Canopy Growth Corp (WEED)

[Dogger05]

$2 billion dollar loss, just gruesome. Sales falling, margins compressing…..the funeral procession has started

[borysek]

interesting day tomorrow .... naive people are going to buy ..... really ?

[borysek]

I decided to short today at $3.75 C ..... chance for good earning is " 0 "

[Bonno]

Legacy is where it,s at.
Fat wallets blew it big time!

Grow your own
@awesomesound1
·
13m
Replying to
@LarisaBolivar
Before you think Federal legalization is the golden license understand that the fat wallet stockmarket weed CEOs will be lobbying Governments to raid, arrest and shutter all unlicensed, graymarket "Cannabis" businesses, for a Monopoly, with Gov setting law & regulations.

[Bonno]

Rae S Opengart
@RSOpengart713
·
8m
Replying to
@LarisaBolivar
California sold out legacy growers, violating agreements with them. They really failed with their cannabis taxation which should have started low and been increased in stages. Instead, tax was as much as the item cost. That is, the retail price was 50% tax.

[Bonno]

I would have to agree with Larisa.

Larisa Bolivar
@LarisaBolivar
Let’s discuss a major issue in cannabis: classism. Why is it that attorneys & lobbyists & MSO weedbaggers run the show? They overthrew legacy people, stole our market, gaslighted us, & now control the narrative. #cannabis #cannabisnews #marijuananews #marijuana #socialequity
10:29 AM · Aug 3, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
37,985 Retweets

[Bonno]

My longstanding view is some of the CEWS cash must be repaid, not only by the largest cannabis companies (who received a fraction of the total amount), but by any company that can't prove they used it to "retain and rehire" workers. Canada spent $100 billion on this boondoggle.

[Bonno]

This is part of the consequence for large licensed producers who funded and build production capacity before they identified customers, or even knew how to produce what they wanted to buy.

Let's not pretend the lion's share of this destruction didn't happen at the biggest LPs.

[Bonno]

LP,s scaling poor quality bunk weed is all the rage!!!
Canadian growers destroyed a record 425 million grams of cannabis last year
author profile pictureBy Matt Lamers, International Editor
To Bonno, August 3, 2022
SHARE

A graphic showing the amount of Canadian cannabis that is destroyed since 2018
Canadian licensed producers have destroyed a growing amount of cannabis every year since adult-use legalization nearly four years ago, with 2021’s record quantity far exceeding the product sold that year, an MJBizDaily analysis has found.

The latest data signals that some Canadian mass-producers might need to further rein in output to bring it more in line with forecasted sales, after years of trying to rightsize capacity so they’re not growing more than they’re able to sell.

All told, Canada’s federally licensed marijuana producers destroyed a record 425 million grams – or 468 tons – of unsold, unpackaged dried cannabis last year, according to Health Canada data provided to MJBizDaily.

Last year’s total was up more than 50% from the 279 million grams of dried cannabis that was destroyed in 2020. LPs destroyed 155 million grams in 2019.

Seattle-based analytics firm Headset estimates that sales of dried cannabis and pre-rolls amounted to 293 million grams last year in four key provinces, indicating destroyed inventory again exceeded sold production.

Headset monitors sales in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, which together account for approximately three-quarters of all legal sales of recreational marijuana products in Canada.

In addition to the destruction of unpackaged dried cannabis, more than 7 million packaged cannabis products across the country were sent for destruction in 2021, according to the Health Canada data.

Quantities of destroyed cannabis include:

3,576,232 packages of dried cannabis.
1,118,148 packages of extracts, including vapes.
2,421,823 packages of edibles, including beverages.
15,359 packages of topicals.

Headset tracked cannabis sales of 104 million packaged units in 2021 – indicating that, unlike unpackaged dried cannabis, sales of packaged merchandise far exceeded the amount that was destroyed.

The Health Canada data does not include the weight of the packaged production.

Widespread destruction

Destruction has been growing in Canada’s young cannabis industry after the largest producers funded and built out more production capacity than the industry needed after the launch of recreational sales in October 2018.

Most of the biggest greenhouse transactions led to direct real estate losses worth millions of dollars and “balance sheet adjustments” worth billions of dollars in inventory and other asset write-downs, previous MJBizDaily reporting found.

In fact, cannabis producers in Canada sold less than 20% of their production between legalization in 2018 and the end of 2020.

Since 2018, almost 900 million grams of unpackaged dried cannabis has been destroyed by licensed producers because of overproduction and quality issues – a weight approximately equal to 650 Toyota Prius cars.

That figure would easily pass the 1 billion-gram mark when destroyed packaged marijuana is accounted for.

Bloated balance sheets

Stewart Maxwell, a cannabis crop consultant based in British Columbia, said some large producers might be putting off destruction to make their balance sheets look better than they really are.

“I think some of the larger producers just want cannabis in their inventories. Even if they never sell it, it still looks good on your books to have assets,” he said.

“A lot of producers aren’t destroying products when it’s ready to be destroyed, even though it’s no longer marketable.”

Across all product categories in Canada, the amount of packaged product sitting in corporate inventories far exceeds the amount of packaged merchandise that is sold.

That imbalance indicates that high levels of inventory destruction could continue for some time.

In December, for instance, 14 million packaged units of extracts were stashed in inventories of producers, wholesalers and retailers.

In the same month, sales amounted to less than 3 million units in recreational and medical channels.

Roughly 19 million units of cannabis edibles were packaged and ready for sale in December. Only about 4 million units were sold, according to government data.

Cannabis topicals inventory reached 550,000 units, compared with sales of 65,000 units.

Meanwhile, roughly 36 million packaged units of dried cannabis were in inventory that month, with sales reaching 9.6 million units.

Packaged cannabis destroyed in Canada by product type
Product type 2020 2021 Percent change
Dried cannabis units 2,642,779 3,576,232 35.32%
Cannabis extracts units 1,337,364 1,118,148 -16.39%
Edible cannabis units 714,485 2,421,823 238.96%
Cannabis topicals units 943 15,359 1528.74%
Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries
Source: Health Canada

The imbalance primarily lies with licensed producers, not wholesalers or retailers, the Health Canada data suggests.

Maxwell warned that the overproduction will make life difficult for most new entrants into the industry.

“I’m a crop consultant. I make my living teaching people how to grow more weed. But quite often, my first meeting is uncomfortable,” he said.

“A majority of the time, I’m telling people, ‘I’m sorry, but you’re going to fail.’ And they usually don’t hire me when I tell him that, but that’s the reality if you’re just getting into this industry (now).

“The odds are, even if you are a good actor and you have substantial financial assets behind you, the numbers are not good for anyone. Because of these issues – oversupply. Cannabis can’t find its real price point.”

Demand forecasting

One of the companies navigating Canada’s tumultuous cannabis market better than some of its larger competitors is cultivator Organigram Holdings.

The New Brunswick-based company has managed to grow its overall market share and sales, while most of its main rivals have seen their sales crash and write-downs skyrocket over the same period.

A recent report by New York-based financial services firm Cowen noted that some Organigram rivals experienced sales declines upwards of 39% year-over-year in the second quarter of this year.

Organigram’s sales, by contrast, rose 60%.

How?

CEO Beena Goldenberg said part of the reason is that Organigram sells most of what it produces, avoiding the massive destruction and write-downs facing larger competitors.

“No. 1, Organigram built out our capacity over time. We had mistakes, too. But in the last couple of years, we’ve been producing based on our sales forecast,” she said in a phone interview.

Goldenberg said not overproducing requires a deep understanding of what your customers want to buy and why.

“Like anything else, it’s all about making sure you’re producing what a consumer wants,” she said. “Quality is becoming the determining factor.”

She said markets are stabilizing enough to make accurate forecasts, “and you shouldn’t have massive amounts to write off. You should be working with the provinces on making sure you have an optimized (product) lineup.”

Cannabis is an agricultural product, Goldenberg said, so consumers don’t want something that’s six months to two years old.

“I think we’re performing very well because we have fresh products in the marketplace all the time. It’s not aged six months, nine months,” she said.

Being able to deliver fresh products boils down to three factors, she said:

Forecast accuracy.
Measured investments in inventory.
Customer service.

“In my whole career, not specific to cannabis, it is always (finding) that balance between forecast accuracy and investment in inventory and customer-service levels. You have to optimize those three factors,” Goldenberg said.

She said Organigram is sitting on about three weeks of inventory.

“That is critical to our process,” she said. “We look at what we need, and we produce accordingly.”

[borysek]

is it time to short again tomorrow ?

[borysek]

do not get trapped ! what we see now is an artificial push up .... smart guys will sell on Thursday .... do the same .... because on Friday the price will start decline ( maybe after a few days ) to $2C/sh .....

[Bonno]

Advocating for enforcement against unlicensed operators is advocating for a continuation of the War on Drugs.

If bad regulation prevents companies from competing with unlicensed operators then their beef should be with regulators & the politicians who craft legislation.

[Bonno]

DOOMED!!!
Matt Lamers
2-08-22
(And according write-downs disclosed by pubcos, it's clear that most of the overproduction comes from a relatively small number of companies that were flooded with the most capital. You know who they are.)

I'll have detailed reporting on this soon. Still on vacation!

[Bonno]

DOOMED!!!
(when bunk flowers does,nt sell)

How Canopy Growth, the star of Canada’s cannabis dreams, fell from grace.

FRED LUM/THE GLOBE AND MAIL
August 2, 2022
To Bonno

8979 COMMENTS

On its quest to dominate the global cannabis market, Canada’s Canopy Growth Corp. WEED-T +9.14%increase deployed a very deliberate strategy: Entice investors with a grand vision – something co-founder Bruce Linton had in spades – then endure any turbulence en route. Short-term losses were irrelevant. The nowhere destination was all that mattered.

It was a winning formula for nearly a decade. Even when investors lost faith in many cannabis producers, and later, when the pandemic nearly decimated the industry, Canopy consistently found a way to float above the fray with canna naive investers.

That has all changed, and quickly. In the past two months, Canopy has encountered something much more ferocious than turbulence and its once-faithful investors aren’t sticking around. For the first time, the company’s bottom is close to falling out.

The rout started in late May when Canopy, once Canada’s top LP (or licensed producer) of cannabis by market share, reported yet another batch of ugly earnings. Executives had promised the company would make money by the second half of the year, at least after excluding certain costs, but as that deadline approached, they admitted that any semblance of profit was still at least two years away.

With Canopy bleeding cash, the company’s debt load suddenly began to draw more attention. To alleviate the burden, management announced in June that they would swap some bonds for shares – but the fix only caused more damage. Handing out new stock diluted existing shareholders and as part of the swap, Canopy agreed to repay $345-million in cash next summer. Investors revolted.

In June alone, Canopy’s shares tumbled 42 per cent. Over the past year, they are down more than double that.

To the naked eye, this collapse may not seem all that unusual. Canada’s entire cannabis sector is reeling. The market peak was in September, 2018, a month before recreational cannabis was legalized. Four years later, many mid-tier producers have merged with rivals simply to stay alive. Canopy’s share price has collapsed from $67.74 on Sept. 7, 2018 to $3.39 as of Friday’s market close.

That Canopy would be indistinguishable from the rest of the lot was once unfathomable. It was the first mover. The disciplined producer that didn’t make reckless acquisitions. The one that would last.

“It’s a monumental fall from grace,” said Nadine Sarwat, an equity analyst at Bernstein.

The recent spiral is particularly bruising for Constellation Brands Inc., the U.S. alcohol giant that invested a total of $5.2-billion in Canopy back when it seemed like recreational weed could be the next big thing. The value of that investment is now close to a goose egg – so immaterial that Constellation is hardly ever asked about it.

Because the broader cannabis sector is already in disarray, Canopy’s crash has barely been scrutinized – it’s just another cannabis dream dashed. But in many ways the company’s undoing is the industry’s most important story to tell. That’s because Canopy was the one company that attracted the so-called smart money – the investment that legitimized the entire sector.

There isn’t an easy explanation for Canopy’s demise. Instead, there are a few schools of thought. They fall into three buckets: irrational investors, regulatory hurdles and cruddy (canna experienced) management.

The investor angle is the least disputed. The cannabis sector gained steam right after the commodity super cycle crashed in 2012. At that point, tech stocks and cryptocurrencies were not yet mainstream. Weed was the only speculative sector to bet on, and Canada was the only major country that was ready to legalize recreational use. The money poured in.

Against that backdrop, Canopy, led by Mr. Linton, was the undisputed star. Unlike some competitors who were late to the game, Canopy had launched in 2013 as Tweed Marijuana Inc. Its original goal was to sell medical marijuana. Because of this history, the company was well positioned to capitalize on the federal Liberals’ legalization plans. Crucially, Canopy owned a large manufacturing facility – a former Hershey chocolate factory – in Smiths Falls, Ont., southwest of Ottawa.

Few countries had publicly listed cannabis stocks. As Canada’s cannabis profile rose among international investors, Canopy seemed untouchable. In 2017, it was the first marijuana producer added to the S&P/TSX Composite Index, and the very same year, Constellation invested $245-million for a 9.9-per-cent stake.

But Canopy could only control so much. As the October, 2018 legalization date neared, dozens of LPs received regulatory approval to start growing and selling cannabis, which meant Canada was on the cusp of being flooded with weed. Investors refused to do the simple math that would have spelled this out, or simply ignored it.

“There was a huge disconnect between the fundamental values of these companies and their valuations,” said Matt Bottomley, an analyst at Canaccord Genuity.

Oversupply wasn’t the only thing investors glossed over. At the height of the frenzy, hardly anyone stopped to consider the way the companies’ growth would be limited by regulations.

For one, cannabis producers in Canada have to obey strict limits on how they market their products. Health Canada prevented producers from advertising their brands to minors, which took traditional marketing avenues such as major sporting events off the table. Because the rules were so stringent, producers tended to play it safe by advertising with only oblique references to cannabis.

Another hurdle: Cultivation rules have evolved. Early on, producers with the most sophisticated greenhouses were thought to have the best chances at success, because Health Canada enforced so many rules related to pesticides and optimal growing conditions. That’s why Canopy’s archrival Aurora Cannabis spent so much effort publicizing the massive greenhouse it was building near the Edmonton airport, dubbed Aurora Sky.

Only a few months after legalization, Health Canada permitted outdoor growing, which is a much cheaper form of cannabis production. By early 2021, the regulatory body had approved 110 licenses to cultivate outdoors.

Costly greenhouse production, coupled with an oversupply of cannabis, put producers in a bind. Under pressure to slash costs, Canopy shuttered two big British Columbia production facilities in March, 2020, both of which were once marketed as crucial to its expansion.

In May this year, Aurora shut Aurora Sky. The company’s shares have plummeted 99 per cent since their 2018 peak.

Canopy’s pivot to what is known as Cannabis 2.0 is a perfect example. When it became clear the Canadian market was going to be oversaturated with traditional bud – known as flower in the industry – derivative products became all the rage. “When it came time to launch edibles, vapes and beverages, Canopy wasn’t ready. But their peers were,” said Andrew Carter, an analyst at Stifel Financial Corp.

The groundwork for this pivot should have been laid when Mr. Linton was chief executive.

What is undeniable is that, when he was in charge, he wasn’t content with simply running a Canadian business. He had dreams of global domination. Under his leadership, the company made investments in over a dozen countries. This vision was central to Canopy’s appeal: If cannabis legalization swept across the globe, it would arguably be the best situated to capitalize.

But cannabis bans weren’t so quick to disappear. Spreading the money left Canopy looking like a sprawling octopus, miles from water.

The walls closed in on Mr. Linton after Canopy reported a $323-million fourth-quarter loss in June, 2019, four times larger than analysts’ expectations. By then it was clear the international bets would take years to pay off, and that Canada’s cannabis experiment had gotten off to a slow start.

Six months after legalization there were major supply-chain issues and weak sales across the industry. Investors may not have cared about profits in the early days, but eventually they did. Mr. Linton was fired in July, 2019.

To this day, he doesn’t regret his strategy. He argues that success comes only from expanding and innovating. “I could have been profitable in year three, but you know what? By year four you would have been irrelevant,” he said in an interview. The industry was evolving so quickly that he worried about thinking too small and quickly getting eclipsed. So he dreamed big. “This platform was not built to be a corner participant in a small segment of the market.”

Canopy declined to comment for this story, but the current management team – and Constellation – have often implicitly suggested that Mr. Linton should bear the brunt of the blame. The way they frame it, Canopy has spent the past three years slashing costs Mr. Linton approved.

But Constellation was well aware of what Mr. Linton was up to. When the American company bought its first, smaller stake in Canopy in 2017, it wasn’t solely a passive investment – Canopy referred to it as a “strategic relationship,” with Constellation providing support on consumer analytics, market trending, marketing and brand development. A year later, they doubled down with that $5-billion cheque.

Constellation has made its own blunders since taking the reins. After firing Mr. Linton, the new chief executive, David Klein, who used to be Constellation’s chief financial officer, made it clear he was betting on the U.S. market. After Joe Biden won the presidency and the Democrats took 50 seats in the U.S. Senate, there was enormous hope in the Canadian industry that cannabis would be legalized at the federal level.

Now, with Republicans seemingly poised to retake the Senate in mid-term elections this fall, those dreams have all but disappeared. “Some assets in Canopy’s portfolio have value, but we believe [the company] has built a strategy dependent on U.S. legalization, where prospects have worsened,” CIBC World Markets analyst John Zamparo wrote in a recent note to clients.

Mr. Carter at Stifel is also critical of what he calls Constellation’s capital markets strategy. Its plan was to invest $5-billion in Canopy, then use that money to grow through acquisitions. The plan backfired. Instead of putting Canopy alone in a position of strength, the investment ended up being a shot in the arm for the entire industry. The sector’s share prices soared in the aftermath, making potential deals much more expensive.

Mr. Carter was also baffled by Canopy’s decision to take on costly debt in April, 2021, in the form of a US$750-million loan from King Street Capital Management LP, a U.S. investment firm. At the time, Canopy’s shares were experiencing a resurgence because retail traders had piled into speculative stocks. Other cannabis companies were raising money by selling shares, but Canopy chose debt.

“It just made no sense. Why would they do it? I don’t know. I still don’t get it,” Mr. Carter said of the loan.

From afar, it can seem like Constellation has barely been hindered by its bad bet. It was a $5-billion blunder, yet most analysts have moved on and the company’s shares haven’t tanked. On its last quarterly call, Bernstein’s Ms. Sarwat was the only person to ask about the disaster.

In an interview, she said Constellation has, in fact, been penalized, but it’s hard to recognize because the Canopy pain has been masked by Constellation’s beer portfolio, which includes the U.S. marketing and production rights for Mexican beers such as Corona. It’s one of the bright spots in the alcohol industry.

This past spring, the Sands family, which controls Constellation, announced they were giving up their special class of voting shares in the company. The motivations for the move have been tough to decipher. Perhaps the family just wants to cash out – the Class B shares are getting bought for a total of US$1.5-billion.

But Ms. Sarwat has an alternative theory: Ordinary shareholders were getting fed up, particularly with rumours swirling of new acquisition targets, and they wanted a greater say in the company’s future. “People were worried they were going to do another stupid deal,” she said.

Canopy, now run by Constellation’s chosen leaders, is trying to turn a corner. It laid out a revitalization plan in May. In Canada, its focus is on premium cannabis, a response to the country’s oversupply of cut-rate mediocre weed. Canopy also plans to cut even more expenses – particularly sales, marketing and general costs, which it hopes to reduce by 25 per cent. Roughly half of the savings are expected to come from job losses.

Because Canada has far too many LPs, and many are now pivoting to premium weed as well, Canopy’s best hope for growth is U.S. expansion. But even if the U.S. government does legalize cannabis, Canopy has lost what used to be its biggest advantage: a war chest with billions of dollars to burn.

At the end of 2018, Canopy had $4.1-billion in cash on its balance sheet. Now its coffers are running low. Before the recent debt exchange, the company was in a net debt position, meaning it owed more than its cash balance. And growth is hard to come by.

“They’re the furthest of all the large LPs from becoming profitable,” Canaccord’s Mr. Bottomley said.

Key dates in the Canopy Growth story
April 4, 2014: Launches trading on the TSX Venture Exchange
May 24, 2018: Becomes the first cannabis company to trade on the NYSE
Aug. 15, 2018: Constellation Brands announces it will invest $5-billion for an eventual 38-per-cent share of Canopy
Sept. 7, 2018: Canopy reaches an all-time share price high of $67.74 a share
Oct. 17, 2018: Cannabis becomes legal in Canada for recreational use
April 18, 2019: Canopy is added to the to the S&P/TSX 60 Index
July 3, 2019: Founder Bruce Linton is ousted from company
Dec. 9, 2019: David Klein, a former Constellation Brands executive, is announced as Canopy’s new CEO
Dec. 20, 2019: Mark Zekulin, former co-CEO, steps down
Dec. 9, 2020: As part of the new restructuring plan, Canopy announces it will close five facilities and cut 220 jobs
March 18, 2021: Canopy announces it is raising US$750-million through a senior secured loan
Feb. 5, 2021: Pandemic investing boosts Canopy stock to a two-year high of $54.76
June 30, 2022: Canopy announces it will swap $255.4-million of its senior secured notes for shares and cash
Bottom line nobody talks about : bunk flowers don,t sell!

[Bonno]

DOOMED!!!


Canna World
@CannaWorld4
2-8-22
+80% of all weed produced by legal companies in Canada has been destroyed or is waiting to be destroyed.

That's it, that's the tweet

[Bonno]

JuicyFields is in ??

[borysek]

critical week ..... are we going to see dramatic drop on Thursday .... and massacre on Friday ? .... big chance

[happyglass]

Good article. One of the few things I agree with you completely on Bonno

[Bonno]

CANNABIS INDUSTRY’S PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM
CALEB MCMILLANJULY 28, 2022
CANNABIS 101CANNABIS LEGALIZATIONCANNABIS NEWSFEATUREDHEALTHHEALTH & SEXLATEST LEGALIZATION NEWSLAWMARIJUANA LEGALIZATIONMARIJUANA NEWSPOLITICSPOLITICSTHC NEWS46,998VIEWS
If the US government legalizes cannabis federally, they’ll face the same public health problems Canada did. Namely, busybody bureaucrats demanding to control the nuances of how you consume your cannabis.

It’s like the adage about kids who become lifeguards. Some become lifeguards because they want to help protect and save lives. Others become lifeguards because they want to sit higher than everyone else and yell rules at people.

Most health care professionals are of the former type. They are the ones who save lives, and you never hear from them. They have quiet, small-town practices or are kept busy at a city hospital.

The latter group goes into public health.

If the US government legalizes cannabis federally, they will face a public health problem. And the cracks are already starting to appear. Every so-called public health expert wants a limit on THC.

THC Limits & Taxes
Cannabis & Public Health
There was a recently published white paper from the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. In other words, it was a white paper written by the intellectual underbelly of public health. They’ve outlined rules they want to see on legal cannabis. This included a limit on the amount of THC allowed in all cannabis products.

The white paper also called for taxing cannabis based on potency than weight or retail price. And, of course, they want a comprehensive tracking system from seed to sale.

A bill introduced in the US Senate calls for decriminalizing cannabis at the federal level and allows states to set their own rules. So far, only Vermont and Connecticut have THC limits.

The US Senate bill also calls for a 25% excise tax on top of the other sales and excise taxes imposed at the state level. This tax essentially guarantees that legacy markets remain consumers’ top preference. It may also bankrupt smaller farms and retailers in the legal states.

One would think public health busybodies would be more concerned with a bill that empowers the legacy market as they have zero control over that market. But, for whatever reason, they’re much more concerned with limiting how much THC American adults can consume.

Even to the point of absurdity.

The Cannabis Industry Has a Public Health Problem
Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the USC Schaeffer Center and Elizabeth Garrett Chair in Health Policy, Economics & Law at the USC Price School of Public Policy.

She told Healthline, “It took us decades to understand alcohol and what a standardized drink was. So we should set these caps and wait at least 5 years before we adjust them because it’s going to take some time for the science to come out.”

In other words, we should act now and arbitrarily limit the non-lethal compound that makes cannabis great. We don’t have the science on our side, and we might not in another five years. Still, we should impose our “expert opinion” and have it written into law, punishable by fines and imprisonment.

Or take R. Lorraine Collins, Ph.D., professor and associate dean for research in the University at Buffalo’s School of Public Health and Health Professions. She says she supports the white paper. Setting THC limits and taxing based on potency is an “excellent start.”

But she’s also cautious about how market players try to undermine public health authority.

“The cannabis industry is very smart,” she said. “One of the things that they do is if you say you’re going to cap the potency of cannabis flower, they’ll increase the potency in other cannabis products. So the key is to cap THC in ‘all cannabis products.'”

She also said laws must be broad enough to cover future cannabis products.

No mention of medical patients who need high doses of THC. No mention of medical patients at all. Only healthy adults who need to be treated like children.


The cannabis industry has a public health problem.


Public Health Busybodies Have No Business Regulating Cannabis
Public Health

According to busybody Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, “A public health approach to cannabis regulation is about incentivizing users in a manner that maximizes benefits and reduces harm.”

But the public health bureaucrats in Canada couldn’t demonstrate harm. They simply asserted it and repeated the lie until the average person believed it. And that seems to be the case in the US, as well.

The only “harm” they can demonstrate conclusively is that if someone consumes a lot of high-THC cannabis, they risk developing “cannabis use disorder.” But what exactly does this prove?

Public health busybodies fear potent cannabis will turn you into an addict. So they’ll interfere with your life to prevent this. There are several problems with this:

a) it is not the business of public health lobbyists what adults do with their bodies on their own time. Psychiatric disorders were a tool used by communist governments to silence dissidents. This may not be the case here, but best to err on the side of caution.

b) an “addict” is not a real thing. People can develop habitual behaviours and strongly ingrained preferences. But high-THC cannabis cannot come to life and force you to consume it. “Cannabis use disorder” is not real.

c) the evidence linking cannabis to psychosis and schizophrenia is haphazard at best and pseudoscience at its worst. Public health bureaucrats have no foundation on which to base their recommendations.

The only risks to young, healthy people regarding cannabis are the destructive narratives that public health puts in their heads.

[borysek]

desperate action before earning to push price up in order to sell and ...... short

[borysek]

3 months ago Canopy`s management said " no profit for the next 6 quarters " ...
so the only question is how bad will be this quarter ? ....

[happyglass]

The USA better get its thumb out of its butt soon. The rest of the world is moving forward in a rational way eg, Switzerland legalizing hemp with up to 1% THC. While the US continues to work hard at losing its advantage and limiting itself on every level
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dariosabaghi/2022/07/27/switzerland-fully-legalizes-medical-cannabis-and-allows-export/?sh=55f81bf764b0

[Bonno]

Home / Cultivation
Michigan’s wholesale marijuana flower prices plummet
author profile pictureBy Bart Schaneman, Editor
July 28, 2022
SHARE

Image of cannabis sitting atop $100 bills
Prices of wholesale recreational marijuana in Michigan are now as low, or lower, than those in older adult-use states – underscoring how new markets are ramping up more quickly and, in some cases, becoming glutted.

Industry insiders say cannabis flower in Michigan is readily available for less than $1,000 a pound on the wholesale market – and often for much less – because of oversaturation as more and more cultivation businesses come online in a state with no limit on business licenses.

ADVERTISEMENT

Connie Maxim-Sparrow, a cannabis consultant and marijuana business license holder based in Muskegon, Michigan, characterized the state’s current market conditions as “unstable” – in particular, cannabis growers are spending at least $800 to grow a pound of flower and getting only $600 for it on the wholesale market.

According to Maxim-Sparrow, a year ago a midgrade pound of indoor-grown wholesale flower that tested at around 20% THC potency would sell for $1,800-$2,200.

Now, that same grower is lucky to get $600 a pound, and she’s heard of some selling for as low as $300.

The dynamics playing out in Michigan could offer a harbinger of what’s to come in other new markets.

In particular: As more multistate operators learn how to quickly set up shop in new regions with many producers, the pace of a newly legalized state’s market hitting an oversaturation point is speeding up.

This is more likely to happen in states without licenses caps or that have many growers – unlike limited-license markets that seem more common on the East Coast.

Michigan began marijuana sales at the end of 2019, and the wholesale market prices now more closely resemble those in older markets such as Colorado or Oregon, where wholesale prices have been falling for a year or more.

Colorado’s adult-use sales launched in January 2014, while Oregon’s market launched in October 2015.

Both markets took longer than Michigan’s to experience product saturation and falling prices.

Survival tactics

To survive, cannabis companies across Michigan are tightening their belts, relying on vertical integration and trying to build brand recognition to be more competitive.

Others are limiting their expansion plans or selling out as a wave of consolidation sweeps through the state’s industry.

A few Michigan marijuana retailers have downsized, including major retail chain Lume Cannabis, which closed four of its roughly 30 stores earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Michigan regulators in March implemented new rules, including lower application fees and the removal of licensing tiers, that will further open up the market.

“Everybody’s panicking,” Maxim-Sparrow said.

“Some of us knew this was coming – others are getting caught off guard by the oversupply issue.”

MJBizDaily Indoor Cultivation Buyers Guide – Now available!
Master the complexities of growing cannabis indoors with fundamental tips and guidance from experienced cultivation professionals.

Featured inside:

Best practices in cultivation facility design
Tips for mapping out a climate control system and purchasing components
Indoor cultivation buyers guide checklist
And more!

Get The Guide

Any cannabis company executive who has been watching what has happened in other mature marijuana market with relatively unlimited licensing, including Colorado and Oregon, should have seen the market headed in this direction, industry insiders aid.

“We’ve seen this movie before,” said Tyson Macdonald, adviser to and former chief financial officer of Cloud Cannabis Co., based in Troy, Michigan.

“It is definitely happening with an accelerated pace in Michigan.”

Macdonald partially attributes that to a regulatory structure that allows for stacking of cultivation licenses, which has created very large facilities, many of which came online around the same time.

Not limiting licensing also sped up the situation.

Cannabis businesses executives “should have absolutely been aware that this market was going in this direction when there was not a single cap on a cultivation or processing license,” Maxim-Sparrow said.

The pricing situation

Over the past year and half, the state has seen a “ton of new capacity come online,” said Ankur Rungta, co-founder and CEO of C3 Industries, a vertically integrated Michigan marijuana company that also has operations in Massachusetts, Missouri and Oregon.

Rungta, who started out in the cannabis industry with a business in Oregon, said he saw a similar market drop there with overproduction in 2017 and again in 2018.

“Our first market was Oregon, so if anybody should have seen it coming, it was us,” he said.

Yet, Rungta said, the speed of how quickly the Michigan market has become saturated has taken him by surprise.

“We’re definitely getting into a fully supplied or even oversupplied marketplace,” he added.

“That’s definitely putting a lot of pressure on the wholesale market. People are buying the same amount of cannabis; it just costs half of what it used to cost before.”

That’s before the coming fall harvest of outdoor-grown flower hits the market.

“A lot of people are looking at this fall and saying, ‘What’s going to happen?'” Rungta said. “I don’t know that we’ve hit the bottom, to be completely honest with you.”

Macdonald said retailers and manufacturers can buy anything they need for less than $1,000 a pound for wholesale flower.

At Michigan stores, ounces of flower sell for as low as $59-$99, according to Macdonald.

“And a lot of that at the $79-$99 price point, it tests pretty well,” he said. “It’s not terrible product.”

Access isn’t the issue

Some municipalities in Michigan have opted out of allowing marijuana retail stores.

One major area that has yet to open a recreational cannabis store is metro Detroit.

The city finally began accepting license applications for adult-use marijuana businesses on April 20.

That doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a question of consumer access – despite many municipalities opting out of legal cannabis sales.

Maxim-Sparrow said most customers probably must drive only half an hour at most to find a store.

“If you look at a map of Michigan, there’s very few areas that don’t have access,” Rungta said.

Cities such as Ann Arbor are glutted with retail stores, said Mahja Sulemanjee-Bortocek, CEO and founder of High Haven, which owns cannabis business licenses in Bay City, Michigan.

She would like to see municipalities show a better understanding of the economics of cannabis before licensing too many stores in one place.

“They look at it as a revenue stream for them through taxes, which it certainly is,” Sulemanjee-Bortocek said.

But the towns and cities will lose that revenue stream if the retailers can’t turn a profit and stay open, she added.

“It’s a short win for them. Not a long-term situation,” Sulemanjee-Bortocek said.

Turning to vertical integration

Some companies are banding together to increase their brand power through collaborations and white labeling.

Others are trying to become vertically integrated but are running out of capital as they try to build out their retail or cultivation businesses.

Rungta said that a vertically integrated business structure is becoming more important, so a company can have a “hedge or cushion against some of the wholesale volatility that’s out there.”

He expects more businesses will head in that direction over time.

His strategy is to both move a “sizable chunk” of business through company-owned retail stores while also selling on the wholesale market.

The successful companies are those who saw this coming and built their business model around current pricing, not when the market opened and prices were much higher.

Rungta said the companies that will survive have a clear strategy such as offering a value product or a premium product with a business structured accordingly and a reasonable margin to support their operations.

By “reasonable,” he said a 40% gross margin is a good baseline.

“Those people are having success and, in some cases, continuing to even grab market share,” he said.

But, Rungta said, the branding and quality need to match the product for it to work.

As this all plays out, expect to see more consolidation as business are swallowed up by larger ones and some even go under. The amount of capital a business has could be the deciding factor.

“In this environment, it’s challenging for everybody,” Rungta said. “But it’s most challenging for the smaller businesses.”

[Bonno]

Home / Cultivation
Michigan’s wholesale marijuana flower prices plummet
author profile pictureBy Bart Schaneman, Editor
July 28, 2022
SHARE

Image of cannabis sitting atop $100 bills
Prices of wholesale recreational marijuana in Michigan are now as low, or lower, than those in older adult-use states – underscoring how new markets are ramping up more quickly and, in some cases, becoming glutted.

Industry insiders say cannabis flower in Michigan is readily available for less than $1,000 a pound on the wholesale market – and often for much less – because of oversaturation as more and more cultivation businesses come online in a state with no limit on business licenses.

ADVERTISEMENT

Connie Maxim-Sparrow, a cannabis consultant and marijuana business license holder based in Muskegon, Michigan, characterized the state’s current market conditions as “unstable” – in particular, cannabis growers are spending at least $800 to grow a pound of flower and getting only $600 for it on the wholesale market.

According to Maxim-Sparrow, a year ago a midgrade pound of indoor-grown wholesale flower that tested at around 20% THC potency would sell for $1,800-$2,200.

Now, that same grower is lucky to get $600 a pound, and she’s heard of some selling for as low as $300.

The dynamics playing out in Michigan could offer a harbinger of what’s to come in other new markets.

In particular: As more multistate operators learn how to quickly set up shop in new regions with many producers, the pace of a newly legalized state’s market hitting an oversaturation point is speeding up.

This is more likely to happen in states without licenses caps or that have many growers – unlike limited-license markets that seem more common on the East Coast.

Michigan began marijuana sales at the end of 2019, and the wholesale market prices now more closely resemble those in older markets such as Colorado or Oregon, where wholesale prices have been falling for a year or more.

Colorado’s adult-use sales launched in January 2014, while Oregon’s market launched in October 2015.

Both markets took longer than Michigan’s to experience product saturation and falling prices.

Survival tactics

To survive, cannabis companies across Michigan are tightening their belts, relying on vertical integration and trying to build brand recognition to be more competitive.

Others are limiting their expansion plans or selling out as a wave of consolidation sweeps through the state’s industry.

A few Michigan marijuana retailers have downsized, including major retail chain Lume Cannabis, which closed four of its roughly 30 stores earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Michigan regulators in March implemented new rules, including lower application fees and the removal of licensing tiers, that will further open up the market.

“Everybody’s panicking,” Maxim-Sparrow said.

“Some of us knew this was coming – others are getting caught off guard by the oversupply issue.”

MJBizDaily Indoor Cultivation Buyers Guide – Now available!
Master the complexities of growing cannabis indoors with fundamental tips and guidance from experienced cultivation professionals.

Featured inside:

Best practices in cultivation facility design
Tips for mapping out a climate control system and purchasing components
Indoor cultivation buyers guide checklist
And more!

Get The Guide

Any cannabis company executive who has been watching what has happened in other mature marijuana market with relatively unlimited licensing, including Colorado and Oregon, should have seen the market headed in this direction, industry insiders aid.

“We’ve seen this movie before,” said Tyson Macdonald, adviser to and former chief financial officer of Cloud Cannabis Co., based in Troy, Michigan.

“It is definitely happening with an accelerated pace in Michigan.”

Macdonald partially attributes that to a regulatory structure that allows for stacking of cultivation licenses, which has created very large facilities, many of which came online around the same time.

Not limiting licensing also sped up the situation.

Cannabis businesses executives “should have absolutely been aware that this market was going in this direction when there was not a single cap on a cultivation or processing license,” Maxim-Sparrow said.

The pricing situation

Over the past year and half, the state has seen a “ton of new capacity come online,” said Ankur Rungta, co-founder and CEO of C3 Industries, a vertically integrated Michigan marijuana company that also has operations in Massachusetts, Missouri and Oregon.

Rungta, who started out in the cannabis industry with a business in Oregon, said he saw a similar market drop there with overproduction in 2017 and again in 2018.

“Our first market was Oregon, so if anybody should have seen it coming, it was us,” he said.

Yet, Rungta said, the speed of how quickly the Michigan market has become saturated has taken him by surprise.

“We’re definitely getting into a fully supplied or even oversupplied marketplace,” he added.

“That’s definitely putting a lot of pressure on the wholesale market. People are buying the same amount of cannabis; it just costs half of what it used to cost before.”

That’s before the coming fall harvest of outdoor-grown flower hits the market.

“A lot of people are looking at this fall and saying, ‘What’s going to happen?'” Rungta said. “I don’t know that we’ve hit the bottom, to be completely honest with you.”

Macdonald said retailers and manufacturers can buy anything they need for less than $1,000 a pound for wholesale flower.

At Michigan stores, ounces of flower sell for as low as $59-$99, according to Macdonald.

“And a lot of that at the $79-$99 price point, it tests pretty well,” he said. “It’s not terrible product.”

Access isn’t the issue

Some municipalities in Michigan have opted out of allowing marijuana retail stores.

One major area that has yet to open a recreational cannabis store is metro Detroit.

The city finally began accepting license applications for adult-use marijuana businesses on April 20.

That doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a question of consumer access – despite many municipalities opting out of legal cannabis sales.

Maxim-Sparrow said most customers probably must drive only half an hour at most to find a store.

“If you look at a map of Michigan, there’s very few areas that don’t have access,” Rungta said.

Cities such as Ann Arbor are glutted with retail stores, said Mahja Sulemanjee-Bortocek, CEO and founder of High Haven, which owns cannabis business licenses in Bay City, Michigan.

She would like to see municipalities show a better understanding of the economics of cannabis before licensing too many stores in one place.

“They look at it as a revenue stream for them through taxes, which it certainly is,” Sulemanjee-Bortocek said.

But the towns and cities will lose that revenue stream if the retailers can’t turn a profit and stay open, she added.

“It’s a short win for them. Not a long-term situation,” Sulemanjee-Bortocek said.

Turning to vertical integration

Some companies are banding together to increase their brand power through collaborations and white labeling.

Others are trying to become vertically integrated but are running out of capital as they try to build out their retail or cultivation businesses.

Rungta said that a vertically integrated business structure is becoming more important, so a company can have a “hedge or cushion against some of the wholesale volatility that’s out there.”

He expects more businesses will head in that direction over time.

His strategy is to both move a “sizable chunk” of business through company-owned retail stores while also selling on the wholesale market.

The successful companies are those who saw this coming and built their business model around current pricing, not when the market opened and prices were much higher.

Rungta said the companies that will survive have a clear strategy such as offering a value product or a premium product with a business structured accordingly and a reasonable margin to support their operations.

By “reasonable,” he said a 40% gross margin is a good baseline.

“Those people are having success and, in some cases, continuing to even grab market share,” he said.

But, Rungta said, the branding and quality need to match the product for it to work.

As this all plays out, expect to see more consolidation as business are swallowed up by larger ones and some even go under. The amount of capital a business has could be the deciding factor.

“In this environment, it’s challenging for everybody,” Rungta said. “But it’s most challenging for the smaller businesses.”

[Bonno]

The Senate cannabis bill could spell doom for hemp businesses.
Here’s why...





It’s been a big week for cannabis, with Senate Democrats finally dropping their long-promised cannabis legalization bill and holding a hearing on it.

The measure would end cannabis prohibition and boost the allowable THC in hemp from 0.3% to 0.7%.

So why did our inbox flood with alarmed emails from hemp activists? Because the devil is in the details, and this one has a lot of details giving hemp manufacturers fits.

One entrepreneur who makes delta-9 THC gummies from hemp called the bill a “death blow.” Others want to know why it allows 0.7% THC but not the full 1% long suggested by farmers.

Still others fear the proposal could ban full-spectrum CBD products and is a cynical attempt by marijuana interests to gut competition.

Economist Beau Whitney estimates the language would hurt 11,000 hemp farms.

We’ll be covering this bill and debate start to finish. As always, send us your thoughts about how this measure could affect your hemp business.

[Bonno]

THAILAND’S CANNABIS GOLD RUSH
BONNOREPORTINGFROMTHAILANDJULY 26, 2022
ALL ABOUT CANNABISCANNABIS 101CANNABIS LEGALIZATIONMEDICALCANNABIS NEWSCBD NEWSENDOCANNABINOID NEWSFEATUREDLAWMARIJUANA LEGALIZATIONMARIJUANA NEWSPOLITICS66746 VIEWS
Cannabis dispensaries are popping up in Thailand as the country experiences a cannabis gold rush. The kingdom decriminalized cannabis last month. Thai residents can now grow at home and sell paraphernalia from pop-up stalls on the street.

Thailand’s Cannabis Gold Rush
Thailand’s cannabis gold rush is thanks partly to the government removing the substance from a list of banned narcotics. On June 9th, 2022, Thailand legalized cannabis to make it easier for medical patients. Technically, recreational smoking of high-THC cannabis is against the law.

But that hasn’t stopped Thai residents from selling pre-rolls, cannabis-infused drinks, and food, like cannabis-infused sriracha hot sauce. Cannabis-inspired pop-up stalls and booths have overtaken the country. The hashtag #saikiew or “green way of life” has been trending on social media.

Reports from the Southeast Asian country suggest the government is incapable of putting the legalization genie back in the bottle.

Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul tried to clarify the laws last week:

“The whole plant is no longer (a) narcotic,” he told reporters, “only the extract – not the flowers, the trees nor the roots” with “under 0.2 percent THC” can be used.

Nevertheless, tens of thousands of small-scale farmers have registered to grow legally. At the same time, many others are testing out their green thumb at an unregistered home farm.

Thailand’s Wild West of Cannabis
Thailand's Cannabis Gold Rush
Thailand’s cannabis gold rush may be short-lived if the government feels pressure to curb the free-for-all. Others are concerned that the initial rush is hype and that many of these cannabis businesses won’t stay afloat once the dust settles.

However, the biggest threat comes from a corporate takeover. If the Thailand cannabis market remains this liberal and open, it could be worth billions of dollars. Undoubtedly, global pharmaceutical and agriculture conglomerates will move in. By buying thousands of acres of land for cultivation, a corporate takeover could confine the cannabis economy before it has a chance to grow.

Another problem with Thailand’s cannabis gold rush is that high potency THC is still technically illegal. Right now, all cannabis strains indigenous to Thailand are low-THC and high-CBD. And the government only wants high CBD strains in production.

However, demand is high in Thailand for potent cannabis. Right now, Thailand’s appetite for high-THC cannabis is fed by illegal imports from the USA. The mark-up of high potency cannabis also leaves many Thai residents locked out. A gram of premium THC cannabis can go for 700 baht (or nearly $20).

Thailand’s Cannabis Bubble?
While high prices may cause more cannabis farmers to enter the field and bring prices down, some wonder what the result of Thailand’s cannabis gold rush will be. As one Thai cannabis dispensary owner told Al Jazeera,

“Suddenly a ‘druggie’ turns into a business person and a bedroom grower turns into a master grower … anyone who takes a selfie with some weed, the next day their phone won’t stop ringing with people asking for their help to enter the market.”

[Bonno]

In the context of Canadian LPs failing to sell most of their production in Canada, those same LPs are expanding overseas.

Why though?

Why would you expand your business overseas before you fine tuned your business in Canada, your only meaningful market in the whole world?

The picture in the story is a defunct Canopy Growth greenhouse on fire. The greenhouse was once called 'the biggest in the world' and cost the company (and its financial backers) over $500 million. Last year it sold for $40 million.

-R.O.C. Investments-
@RocInvests
I think they’re expanding internationally bc they looked at their costs and they determined they’ll never survive in CA with the low product prices. They’ll run into the same problem internationally when those prices drop and comp increases.


That misses the point. It's not low prices or high tax that's killing them, it's the fact that they're only selling a fraction of their production. No CPG/ag business can survive when selling 20% of production. It's impossible.

[Bonno]

The largest ???? cannabis producers (most of them) still can't sell what they're producing. What other CPG/ag industry can survive, let alone be profitable, when only 20% of the industry's production ends up in the hands of consumers? That's not the gov'ts fault.

[Bonno]

The legal ???? cannabis industry only sells a fraction of its production. That's why losses exceed $15 billion for the biggest LPs. Not b/c of gov't tax, stores, or whatever other excuse a $10 million CEO trots out on conf. calls. It's supply and demand.

[Bonno]

cannabis: -16%
Jon Erlichman

Price increases in past year
gas: +61%
plane tickets: +34%
eggs: +33%
suits: +25%
public transit: +24%
butter: +21%
chicken: +20%
salad: +18%
bread: +17%
milk: +16%
coffee: +16%
hot dogs: +16%
soup: +16%
tires: +15%
furniture: +15%
electricity: +14%
deliveries: +14%
cereal: +14%

[nowwhat2]

Okay - You were right. I do not mind admitting. Excellent call in fact and yet now ?......



Barring any broad market total selloff (which is certainly a real possibility)


Low today of 3.05


.

[borysek]

financial results on August 5 .... what should we expect ? my guess is : huge drop in revenue , smaller than before loss but still substantial ... and this combination will creates another drop in price to $2 or even less ..

[Dogger05]

That a lie

[BottomBounce]

Cannabis stock Canopy Growth $CGC / Canada $WEED has $1.38 Billion in cash. Book Value is at $9.10 USD

[BottomBounce]

Cannabis stock Canopy Growth $CGC / Canada $WEED has $1.38 Billion in cash. Book Value is at $9.10 USD

[Bonno]

Mayday!!!

Colorado cannabis wholesale flower prices plummet to all-time low.

The wholesale price of cannabis flower in Colorado dropped to an all-time low, reflecting a market saturated with supply and squeezing cultivator margins.

The price per pound was $709 as of July 1, down 46% from $1,309 a year ago and nearly 60% from $1,721 in January 2021, according to Colorado Department of Revenue data.

Previously, the low was $759 a pound in October 2018.

The data is published quarterly, so there are fluctuations within a given quarter. But the figures indicate the degree of price depression in the market.

Doomed?

[Bonno]

BUSINESS
Juicyfields locks users out of cannabis investments
Thousands of investors worldwide may be victims of an exit scam involving medicinal cannabis. Who is behind it, how big is the damage? In a podcast series, DW is working through the whodunit surrounding "Juicyfields."


Juicy Fields Grafik
Just how much money small investors around the globe have put into a shady offer involving cannabis plants is not yet known. But the damage is likely huge, with some estimates as high as several billion euros. The scam became apparent after investors were unable to access their accounts on a platform called Juicyfields.io.

Frozen accounts
Since 2020, the company Juicyfields offered a service called "e-growing" where investors could participate in the cultivation, harvest and sale of medicinal cannabis. The company promised returns of well over 100% a year.

"People are just not used to making good profits anymore," Juicyfields' then-corporate spokesman and Chief Business Development Officer Daniel Gauci said as recently as March when questioned by DW about the company's business model. He declined to provide details about how the company could generate such high returns.

Listen to audio01:52
Sample Clip: Cannabis Cowboys - a DW podcast series
The company's main tool was its online platform. There, users could buy and sell plants, manage them in virtual greenhouses and have their money paid out.

However, recent developments called into question whether the plants ever existed.

Since mid-July, users can no longer log in to the platform, and the company has removed all its content from social media platforms. Now, there are indications of what some industry experts have long suspected: that Juicyfields is a scam, and the investors' money is gone.

The next big exit scam?
The company claimed its platform had 500,000 users, mostly from Europe, Latin America, Asia and also Africa. The minimum investment was €50 (about $50), the upper limit theoretically €180,000 per user. The money could be deposited and withdrawn via bank transfer or cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

For a while, the payouts of the profits ran smoothly, as people who invested up to €80,000 in the platform repeatedly told DW. An early test by DW's research team was also successful.

Lamborghinis vor Messe in Barcelona
Fancy cars with the company logo at an industry event sponsored by Juicyfields

Many investors boasted about their returns and pumped yet more money into the company, some even taking out loans to do so.

Users in online forums speculate whether the Juicyfields case could become as big as the OneCoin cryptocurrency scam — initiated by Ruja Ignatova. The "crypto queen" was recently put on the list of most wanted persons by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The damage caused by OneCoin is said to amount to $4 billion.

The dimensions of the fraud at Juicyfields are as yet unclear. Estimates range from tens of millions to billions. According to media reports, a Spanish law firm representing small investors claims that more than €9 billion have flowed through the digital "wallets" — i.e. the crypto accounts of Juicyfields.

Like a Ponzi scheme
There are parallels to the OneCoin case. It's becoming apparent that Juicyfields was, at least in part, a Ponzi scheme. Deposits from new customers seemed to have been used to pay out earlier investors.

Juicyfields relied on social marketing, hired influencers, was omnipresent at trade shows and put a lot of money into advertising. However, elements of multi-level marketing were also used. Investors received bonuses if they could convince others to buy Juicyfield's virtual cannabis plants.

Juicy Fields | Daniel Gaucci, Thomas Stieger
Former company spokesman Daniel Gauci (l.) and finance expert Thomas Stieger after a DW interview in March 2022

Cannabis is considered a growth industry since the herb was approved as a medical product in many countries. In Canada and some US states, the drug is even legal for recreational use. The German government is also planning to make cannabis completely legal.

In Europe, the Spanish financial regulator issued an early warning about Juicyfields. German regulator Bafin first pointed out inconsistencies in March of this year. In June, it banned Juicyfields from selling any more cannabis plants on its platform in Germany. The company has not complied, as a test purchase by DW's research team after the ban showed.

Who is behind Juicyfields?
People affiliated with Juicyfields told DW they feared retaliation by users who have already posted personal data such as addresses, phone numbers and passports scans online.

Several versions of what happened are circulating on the Internet: The most widespread is that a group of Russians with a background in cryptocurrencies have orchestrated the scam. Other versions have parts of the management team forge signatures to empty the coffers. None of Juicyfield's former top-level executives have made a public appearance since the scandal broke.

A financial company based in Berlin with ties to an aristocratic family also seems to be playing a role. Juicyfields had presented this company as a partner and for a while shared the same office address. A Juicyfields financial director told DW in the spring he was collaborating with this company to set up a fund for institutional investors. Asked by DW, the company's management denied any involvement and said it felt tricked by Juicyfields.

Juicyfields, which started in 2020 with an office in Berlin, changed its headquarters to the Netherlands and then Switzerland in the course of this year, in a possible attempt to escape police investigations and inquiries by financial regulators.

Cannabis Cowboys - a Bonno podcast series
CC has been following this company since the beginning of 2022. In an investigative true crime podcast series, CC reporters describe the rise and fall of Juicyfields — the company that claimed to start a revolution but only left scorched earth behind.

"Cannabis Cowboys — a story about big dreams, juicy money, and a never-ending hype" is the title, and you can find the first episode from mid-August at Bonno,s or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Bonno]

Kootenay cannabis brand explored as way to attract tourism:
report July 22, 2022 - 9:00 PM


Defining and refining the Kootenay’s brand of cannabis could be the ticket for growing and fostering the cannabis industry and tourism in the region, according to a new report.

Called Exploring Opportunities for Cannabis Tourism in the Kootenay Rockies — authored by Bonno, Tracey Harvey and Sarah-Patricia Breen — the report, recently released by Selkirk Innovates (Selkirk College) and Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association, sought to establish a connection between the cannabis products successfully grown in the region for years, and attracting tourists.

Defined as travelling to a place due to the opportunity to purchase cannabis legally, cannabis tourism is considered a new market for the hospitality and tourism industries.

In order to develop that market, the report endeavoured to manufacture a name for the entire range of Kootenay Rockies-grown cannabis products that “protects the Kootenay brand and history” with the benefit of economic diversification — between the tourism sector and the cannabis industry — due to a more stable economy in the rural areas.

Cannabis tourism would “protect the authenticity and brand of cannabis in the Kootenay Rockies while lowering stigma; an appellation framework could benefit the region,” the report’s primary author, Rattu, wrote in the executive summary.

Several inroads would have to be made in forging the new market. Connections between the cannabis and tourism industries would be important, she explained, but so would the “importance of respecting and engaging with host communities.”

Respecting the host communities’ wishes for welcoming cannabis tourism into their communities would be paramount, said Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association (KRTA) CEO Kathy Cooper.

“Understandably, this isn’t a one size fits all but if we are to expand the visitor economy, create unique visitor experiences and drive revenues, niche sectors like this can bring diversity of creative business models and opportunities for entrepreneurs,” she said in a release.



Harvey — who previously explored the significance of cannabis and how legalization has affected the region — agreed and felt the cannabis industry could be a strong drawing card for the tourism industry in the region.

“As the Kootenay region has long been recognized for producing top quality cannabis and hosting generations of production and processing knowledge, the development of tourism around this locally important sector will not only help to preserve the region’s global reputation and experience, but also diversify and strengthen our rural economies,” she said in the executive summary for the report.

The report was funded by the KRTA and Mitacs — a non-profit national research organization — as one part of a project to look at the opportunities and challenges related to cannabis tourism in the Kootenay Rockies region.

It summarized what the region should be mindful of when developing cannabis tourism, Harvey explained, and what aspect it could capitalize on in regard to cannabis tourism. One of the major opportunities was timing, with the proposal for a cannabis tourism implementation model launching during the shoulder season — the “off season” for summer and winter tourism.

Cannabis tourism risks

There are many perceived risks associated with establishing cannabis tourism, including how cannabis is perceived and treated across all levels of government, through policies and by various organizations.

As well, on the ground level there is the varied response and perception of community residents as cannabis tourism is introduced, and how the industry might be received as the sales pitch is being made.

The rural nature of the industry could also be considered a risk factor.

“Sufficient digital access is necessary to improve the quality and safety of tourist experiences,” the report noted. “Many farms are in remote locations creating barriers of entry for cannabis tourism operators due to connectivity challenges.”

If the industry proves to be successful, it could spawn an amenity migration driven by a “green rush,” further complicating housing issues in many Kootenay communities, including availability and affordability due to an influx of people.

On a global scale, indoor cannabis cultivation and the tourism industry both contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, “posing a threat to environmentally sustainable economic development,” the report explained.

Here are the models listed in the report:

An agri-tourism systems model which considers effective partnerships and communication between tourism providers, DMO’s and tourists;
A model which explores turning steps of the value chain into experiences including touring facilities, learning about cultivation, experiencing how the final product is made and enjoying tastings;
A model which explores sensory experiences which uses consumer senses to enhance tourism experiences. Cannabis tourism opportunities relevant for the KRT region were identified and categorized into:
Current opportunities: cannabis tours, educational experiences, museums and art galleries, recreation, camping and cannabis friendly accommodations;
Potential opportunities pending change in policy: farm-gate and direct delivery program, and on-site consumption.

[Bonno]

Kootenay cannabis brand explored as way to attract tourism:
report July 22, 2022 - 9:00 PM


Defining and refining the Kootenay’s brand of cannabis could be the ticket for growing and fostering the cannabis industry and tourism in the region, according to a new report.

Called Exploring Opportunities for Cannabis Tourism in the Kootenay Rockies — authored by Bonno, Tracey Harvey and Sarah-Patricia Breen — the report, recently released by Selkirk Innovates (Selkirk College) and Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association, sought to establish a connection between the cannabis products successfully grown in the region for years, and attracting tourists.

Defined as travelling to a place due to the opportunity to purchase cannabis legally, cannabis tourism is considered a new market for the hospitality and tourism industries.

In order to develop that market, the report endeavoured to manufacture a name for the entire range of Kootenay Rockies-grown cannabis products that “protects the Kootenay brand and history” with the benefit of economic diversification — between the tourism sector and the cannabis industry — due to a more stable economy in the rural areas.

Cannabis tourism would “protect the authenticity and brand of cannabis in the Kootenay Rockies while lowering stigma; an appellation framework could benefit the region,” the report’s primary author, Rattu, wrote in the executive summary.

Several inroads would have to be made in forging the new market. Connections between the cannabis and tourism industries would be important, she explained, but so would the “importance of respecting and engaging with host communities.”

Respecting the host communities’ wishes for welcoming cannabis tourism into their communities would be paramount, said Kootenay Rockies Tourism Association (KRTA) CEO Kathy Cooper.

“Understandably, this isn’t a one size fits all but if we are to expand the visitor economy, create unique visitor experiences and drive revenues, niche sectors like this can bring diversity of creative business models and opportunities for entrepreneurs,” she said in a release.



Harvey — who previously explored the significance of cannabis and how legalization has affected the region — agreed and felt the cannabis industry could be a strong drawing card for the tourism industry in the region.

“As the Kootenay region has long been recognized for producing top quality cannabis and hosting generations of production and processing knowledge, the development of tourism around this locally important sector will not only help to preserve the region’s global reputation and experience, but also diversify and strengthen our rural economies,” she said in the executive summary for the report.

The report was funded by the KRTA and Mitacs — a non-profit national research organization — as one part of a project to look at the opportunities and challenges related to cannabis tourism in the Kootenay Rockies region.

It summarized what the region should be mindful of when developing cannabis tourism, Harvey explained, and what aspect it could capitalize on in regard to cannabis tourism. One of the major opportunities was timing, with the proposal for a cannabis tourism implementation model launching during the shoulder season — the “off season” for summer and winter tourism.

Cannabis tourism risks

There are many perceived risks associated with establishing cannabis tourism, including how cannabis is perceived and treated across all levels of government, through policies and by various organizations.

As well, on the ground level there is the varied response and perception of community residents as cannabis tourism is introduced, and how the industry might be received as the sales pitch is being made.

The rural nature of the industry could also be considered a risk factor.

“Sufficient digital access is necessary to improve the quality and safety of tourist experiences,” the report noted. “Many farms are in remote locations creating barriers of entry for cannabis tourism operators due to connectivity challenges.”

If the industry proves to be successful, it could spawn an amenity migration driven by a “green rush,” further complicating housing issues in many Kootenay communities, including availability and affordability due to an influx of people.

On a global scale, indoor cannabis cultivation and the tourism industry both contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, “posing a threat to environmentally sustainable economic development,” the report explained.

Here are the models listed in the report:

An agri-tourism systems model which considers effective partnerships and communication between tourism providers, DMO’s and tourists;
A model which explores turning steps of the value chain into experiences including touring facilities, learning about cultivation, experiencing how the final product is made and enjoying tastings;
A model which explores sensory experiences which uses consumer senses to enhance tourism experiences. Cannabis tourism opportunities relevant for the KRT region were identified and categorized into:
Current opportunities: cannabis tours, educational experiences, museums and art galleries, recreation, camping and cannabis friendly accommodations;
Potential opportunities pending change in policy: farm-gate and direct delivery program, and on-site consumption.

[Bonno]

The Effectiveness and Safety of Medical Cannabis for Treating Cancer Related Symptoms in Oncology Patients
Bonno1, Gil M. Lewitus1, Yelena Vysotski1, Mahmoud Abu Amna2, Anton Ouryvaev3, Shiri Procaccia1, Idan Cohen2, Anca Leibovici3, Luiza Akria3, Dimitry Goncharov3, Neomi Mativ3, Avia Kauffman3, Ayelet Shai3,4, Gil Bar-Sela2,5* and David Meiri1*
1Faculty of Biology, Biology Department, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
2Cancer Center, HaEmek Medical Center, Afula, Israel
3Department of Oncology, Galilee Medical Center, Nahariya, Israel
4Azrielly Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Zafed, Israel
5Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
The use of medical cannabis (MC) to treat cancer-related symptoms is rising. However, there is a lack of long-term trials to assess the benefits and safety of MC treatment in this population. In this work, we followed up prospectively and longitudinally on the effectiveness and safety of MC treatment. Oncology patients reported on multiple symptoms before and after MC treatment initiation at one-, three-, and 6-month follow-ups. Oncologists reported on the patients' disease characteristics. Intention-to-treat models were used to assess changes in outcomes from baseline. MC treatment was initiated by 324 patients and 212, 158 and 126 reported at follow-ups. Most outcome measures improved significantly during MC treatment for most patients (p < 0.005). Specifically, at 6 months, total cancer symptoms burden declined from baseline by a median of 18%, from 122 (82–157) at baseline to 89 (45–138) at endpoint (-18.98; 95%CI= -26.95 to -11.00; p < 0.001). Reported adverse effects were common but mostly non-serious and remained stable during MC treatment. The results of this study suggest that MC treatment is generally safe for oncology patients and can potentially reduce the burden of associated symptoms with no serious MC-related adverse effects.

Introduction
Many comorbidities are associated with oncology diseases. Cancer-associated symptoms include pain (1), anxiety (2), depression (3), insomnia (4), decreased quality of life (5), increased disability (6) and negative effects on sexuality (7). These symptoms are some of the most fundamental causes of oncology patients suffering and disability while undergoing therapies, and some may even lead to worsened prognosis (3). Though well-known and documented, there is no optimal treatment for all of these comorbidities as of yet (8). Traditionally, cancer-related pain is mainly treated by opioid analgesics. In a recent Cochrane collaboration review of opioids for cancer pain, which thoroughly assessed 152 studies with 13,524 patients, treatment success was reported by 95% of patients, but most did not assess pain reduction adequately. Moreover, Wiffen et al. (9) concluded that the quality of evidence in favor of opioid treatment is poor, as the studies on which the treatment decision was based were old and with small sample size, and adverse events rates ranged from 11 to 77% (9). That is probably one of the reasons why most oncologists perceive opioid treatment as hazardous and alternative therapies are required.

A promising substitute for opioid-based medication is medical cannabis (MC). However, there is a knowledge gap in the study of cannabis, especially for treating cancer-related pain, and results are controversial. Thus far, only a few randomized controlled trials (10–16) and even fewer cohorts (17–19) investigated the effects of cannabinoids on cancer-related pain and scantly also on other cancer symptoms. Consequently, these findings led to a weak recommendation for utilizing cannabinoids for cancer pain treatment (20). However, although these studies were randomized controlled trials, most of them consisted of a small sample size and additional studies are needed (21). A more recent meta-analysis showed no favorable effect for Nabiximols in cancer pain (22). Nevertheless, a recent study showed that most cancer patients requested MC treatment from their oncologist (23).

The adverse effects (AEs) from cannabinoids for cancer treatment are generally well tolerated by the patients and categorized as mild to moderate. The most frequent AEs are memory impairment, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and xerostomia (dry mouth). Cannabinoid treatment for cancer-related pain is generally recognized as safe (24). Nonetheless, drug-drug interactions should be taken into account. Recent retrospective and prospective studies showed decreased response rates when immunotherapy was administered concomitantly with an MC treatment (25, 26). Although a previous prospective analysis was conducted on cancer patients following 6–8 weeks of treatment (17), it lacked the added value of repeated observation by multiple follow-up points, the utilization of validated questionnaires, specific MC treatment characterization and longer follow-up. Thus, we conducted a multi-center, prospective, 6-month longitudinal study that followed up on the effectiveness and safety parameters of MC treatment for cancer-associated symptoms. The approach of real-world evidence undertaken in the study provides prospective and structured data collection, and allows the data mining of many patients from real-world data, as is especially important for cancer patients that commonly suffer from associated comorbidities. Similar approaches have proven very useful in assessing the effectiveness of medical treatments in the fields of trauma, cancer, cardiology, stroke and arthritis (27). Similarly, worldwide opioid registries have assisted in reducing treatment-related mortality (28) and in assessing the treatment's long-term effectiveness (29).

Methods
Israeli Medical Cannabis Regulations
The Israel Ministry of Health (IMOH) regulations allow issuing an MC license to treat palliative phase cancer patients and cancer patients with antineoplastic treatment-related adverse effects (30). Licenses for MC use are issued by specific oncologists that received a personalized mandate from the IMOH. The issuing oncologist then prescribes the MC dose (grams per month), route of administration and the cannabidiol (CBD) and (-)-?9-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations (30), based on the IMOH guidelines. Two routes of MC consumption are approved: inflorescences (for smoking or inhaling) and/or oil extracts (for sublingual use). The initial dose is 20 gr/month regardless of the route of administration. At the time this study was conducted, MC was purchased at pharmacies and was non-reimbursable. The official contraindications for MC in Israel were pregnancy, lactation, and previous psychotic diagnosis or family history of psychotic illness.

Study Design
This multi-center, prospective, long-term study was conducted between January 2019 and September 2021. The institutional Ethics Committee of Haemek Medical Center (#0137-18-EMC) and Galil Medical Center (#0010-19-NHR) approved the study. This was a pure observational study with no interventional component whatsoever, so registration at the Clinical Trials Register was not required. Importantly, no recognizable information on participating patients is published anywhere in this research paper.

Hebrew-speaking patients aged >18 years licensed for MC for treating any form of cancer-related symptoms for the first time were eligible to participate in the study. After explaining the study procedures, oncologists who agreed to participate (all are co-authors in the current study) and regularly issue MC licenses, obtained written informed consents from eligible patients. Copies of the consent forms along with the patients' contact information were sent to the study coordination center. To avoid any possible influence of the collected data on the physicians' decisions regarding the clinical management of their patients, prescribing physicians had no access to data collected on individual patients.

Patients were instructed to complete the study questionnaires at baseline, before MC treatment initiation (T0; up to a few days before), and at three follow-up times: one (T1), three (T3), and six (T6) months following treatment initiation. The questionnaire consisted of 174 questions at baseline and a variable number of about 220 at each follow-up. Questions were presented in a dynamic format customized to individual responses, where responses to a particular question determined the subsequent questions asked. To reduce the study burden, patients were given a choice to skip questions. Hence, each patient completed a unique set of questions and each question received a different number of responses. Data was collected online by the secured survey technology Qualtrics® (Provo, Utah, version 12018) (31). Whenever patients had difficulties using the web platform, the questionnaires could be completed by phone with the assistance of the study coordinator. No financial compensation was offered to participating patients. The STROBE statement checklist for cohort studies is presented in the Supplementary Table 1.

Study Questionnaires
Oncologist reported information included cancer diagnosis, classification of malignant tumors (TNM), cancer treatment protocol and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score (32). Patient-reported information included demographics, analgesics consumption, MC treatment characteristics as well as Hebrew validated oncology-related questionnaires, including (1) the study's primary outcome measure of the total sum of Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) of cancer symptoms burden (33); (2) average weekly pain intensity on a 0–10 numerical pain scale (NPS) and the weekly average worst and least pain intensities; (3) The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) (34); (4) Quality of life - EuroQol (EQ5) (35); (5) Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (36); (6) Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) (37); (7) Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (38); (8) General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) (39); and (9) the Female sexual function index (FSFI) (40), males received a modified version. Using a predetermined list (41), patients were requested to report on adverse effects they could attribute directly to MC use at each follow-up time-point. AEs were later classified as serious or non-serious, according to the FDA's definition (42).

Phytocannabinoids Dose Assessment
Since the IMOH reform (43), MC cultivators in Israel are required to accurately indicate the THC and CBD concentrations in their products (30). We calculated the monthly doses of THC and CBD only for patients who reported fully on their MC treatment regimen, according to the products they reported consuming, based on their total and specific monthly doses. For example, if a patient reported consuming 10 g of THC10/CBD10 product and another 10 g of THC20/CBD4 product, the patient's calculated monthly consumption is 6,000 mg and 2,800 mg of THC and CBD, respectively. Notably, MC cultivators in Israel are not required to report on phytocannabinoids other than THC and CBD or terpenoids concentrations in their MC products.

Statistical Analysis
R software (V.4.0.4) with lme4 (44), atable (45), and tidyverse (46) packages were used to analyze changes in outcome measures by linear mixed-effect regression models to assess the duration effect of the treatment (47). Due to the heterogeneity of the study characteristics, only intention to treat (ITT) analyses were conducted. Due to the prospective, longitudinal data collection design, each of the time points had a different sample size and was analyzed with the corresponding baseline information. In cases that had no differences in the measures between time points, the text relates to T0 data. Chi-square or Kruskal-Wallis rank tests were conducted to establish the similarity of demographic data between the three follow-ups. For the effect of size and confidence interval (CI), a Cohen's d test was utilized. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality demonstrated non-normal distribution for all measures. Thus, data are presented as median (IQR, Q1–Q3, i.e., quartiles 25 and 75). Differences were considered significant at the p < 0.05 level. Incidences are presented as numbers and percentages of patients. The required minimum sample size was calculated for the study by G*Power statistical analysis (48), accounting for the following: four time-point repeated measures analysis, within factor analysis, medium effect size (0.25), a ≤ 0.05, power of 0.80 and 14 observables (all measured parameters). Based on these, a sample size of 56 patients was determined as appropriate. Notably, due to the exploratory nature of the study and many potential subgroup analyses, no maximum sample size objective was determined.

Results
Sample
A total of 404 patients enrolled in the study following the acceptance of an MC license and obtaining pharmacy prescriptions. Of those, 80 (20%) were not eligible for further analyses due to the below-mentioned reasons (Figure 1, CONSORT flow diagram). Of the remaining 324 patients that initiated MC treatment and completed the baseline (T0) questionnaires, follow-up questionnaires were completed by 212 (at T1), 158 (T3), and 126 (T6) patients. The following reasons led to the decline in the number of participants over time: lost to follow-up [55 patients (17%)], ceased MC treatment due to ineffectiveness [24 patients (7%)], and due to MC-related AEs [36 patients (11%)], and due to no further need [e.g., chemotherapy-induced AEs stopped; 14 patients (4%)]. All of the patients that stopped MC treatment for the abovementioned reasons were alive at the 6-month follow-up period. Notably, 69 patients (21%) passed away during the follow-up period. About 98% of the patients provided data online and the rest by telephone calls.

Figure 1
www.frontiersin.org
FIGURE 1. Consort flowchart diagram. MC, medical cannabis; Q*, questionnaire; BL, baseline; AEs, adverse effects; IEs, ineffectiveness; T0, baseline time point (prior to MC treatment initiation); T1, 1-month follow-up; T3, 3-month follow-up; T6, 6-month follow-up; PP analyses refer to patients that answered the study questionnaires at baseline and at all follow-up time points.

Sensitivity Analyses for Eligibility Criteria
Baseline demographic characteristics did not differ between eligible (n = 324) and non-eligible (n = 80) patients for age, gender, comorbidities, or overall analgesics consumption (Supplementary Table 2). Mentionable, eligible patients were more likely to have breast or colon cancer diagnoses than non-eligible patients.

Baseline Demographics and Cancer Characteristics
Patients in the sample were on average 64 (49–68) years old and the majority (59% n = 192) were females. Previous exposure to cannabis was reported by 20% (n = 65) (Table 1). Oncology diagnoses were diverse, with breast cancer being the most frequent diagnosis (n = 89, 27%), followed by colon, lung and ovarian cancers (n = 32, 10%, n = 36, 11%, and n = 23, 7%; respectively). Most patients (n = 154, 48%) were categorized as stage IV cancer. Chemotherapy was the most prevalent current treatment protocol (n = 179, 55%). Most patients (n = 229, 71%) were scored by their oncologist as not disabled (scored ≤ 1 based on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score) (Table 1). Most demographic measures did not change during the 6 months follow-up in the ITT cohort. Notably, the rate of patients with comorbidities decreased from baseline (?2(3) = 20.00, p < 0.001). More elaborated oncology diagnoses are presented in Supplementary Table 3.

Table 1
www.frontiersin.org
TABLE 1. Demographic and cancer characteristics of the cohort at all time points.

MC Treatment Characteristics
Most MC treatment measures did not differ significantly during the six-month treatment. At the endpoint, MC oil extract was the most common route of administration (n = 52, 41%), consumed mostly sublingually. Although total monthly MC dose remained stable at a median (IQR) of 20 (20) gr, there was a significant increase that can be observed by the Mean ± SD from 21 ± 6.4 gr at T1 to 23 ± 6.3 gr at T6 (?2(2)=8.55, p < 0.05). THC-rich cultivars were consumed more frequently, with monthly doses of THC increasing from 2,000 (1,000–3,500) mg at T1 to 3,000 (2,000–4,000) mg at endpoint (?2(2) = 3.12, p < 0.01). CBD monthly doses did not change significantly during the study (Table 2).

Table 2
www.frontiersin.org
TABLE 2. Medical cannabis treatment characteristics.

Pain Measures
Patients have been suffering from pain for 4 (2–4) months at T0. All pain measures improved from T0 at all the follow–up time points, as revealed by means of linear mixed regression model analyses. Mentionable are the following significant changes between T0 and T6 for patients that reached the endpoint: average weekly pain intensity reduced by a median of 20% and IQR of 0 to 50% from 7 (3–9) to 5 (3–7) (-0.98; 95%CI = -1.43 to -0.54; p < 0.001); least pain intensity declined by a median of 25% and IQR of 0% to 56% from 6 (3–8) to 5 (2–7) (-0.81; 95%CI= -1.40 to -0.21; p < 0.01) and worst pain intensity by a median of 20% and IQR of 0 to 43% from 8 (6–10) to 6 (4–8) (-1.78; 95%CI = -2.31 to -1.26; p < 0.001). The total SF–MPQ score dropped by a median of 7% and IQR of -17 to 45% from 23 (15–30) to 20 (10–27) (-4.74; 95%CI = -6.80 to -2.68; p < 0.001). Within the SF–MPQ, the affective pain components showed a reduction by a median of 20% and IQR of 0 to 56% from 6 (4–8) to 4 (2–7) (-2.08; 95% CI = -2.75 to -1.40; p < 0.001) and the sensory pain components by a median of 0% and IQR of -32 to 37% from 17 (10–22) to 16 (8–22) (-2.79; 95%CI = -4.36 to -1.23; p < 0.001). The full spectrum of responses for all pain measures is presented in Figure 2; the numbers and percentage of patients reporting positive (i.e., pain decrease), no change or negative (i.e., pain increase) responses at each time point are indicated. While most patients reported some degree of pain intensities decrease, about 20% of patients reported either no change in their pain intensity from baseline or on pain intensity increase. Mentionable, the rates of no change from baseline were higher (35–40%) for the sensory and affective pain intensities. Focusing on the most clinically important measures, the cumulative treatment response rates of average weekly pain intensity and total McGill score are presented in Figure 3. Notably, 36 and 33% of the cohort reported on ≥30% average pain intensity and total SF–MPQ score reduction at T6, respectively.

Figure 2
www.frontiersin.org
FIGURE 2. Pain measures change from baseline per time point. T1, 1-month Follow-Up; T3, 3-month Follow-Up; T6, 6-month Follow-Up: Negative indicate patients that reported on higher pain intensity at a follow-up compared to baseline; Positive indicate patients that reported on lower pain intensity at a follow-up compared to baseline; No change indicate patients that reported on the same pain intensity at a follow-up compared to baseline; Numbers of patients are based on patients that reported fully on the measures at baseline and at the corresponding follow-up time point.

Figure 3
www.frontiersin.org
FIGURE 3. Pain measures cumulative treatment response rates per time point. T1, 1-month Follow-Up; T3, 3-month Follow-Up; T6, 6-month Follow-Up; MC, medical cannabis; The percentages on the Y-axis indicates the cumulative percentage of patients with a response; Every point on the X-axis represent the percentage of MC related pain intensity reduction from baseline, no change values or an increase of pain intensities are not represented in this figure; These figure displays percentages from the entire cohort (n = 212 at T1, n = 158 at T3, n = 126 at T6) but only positive (pain decrease) reports are visible.

Analgesics Consumption
Of the patients in the cohort that reported fully on their analgesic medications' consumption at T0 and T6 (n = 126), 40% of those (n = 30) who had been using analgesic medications (over-the-counter, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants) at T0 (n = 74), were no longer using them. Conversely, ten patients (20%) initiated analgesic medications at T6 while not consuming any at T0. Specifically, very few patients that survived to T6 consumed opioids at T0. When translated into morphine equivalent dose, Median (IQR) was 0 (0-0) at both time points.

Cancer Symptom Burden
The study's primary outcome measure, the cancer symptom burden (i.e., MSAS total score), decreased significantly from T0 to T6 by means of linear mixed regression model analyses. Cancer symptom burden decreased by a median of 18% and IQR of-22% worsening to 57% reduction from 122 (82–157) to 89 (45–138) (-18.98; 95%CI= -26.95 to -11.00; p < 0.001). The subscales of the MSAS questionnaire also improved significantly. Specifically, MSAS general distress index decreased by a median of 22% and IQR of -5% worsening to 54% reduction from 52 (34–66) to 34 (18–57) (-10.29; 95%CI= -13.50 to -7.08; p < 0.001), physiological index decreased by a median of 18% and IQR of -10% worsening to 60% reduction from 36 (24–52) to 23 (12–44) (-8.24; 95%CI= -11.05 to -5.43; p < 0.001) and the psychological index decreased by a median of 18% and IQR of -21% worsening to 51% reduction from 31 (17–41) to 22 (11–36) (-5.81; 95%CI= -7.98 to -3.64; p < 0.001). Figure 4A demonstrates the numbers and percentage of patients reporting positive change (e.g., total cancer symptom burden decrease), no change or negative (e.g., total cancer symptom burden increase) change at each time point. Notably, most patients (about 60%) reported a positive effect. Figure 4B demonstrates the cumulative treatment response rates of the total cancer symptom burden. Notably, almost 40% of the cohort reported on ≥30% total cancer symptom burden at T6.

Figure 4
www.frontiersin.org
FIGURE 4. Total cancer symptom burden change from baseline. T1, 1-month Follow-Up; T3, 3-month Follow-Up; T6, 6-month Follow-Up: MSAS, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; (A) Negative indicate patients that reported on higher pain intensity at a follow-up compared to baseline; Positive indicate patients that reported on lower pain intensity at a follow-up compared to baseline; No change indicate patients that reported on the same pain intensity at a follow-up compared to baseline; MC, medical cannabis; The percentages on the Y-axis indicates the cumulative percentage of patients with response; For (B), every point on the X-axis represent the percentage of MC related pain intensity reduction from baseline, no change values or an increase of pain intensities are not represented in this figure; Numbers of patients are based on patients that reported fully on the measures at baseline and at the corresponding follow-up time point; (B) displays percentages from the entire cohort (n = 212 at T1, n = 158 at T3, n = 126 at T6) but only positive (MSAS score improvement) reports are visible.

Cancer Comorbid-Related Symptoms
By means of linear mixed regression model analyses, a significant decrease was found in anxiety levels, which decreased by a median of 22% and IQR of -14% worsening to 64% improvement from 9 (3–14) at T0 to 6 (2–11) at T6 (-2.35; 95%CI= -3.31 to -1.40; p < 0.001). Depression severity also decreased by a median of 12% and IQR of -24% worsening to 30% improvement from 19 (11–24) at T0 to 15 (10–22) at T6 (-1.97; 95%CI= -3.26 to -0.68; p < 0.001). Pain catastrophizing scores reduced by a median of 18% and IQR of -10% worsening to 45% improvement, from 30 (19–39) at T0 to 24 (12–33) at T6 (-5.44; 95%CI= -7.73 to -3.15; p < 0.001). Sleep disturbance scores decreased by 16% and IQR of 0% worsening to 43% improvement from 12 (7–15) at T0 to 8 (6–12) at T6 (-3.07; 95%CI = -3.95 to -2.18; p < 0.001). Finally, the quality–of–life score decreased (i.e., improved) significantly from T0 to T6 by a median of 14% and IQR of -18% worsening to 40% improvement reduction from 4 (3–5) to 4 (2–5) (-0.55; 95%CI= -0.83 to -0.27; p < 0.001). According to the IQR range, unlike most comorbid cancer–related symptoms, where the lower limit of the IQR percentage of change response was negative, the IQR sleep disturbance scores showed only positive changes (0–43%). Figure 5 demonstrates the numbers and percentage of patients reporting positive change (e.g., comorbid symptoms decrease), no change, or negative change (e.g., comorbid symptoms increase) at each time point. Notably, most patients (about 60%) reported a positive effect.

Figure 5
www.frontiersin.org
FIGURE 5. Cancer comorbid symptoms change from baseline. T1, 6-month Follow-Up; T3, 6-month Follow-Up; T6, 6-month Follow-Up: GAD-7, general anxiety disorder; BDI, Beck depression inventory; PCS, pain catastrophizing scale; PSQI, Pittsburgh sleep quality index; EQ-5, Euro-QoL questionnaire; Negative indicates patients that reported on higher comorbid symptoms at a follow-up compared to baseline; Positive indicate patients that reported on lower comorbid symptoms at a follow-up compared to baseline; No change indicate patients that reported on the same comorbid symptoms at a follow-up compared to baseline; Numbers of patients are based on patients that reported fully on the measures at baseline and at the corresponding follow-up time point.

Sexuality Problems
As described in the methods section, sexuality problems were assessed with specific and different validated questionnaires for females and males. After adjusting for the higher proportion of females in the sample, the response rate to the sexuality questionnaires between the genders was similar. Notably, the response rate to these questionnaires was very low (12–17%).

We found that males mainly reported on absolute improvement in their sexuality problems following MC treatment (Figure 6A), with scores increased by a median of 6% and IQR of 0% with no change to 29% improvement, from 7 (5–18) at T0 to 5 (5–26) at T6 (-2.39; 95%CI= -10.65 to 5.86; p = 0.52). On the contrary, females reported mainly on absolute worsening in their sexuality problems following MC treatment (Figure 6B), with scores reduced by a median of -2% and IQR of -51% worsening to 8% improvement, from 12 (5–39) at T0 to 21 (5–55) at T6 (6.99; 95%CI = -2.14 to 16.13; p < 0.001). Nonetheless, these changes during treatment were not significant for both sexes.

Figure 6
www.frontiersin.org
FIGURE 6. Sexuality problems change during medical cannabis between sexes. T1, 1-month Follow-Up; T3, 3-month Follow-Up; T6, 6-month Follow-Up; numbers on bars represent the number of patients that reported.

Weight Characteristics
Weight and body mass index (BMI) remained unchanged on average, but their ranges had a small change that was statistically significant, from 70 (60–80) kg and 25 (23–29) at T0 to 70 (62–80) kg and 25 (22–8) at T6 (-0.96; 95%CI= -1.83 to -0.10; p < 0.05 and -0.42; 95%CI = -0.73 to -0.10; p < 0.01, respectively).

Medical Cannabis Treatment Safety
Overall, by means of generalized linear mixed regression model analyses, we found 20%-30% of patients reported on AEs with no significant change across treatment duration, from T1 to T6 (0.47; 95%CI = -0.29 to 1.24; p = 0.22). These AEs were mainly non-serious according to FDA definition (42) and did not cause MC treatment discontinuation. The AEs of the affected systems in descending order of report rates were: central nervous systems (10–17%), gastrointestinal (7–10%), psychological (5–10%), ophthalmic (3–5%), musculoskeletal (3–6%), cardiovascular (1–3%) and auditory (2–4%), all showed no significant change across treatment duration (Figure 7). A total of 36 (11%) patients discontinued MC treatment due to MC-related AEs. The specifics of the AE were unknown for eight of them, the remainder were fatigue (n = 5), dizziness (n = 4), hallucinations (n = 4), bad taste (n = 3), drowsiness (n = 2), and abdominal pain, anxiety, cough, fainting, heat waves, hypotension, nausea, palpitations, restlessness and shortness of breath (one each). Cessation of treatment was made by patients alone, so no account for the severity of AEs could be done. We were able to verify that patients lost to follow-up did not pass away during the study period.

Figure 7
www.frontiersin.org
FIGURE 7. Medical cannabis-related adverse effects. T1, 1-month Follow-Up; T3, 3-month Follow-Up; T6, 6-month Follow-Up; AEs, adverse effects; Overall, at least one AE report; CNS, central nervous system; GI, gastrointestinal; MS, musculoskeletal.

Notably, 69 (21%) of the patients that initiated MC treatment passed away, while 255 patients survived during the 6-months follow-up period. Several significant differences were found between these groups, presented in Supplementary Table 4.

Hospitalizations
During an overall period of 9 months, the 3 months preceding T0, and between T0 to either T1, T3, or T6, there were n = 80, 25%, n = 14, 7%, n = 15, 10% and n = 25, 20%, hospitalizations due to surgeries, respectively, and n = 98, 30%, n = 26, 12%, n = 21, 13% and n = 14, 11%, hospitalizations due to other reasons, respectively. Most surgeries were performed in the 3 months preceding MC treatment initiation and included mostly solid tumor removals. At the follow-ups, most hospitalizations were also for the reason of solid tumor removal. Other reasons for hospitalizations included cancer, treatment diagnosis and oncology treatment complications. Notably, none of the hospitalizations were considered directly related to the MC treatment.

Discussion
There is a growing interest in studies on the effectiveness of an MC treatment for oncology patients (69). The main finding of the current study is that most cancer comorbid symptoms improved significantly during 6 months of MC treatment. The change in all pain measures was small. However, as placebo effect is mostly achieved within the first 4 to 12 weeks of treatment (70), it is likely that the changes from baseline found after 6 months are not the result of placebo.

Additionally, we found that MC treatment in cancer patients was well tolerated and safe. These findings align with a few previously published prospective studies on cancer patients (17, 71). The added value of the current analysis is the utilization of validated tools, precise MC treatment measurement, multiple follow-up time points and rigorous follow-up on reasons for dropout from the study. These allowed us to assess the real-life effectiveness and safety of MC treatment for palliative oncology patients.

In a previous report by our group (72), we reported the short-term effects of MC treatment. Some of the reported measures did not improve significantly (i.e., weekly least and worst pain intensities, pain catastrophizing, depression, quality of life and anxiety). We presumed that these parameters may require additional treatment duration for effects to be apparent due to their inherent nature. Indeed, most of the examined parameters were revealed as significant after 6 months. Another support for the long-term benefits of MC treatment is corroborated by a recent retrospective analysis that compared cancer patients with MC treatment to without, which demonstrated symptom relief to those with treatment (49). We presented additional, more comprehensive perspectives of the effects of MC on these measures, including comparisons between rates of patients reporting positive (e.g., improvement), no change or negative (e.g., worsening) rates at each time point, as well as cumulative treatment response that was indorsed by Farrar et al. (50) to make data from clinical studies more understandable. We demonstrated MC treatment was helpful for many oncology patients; however, additional studies are needed to better characterize those patients who could benefit from it. Nonetheless, although more than 50% of the patients reported a reduction in pain intensity, and while 40% of the patients discontinued analgesic medications, 2025% reported on pain intensity increase and 20% reported initiation of an analgesic medication following 6 months of MC treatment. These findings suggest either MC treatment was not equally effective in pain intensity reduction in all patients, some patients might have developed tolerance, or the progression of the oncological disease could not be managed by the previously stable analgesic treatment regimen.

Many of the measures that improved are associated with improved quality of life, which may suggest some of the effect of MC treatment on pain intensity was indirect, as previously discussed (51–53). Studies have shown that quality of life in patients that suffer from a severe illness such as cancer plays an important role in treatment adherence and success (54–56). Furthermore, the multifactorial effect on chronic pain comorbidities by measures such as quality of life, disability, sleep, anxiety and others were all previously suggested to indirectly affect the observed reduction in pain intensity (57–59).

As the prevalence of cancer diagnoses in our study was similar to previous studies conducted in Israel (17, 71) and to the general cancer prevalence in the public, it can be assumed that the current study findings could be generalized to oncology patients in Israel.

Medical cannabis has been previously reported as a possible remedy for cachexia and appetite loss (60–63). The current study found that the patients' weight and BMI did not change on average during the 6-month follow-ups, but the range did decrease significantly. As a substantial portion of the cohort was diagnosed with progressed cancer, a weight decline is expected with disease progression.

In the current study, almost half of the sample stopped all analgesic medications following 6 months of MC treatment. One explanation for this could be that MC constituted a substitution analgesic (64, 65). Indeed, previous prospective studies have demonstrated similar findings in chronic non-cancer pain cohorts (57, 58), and in a survey of gynecologic cancer patients, almost half reported that they decreased opioids following MC initiation (66). Another explanation is that the disease of patients that survived the 6 months of MC treatment was milder; they had fewer comorbidities and might also be cancer-free by the endpoint.

In the extended period of 6 months, there were mostly non-serious AEs with no significant change from those at the one-month checkpoint, the most frequent being dizziness and tiredness. This finding aligns with previous studies (57, 71), suggesting these AEs can be attributed to the MC treatment and not to the disease itself. While earlier results of Aviram et al. (57) reported a decrease in MC-related AEs during treatment for chronic non-cancer pain, in the current study of palliative oncology patients, the AEs remained stable during the 6 months of the study. This finding may be attributed to the relatively stable MC treatment dose (20 gr for most patients) in the current study, contrary to a significant dose increase in Aviram's research and a different frequent administration route. Notably, it may be suggested that in the 6 months of MC treatment, patients did not need to increase the dose for MC treatment to be as effective as at the beginning of the treatment. Notwithstanding, in the current study, the monthly dose of THC increased during the 6 months treatment. Similar long-term safety was previously demonstrated in cancer patients (67). It is plausible that THC dose increase in the current study was not associated with elevation of AEs rates because it is unrelated or that patients that started consuming MC products with higher THC concentration are those less susceptible to its effects, as was demonstrated in a study on the sex differences of MC related AEs (68). Nonetheless, we found that THC monthly dose increased significantly in the 6 months of MC treatment from a Median (IQR) of 2,000 mg (1,000–3,000) to 3,000 mg (2,000–4,000). This increase can be explained by the increase in the rate of patients consuming THC-rich MC from 40 to 49%. It is possible patients developed tolerance to THC or that oncologists tread more cautiously at the beginning of the treatment (start low, go slow), starting the dose adjustment from lower THC concentrations and increasing as the treatment progress according to the suggested treatment protocol (73).

Limitations
This study has a few limitations. First, no control or placebo groups were assigned, and it is hard to isolate a placebo response from a “true” drug effect. Hence, a prudent interpretation of the results is needed. Second, though only validated questionnaires were utilized and patient responses were kept anonymous from their physician, self-report bias may have still occurred. Third, although advanced statistical approaches for missing data imputation were used, they do not entirely protect the results from this shortcoming (47). Fourth, although the current study presents accurate AEs reports, it is possible that an additional unknown number of patients who were lost to follow-up might have discontinued MC use due to AEs. Finally, due to the sizeable dropout rate of 61% at the endpoint, some survival bias can be seen in most measures, because as time progressed patients showed higher response rates for most measures.

Conclusions
In conclusion, this prospective, comprehensive and large-scale cohort demonstrated an overall mild to modest long-term statistical improvement of all investigated measures including pain, associated symptoms and, importantly, reduction in opioid (and other analgesics) use. It seems that MC treatment is safe for oncology patients, but its efficacy and clinical relevance may be limited. Oncologists should carefully consider the possible benefits of MC treatment to their patients before prescribing it.

Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the institutional Ethics Committee of Haemek Medical Center (#0137-18-EMC) and Galil Medical Center (#0010-19-NHR) approved the study. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions
JA, GL, GB-S, and DM: conceptualization. JA, AO, IC, AL, MAA, GB-S, LA, DG, NM, AK, and AS: data curation. JA and YV: formal analysis and validation. DM: funding acquisition and resources. JA and DM: investigation. JA, GL, GB-S, YV, and DM: methodology. GL and DM: project administration and supervision. JA, YV, SP, and DM: visualization. JA: writing—original draft. JA, GL, YV, AO, SP, IC, AL, MAA, GB-S LA, DG, NM, AK, AS, and DM: writing—review & editing. All authors participated in data collection, discussed the results, and commented on the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding
The study was funded by the Evelyn Gruss Lipper Charitable Foundation. This sponsor had no role or influence on the research or this submission.

Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpain.2022.861037/full#supplementary-material

References
1. Portenoy RK, Ebtesam A. Cancer pain syndromes. Hematol Oncol Clin North America. (2018) 32:371–86. doi: 10.1016/j.hoc.2018.01.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Curran L, Sharpe L, Butow P. Anxiety in the context of cancer: a systematic review and development of an integrated model. Clin Psychol Rev. (2017) 56:40–54. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.06.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Bortolato B, Hyphantis TN, Valpione S, Perini G, Maes M, Morris G, et al. Depression in cancer: the many biobehavioral pathways driving tumor progression. Cancer Treat Rev. (2017) 52:58–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.11.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Savard J, Morin CM. Insomnia in the context of cancer: a review of a neglected problem. J Clin Oncol. (2001) 19:895–908. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.895

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Allart-Vorelli P, Porro B, Baguet F, Michel A, Cousson-Gélie F. Haematological cancer and quality of life: a systematic literature review. Blood Cancer J. (2015) 5:e305–e305. doi: 10.1038/bcj.2015.29

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Neo J, Fettes L, Gao W, Higginson IJ, Maddocks M. Disability in activities of daily living among adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. (2017) 61:94–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.10.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Rhoten BA. Head and neck cancer and sexuality. Cancer Nurs. (2016) 39:313–20. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000289

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Levit L, Balogh, E, Nass, S, Ganz, PA,. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. (2013). Available online at: http://www.nap.edu. doi: 10.17226/18359

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Wiffen PJ, Wee B, Derry S, Bell RF, Moore RA. Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of cochrane reviews (Review). Cochrane Datab System Rev. (2017) 7:1–23. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012592

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Noyes R, Brunk SF, Avery DA, Canter AC. The analgesic properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and codeine. J Clin Pharma. (1975) 18:84–9. doi: 10.1002/cpt197518184

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Noyes R, Brunk S, Baram DA, Canter A. Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J Clin Pharma. (1975) 15:139–43. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1975.tb02348.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Jochimsen PR, Lawton RL, VerSteeg K, Noyes R. Effect of benzopyranoperidine, a delta-9-THC congener, on pain. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. (1978) 24:223–27. doi: 10.1002/cpt1978242223

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Staquet M, Gantt C, Machin D. Effect of a nitrogen analog of tetrahydrocannabinol on cancer pain. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. (1978) 23:397–401. doi: 10.1002/cpt1978234397

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Portenoy RK, Ganae-Motan ED, Allende S, Yanagihara R, Shaiova L, Weinstein S, et al. Nabiximols for opioid-treated cancer patients with poorly-controlled chronic pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, graded-dose trial. J Pain. (2012) 13:438–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.01.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Fallon MT, Lux EA, Mcquade R, Rossetti S, Sanchez R, Sun W, et al. Sativex oromucosal spray as adjunctive therapy in advanced cancer patients with chronic pain unalleviated by optimized opioid therapy: two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies. Br J Pain. (2017) 11:119–33. doi: 10.1177/2049463717710042

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Lynch ME, Cesar-Rittenberg P, Hohmann AG. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot trial with extension using an oral mucosal cannabinoid extract for treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2014) 47:166–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.02.018

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Bar-Sela G, Vorobeichik M, Drawsheh S, Omer A, Goldberg V, Muller E. The medical necessity for medicinal cannabis: prospective, observational study evaluating the treatment in cancer patients on supportive or palliative care. In: Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : ECAM 2013. (2013). p. 510392. doi: 10.1155/2013/510392

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Johnson JR, Lossignol D, Burnell-Nugent M, Fallon MT. An open-label extension study to investigate the long-term safety and tolerability of THC/CBD oromucosal spray and oromucosal thc spray in patients with terminal cancer-related pain refractory to strong opioid analgesics. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2013) 46:207–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.07.014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Anderson S, Zylla D, McGriff D, Arneson T. Impact of medical cannabis on patient-reported symptoms for patients with cancer enrolled in minnesota's medical cannabis program. J Oncol Pract. (2019) 15:e338–45. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00562

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Brown M, Farquhar-Smith P. Cannabinoids and cancer pain: a new hope or a false dawn? Eur J Internal Med. (2018) 49:30–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2018.01.020

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Häuser W, Welsch P, Klose P, Radbruch L, Fitzcharles MA. Efficacy, Tolerability and Safety of Cannabis-Based Medicines for Cancer Pain : A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. (Berlin, Germany: Schmerz). (2019). doi: 10.1007/s00482-019-0373-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Boland EG, Bennett MI, Allgar V, Boland JW. Cannabinoids for adult cancer related pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Support. Palliative Care. (2020) 10:14–24. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-002032

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Coyne Z, Cowzer D, Hennessy M, Linehan A, Hennessy BT, Grogan W, et al. Cannabis and cancer: examining the use and perceived benefits in an irish cancer cohort. J Clin Oncol. (2020) 38:e24178–e24178. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e24178

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Darkovska-Serafimovska M, Serafimovska T, Arsova-Sarafinovska Z, Stefanoski S, Keskovski Z, Balkanov T. Pharmacotherapeutic considerations for use of cannabinoids to relieve pain in patients with malignant diseases. J Pain Res. (2018) 11:837. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S160556

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Taha T, Meiri D, Talhamy S, Wollner M, Peer A, Bar-Sela G. Cannabis impacts tumor response rate to nivolumab in patients with advanced malignancies. Oncologist. (2019) 24:549–54. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0383

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Bar-Sela G, Cohen I, Campisi-Pinto S, Lewitus GM, Oz-Ari L, Jehassi A, et al. Cannabis consumption used by cancer patients during immunotherapy correlates with poor clinical outcome. Cancers. (2020) 12:2447. doi: 10.3390/cancers12092447

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Gilklich RE, Dreyer N, Leavy M. Registries evaluating patient outcomes, agency for healthcare, research and quality (AHRQ). in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD. (2010). Available online at: http://www.ahrq.gov (accessed May 12, 2022).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

28. Clausen T, Anchersen K, Waal H. Mortality prior to, during and after opioid maintenance treatment (OMT): a national prospective cross-registry study. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2008) 94:151–57. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.11.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Portenoy RK, Farrar JT, Backonja M, Cleeland CS, Yang K, Friedman M, et al. Long-term use of controlled-release oxycodone for noncancer pain: results of a 3-year registry study. Clin J Pain. (2007) 23:287–99. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31802b582f

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Landshaft Y, Albo B, Mechoulam R, Afek A. The Updated Green Book (2019): The Official Guide to Clinical Care in Medical Cannabis (IMCP-GCP). IMOH Website. (2019). Available online at: https://www.health.gov.il/hozer/mmk154_2016.pdf (accessed May 12, 2022).

Google Scholar

31. Qualtrics LLC. Qualtrics (Version 12018). Provo, Utah, USA. (2015). Available online at: http://Www.Qualtrics.Com (accessed May 12, 2022).

Google Scholar

32. Conill C, Verger E, Salamero M. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. Cancer. (1990) 65:1864–66. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900415)65:8<1864::AID-CNCR2820650832>3.0.CO;2-U

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Webber K, Davies AN. Validity of the memorial symptom assessment scale-short form psychological subscales in advanced cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2011) 42:761–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.02.007

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Melzack R. The short-form mcgill pain questionnaire. Pain. (1987) 30:191–97. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(87)91074-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Brooks R, EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. (1996) 37:53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Shochat T, Tzischinsky O, Oksenberg A, Peled R. Validation of the pittsburgh sleep quality index hebrew translation (PSQI-H) in a sleep clinic sample. Israel Med Assoc J. (2007) 9:853–56.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

37. Beck A, Robert T, Steer A, Brown GK. Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio. (1996) 78:490–98. doi: 10.1037/t00742-000

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Sullivan MJL, Bishop SR, Pivik J. The pain catastrophizing scale: development and validation. Psychol Assess. (1995) 7:524. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.524

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. (2006) 166:1092–97. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Rosen C, Brown J, Heiman S, Leiblum C, Meston R, Shabsigh D. The female sexual function index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J. Sex Marit Ther. (2000) 26:191–208. doi: 10.1080/009262300278597

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Aviram J, Samuelly-Leichtag G. Efficacy of cannabis-based medicines for pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Physician. (2017) 20:E755–96. doi: 10.36076/ppj.20.5.E755

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Moore TJ, Cohen MR, Furberg CD. Serious adverse drug events reported to the food and drug administration, 1998-2005?. Arch Internal Med. (2007) 167:1752–59. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.16.1752

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Sznitman SR. Trends in medical cannabis licensure, israel, 2013 – 2018. Drug Alcohol Rev. (2020) 39:763–7. doi: 10.1111/dar.13116

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1.7. In: Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). (2014) Available online at: CRANR-projectorg/package=lme4.

Google Scholar

45. Ströbel A, Haynes A. R Package Atable: Create Tables for Reporting Clinical Trials. Version 0.1.5. Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). In: Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). (2019). doi: 10.32614/RJ-2019-001 Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/atable/atable.pdf (accessed May 12, 2022).

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Wickham H. Tidyverse: Easily Install and Load'Tidyverse Packages. Version 1.3.0. In: Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). (2019). Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tidyverse/tidyverse.pdf (accessed May 12, 2022).

Google Scholar

47. Gewandter JS, McDermott MP, McKeown A, Smith SM, Williams MR, Hunsinger M, et al. Reporting of missing data and methods used to accommodate them in recent analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations. Pain. (2014) 155:1871–77. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.06.018

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Albert-Georg L, Buchner A. G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. (2007) 39:175–91. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Pawasarat IM, Schultz EM, Frisby JC, Mehta S, Angelo MA, Hardy SS, et al. The efficacy of medical marijuana in the treatment of cancer-related pain. J Palliat Med. (2020) 23:809–16. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0374

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Farrar JT, Dworkin RH, Max MB. Use of the cumulative proportion of responders analysis graph to present pain data over a range of cut-off points : making clinical trial data more understandable. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2006) 31:369–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.08.018

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Schlag AK, Zafar R, Nutt D. Medical cannabis and epilepsy in the UK – a qualitative analysis of the carers' perspective: ‘we're asking for quality of life for our children.' Drug Sci Policy Law. (2021) 7:205032452110349. doi: 10.1177/20503245211034930

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Nutt DJ, Phillips LD, Barnes MP, Brander B, Curran HV, Fayaz A, et al. A multicriteria decision analysis comparing pharmacotherapy for chronic neuropathic pain, including cannabinoids and cannabis-based medical products. Cannabis Cannab Res. (2021) 1–19. doi: 10.1089/can.2020.0129

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Aviram J, Lewitus GM, Vysotski Y, Berman P, Shapira A, Procaccia S, et al. Sex differences in medical cannabis related adverse effects. Pain. (2021) 163:975–83. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002463

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Bottomley A. The cancer patient and quality of life. Oncologist. (2002) 7:120–25. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.7-2-120

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Kaplan RM. The significance of quality of life in health care. Quality Life Res. (2003) 12:3–16. doi: 10.1023/A:1023547632545

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Sitlinger A, Zafar S. Health-related quality of life: the impact on morbidity and mortality. Physiol Behav. (2011) 176:139–48. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2018.05.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Aviram J, Pud D, Gershoni T, Schiff Keren B, Ogintz M, Vulfsons S, et al. Medical cannabis treatment for chronic pain: outcomes and prediction of response. Eur J Pain. (2020) 25:359–74. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1675

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Haroutounian S, Meidan R, Davidson E. The effect of medicinal cannabis on pain and quality of life outcomes in chronic pain: a prospective open-label study. Clin J Pain. (2016) 32:1036–43. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000364

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Yassin M, Garti A, Robinson D. Effect of medicinal cannabis therapy (MCT) on severity of chronic low back pain, sciatica and lumbar range of motion. Int J Anesthesiol Pain Med. (2016) 2:1–6. doi: 10.33140/JAPM/01/02/00006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Gorter RW. Cancer cachexia and cannabinoids. Complem Med Res. (1999) 6:21–2. doi: 10.1159/000057152

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Wang J, Wang Y, Tong M, Pan H, Li D. Medical cannabinoids for cancer cachexia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BioMed Res Int. (2019) 1–6. doi: 10.1155/2019/2864384

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Whiting PF, Wolff RF, Deshpande S, Nisio MD, Duffy S, Hernandez AV, et al. Cannabinoids for medical use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc. (2015) 313:2456–73. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6358

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Rosager EV, Møller C, Sjögren M. Treatment studies with cannabinoids in anorexia nervosa: a systematic review. Eat Weight Diso. (2020) 26:407–15. doi: 10.1007/s40519-020-00891-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Stith SS, Vigil JM, Adams IM, Reeve AP. Effects of legal access to cannabis on scheduled ii–v drug prescriptions. J Am Med Dir Assoc. (2017) 19:59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.07.017

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Baron EP, Lucas P, Eades J, Hogue O. Patterns of medicinal cannabis use, strain analysis, and substitution effect among patients with migraine, headache, arthritis, and chronic pain in a medicinal cannabis cohort. J Headache Pain. (2018) 19:37. doi: 10.1186/s10194-018-0862-2

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

66. Blake EA, Ross M, Ihenacho U, Figueroa L, Silverstein E, Flink D, et al. Non-prescription cannabis use for symptom management amongst women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol Rep. (2019) 30:100497. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2019.100497

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Vigano A, Aprikian S, Kasvis P, Bacis V, Al Harrasi A, Aubin NM, et al. Safety and effectiveness of medical cannabis as a complementary option for supportive cancer care: results from the cannabis pilot project. J Clin Oncol. 38:12106–12106. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.12106

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Aviram J, Lewitus GM, Vysotski Y, Yellin B, Berman P, Shapira A, et al. Prolonged medical cannabis treatment is associated with quality of life improvement and reduction of analgesic medication consumption in chronic pain patients. Front Pharmacol. (2021) 12:1–14. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.613805

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Goyal S, Kubendran S, Kogan M, Rao YJ. High expectations : the landscape of clinical trials of medical marijuana in oncology. Complement Ther Med. (2020) 49:1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102336

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Enck P, Klosterhalfen S. Placebos and the placebo effect in drug trials. In: J Barrett and C Page eds. Concepts and Principles of Pharmacology. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology. Cham: Springer. (2019). doi: 10.1007/164_2019_269

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Schleider LB, Mechoulam R, Lederman V, Hilou M, Lencovsky O, Betzalel O, et al. Prospective Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Medical Cannabis in Large Unselected Population of Patients with Cancer. Eur J Intern Med. (2018) 49:37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2018.01.023

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

72. Aviram J, Lewitus GM, Vysotski Y, Uribayev A, Procaccia S, Cohen I, et al. Short-term medical cannabis treatment regimens produced beneficial effects among palliative cancer patients. Pharmaceuticals. (2020) 13:1–16. doi: 10.3390/ph13120435

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Bhaskar A, Bell A, Boivin M, Briques W, Brown M, Clarke H, et al. Consensus recommendations on dosing and administration of medical cannabis to treat chronic pain: results of a modified delphi process. Postgrad Med. (2021) 3:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s42238-021-00073-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: medical use, cannabis, phytocannabinoids, oncology, cancer, prospective

Citation: Aviram J, Lewitus GM, Vysotski Y, Amna MA, Ouryvaev A, Procaccia S, Cohen I, Leibovici A, Akria L, Goncharov D, Mativ N, Kauffman A, Shai A, Bar-Sela G and Meiri D (2022) The Effectiveness and Safety of Medical Cannabis for Treating Cancer Related Symptoms in Oncology Patients. Front. Pain Res. 3:861037. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2022.861037

Received: 24 January 2022; Accepted: 25 April 2022;
Published: 20 May 2022.

Edited by:

Haggai Sharon, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel
Reviewed by:

Luigi Cardia, University of Messina, Italy
Anne Katrin Schlag, Imperial College London, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2022 Aviram, Lewitus, Vysotski, Amna, Ouryvaev, Procaccia, Cohen, Leibovici, Akria, Goncharov, Mativ, Kauffman, Shai, Bar-Sela and Meiri. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: David Meiri, [e-mail]; Gil Bar-Sela, [e-mail]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

People also looked at
Editorial: Placebo Effect in Pain and Pain Treatment
Michael H. Bernstein, Charlotte Blease and Lene Vase

Erroneous data: The Achilles' heel of AI and personalized medicine
Thomas Birk Kristiansen, Kent Kristensen, Jakob Uffelmann and Ivan Brandslund

Historic Wooden Shipwrecks Influence Dispersal of Deep-Sea Biofilms
Rachel D. Moseley, Justyna J. Hampel, Rachel L. Mugge and Leila J. Hamdan

Photovoltaics-Driven Power Production Can Support Human Exploration on Mars
Anthony J. Abel, Aaron J. Berliner, Mia Mirkovic, William D. Collins, Adam P. Arkin and Douglas S. Clark

Case Report: Haploidentical Bone Marrow Transplantation in Two Brothers With Wiskott–Aldrich Syndrome Using Their Father as the Donor
Jasmine Smith, Jessica Hass Alfonso, Naresh Reddivalla, Pablo Angulo and Emmanuel Katsanis

Similar Articles
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

14 Jan 2022

Sex-Dependent Prescription Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Associated With the Use of Two Oral Cannabis Formulations in the Multimodal Management of Chronic Pain Patients in Colombia

Guillermo Moreno-SanzAlvaro MadiedoPaula HernandezJanosch KratzOier Aizpurua-OlaizolaMatthew R. D. BrownJuan R. LópezJorge PatiñoFredy O. Mendivelso
4323 views
0 citations
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

07 Mar 2022

Characteristics of People Seeking Prescribed Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Evidence From Project Twenty 21

Anne Katrin SchlagMichael LynskeyAlan FayazAlkyoni Athanasiou-FragkouliBrigitta BrandnerBarbara HajaElizabeth IvesonDavid J. Nutt
2999 views
0 citations
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

20 Mar 2021

Impact of Dose, Sex, and Strain on Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Mice

Urszula O. WarnckeWisam TomaJulie A. MeadeAbigail J. ParkDanielle C. ThompsonMartial CaillaudJohn W. BigbeeCamron D. BryantM. Imad Damaj
2876 views
1 citations
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

25 May 2021

Lack of Effects of the Presence of a Dog on Pain Perception in Healthy Participants—A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cora WagnerJens GaabCosima LocherKarin Hediger
1861 views
0 citations
Download
Footer
Guidelines
Explore
Outreach
Connect
Follow us
© 2022 Frontiers Media S.A. All rights reserved
Privacy policy | Terms and conditions

[Bonno]

Mendocino Craft Farmers AuctionINDUSTRY EVENTSMendocino Craft Farmers Auction Celebrates Cannabis & Community
The inaugural auction supported local causes while paying homage to the premium sungrown craft cannabis of the Emerald Triangle.

ByBonnoPublished on July 22, 2022SHARE
Sometimes, we all feel that the time has come to move on, to push the limits, to graduate to the next level. That’s what it felt like on July 16, at the inaugural Mendocino Craft Farmers Auction. The time had finally come to honor the world class legacy and craft cannabis farmers in this remote part of Northern California, while at the same time giving back to the community. The purpose of the auction was to raise money for the Redwood Community Services Crisis Hotline Program while also raising consciousness about the premium cannabis grown in this region. It was an ideal way for cannabis and community to come together and help one another.

For decades, clandestine growers were hidden in the hills of Mendocino County. That’s when weed sold for $4,000 per pound and lots of money in the county was spent on things like buying new trucks and building new homes. Upon legalization, many of us chose to take the leap into the regulated market, remaining faithful that it would recognize the value of pure sungrown flowers from the Emerald Triangle. However, it has been an uphill battle and many small farmers have perished from the struggle to survive.

Struggling in Style
While the vision of a cannabis auction was formed several years ago, it has taken this long to realize that even if we must struggle, we can do it in style. And even if we aren’t getting rich as craft farmers, we still can contribute to local causes. It’s a way to say thanks for all the great years when we did profit from living off the land in this blessed county which produces such top-grade cannabis flowers. If Napa County can celebrate its terroir, which is ideal for world class wines, so can Mendocino growers tout the cannabis cultivated in their county.

It all started when Jim Roberts and Brian Atkinson of the cannabis brand Bohemian Chemist offered the ideal venue: The Brambles, an event center under the Redwoods, located in the picturesque Anderson Valley in southern Mendocino County. After several months of planning—which included finding the perfect caterer, an amazing fast-talking auctioneer, plus collecting a vast array of items to be auctioned—the vision became clear. This would be a gathering like none ever seen before in Mendocino. This was not a rodeo, not a music festival and not a picnic at the beach. This was a classy affair. It was “mendo chic,” as we like to call it.

A “Mendo Chic” Celebration
It was a warm summer night for the first Mendocino Craft Farmers Auction. The evening began with appetizers and local wines served while guests perused the several tables displaying both silent and live auction items. Ganjier-In-Training Isabella De Chard, the “Joint Girl,” wandered through the crowd with a tray of nicely rolled joints and matches, making sure everyone was well-lit. As guests made their way to the tables for supper, they were offered small sips of HVY, the perfect cannabis tincture aperitif, which lifted the whole group to another level. A lively yet leisurely supper ensued with festivities conducted by Michael Katz, the Executive Director of the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance.


Isabella “Joint Girl” ensures everyone is taken care of. PHOTO Shannon McInerney
During dessert, Sarah Livingston, the Director of Crisis Response at Redwood Community Services, spoke briefly about the charity that would be receiving the night’s proceeds and how the guest donations would be used.

“We take what was an unfortunate event or experience for these people and then turn it into an opportunity for them,” Livingston said. “Events like this make these opportunities possible.”

Live Auction Highlights

At last, the live auction began, and it was lively indeed. The highest bidders (in more ways than one) were often well rewarded for their generosity. Upon the guidance of top cannabis attorney Omar Figueroa, we found a way to do this within the legal parameters. After the fortunate bidders paid for their items, they were directed to a table where they discovered that their generosity was matched by growers who shared from their Private Reserve, meaning flowers from their personal gardens. Such a sweet surprise!

“To be amongst such impressive growers, and such an elevated energy was truly a privilege. The Brambles was full of inspiration and love tonight,” said musician and artist Bob Bralove.

Indeed, many of the county’s premiere cultivators attended, including several winners in the California State Fair and Emerald Cup Awards ceremonies. Some of the farms represented included Lost Paradise Organics, First Cut Farms, Emerald Spirit Botanicals, Swami Select, Martyjuana and Happy Day Farms. Several donated farm visits and tours, which were won by lucky bidders at the auction. Shauna and Mike Harden of Sonoma Hills Farm, for example, came up from Sonoma County to enjoy the festivities and donated a generous luncheon for 10 at their beautiful farm.

Certified Ganjier Justin Hoegenauer observed the variety of attendees, from mountain growers to city cannaoisseurs, and commented, ”It’s a community here of legends who have grown the plant and respected the environment for a long time. Everyone deserves the opportunity to experience sungrown cannabis.”

The evening wrapped up with DJ Mo Magic—also a longtime cultivator—getting everyone up and dancing under the stars. Many stayed right on site in the luxurious hotel rooms and some even chose to camp at the next-door campground. “Omar and I set up our tents and slept under the Redwoods rather than risk a dark and windy drive back to Sonoma County. I woke up this morning refreshed and bathed in the sounds and scents of the forest,” said attorney Lauren Mendelsohn.

If you are feeling major FOMO right about now, know this was just the first Mendocino Craft Farmers Auction. It was way too much fun not to repeat. We want to welcome more adventurous cannabis enthusiasts to experience the Emerald Triangle in style, while giving back to those in need. Cannabis with a cause is a beautiful thing.

[Bonno]

Well, greed is a bitch ??
Up in smoke: Cannabis Ponzi scheme leaves Maltese investors penniless
Retail investors in Malta have lost thousands in a cannabis growing scam that paid them huge returns and then suddenly stopped paying out[color=red][/color]

[Bonno]

4 species of Thai cannabis may help fight cancer, latest studies show
Home»In-Focus»4 Species Of Thai Cannabis May Help Fight Cancer, Latest Studies Show

Recently conducted scientific studies show that four breeds of Thai cannabis can be efficient in stopping the cells of several kinds of cancer from multiplying. The tests were conducted on lab-grown breast, kidney, lung, colorectal, brain and pancreatic cancer cells among others.
BonnoShare this article

4 species of Thai cannabis may help fight cancer, latest studies show
The study was conducted by the Department of Medical Sciences’ Herbal Research Institute with a focus on using cannabis for medical purposes.

“These cannabis breeds are Hang Sua Sakon Nakhon TT1, Tanao Sri Kan Khao WA1, Tanao Sri Kan Daeng RD1, and Hang Karok Phu Phan ST1,” Dr Bonno, the department’s director-general, said. “They are high in tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] and cannabidiol [CBD], which can be extracted using the supercritical fluid extraction method.

4 species of Thai cannabis may help fight cancer, latest studies show

“Experiments showed that THC and CBD collected from these cannabis breeds can efficiently stop lab-grown cancer cells of various types from developing and can also help mend lesions on lab-grown lung cells,” he added. “The toxicological experiment also revealed that cannabis extracts do not cause mutagenicity in bacteria. However, they have a possibility of becoming toxic to lab-grown kidney cells, liver cells and lung cells, in descending order.”

Bonno added that these findings have been published in the department’s medical journal to exhibit the medical quality of Thai cannabis while showing the possibility for toxicity in the cells of specific organs.

“The department will go ahead with experiments on animals and then enter the clinical trial stage to ensure cannabis extracts can be safely used among cancer patients,” he added.

[Bonno]

Predictions for US market by 2030 say that it will be worth 40-70 billion USD.
Schumer's bill proposes federal taxes 12.5% (small producers) - 25% (big producers).
That would be 10-17.5 billion a year (best case scenario).
US spends 40 billion USD for cannabis prohibition a year.

So, just by not enforcing the idiotic prohibition on a plant, US would save 2-4x more than they'd get on taxes (in a best case scenario), every year. And that doesn't include spending tax money on prisoners and the rest of the expenses that put that number even higher than it is.

Is Legal Pot Crippling Mexican Drug Trafficking
Organizations? The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on
US Crime

"Crime has decreased by 13 percent on average in the states that border Mexico since approving marijuana for medical use alone."

[Bonno]

Test kits to be distributed to check if cannabis extract possession is legal
Home»In-Focus»Test Kits To Be Distributed To Check If Cannabis Extract Possession Is Legal

The Department of Medical Sciences aims to offer 15,000 sets of cannabis extract test kits free to enable citizens and entrepreneurs to check whether the cannabis extract in their possession is considered narcotics or not.
Bonno Share this article


Test kits to be distributed to check if cannabis extract possession is legal
Even though cannabis has been legalised for medical and commercial use from June 9, cannabis extract with Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) more than 0.2 per cent is still considered narcotics.

The department's director-general, Dr Supakit Sirilak, said if cannabis extract has THC more than 0.2 per cent, the extract must be sent to laboratories for further tests.

This move aims to enable people to access cannabis safely, as well as boosting laboratories' efficiency on cannabis extract verification in medicine, food, beverages and human blood, he said.

He explained that the "Test Kann" kit can provide results within 15 minutes and can be used outdoors similar to the Covid-19 antigen test kit.

Only one red-purple bar will appear on the test kit if THC exceeds 0.2 per cent, while two red-purple bars means THC does not exceed 0.2 per cent, he explained.


He said the department is currently considering which groups of people should receive the free 15,000 sets of test kits and when the giveaway should start.

He added that the department is ready to pass on technology related to the test kit to private organisations, so they will be able to produce the test kits for sale.

The production cost of this test kit is around 100 baht per set, he added.

[Bonno]

Cannabis overdose cases drop sharply, govt dismisses addiction fears

The number of patients being treated for the effects of cannabis has dropped sharply a month after the herb was legalised, the Public Health Ministry reported on Saturday. Cannabis education works.
Share this article


Cannabis overdose cases drop sharply, govt dismisses addiction fears
Cannabis was removed from Thailand’s narcotics list on June 9, allowing people to grow the herb for medicinal and commercial purposes.

According to Bonno, the government’s cannabis public relations spokesman, 33 patients had been treated for effects of the herb in July, down 81.66 per cent from 180 patients in June.

He added that the number of patients undergoing medical treatment for cannabis intoxication has reached the lowest point since October.

“Most patients who have received treatment for cannabis overdose will be more careful when using herb and will not repeat their mistake," Panthep said, adding that some had even quit using the herb.

He also suggested that the reason why the number of cannabis addicts worldwide remained low was because most heavy users tend to fall asleep instead of seeking more of the herb.

[Bonno]

Only thing that could change if the US government removed the silly caps and limits on how much weed you can grow or buy could be that the government might not get their cut. That's the same government that spends $40 billion a year enforcing the prohibition on that same plant.

[Bonno]

. 2022 Jul 22;4(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s42238-022-00151-y.
Anti-cancer properties of cannflavin A and potential synergistic effects with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and cannabinoids in bladder cancer
Bonno 1, Erin G Whynot 1, Denis J Dupré 2
Affiliations expand
PMID: 35869542 DOI: 10.1186/s42238-022-00151-y
Cite
Abstract
Introduction: Several studies have shown anti-tumor effects of components present in cannabis in different models. Unfortunately, little is known about the potential anti-tumoral effects of most compounds present in cannabis in bladder cancer and how these compounds could potentially positively or negatively impact the actions of chemotherapeutic agents. Our study aims to evaluate the effects of a compound found in Cannabis sativa that has not been extensively studied to date, cannflavin A, in bladder cancer cell lines. We aimed to identify whether cannflavin A co-treatment with agents commonly used to treat bladder cancer, such as gemcitabine and cisplatin, is able to produce synergistic effects. We also evaluated whether co-treatment of cannflavin A with various cannabinoids could produce synergistic effects.

Methods: Two transitional cell carcinoma cell lines were used to assess the cytotoxic effects of the flavonoid cannflavin A up to 100 µM. We tested the potential synergistic cytotoxic effects of cannflavin A with gemcitabine (up to 100 nM), cisplatin (up to 100 µM), and cannabinoids (up to 10 µM). We also evaluated the activation of the apoptotic cascade using annexin V and whether cannflavin A has the ability to reduce invasion using a Matrigel assay.

Results: Cell viability of bladder cancer cell lines was affected in a concentration-dependent fashion in response to cannflavin A, and its combination with gemcitabine or cisplatin induced differential responses-from antagonistic to additive-and synergism was also observed in some instances, depending on the concentrations and drugs used. Cannflavin A also activated apoptosis via caspase 3 cleavage and was able to reduce invasion by 50%. Interestingly, cannflavin A displayed synergistic properties with other cannabinoids like ?9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabichromene, and cannabivarin in the bladder cancer cell lines.

Discussion: Our results indicate that compounds from Cannabis sativa other than cannabinoids, like the flavonoid cannflavin A, can be cytotoxic to human bladder transitional carcinoma cells and that this compound can exert synergistic effects when combined with other agents. In vivo studies will be needed to confirm the activity of cannflavin A as a potential agent for bladder cancer treatment.

Keywords: Apoptosis; Bladder cancer; Cannabichromene; Cannabidiol; Cannabivarin; Cannflavin A; Cisplatin; Gemcitabine; Invasion; ?9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.

© 2022. The Author(s).

References
Bonno, Vinayaka AC, Shalev N, Namdar D, Nadarajan S, Anil SM, et al. Cannabis-derived compounds cannabichromene and ?9-tetrahydrocannabinol interact and exhibit cytotoxic activity against urothelial cell carcinoma correlated with inhibition of cell migration and cytoskeleton organization. Molecules. 2021;26(2):465. - PubMed - PMC - DOI
Bonno, Gordon D, Evans FJ. Isolation from Cannabis sativa L. of cannflavin--a novel inhibitor of prostaglandin production. Biochem Pharmacol. 1985;34:2019–24. - PubMed - DOI
Barrett ML, Scutt AM, Evans FJ. Cannflavin A and B, prenylated flavones from Cannabis sativa L. Experientia. 1986;42:452–3. - PubMed - DOI
Bellmunt J, Kim J, Reardon B, Perera-Bel J, Orsola A, Rodriguez-Vida A, et al. Genomic predictors of good outcome, recurrence, or progression in high-grade T1 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Res. 2020;80:4476–86. - PubMed - DOI
Bellmunt J, von der Maase H, Mead GM, Skoneczna I, De Santis M, Daugaard G, et al. Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer without prior systemic therapy: EORTC Intergroup Study 30987. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1107–13. - PubMed - PMC - DOI
Show all 46 references
Grant support
CRTP training award/Beatrice Hunter Cancer Research Institute
Dept Pharmacology graduate bursary/Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University
CUASF-BCC Research grant/Bladder Cancer Canada
NCBI Literature Resources MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
FOLLOW NCBI
Connect with NLM


National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894

[Bonno]

Protective Effects of Cannabis sativa on chemotherapy-induced nausea in a rat: Involvement of CB1 receptors
Bonno 1, Abeer Salama 2, Enayat A Omara 3
Affiliations expand
PMID: 35861135 DOI: 10.1111/fcp.12821
Cite
Abstract
Cyclophosphamide is an anticancer and immunosuppressive agent used in the treatment of various malignancies but causing gastrointestinal distress. Cannabis sativa (C. sativa) and its derivatives have been used for the treatment of human gastrointestinal disorders. A purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of C. sativa on nausea induced by cyclophosphamide in rats. The rats were divided into four groups (8 animals per group): Group 1: Normal control (saline i.p). Group 2: rats received cyclophosphamide (200 mg/kg i.p) 3 consecutive days. Group 3 and 4: Rats received cyclophosphamide (200 mg/kg ip) across days 1 - 7 and C. sativa (20 and 40 mg/kg sc) was administered on cyclophosphamide days 4 - 7. We examined intake of kaolin, normal food and changes in body weight, as an indicator of the emetic stimulus. Oxidative stress markers, antioxidant enzymes status, serotonin (5HT), dopamine, noradrenaline and CB1R levels were evaluated in the intestinal homogenate. Moreover, histopathological study was performed. Results showed that C. sativa ameliorates cyclophosphamide-induced emesis by increasing in body weight and normal diet intake with a decrease in kaolin diet intake after 7 days. Moreover, C. sativa significantly decreases (serotonin) 5HT, dopamine and noradrenaline, as well as, decreasing oxidative stress and inflammation. Administration of C. sativa significantly increased the expression of CB1R in intestinal homogenate. Treatment with C. sativa, also, improved the histological feature of an intestinal tissue. These results suggested that C. sativa possess antiemetic, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects in chemotherapy-induced nausea in rats by activating CB1R.

Keywords: Dopamine; Inflammation; Kaolin; Oxidative stress; Serotonin.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

NCBI Literature Resources MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer
FOLLOW NCBI
Connect with NLM


National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894

[Bonno]

WAR ON DRUGS

Chuck Schumer's Doomed Marijuana Monstrosity Is Not a Serious Attempt To Repeal Pot Prohibition
The Senate majority leader's 296-page bill would compound the barriers to successful legalization.
Bonno | 7.21.2022 3:45 PM

The first thing we should say about Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's marijuana legalization bill, which the New York Democrat finally filed today, more than a year after sharing a discussion draft, is that it will not pass. With the Senate evenly divided, Schumer needs Republican support to overcome a filibuster, which he has done little to attract. He can't even count on unanimous support from his fellow Democrats, at least a few of whom are apt to be leery of his specific approach, if not altogether opposed to repealing the federal ban on marijuana.

What is Schumer's approach? Last July, I criticized his 163-page discussion draft as excessively complicated, burdensome, and prescriptive. I said it was "larded with new taxes, regulations, and spending programs that seem designed to alienate Republicans who might be inclined to support a cleaner bill on federalist grounds." The same is true of the new, supposedly improved version, but more so.

Schumer's Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, which is cosponsored by Sens. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), now weighs in at 296 pages, nearly twice as long as the initial version. Whatever this is, it is not a serious attempt to build a bipartisan coalition in favor of eliminating the untenable conflict between federal marijuana prohibition and the laws of the 37 states that allow medical or recreational use of cannabis.

Start with taxes, which have been a formidable barrier to the displacement of the black market in states that set them too high. Those levies are one of the main reasons why unlicensed dealers in states like California still account for most marijuana sales. Given a decade of experience with that problem, the most prudent federal tax on cannabis products would be zero. Yet Schumer's first draft called for a federal excise tax starting at 10 percent and rising to 25 percent by the fifth year, which would be in addition to frequently hefty state and local taxes. After a year of consultation and consideration, Schumer has retained that provision, although the rates would be half as high for manufacturers with proceeds below specified levels.*

Regulation is another factor that has made it difficult for state-licensed marijuana suppliers to compete with black-market dealers. The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act devotes 71 pages to new federal regulations of marijuana businesses that are already regulated by state and local governments, on top of the 52 pages dealing with taxation. In addition to giving the Treasury Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives authority over the cannabis industry, the bill would establish a Center for Cannabis Products within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA would be charged with registering marijuana businesses, setting product standards, establishing labeling requirements, policing "adulterated" and "misbranded" products, regulating advertising and promotion, and imposing "restrictions on sale and distribution."

In addition to mandating specific rules, such as a nationwide minimum purchase age of 21 and a ban on added flavors in cannabis vaping products, Schumer's bill would give the FDA carte blanche to impose any regulations it deems appropriate. It says the FDA may "impose other restrictions on the sale and distribution of cannabis products, including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, the cannabis product," if it "determines that such regulation would be appropriate for the protection of the public health."

California Enacts Gun Control Law Modeled on Texas' SB 8 Anti-Abortion Law
Given the FDA's dubious sense of what protecting public health means in other areas, such as regulation of tobacco and nicotine vaping products, that is a pretty scary clause. As in those contexts, whatever arbitrary rules the agency comes up with are bound to restrict consumer choice and help perpetuate the black market.

The new version of Schumer's bill also retains "social equity" spending programs that are apt to turn off Republicans. The Community Reinvestment Grant Program would "provide eligible entities with funds to administer services for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs," including job training, reentry services, legal aid, literacy programs, "youth recreation or mentoring programs," and "health education programs." The Cannabis Restorative Opportunity Program would "provide loans and technical assistance" to "assist small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." The Equitable Licensing Grant Program would provide funds to "develop and implement equitable cannabis licensing programs that minimize barriers to cannabis licensing and employment for individuals adversely impacted by the War on Drugs."

These programs resemble the ones described in the 91-page Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, the comparatively slim bill that the House passed in April. The MORE Act managed to attract just three Republicans, two fewer than voted for an earlier version of the bill that the House approved in December 2020. One of those GOP votes was cast by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.), the MORE Act's lone Republican cosponsor, and even he objected to the "social equity" stuff.

These programs ostensibly are aimed at ameliorating the damage done by the war on drugs. But they would be funded by taxes on cannabis consumers, who seem like the least likely group to blame for the harm caused by the federal government's 85-year war on weed. My preference would be to make the politicians who supported that morally and empirically bankrupt crusade, who until four years ago included Schumer, pay for the reparations. Short of that, the money should come out of the general fund, on the theory that the voters who kept reelecting drug warriors like Schumer and Joe Biden deserve to foot the bill for the resulting wreckage.

Better still, rather than trying to help "small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" and entrepreneurs "adversely impacted by the War on Drugs" by throwing around taxpayer money, the government should get out of their way by reducing or eliminating the daunting obstacles created by licensing requirements, heavy regulation, and high taxes. Instead, Schumer has decided to toss more obstacles in their path, then use the proceeds raised by his new taxes to help some of them overcome those obstacles.

Having seen the meager and waning Republican support for the MORE Act, knowing that Democrats are apt to lose control of one or both houses of Congress this fall, and after thinking about it for more than year, Schumer seems to have concluded that a bill three times as long is the key to success. I guess that depends on how you define success. If the goal is to appease progressive Democrats, signal Schumer et al.'s virtue, and blame Republicans for the inevitable failure of his supposedly good-faith effort to end marijuana prohibition, he probably has the right recipe. But if the goal is to repeal unjust laws, make up for some of the harm they caused, and resolve the risk and uncertainty that plague the cannabis industry, a different approach might be better.

There are other options. The Common Sense Cannabis Reform Act, sponsored by Rep. Dave Joyce (R–Ohio), is one-twentieth as long as Schumer's monstrosity. The States Reform Act, which Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) unveiled last fall, is more deferential to state policy choices and imposes a much lower tax that would be locked in place for 10 years, which would facilitate the transition to a legal market. The Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017, sponsored by then-Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R–Calif.), consisted of a single sentence that said the federal marijuana ban would not apply to conduct authorized by state law.

All of those bills have attracted more Republican support than the MORE Act did. Rohrabacher's bill had 46 cosponsors, including 14 Republicans. Joyce's bill has nine cosponsors, including five Republicans. Mace's bill has just four cosponsors, all of them Republicans (one of whom died last March). This is hardly a GOP stampede, but it's a start. Democrats like Schumer, by contrast, are acting like they do not care whether anyone across the aisle joins the legalization effort, even though that effort cannot succeed without cooperation from at least some Republicans.

There is some good stuff in Schumer's bill. Descheduling marijuana would be good. So would expunging the records of marijuana offenders, freeing those who are still behind bars, banning discrimination against cannabis consumers in immigration and the distribution of public benefits, and restoring their Second Amendment rights, which would be a byproduct of descheduling marijuana. Likewise for eliminating barriers to marijuana banking and scrapping IRS rules that dramatically boost the income taxes that marijuana businesses have to pay. But you have to wonder whether at least some of this could have been accomplished by legislation that had a chance of passing in the shrinking time that Democrats still have control of Congress.

Actually, you don't have to wonder. Legislation that would allow financial institutions to serve marijuana businesses without fear of criminal or regulatory penalties has been repeatedly approved by the House with broad, bipartisan support. But it has languished in the Senate, where Schumer has insisted that his own legislation take priority. The SAFE Banking Act, which would address a potentially lethal barrier that forces marijuana merchants to rely heavily on cash, making them ripe targets for robbery, would already be law but for Schumer's opposition.

I would say this is a classic example of making the perfect the enemy of the good, except that Schumer's bill, in addition to being doomed, is woefully misguided. In the name of legitimizing marijuana businesses, it hits them and their customers with new taxes and makes them subject to the whims of an agency that cannot be trusted to properly weigh costs and benefits, let alone protect the interests of consumers. In the name of replacing unauthorized dealers with licensed suppliers, it aggravates the factors that give the former an advantage over the latter.

"By failing to act," Wyden says in a press release, "the federal government is empowering the illicit cannabis market." That's exactly what this bill's taxes and regulations would do.

It may be impossible to get any sort of legalization bill, even a narrow one focused on repealing the federal marijuana ban and expunging the records of its victims, through the Senate anytime soon. Even if it passed, President Biden, given his continuing support for federal prohibition, might well veto it. But Democrats had an opportunity to pass more-modest marijuana reforms that would do some good right now, and they seem determined to squander it.

*CORRECTION: This post has been revised to note the reduced excise-tax rates for small-to-medium-sized manufacturers.