’t organic. They’re manufactured by industries with billions of dollars at stake.

When you see headlines like “Study Shows Cannabis Impairs Driving” (based on a tiny sample size and flawed methodology), that’s Big Pharma’s ad dollars at work. When you see politicians on TV warning about “the dangers of marijuana,” check who’s funding their campaigns—it’s alcohol companies, pharmaceutical corporations, and police unions.

The propaganda machine is real, it’s well-funded, and it’s been running for decades.

The Solution: Complete Descheduling and Abolishing the CSA

So what do we do about it?

The answer is simple, though the execution is difficult: Complete descheduling of cannabis and, if America is brave enough, abolishing the Controlled Substances Act entirely.

Schedule III rescheduling is a trap. It positions cannabis as a pharmaceutical product, maintains federal control, and ensures that Big Pharma dominates the market. It does nothing to address the fundamental injustice of prohibition or the corporate monopoly enabled by the CSA.

Complete descheduling means:

• Cannabis is removed from the Controlled Substances Act entirely

• States regulate it like alcohol or tobacco

• Research is unrestricted

• Small businesses can compete with corporations

• Patients have access without prescriptions or gatekeepers

• No more arrests, no more asset forfeiture, no more lives destroyed over a plant

And abolishing the CSA? That’s the real goal. As Trump might say (and I never thought I’d quote him approvingly), “It’s a bad deal.” The CSA was signed in 1971. Most Americans alive today never consented to this framework. We’ve inherited a system that criminalizes natural substances, empowers pharmaceutical monopolies, and justifies mass incarceration—all under the guise of “public safety.”

It’s time to renegotiate.

The Sticky Bottom Line

THC beverages aren’t just a fun new product category—they’re a market disruptor that exposes the weakness of the alcohol industry’s business model. And the alcohol industry’s response (lobbying for prohibition rather than competing on product quality) reveals the deeper truth about cannabis prohibition: it’s not about health, it’s about profit.

Big Pharma wants to maintain their monopoly on drug production. Big Alcohol wants to protect their market share. The DOJ and prison industrial complex want to maintain their funding streams. And all three industries have spent decades using propaganda, lobbying, and regulatory capture to ensure that cannabis remains illegal, demonized, and inaccessible.

But the cracks are showing. People are waking up. The research is undeniable. The public support is overwhelming.

Now is the time to push for complete descheduling. Now is the time to demand that lawmakers stop protecting corporate interests and start representing the will of the people.

Because if we don’t, we’ll wake up one day to find that Big Pharma has successfully turned cannabis into another patented, overpriced pharmaceutical product—and the unregulated, accessible, people-powered cannabis movement we’ve built over the last decade will be nothing but a memory.

The fight isn’t over. It’s just beginning.

THE SWITCH TO CANNABIS BEVERAGES, READ ON…

56% OF BEER DRINKERS SWITCH TO THC BEVERAGES AFTER TRYING THEM!

Now 71, Chicago-born Jim Belushi is having a moment with roles in two current films – Kristen Stewart’s The Chronology of Water, in which he plays counterculture legend Ken Kesey, and the pop musical, Song Sung Blue, co-starring Kate Hudson and Hugh Jackman.

Before Belushi moved to Oregon and launched his cannabis company Belushi’s Farm in 2015, he was best known for being the younger brother of John, an early ‘80s Saturday Night Live cast member, John’s replacement in the Blues Brothers, more than 30 roles in movies like About Last Night, K-9, Curly Sue and Wonder Wheel, and 182 episodes of According to Jim.

The Chronology of Water is Lidia Yuknavitch’s harrowing story, as portrayed by Imogene Poots. Set in the ‘80s, she enrolls in Kesey’s writing class at the University of Oregon and he mentors her. Kesey had a major role in the ‘60s counterculture as an early proselytizer of LSD, Merry Pranksters founder and Grateful Dead associate. The adaptation of his book One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest won the Best Picture Oscar in 1976.

This interview focuses on Belushi’s movies, channeling Kesey, hanging with Bob Weir (he died on Jan. 10), LSD history, the marijuana business, rescheduling and the hemp ban. Belushi’s a funny guy, enjoy his humor.

In your book Real Men Don’t Apologize, you said your peaks were About Last Night, The Principal, Salvador, Taking Care of Business and According to Jim.

About Last Night put me on the map. Then I got a lot of work right after that. I did Real Men, Red Heat, Curly Sue and The Principal. I did a lot of movies then. K-9 was a big one.

A lot of dogs in your movies.

They say never work with dogs and kids and then I did K-9 and Curly Sue – what the fuck?

I was starring in movies from 1987 to 1992. I did quite a run. Then it kind of went down a little bit. Then I did some Broadway, some films here and there. Then I did According to Jim for eight years. Then I did a lot of Blues Brothers shows and toured with an improvisational group.

The industry changed. The digital world really changed moviemaking. The industry is still suffering. There’s not a lot of work out there, believe it or not.

In the book, you said your valleys were “the ’90s.”

Things go up and things come down. You’ve got to wait for the wave, you know?

Well, the wave has come back to you, Jim.

Studying Ken Kesey

By the way, I made four movies last year. Two of them were very independent movies (Karate Ghost and Guttermuckers). And The Chronology of Water and Song Sung Blue. I got lucky; these two movies came out of left field. I did a pilot with Song Sung Blue director Craig Brewer in 2016. He called me for this role. And Kristen Stewart, I have no idea why that happened. Out of the blue I got a call. I was like, “I don’t need to read the script, just book it.”

What was your immediate response to being asked to play Ken Kesey?

Absolutely! I told the agent, “I don’t need to read it, but send me the script.” I had the book, I read the script. I mean, I love this man. He was responsible for the transition from Bohemian to our hippie culture. He changed the culture. Even in the movie, there’s a line when he says, “I want you to change the culture.” He was one of the men who changed the culture. The same as Saturday Night Live, those men and women changed the culture of America. He wanted the writers to write something that would change the culture like he did.

How did you learn the character?

I saw everything. I watched on YouTube and saw every lecture he gave, every time he spoke, every interview. I just watched them over and over. I studied him as a human being. I did it all on my own. I didn’t have to rewatch Cuckoo’s Nest. I was more interested in him as a man, as a father, as a husband and as a cultural leader. He said some beautiful things in his talks. I memorized them, but I didn’t memorize them. They kind of laid in me and when I was doing the role, it came out of me. There are a few things I made up in the movie that came directly from one of his talks or one of his interviews.

Jamming with Bob Weir

Were you in touch with the Kesey family?

No. I asked Bob Weir a little bit. I just saw him last year.

What did Weir tell you?

“What do you want to know? What do you want to know?” He was very excited about me playing the part.

Did you ever play music with Weir?

We’re members of the Bohemian Grove [a summer retreat in the Redwoods]. I sat in with him there a couple of times. I knew him from the Grove. I also went to the concerts. I was backstage and stuff.

Are you a Deadhead?

No, not a Deadhead, but I certainly love the Dead. I saw them in high school when I was 16 at the Auditorium Theatre in Chicago.

Kesey was a key figure in Grateful Dead and counterculture history.

He worked as an orderly in a hospital to make some money when he was going to college and they put him in the psychiatric ward. That’s where he came up with Cuckoo’s Nest. But also they had a lot of experimental drugs there. Guess what drugs he found there?

LSD?

Right. A little liquid LSD. Well, he took that and he’d have these little parties on the weekend and he put it in the punch. Electric Kool-Aid, right? And those parties would grow. And he had a little band that would play on the farm, the Grateful Dead. It was the start of the Grateful Dead. Then it blew up to San Francisco and Los Angeles and the whole acid thing traveled across the country and changed the culture of our generation.

Have you taken LSD?

Yes. It changed my perspective completely about my relationship with everything.

Where was the movie shot and what was it like working with first-time director Stewart?

Latvia. I asked why she didn’t shoot in Oregon and she said, “The money.” The French helped with the money. Latvia gave great credits. When I was there in Latvia, it looked like Oregon. They doubled Oregon very well. She really believed in this movie. She’d been working on it for eight or 10 years. She knew every breath, every beat of that movie. I think it’s very unique. She shot on 16 mm, because she didn’t want that clear, 4k look. Much of this is about memory, so she wanted that kind of dirty look.

Stewart’s known to be a stoner. Did you smoke with her?

No, I didn’t smoke with her. I said, “I have a farm,” and she said, “I’d like to try that.”

Working with Kate Hudson

What’s your role in Song Sung Blue?

I’m Tom, the booker and manager of Lightning & Thunder. It’s a real character, a real story that was taken from a 2008 documentary about this couple who had a Neil Diamond tribute band.

Are you a Neil Diamond fan?

I am now!

What was it like to work with Kate Hudson, who plays Thunder, and has received a Best Actress Oscar nomination?

She’s a thoroughbred. She’s like Kate Winslet, who he acted with in Woody Allen’s Wonder Wheel, and Kristen Stewart. These actors are studied, ready and generous. When you are really studied, you can be generous. She was very generous. I only had a few moments with Kate. The look in her eyes when you’re in that scene is the same thing as Kate Winslet. You are transformed into another realm. When they say, “Cut,” you’re like, “Wow, where was I?” It’s because of that high focus they have in their eyes. Kate always had a little glimmer when she was looking at me. The actor in her was looking at you and saying, “C’mon, Jimmy, give me what you got.”

Belushi on His Business, Rescheduling and the Hemp Ban

How are things going at Belushi’s Farm?

We’re not cultivating anymore. Oregon is such a terrible state. Five million people, maybe 400,000 smoke. Tourism has dropped since the fires. People are scared to come to Oregon because of the radicalism. Portland has turned into an eyesore rather than the gem it was five years ago.

Plus, prices went to the bottom.

To the bottom! It just didn’t pay to grow anymore. I do use the farm for my mothers and proprietary strains. I’m licensed in 20 states now. All my proprietary strains go to those states. It’s doing very well. I’ve doubled my business in a year.

They do the growing and you provide the genetics?

Right.

You have Belushi’s Farm and Blues Brothers brands. Where are they doing best?

Maryland, Missouri. Pennsylvania has gone through the roof. And Mississippi came on strong. Ohio. Blues Brothers was stronger at the beginning but Belushi’s Farm strains like Big Sur Holy Weed have been doing better and better every month. It’s a little more of a higher end. Our new strain, The Sage, is a true sativa right out of the ’60s and ’70s. It’s an old-school high. It’s so good that they’re doubling the grow in these states because it sold so fast.

I know you favor rescheduling.

It’s enough right now, man. It’s one of the dominoes.

Rescheduling appears to be a big favor to the CBD industry.

That’s my understanding too. That it’s more about the CBD. Larry Kessler’s the one who pushed it over. Rescheduling is more helpful for research, for veterans, for NFL players and sports figures.

Also for businesses taking tax deductions.

Yeah, taxes too. Those poor people running dispensaries, how do they make a margin? How do they make it? The tax is so overburdensome. On top of that is the state tax, which is just terrible. In Illinois last year they made $472 million in cannabis taxes. They made $272 million in liquor taxes. And there are a lot more bars and liquor stores than there are dispensaries. Like, what’s going on here?

The weed’s more expensive.

Michigan used to be one of my best states licensing-wise and it’s gone to the bottom. It’s ridiculous what’s going on in Michigan.

How do you deal with price compression?

I’m a perfect example: I had to stop growing. It’s crushing people.

Are you still selling the Highbridge hemp-derived beverages?

Yes. We’re staying in it until we see what happens.

I’m not a fan of hemp-derived products.

I’m not either, to be honest with you. But there’s a lot of money in it. I don’t like it exposed at gas stations and convenience stores where kids can get it. I don’t mind liquor stores and places where there are some laws around it.

Also, it’s a synthetic product.

Yeah, it’s not what we like.

Isn’t there enough THC out there that they don’t have to convert CBD to THC?

[Laughs] I think so.

Steve Bloom is a former editor of High Times.

[co-author: Jack Crain]

Countless businesses, including tribal nations operating through compact agreements with the state of Minnesotaⁱ, anticipate entering the North Star State’s legal cannabis market in 2026. Since the state legalized adult-use cannabis in 2023ⁱⁱ, issued its first licenses in 2025ⁱⁱⁱ and OCM-licensed retailers opened their doors that same year^iv, investor interest has risen steadily.

Investors should note, however, that the opportunities presented by the rapid growth of adult-use cannabis in Minnesota are as regulated as they are enticing.

The Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management promulgates rules that limit who may become involved with a Minnesota cannabis license as an investor, as well as the degree to which they may actively participate as an investor.v Specifically, the primary concern for any potential investor is whether the individual, partnership, cooperative, limited liability company, or other entity type would qualify as a true party of interest (TPI) as defined in MN Statute § 342.185.^vi

Understanding Passive-Investor Status in Minnesota

Within this framework, there are designated avenues for individuals and entities wishing to participate in Minnesota’s cannabis market as “passive investors.” The passive investment strategy is especially important for those hoping to become involved in more than one cannabis license type. And one key tool in this strategy is the attorney advisory opinion letter.

Attorney advisory opinion letters provide an attorney’s legal opinion on a specific matter for a client and whether the client’s conduct about that matter is permissible. These letters range in structure depending on the area of law and, importantly, do not guarantee a particular outcome for that matter.

Instead of promising the client a particular outcome, attorney advisory opinion letters provide a client with an attorney’s reasoned legal analysis on a matter to help ensure that all relevant legal and/or regulatory requirements have been fulfilled through the client’s course of action. These letters ultimately aim to assure the client that its intended course of action is compatible with all relevant statutory and/or regulatory requirements. That guidance can be crucial in as complex a regulatory environment as Minnesota’s adult-use cannabis market.

To understand exactly how an attorney advisory opinion letter can be utilized, however, it’s helpful to know how the federal government and the state of Minnesota each define passive investment, and who is a true party of interest.

What is a True Party of Interest?

According to MN Statute § 342.18.^vii, a True Party of Interest is limited in what it can accomplish within an investing capacity. TPIs may not be involved as applicants for more than a single license type.
They may not apply for multiple license types if the TPI would be prevented from holding those licenses due to Minnesota’s prohibition on vertical integration, as per MN Statute § 342.18.vii.^viii TPIs are also limited to holding a single license, unless they are otherwise eligible through an explicit statutory exemption.

What Is a Passive Investor?

Passive investors are provided with substantially more flexibility than TPIs with potential investment opportunities. A passive investor is not limited to the single license cap that limits TPIs, nor is it precluded from investing in and/or having an interest in multiple license types.

Rather, a passive investor, pursuant to Minnesota statute, can freely exercise its investment abilities so long as it holds ten percent (10%) or less of a controlling interest in the cannabis business and cooperates with the federal regulations governing ownership interests solely for passive investment as detailed in 31 CFR § 800.243.^ix

Federal Regulatory Requirements for Passive Investors

The federal regulations governing passive investments dictate that a passive investor does not retain any control rights or the ability to exercise control over the adult-use cannabis business. Any attempt by a passive investor to exercise control rights, whether indirect or direct, or any evidence that the passive investor retained direct or indirect control rights, would violate 31 CFR § 800.243(a)(1).^x

Restrictions on Control and Governance Rights

Passive investors may also lose this passive-investment status if, per 31 CFR § 800.243(a)(2), the investor acquires any rights, access, or involvement beyond those typically attributable to a passive investment.x The presence or absence of these rights, access, and/or involvement beyond what is typically associated with a passive investment are detailed in 31 CFR § 800.211(b).^xi
For example, such an investment would not be considered a passive investment if the investor may:

1. Access material nonpublic technical information
2. Control and/or nominate rights for the business’ board of directors or the equivalent governing body
3. Play a role in any substantive decision-making processes for the business.

See Video Here

Limitations on Purpose and Investor Conduct

Investments made by those seeking to retain passive-investor status must also be made without any additional purpose other than to act as a passive investment. This means that the passive investor cannot possess or develop any ulterior motive beyond making the passive investment after the transaction is completed. See 31 CFR § 800.243(a)(3).^xii Passive investors will also be disqualified and the passive investment itself will be rendered a control transaction under 31 CFR § 800.243(a)(4) if any actions are taken that are inconsistent with the passive-investment guidelines for foreign investors holding 10% or less of the outstanding voting interest in a U.S. business per 31 CFR § 800.302(b).^xiii

Minnesota’s Statutory Definition of a Passive Investor

Minnesota also retains its own definition of passive investors, as per MN Statute § 53B.28, Subdivision 23, to help supplement the federal regulatory requirements.

Passive investors under this statute refer to those investors which:

1. Lack the requisite authority to elect the majority of those exercising managerial authority over the licensee
2. Are not employed by and do not have any managerial duties pertaining to the licensee
3. Do not have any direct or indirect power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a licensee
4. Attest to these requirements to the relevant authority in a signed written document or other equivalent method as established by Minnesota statutory law^.xiv

How Attorney Advisory Opinion Letters Support Passive Investors

Whether an investor in Minnesota’s adult-use cannabis market constitutes a passive investor is not solely determined by whether the investor retains a controlling interest in the business at or below the 10% threshold.

Instead, an investor’s status as a passive investor, in addition to adhering to the 10% threshold, is heavily influenced by the regulatory and statutory complexities of whether the investor procures any control or access rights inconsistent with the federal regulations and associated Minnesota statutory rules.

When attempting to address a matter involving a heightened level of regulatory and/or statutory complexity, such as the issue of retaining passive investor status, an attorney’s advisory opinion letter can help provide the requisite analysis and subsequent clarity to ensure that a passive investor retains its passive-investment status.

Use of Advisory Opinion Letters in Transactions

In a transactional setting, attorney advisory opinion letters typically discuss an attorney’s legal opinion on whether the transaction in question is permissible under relevant statutory and/or regulatory requirements.^xv These letters focus on the deal’s associated risks, whether any changes are necessary to maintain the transaction’s permissibility, and any additional details needed to assure the client that its intended course of conduct will be allowed.

Advisory opinion letters help clients by providing them with an idea of how a transaction will take place to keep it within the requisite legal and/or regulatory boundaries while also ensuring that it does not run afoul of the limitations set forth by relevant statutory law and regulatory requirements, ensuring that investors intending to be passive investors stay passive investors.

Application in Minnesota’s Adult-Use Cannabis Market

Within the specific context of passive investors for Minnesota adult-use cannabis businesses, attorney advisory opinion letters focus on maintaining the controlling interest at the 10% threshold while highlighting that the passive investment does not grant the passive investor any control or access rights inconsistent with Minnesota statutory law and federal regulations.

These letters specify the contractual mechanisms that help limit the control and/or access rights of passive investors, which will be highly fact-intensive depending on the client’s needs, while also emphasizing that the size of ownership alone does not create passivity in the investment.

The investor must include this attorney advisory opinion letter detailing the proposed ownership structure and how the passive investor would fit into this ownership structure with the proposed investment plan, subject to review by the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management.

Considerations for Passive Investors in Minnesota

Minnesota’s cannabis regulatory framework makes clear that passive-investor status depends on more than ownership percentage alone. Investors must carefully structure their interests to avoid control, access, or governance rights that could convert a passive investment into a regulated ownership position under state or federal law.

Attorney advisory opinion letters help address this complexity by analyzing proposed ownership structures, contractual rights, and regulatory risk before a transaction moves forward.

When prepared thoughtfully, these letters can provide clarity to investors and regulators alike, support compliant deal structures, and reduce the risk of unintended regulatory exposure.

ⁱ Red Lake Nation Enters Into Cannabis Compact With State of Minnesota, Lakeland PBS (Dec. 16, 2025), https://lptv.org/red-lake-nation-enters-into-cannabis-compact-with-state-of-minnesota-2/.

ⁱⁱ Cannabis Law, Minn. Off. of Cannabis Mgmt., https://mn.gov/ocm/laws/cannabis-law.jsp; Minnesota Legalization Law 2023 Detailed Summary, Marijuana Pol’y Project, https://www.mpp.org/states/minnesota/minnesota-legalization-law-2023-detailed-summary/.

ⁱⁱⁱ Nick Longworth, This is Minnesota’s first license for a recreational cannabis cultivation business, Fox 9 (June 18, 2025), https://www.fox9.com/news/mn-cannabis-cultivator-business-license-retail-dispensaries.

^iv Alyssa Chen, Minnesota’s first non-tribal recreational dispensaries open two years after legalization, Minn. Reformer (Sept. 22, 2025), https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/09/22/minnesotas-first-non-tribal-recreational-dispensaries-open-two-years-after-legalization/.

^v Minn. Off. of Cannabis Mgmt., https://mn.gov/ocm/.

^vi Minn. Stat. § 342.185 (2025).

^vii Minn. Stat. § 342.18 (2025).

^viii Minn. Stat. § 342.18 (2025).

^ix Minn. Stat. § 342.185 (2025); 31 C.F.R. § 800.243 (2026).

^x 31 C.F.R. § 800.243(a)(1) (2026).

^xi 31 C.F.R. § 800.211(b) (2026).

^xii 31 C.F.R. § 800.243(a)(3) (2026).

^xiii 31 C.F.R. § 800.211(b) (2026).

^xiv Minn. Stat. § 53B.28 (2025).

^xv Legal Opinion Letters Part 1: What Is A Legal Opinion Letter?, McGrath & Spielberger, PLLC, https://mcgrathspielberger.com/legal-opinion-letters-part-1-what-is-a-legal-opinion-letter/.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-assistance-of-attorney-advisory-5698812/

Consumer cannabis products company Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. announced the opening of an adult-use store adjacent to the medical dispensary located at 829 Hogan Rd., Bangor, Maine. With this opening, Curaleaf expands to five retail locations in Maine, and 161 nationwide.

Conveniently situated near the Bangor Mall, hotels, and restaurants, Curaleaf Bangor (829 Hogan Road, Unit 38) has served medical cannabis patients since 2021, according to the company. The medical store has been upgraded and the new adult-use store at Unit 46 offers high quality cannabis products to consumers over the age of 21. Both stores operate Monday through Sunday from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM ET.

Customers can explore Curaleaf’s full portfolio of cannabis products across flower, pre-rolls, vapes and edibles, according to the company, including Grassroots Dark Heart Collection flower, Find Flower & Pre-Rolls, Select BRIQ all-in-one vapes, and B Noble pre-rolls.

“Each new milestone in our retail footprint reflects Curaleaf’s mission to expand access to high-quality, tested, legal cannabis,” said Boris Jordan, Curaleaf chairman and CEO, in a news release. “We’re proud to welcome adult-use customers in Bangor while continuing to support Maine’s medical community with best-in-class products, expert guidance, and a customer-first experience.”

More at

Curaleaf Launches Adult-Use Sales in Maine

Description

The personality of Kumquat Tart is bold and unmistakable. On the nose, you get a pungent hit of sour fuel and gassy notes inherited from its Sour Diesel parent. However, as you break into the dense, purple-hued buds, a sweet layer of grape and berry starts to come through. This creates a complex flavor profile where the sharp, sour inhale is perfectly balanced by a woody and sweet fruit finish.

The high is a classic two-phase experience. It kicks off with an immediate cerebral lift that clears out fatigue and gets your head in the clouds. This initial rush is perfect for sparking creativity or getting through a long afternoon. As the high settles, the GDP lineage begins to take over. You will feel a wave of relaxation spread through your muscles, easing tension and stress. While it is deeply relaxing, it rarely leads to heavy couch-lock, making it a great choice for evening hangouts or a chill weekend at home.

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.

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.

Stoners Died Less from Covid According to Report

When the world screeched to a halt in early 2020, many of us found ourselves locked down, stressed out, and reaching for comfort wherever we could find it. For a growing number of people, that comfort came in the form of a joint, bong, or edible. As the pandemic wore on, cannabis sales skyrocketed, with dispensaries reporting record-breaking numbers month after month. It seemed that in the face of global uncertainty, many were turning to our leafy green friend for solace.

But while we were all busy stockpiling toilet paper and learning to bake sourdough, something unexpected was happening in hospitals across the country. As Covid-19 tore through communities, leaving devastation in its wake, researchers began to notice an intriguing trend: cannabis users seemed to be faring better than their non-toking counterparts.

Now, let’s be clear – almost everyone got a touch of the ‘rona at some point, whether they were coughing up a lung or blissfully unaware they were even infected. But when it came to severe cases and, tragically, deaths, stoners appeared to have an edge. A recent study published in the journal Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research has shed light on this phenomenon, suggesting that cannabis users had lower rates of severe Covid-19 infections and were less likely to face the worst outcomes of the virus.

In this article, we’re going to roll up our sleeves (and maybe a little something else) to unpack these findings. We’ll explore the data, dive into the possible reasons behind this unexpected correlation, and try to make sense of it all. Could it be that all those quarantine smoke sessions were doing more than just making Tiger King more entertaining?

Let’s find out.

The study, conducted by researchers at Northwell Health in New York, dug deep into the data from the National Inpatient Sample Database, which tracks hospital admissions across the country. They divided patients admitted for COVID-19 into two groups: cannabis users and non-users. To ensure a fair comparison, they matched these groups based on factors like age, race, gender, and other health conditions.

The results were, quite frankly, mind-blowing. As the researchers put it, “Cannabis users had better outcomes and mortality compared with non-users.” But it wasn’t just a slight difference – the numbers were significant across the board.

“On initial analysis, cannabis users had significantly lower rates of severe COVID-19 infection, intubation, ARDS [acute respiratory distress syndrome], acute respiratory failure, severe sepsis with multiorgan failure, mortality, and shorter length of hospital stay,” the study reported. And these findings held up even after the researchers accounted for other factors.

But why? What could explain this seemingly protective effect of cannabis? The researchers have a theory: “The beneficial effect of cannabis use may be attributed to its immunomodulatory effects.” In other words, cannabis might be helping to regulate the immune system’s response to the virus, potentially preventing the dreaded “cytokine storm” that has been associated with severe COVID-19 cases.

This isn’t the only study to suggest a link between cannabis and better COVID-19 outcomes. A Canadian study found that “cannabinoids have been shown to prevent viral entry, mitigate oxidative stress, and alleviate the associated cytokine storm” in early COVID-19 infections. The same study also noted that cannabinoids showed promise in treating long COVID symptoms, including “depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress injury, insomnia, pain, and decreased appetite.”

Even more intriguing, a 2022 laboratory study from Oregon State University found that certain cannabinoids could potentially prevent COVID-19 from entering human cells in the first place. While this was under lab conditions and didn’t involve actual smoking, it adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting cannabis might have a role to play in fighting this pandemic.

Given all this evidence, it’s mind-boggling that some people still question whether cannabis is medicine. We’re looking at multiple studies, from different research teams, all pointing to the potential benefits of cannabis in the face of one of the most significant health crises of our time. Yet, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug at the federal level, officially considered to have “no currently accepted medical use.”

This disconnect between scientific evidence and policy is stark. While researchers are uncovering potential life-saving properties of cannabis, patients in many parts of the country still face legal repercussions for using it. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted many flaws in our healthcare system, but perhaps none so glaring as our continued prohibition of a plant that could be helping to save lives.

As we continue to navigate the ongoing challenges of COVID-19 and prepare for future health crises, it’s clear that we need a more rational, evidence-based approach to cannabis. The data is speaking loud and clear – it’s time for our policies to catch up with the science. After all, in a world where stoners are showing better outcomes against a global pandemic, can we really afford to keep ignoring the potential of this plant?

The endocannabinoid system (ECS) is a complex cell-signaling network that plays a crucial role in maintaining balance throughout our bodies. Discovered in the early 1990s, the ECS is involved in regulating a wide range of functions, including mood, sleep, appetite, pain sensation, immune response, and more.

What’s particularly interesting is how the ECS changes as we age. Up until about age 25, our bodies produce an abundance of endocannabinoids – naturally occurring compounds similar to those found in cannabis. This overproduction serves to build and fine-tune the ECS. However, once the system matures, there’s a significant drop in endocannabinoid production.

This decline can have far-reaching effects. With fewer endocannabinoids, our bodies may struggle to maintain optimal balance. Recovery time from injuries or illnesses may increase, immune regulation could become less efficient, and overall health might suffer.

Here’s where cannabis comes in. The plant’s cannabinoids, like THC and CBD, can interact with our ECS in ways that mimic our body’s own endocannabinoids. For those over 25 experiencing endocannabinoid deficiency, cannabis could potentially help replenish the system.

Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean everyone should start smoking weed. There are many ways to support your ECS. Consuming raw cannabis leaves or using tinctures can provide beneficial cannabinoids without the psychoactive effects. These methods could help maintain a healthy ECS, potentially improving overall wellness and resilience against diseases like COVID-19.

As we’ve blazed through the data and research, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: cannabis may be more than just a way to chill out or ease pain. The findings suggesting that cannabis users fared better against COVID-19 are compelling, to say the least. While we can’t definitively say that lighting up will protect you from severe viral infections, the evidence pointing in that direction is getting harder to ignore.

At the heart of this potential benefit lies our endocannabinoid system (ECS). This intricate network, responsible for maintaining balance throughout our bodies, seems to play a crucial role in how we respond to threats like COVID-19. The fact that cannabis can interact with this system in ways that potentially boost our resilience against diseases is nothing short of revolutionary.

For far too long, we’ve been denied access to this powerful plant due to outdated laws and misguided fears. The Controlled Substances Act, which still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug with “no accepted medical use,” flies in the face of mounting scientific evidence. It’s high time we follow the science and remove cannabis from the CSA altogether.

This isn’t just about the right to get high – it’s about our fundamental human right to health and medicine. The ability to grow a plant that could potentially save lives during a pandemic shouldn’t be criminalized. It should be celebrated and studied further.

As we emerge from the haze of prohibition, we’re beginning to see cannabis for what it truly is: a complex, potentially life-saving plant that works in harmony with our own bodies. Whether you choose to smoke it, eat it raw, or use it in tincture form, cannabis has the potential to support our endocannabinoid system and, by extension, our overall health.

The sticky bottom line is this: while more research is always needed, the evidence suggesting cannabis’s protective effects against severe COVID-19 is too significant to ignore. It’s time to embrace the potential of this plant, to dig deeper into its mysteries, and to fight for our right to access it freely. After all, in a world where a humble herb might help us weather a global pandemic, keeping it illegal isn’t just foolish – it’s a violation of our basic right to health and wellbeing. Let’s turn over a new leaf and give cannabis the legal and scientific attention it deserves.

CANNABIS DURING COVID, READ ON…

THE CANNABIS LIFESTYLE TOOK OVER DURUING COVID!