Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
$PVSP Stand by .... 😉
— Pervasip Corp (@PervasipC) January 26, 2024
All of us are, a positive and definitive change would be nice.
Looking forward to it.
Oldrogue.
I hope they smash it!! 🙏🙏
Annual Report due next month Feb 28
Earnings is quite a misnomer with anything Riss related. I just hope Riss comes up with another Uzbekistan deal after I buy more 1s.
There is no quiet period for a spinoff. If I was the CEO i’ll be quiet too as nothing has materialized other than BJs puppetmaster BS.
We've been talking about Revenue forever oldrogue (TY) but it's NOT resonating with for some reason for $PVSP!! I'm just saying, get some marketing person to get some videos on packaging and logistics!! Let us know if this suppose to be a quiet period!! Tell us SOMETHING!!
Their earnings report is due!
Oldrogue.
Wow 😨 this must be a covert grow operation and everything else they sell!! No Videos of Nothing!! Pub Co Nothing!! Something is not right!!!!
That’s cute paraphrasing, changing the lingo to ‘tells’ from ‘asks’ the court. lol
Biden DOJ Tells Federal Court Not To ‘Disrupt’ Marijuana Rescheduling Decision By Allowing Industry Lawsuit To Proceed
Published 15 hours ago on January 23, 2024By Kyle Jaeger
The Justice Department has asked a federal court to dismiss a cannabis industry lawsuit that seeks to block the enforcement of marijuana prohibition against state-legal activity—in part, it says, because the court should not get ahead of a possible cannabis rescheduling decision that’s being considered.
In a document filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, on Tuesday, lawyers for Attorney General Merrick Garland said that Congress “rationally set up an administrative process for rescheduling drugs.”
“Pursuant to that mechanism, the DEA is currently considering” a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “to reschedule marijuana” under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
States That Legalized Marijuana See Massive Reduction in Tobacco Use
“It is not for the courts to disrupt or get ahead of that administrative process,” DOJ said.
Overall, DOJ also said that marijuana businesses who brought the case lack standing to pursue the challenge because they cannot claim direct injury since they haven’t been federally prosecuted under the policy of prohibition. The filing also notes that a long-standing congressional rider has been in place for a decade, barring the department from using federal funds to interfere in state-legal medical cannabis laws.
“Plaintiffs do not dispute that as enacted, the CSA rationally served legitimate government purposes. Yet they argue that the CSA has been rendered irrational because Congress has chosen to allow federal territories to enact marijuana legalization laws and has prohibited the Department of Justice on spending funds to prevent implementation of state medical marijuana laws…while the Department of Justice has allegedly exercised prosecutorial discretion to decline to prosecute conduct that complies with state marijuana laws under certain circumstances.”
“Yet as explained above, these actions and inactions serve the rational purpose of facilitating state and local experimentation with marijuana laws while focusing federal law enforcement resources on conduct that most significantly affects federal interests,” it says.
The government also asserts that precedent set in a 2005 Supreme Court ruling negates plaintiffs’ argument that the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause renders bans on interstate marijuana commerce unlawful.
The case is a “transparent entreaty to overrule” that precedent, known as Raich, DOJ said.
“Federal regulation of intrastate marijuana activities is constitutional because such activities “substantially affect interstate commerce,'” the department argued. “Plaintiffs get no further by claiming that the CSA violates their right to substantive due process. Courts have consistently, and correctly, held that no fundamental right exists to distribute, possess, or use marijuana. Therefore, the CSA is subject only to deferential rational basis review, which it easily survives.”
“To raise a pre-enforcement challenge to a law, a plaintiff must show a substantial risk of future enforcement. Here, Plaintiffs allege the opposite, that the government’s policy is not to prosecute conduct that complies with state marijuana laws. Neither Plaintiffs’ contention that they are harmed by other federal laws and policies whose constitutionality is not challenged here, nor Plaintiffs’ allegations that some third parties have independently chosen not to transact with them, suffice to provide Plaintiffs with standing to challenge the CSA.”
The motion to dismiss additionally says that plaintiffs “fail to allege facts showing that the risk of prosecution is substantial.”
“In fact, Plaintiffs’ allegations negate the existence of such a substantial risk,” it says. “Yet even if this Court were sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ arguments that [Gonzales v. Raich] holding should no longer be good law, stare decisis commands that this Court adhere to Raich unless and until it is overruled by the Supreme Court
“Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that the Department of Justice has implemented a policy of prosecutorial discretion that guides federal law enforcement to focus enforcement resources ‘on persons or organizations whose conduct interferes’ with important federal interests such as curtailing violence and gang activity, and otherwise to rely largely on ‘enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies’ to ‘address[] marijuana-related activity.'”
The filing adds that a policy of prosecutorial discretion for federal marijuana cases such as under the Obama-era Cole memo that was rescinded under the Trump administration is a “surely rational” approach.
In the overarching lawsuit, plaintiffs claim that perpetuating prohibition in state markets is unconstitutional, creating undue public safety risks while precluding licensed marijuana businesses from accessing critical financial services and tax deductions that are available to other industries.
Reacting to the DOJ filing on Tuesday, the plaintiffs said in a statement that they “look forward to demonstrating their standing before the Federal District Court in Springfield, Massachusetts.”
“Plaintiffs have been injured by the federal government’s ban on cultivating, manufacturing, and distributing intrastate marijuana. Plaintiffs brought this suit to stop the enforcement of that unconstitutional ban and protect themselves and others similarly situated from further injury,” they said. “The facts in the complaint distinguish this case from Gonzales v. Raich, the 2005 Supreme Court decision on which the government continues to rely.”
The government filing comes about a month after the Justice Department and plaintiffs—a coalition of marijuana businesses represented by an influential law firm—jointly agreed to request a deadline extension for the filing of initial briefs.
The suit against the federal government is being led by multi-state operator Verano Holdings Corp. and the Massachusetts-based cannabis businesses Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm, along with Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers.
On Monday, DOJ sought permission to submit the new 25-page of memorandum that exceeds the general 20-page limit allotted under the rules.
The law firms Boies Schiller Flexner and Lesser, Newman, Aleo & Nasser LLP are representing the plaintiffs. David Boies, chairman of the former firm, has a long list of prior clients that includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and the plaintiffs in a case that led to the invalidation of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, among others.
The lawsuit alleges that while Congress originally banned marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in an attempt to eradicate interstate commerce, ostensibly giving the government a basis to enforce prohibition at the state level, lawmakers and the executive branch have since “abandoned”
Not that much pumping, just constant irrelevant BS hyperbole re what might happen with legislation in states which will never affect Zen.
Like his puppet masters, he wants all to believe an audit of two tiny Cos takes two years although he’s never personally been involved with them.
This is a huge turd, stop with the pumping
I wonder who whistled in DeSantis ear!! It's all about the money! It's going to be a close margin!! Let's Go Florida!!!!! Zen Baby!
DeSantis Says Marijuana Legalization Will Be On Florida Ballot Following Court Review
Published 4 seconds ago on January 22, 2024
By Kyle Jaeger
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) says a marijuana legalization initiative will be on the state’s November ballot, predicting a favorable legal outcome for activists in the Supreme Court in the face of a challenge from the attorney general who is seeking to block the vote.
Days before dropping out of the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, DeSantis was asked about the prospect of legalization making the Florida ballot by cannabis lobbyist Don Murphy.
“I think the court is going to approve that,” the governor said at his final campaign event in New Hampshire on Friday, “so it’ll be on the ballot.”
It’s not clear if DeSantis has received some indication from the court about the status of the case, which is still weighing the legal challenge from Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R), or if he is just making a prediction based on the issues at play.
Moody has asked the court to invalidate the measure, despite activists collecting nearly one million signatures for ballot placement. The state official previously successfully petitioned justices to prevent a 2022 legalization initiative from receiving voter consideration.
That won’t be the case this round, according to the governor. While he opposes the reform—and pledged not to federally decriminalize marijuana if elected president when he was running—he says voters will get a chance to decide on the issue this time.
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case against the Smart & Safe Florida campaign last November, but it has not issued a ruling yet. It will need to do so by April 1.
DeSantis also weighed in on another relevant cannabis policy issue last week when he separately told Murphy that he doesn’t believe the federal gun ban for state-legal marijuana consumers is constitutional. Florida’s former agriculture commission, Nikki Fried, brought a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the rule, though the governor did not get involved.
Prior to dropping out, DeSantis also said earlier this month that if elected president, he would “respect the decisions that states make” on marijuana legalization despite his personal view that the reform has a “negative impact.”
With respect to the legalization ballot measure, the Florida Chamber of Commerce released a poll this month showing that the reform proposal enjoys majority support from likely voters—but not quite enough to meet the state’s steep 60 percent threshold for passage.
That said, other previous polls have found that voters are well-positioned to pass the legalization initiative with more than enough support. For example, the University of North Florida put out a survey last month that showed 67 percent of voters back the proposal.
The multi-state marijuana company Trulieve has contributed more than $40 million to the Smart & Safe Florida campaign to date. The state attorney general has accused the company of supporting the measure in order to have a “monopolistic stranglehold” on the state’s cannabis market.
If approved, the measure would change the state Constitution to allow existing medical cannabis companies in the state like Trulieve to begin selling marijuana to all adults over 21. It contains a provision that would allow—but not require—lawmakers to take steps toward the approval of additional businesses. Home cultivation by consumers would not be allowed under the proposal as drafted.
Adults 21 and older would be able to purchase and possess up to one ounce of cannabis, only five grams of which could be marijuana concentrate products. The three-page measure also omits equity provisions favored by advocates such as expungements or other relief for people with prior cannabis convictions.
Earlier this month, a Republican Florida lawmaker preemptively filed a bill that would impose strict limitations on THC potency if the legalization measure is approved by voters.
Meanwhile, Florida officials said last month that they arrested two paid canvassers charged with allegedly falsifying signatures on petitions to put the marijuana legalization initiative on the state’s 2024 ballot.
Economic analysts from the Florida legislature and DeSantis’s office estimate that the marijuana legalization initiative would generate between $195.6 million and $431.3 million in new sales tax revenue annually if voters enact it. And those figures could increase considerably if lawmakers opted to impose an additional excise tax on cannabis transactions that’s similar to the ones in place in other legalized states.
But DeSantis has made clear he would not support the measure regardless of the economic potential. He also recently suggested that the increase in Florida’s medical cannabis patient population is partly due to people using the program as a “pretext” for recreational use.
Last summer, a law enacted by the governor took effect that added restrictions to medical marijuana advertising and manufacturing, prohibiting any products or messages that promote “recreational” cannabis use, while adding more stringent eligibility requirements for workers in the industry.
Additionally, the governor approved a bill in June that expressly prohibits sober living facilities from allowing residents to possess or use medical marijuana, even if the patient is certified by a doctor to legally use cannabis therapeutically in accordance with state law. All other doctor-prescribed pharmaceutical medications may be permitted, however.
He also signed legislation in July banning sales of any consumable hemp products—including cannabis “chewing gum”—to people under 21, an expansion of an existing prohibition on young people being able to purchase smokable hemp.
The organizer of a separate Florida ballot initiative to legalize home cultivation of medical marijuana by patients recently withdrew the proposal, explaining that the campaign raised barely more than $4,000 and couldn’t cover costs associated with trying to qualify the measure.
In the legislature, meanwhile, a Florida Republican senator introduced a bill last month to allow licensed medical cannabis businesses to take state tax deductions that they are barred from claiming at the federal level under an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E.
Yes, but didn’t you say the 3s were done a month ago. How many 3s do you think have traded since your last prediction, not to mention 1s and 2s???????
Zen
30 Million on BID at 0002, Breakout?
Lets see what happens, that 600 Million on the BiD .0001 may never get filled !! LOL
Just for future reference, how many months before it becomes ‘a big thing’. Additionally, that was total BS about timelines for audits, cash or no cash.
Zen
Record date was 7/1/23 to 9/30/23, so we are 3 months behind schedule
Really not a big deal, nothing goes on schedule anymore, particularly an audit of financials of a Cash business that is prohibited from using the Federal Banking system, like all cannabis companies, LOL
Pervasip Corp.
PVSP
will spin-off 100% of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Artizen Corporation, as a separate public company, with an anticipated record date between July 1, 2023, and September 30, 2023.
Another day, another week, another month another year of nothing. The audited financials were promised to us almost 2 years ago and still nothing.
Again, let’s be very clear re all past releases from pvsp/zen, they are ALL subject to change per the protections re ‘Safe Harbor’. I think we all know thus far that NOTHING they have stated turns into anything resembling the actual facts.
‘Heavy restriction will apply to Selling requirements, so probably why we are seeing PVSP CD holders converting and selling the past year’. Where exactly did you read about these ‘heavy restrictions’??? Cd holders sell shares because that is what CD holders do. They also know that Artizen will be at the table soon enough to sell more CDs.
Another play on words although CD holders will receive common stock!! All convertible debt holders eventually receive common stock to sell, but you can play with the term ‘CD’ all day long. What is your point exactly, just responding to the exact language in your post!
Correct, read the disclosures,
No CD holders of any kind, only Common Stock Holders, no special issues
Heavy restriction will apply to Selling requirements, so probably why we are seeing PVSP CD holders converting and selling the past year.
In the previous post you stated the CD holders will receive Zen stock and then you state there will be no CD/holders in Zen. Comical to say the least, double speak BS as usual.
CD Holders will receive Artizen stock from the Founders 85M shares
New company with 100M Common Shares, will have zero debt or CD's and PVSP shareholders will own 15% of the new company, great deal!!
Pervasip Corp. (OTCPK:PVSP) agreed to spinoff Artizen Corporation on January 17, 2023. Holders of Pervasip's issued and outstanding common shares as of the record date will receive an aggregate of 15,000,000 shares of Artizen common stock, Likewise, holders of Pervasip's Series K and other convertible securities will receive an aggregate of 85,000,000 shares of Artizen common stock.
You have to Own PVSP to get Artizen Shares
PVSP shareholders will receive the same % of shares of Artizen that they hold in PVSP, plus after the spin off PVSP shares holder will keep ALL their shares, but they will now hold 80% of company vs the current 13.5% we hold currently.
The remaining 20% will be continue to be held by the Artizen Founders and they will use their 20% for any and all of future CD or other funding, which is NICE to say the least.
Improved Capital Structure
Pervasip currently has about 5,000,000,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, corresponding to about 15% of Pervasip’s fully diluted issued and outstanding common stock. Pervasip additionally has 850,000 shares of Series K convertible preferred stock issued and outstanding, corresponding to 85% of Pervasip’s fully diluted issued and outstanding common stock, as well as various other convertible securities.
Holders of Pervasip’s issued and outstanding common shares as of the record date will receive an aggregate of 15,000,000 shares of Artizen common stock, corresponding to 15% of Artizen’s fully diluted issued and outstanding common shares upon completion of the transaction (in addition to retaining their shares in Pervasip). Likewise, holders of Pervasip’s Series K and other convertible securities will receive an aggregate of 85,000,000 shares of Artizen common stock, the vast majority of which will be subject to lock-up restrictions prohibiting sales prior to Artizen’s realization of material growth and other performance objectives. Artizen will have 100,000,000 common shares outstanding on a fully diluted basis upon completion of the transaction, with no convertible debt or other securities.
Marijuana Advocates Plan ‘Largest Bipartisan’ Push For Federal Reform At Pre-4/20 Event In D.C. As Rescheduling Decision Looms
Published 8 hours ago on January 18, 2024By Kyle Jaeger
A leading cannabis group is planning to mobilize the “largest bi-partisan coalition of cannabis advocacy, industry, and grassroots organizations” that will convene in Washington, D.C. to push for federal reform just ahead of the marijuana holiday 4/20 this year.
Organized by the Last Prisoner Project (LPP), the meeting will feature an ideologically diverse collection of advocates and stakeholders to promote legalization centered in equity, the organization said in a press release on Thursday.
LPP has also released a new memo that’s meant to help guide advocates on how to “leverage” a potential federal cannabis rescheduling decision to fight for more comprehensive reform at the administrative and congressional levels.
A New Poll Finds That Floridians Want Legal Marijuana
The limitations of simple rescheduling were detailed in a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report that was released on Tuesday, explaining how state cannabis markets would continue to run afoul of federal law and certain criminal penalties for marijuana-related activity would remain in force, for example.
For the April 18 event, representatives of multiple national marijuana organizations and trade associations are already set to participate. Those include the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA), National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), NORML, Parabola Center, Reason Foundation, Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and more.
“We are thrilled to participate in this day of action to underscore the urgency of marijuana justice,” Maritza Perez Medina, director of federal affairs at DPA, said. “At this critical juncture for federal marijuana reform, our communities will not be sidelined.”
MCBA President Kaliko Castille said the organization “is proud to support this day of action because it’s clear that Congress needs to be reminded during this critical election year that ending prohibition has the broad support of the American public.”
“Congress is the only governing body that can truly end this national nightmare of locking humans in cages simply for possessing or growing a plant. Our communities can’t afford to wait any longer,” he said.
The LPP memo, meanwhile, lays out various avenues for equity-focused cannabis reform that could build upon any scheduling change, such as pushing for standalone congressional legislation to facilitate expungements and urging the Biden administration to expand the scope of the president’s mass pardons for cannabis possession offenses by commuting the sentences of people currently serving time for federal marijuana-related convictions.
It also notes that rescheduling could embolden the Justice Department to issue updated guidance on prosecutorial discretion for federal marijuana cases. And it says state officials could additionally leverage existing administrative mechanisms to provide for retroactive relief for past cannabis offenses, which could also be incentivized with a federal rescheduling action.
“We need an all hands on deck approach to ending the unjust war on our community, which means leveraging incremental wins as we build toward bigger, bolder reforms,” LPP Executive Director Sarah Gersten, who authored the new memo, said. “While rescheduling alone will not offer retroactive relief, it would be a historic shift in policy, and we must be ready to push open the door of reform when it happens. We have outlined several ways the administration can achieve real relief and add substance to the President’s mostly symbolic reforms so far.”
Geoffrey Lawrence, research director at the Reason Foundation who recently coauthored an op-ed for Marijuana Moment on the shortcomings of existing state social equity programs, said rescheduling cannabis “might sound like a good idea, but it’s fraught with danger”
“A Schedule III designation would continue to criminalize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana at the federal level for any products that haven’t received pre-market approval from the FDA,” he said. “Substantively, that means the change would imply no relief from criminal law for existing consumers or licensees, while any new exercise of regulatory authority by the FDA could imperil existing state-regulated markets.”
“All the progress advocates have made over past decades could be erased,” he added. “Full descheduling is the only approach that should be considered for marijuana.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finally released its full Schedule III recommendation and scientific findings it shared with DEA last week, and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said his agency has “communicated” their “position” on marijuana rescheduling to DEA and has continued to offer additional information to assist with the final determination.
DEA has steadfastly maintained it has “final authority” over the matter and can make any scheduling determination that it sees fit, however.
“DEA has the final authority to schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act, after considering the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria and HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation,” the agency said in a letter to lawmakers last month. “DEA is now conducting its review.”
The statement came in response to an earlier letter from 31 bipartisan lawmakers, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), that urged the agency to consider the “merits” of legalization as it carried out its review.
DEA has faced pressure on both sides of the marijuana policy debate over recent months, with advocates pressing for a Schedule III decision, or complete descheduling, and prohibitionists urging the agency to keep cannabis in Schedule I.
Prior to the HHS documents’ release, a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorneys general implored DEA to move forward with federal marijuana rescheduling, calling the policy change a “public safety imperative.”
In another letter last month, 29 former U.S. attorneys called on the Biden administration to leave cannabis in Schedule I.
Last month, the governors of six U.S. states—Colorado, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Louisiana—sent a letter to Biden calling on the administration to reschedule marijuana by the end of last year.
Meanwhile, six former DEA heads and five former White House drug czars sent a letter to the attorney general and current DEA administrator voicing opposition to the top federal health agency’s recommendation to reschedule marijuana. They also made a questionable claim about the relationship between drug schedules and criminal penalties in a way that could exaggerate the potential impact of the incremental reform.
Signatories include DEA and Office of National Drug Control Policy heads under multiple administrations led by presidents of both major parties.
In October, Advocates and lawmakers who support cannabis reform marked the one-year anniversary of Biden’s mass marijuana pardon and scheduling directive this month by calling on him to do more—including by expanding the scope of relief that his pardon had and by expressly supporting federal legalization.
Two GOP senators, including the lead Republican sponsor of a marijuana banking bill that cleared a key committee in September, also filed legislation late last year to prevent federal agencies from rescheduling cannabis without tacit approval from Congress.
A coalition of 14 Republican congressional lawmakers, meanwhile, has urged DEA to “reject” the top federal health agency’s recommendation to reschedule marijuana and instead keep it in the most restrictive category under the CSA.
A huge trading opportunity could be coming if the Biden administration reforms marijuana laws
Michael Brush
Opinion: A huge trading opportunity could be coming if the Biden administration reforms marijuana laws
Last Updated: Jan. 17, 2024 at 9:04 p.m. ET
First Published: Jan. 16, 2024 at 7:25 p.m. ET
By Michael BrushFollow
These cannabis stocks and ETFs stand to benefit if the proposed rescheduling of the substance takes place
CURLF
-1.65%
CURA
-3.41%
GTBIF
-1.68%
TSNDF
-4.35%
MSOS
-3.89%
MSOX
-6.85%
The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is being asked to soften its stance on cannabis.
Cannabis stocks advanced sharply to start the week, after the nation’s leading health agency recommended sweeping changes to federal marijuana laws. Still, it’s up in the air whether the proposed changes will ultimately help cannabis companies and investors any time soon — if at all.
Below, I’ll share key investor pros and cons in the major reform proposal rolled out on Jan. 12 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Stock traders should take note that there’s a potentially huge and tradable catalyst on the way soon. But first, given the polarizing nature of cannabis culturally and politically, let’s acknowledge the remarkable nature of the 252-page HHS proposal, especially for anyone familiar with the U.S.’s “war on drugs.”
HHS asked the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to soften its stance on cannabis by downgrading it to Schedule III from Schedule I under the Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act. The change would help cannabis companies by boosting cash flow enormously.
To make a credible recommendation, HHS had to find that cannabis has acceptable medical uses and a relatively low potential for abuse and dependence. HHS built its case by citing extensive research and the now-widespread doctor-recommended usage across the country. This new policy proposal would represent a sea change for the federal government.
“It really goes back and covers a lot of the misinformation that has been out there on the effects of cannabis over the last 20 years,” said Boris Jordan, the founder and executive chair of Curaleaf CURLF, -1.65% CURA, -3.41%. “It is easy to forget all the stuff that was being said about cannabis during the war on drugs. Now there is almost a 180-degree flip on the benefits and side effects of cannabis.”
Investing takeaways
Here are the five key investor takeaways from the proposed federal cannabis-law reform.
1. Rescheduling would rain cash on cannabis companies: The reform would boost sector cash flow by exempting companies from an Internal Revenue Service rule called 280E, which bars the deduction of operating expenses against Schedule I drug revenue. “It would release a lot of investible capital into the sector,” Jordan said.
Curaleaf, for example, could expect a $200 million boost, according to Jordan. For context, the company reported $47 million in operating cash flow and $92.3 million in net losses in the third quarter of 2023. If rescheduling happens in late 2024, 280E nullification would apply to the whole year, Jordan noted. Any eventual 280E exemption might only apply to medical-use sale revenue, however, which would blunt the benefit.
2. There’s a big short-term catalyst on the horizon: Near term, the next step would come in the form of a proposed rescheduling rule from the DEA. The timing is critical: It has to happen soon for the Biden administration to reap election-year boasting rights, obviously part of the plan here. To clear all the hurdles to get full rescheduling done before a potential administration change in January 2025, the DEA would have to publish its proposed rule by March or April at the latest.
3. A major risk is that HHS invented an entirely new standard to support rescheduling: Change happens slowly in law, so it’s jarring to see that HHS set up a new test for assessing the currently accepted medical use of cannabis. It’s a “newly minted standard,” said Shane Pennington, a controlled-substance regulatory expert and partner at law firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur.
The new test weighs the level of state-approved medical use. It also considers whether healthcare associations recognize a medical use, and “credible” evidence of a therapeutic effect. HHS found that 30,000 doctors recommend cannabis to 6 million patients, and that there’s an accepted medical use to treat anorexia, pain, and nausea and vomiting related to chemotherapy.
Because this is a new standard, it opens the HHS rescheduling process to legal challenges by cannabis opponents who may question the validity of the new standard. If the DEA ultimately approves rescheduling, cannabis opponents will likely launch more challenges in court. An overhang of uncertainty may persist for investors.
4. Another risk is HHS’s low bar on scientific evidence: This also opens reform efforts to potential attacks. To check the box on scientific support, HHS said it merely needed to see at least “some credible scientific support” for one medical use. Compared to the biopharma gold standard of double-blind random-sample trials, that’s a low hurdle.
Some HHS logic also seems questionable. The department concluded that there’s low potential for abuse, but then cited evidence that nearly a third of non-medical cannabis users consume virtually every day. That seems like a big number for a substance with supposedly low abuse potential.
But cannabis-law experts push back. “Both in thoroughness of the analysis and its tone, this is a very, very substantial document,” said Arnold & Porter partner Howard Sklamberg, another controlled-substance regulatory expert. “The part of the analysis covering the science and medicine would be very hard to challenge. You would have to show the agency was acting in an arbitrary way.” He doubts that will happen. “It would be hard for a judge to say ‘I am going to overturn the HHS science.’” Sklamberg is worth listening to because he chaired the Food and Drug Administration’s Marijuana Working Group, which set FDA cannabis policy.
5. The comment period could drag out: After the DEA drops its proposed rule, there would be a 60-day comment period. But the review process could take longer. “I expect there will be a lot of public participation,” said Pennington. He called the HHS proposal a “target-rich” environment. “There is plenty to argue about, and people are really fired up to engage.” If a robust debate ensues and a lot of experts call for hearings, the approval process could drag out.
Reform timing
Sklamberg expects full rescheduling to be complete by the summer. He reasoned that this should be the Biden administration’s target if it wants to keep cannabis reform off the typically crowded year-end legislative agenda. Pennington is skeptical, noting that the rescheduling process historically has dragged out for as many as nine years.
But these are unusual times politically, so something closer to Sklamberg’s timeline could make sense. It depends in part on how much the administration wants this. U.S. President Joe Biden is slipping in the polls even among young people, which provides motivation. Also consider the following: “This whole process was kicked off by an executive order, which is not normal,” said Sklamberg. “The fact that the White House initiated this process through an executive order shows it is a high priority.”
Stocks and exchange traded funds (ETFs)
For better-quality names, Poseidon Asset Management cannabis investor Morgan Paxhia favors Green Thumb Industries GTBIF, -1.68% and TerrAscend TSNDF, -4.35%. Green Thumb has a strong balance sheet and it’s in growth markets such as Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey. TerrAscend is improving its balance-sheet strength and expanding in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
I’ll suggest Curaleaf, in part because it’s the company positioning most aggressively for European growth as countries there liberalize cannabis rules. For exchange-traded funds, I own the more liquid AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis MSOS and the leveraged version, AdvisorShares MSOS 2X Daily MSOX.
Michael Brush is a columnist for MarketWatch. At the time of publication, he owned MSOS and MSOX. Brush has suggested GTBIF, CRLBF, MSOS and MSOX in Cabot Cannabis Investor. He has suggested MSOS and MSOX in his stock newsletter, Brush Up on Stocks. Follow him on X @mbrushstocks.
More: Green Thumb, Trulieve and other cannabis stocks up as much as 21% as details emerge on HHS recommendation to lower drug classification
Yep ! Zero, zip, zilch, nada..... nothing, nothing from this company!!! Precisely the regard [HE] gives all of us, the investor. Just .... DESPICABLE and PATHETIC > [Mayorkas]. Ya.... that's YOU German!!!! Hey, give us all another worthless pumping tweet. ZENwhatever.
Nice as we sit at .0002, what a joke this company has turned out to be. The split of the company into a new stock nowhere’s in sight audited financials nowhere’s in sight, profitable company nowhere’s in sight, management nowhere’s in sight. The only thing that is insight is .0001 and then back to silence once again.
$PVSP Artizen Oregon delivers first retail sales! Onward! pic.twitter.com/seMU04wVDL
— Pervasip Corp (@PervasipC) January 17, 2024
We did pretty good from the last time this was at .0001/2. Remember you were holding your apron open while 500+ million .0001s dumped in your lap. I wasn't far behind you. Well done. I'm not sure if a repeat performance would work as well, though.
Just my opinion, we’ve been here a while and Riss deals rarely return unless except for the great scam ,Uzbekistan, and as I’ve said many times I’ll never complain about that one. There are many reasons why we are at trip1/2, all of which are realistic assumptions as we don’t know what is going on and won’t until it happens, Riss style!!!
Zen
Thanks D for your thoughts!
We've reached the gates of hell at .0001 and nothing from PVSP! WOW
You will not get specific answers from him now or 10 years ago.
The answer to your first question is NONE of these politically and for the most part hypothetical articles will NO impact on such a geographically restricted pot Co with no revenue compared to the big pot Cos and big tobacco lobbying for proposed legislation.
Your observation re revenues is spot on which I believe is the reasoning for postponing the spinoff.
Zen
Lolololol, that’s funny, as if I need more trip ones. Why don’t you explain why anyone would cheer on pvsp right now. This should be interesting if you are honest enough to answer without BS!!
Zen
Forbes: What Would The Reclassification Of Marijuana Mean For The Industry?
Dario Sabaghi
Contributor
Aug 31, 2023,06:00am EDT
The announcement of the call for the reclassification of marijuana's current status has excited industry players, but it hasn't escaped criticism either.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sent on August 29 a letter to Anne Milgram, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, calling for the reclassification of marijuana as a Schedule III substance within the framework of the Controlled Substances Act, as first reported by Bloomberg News on Wednesday, August 30.
The DEA confirmed the letter sent from HHS, which will now start its own review.
Marijuana's reclassification is a small step toward full legalization, which would require "de-scheduling" marijuana, meaning the complete removal of the substance from the CSA.
However, moving marijuana's classification from Schedule I—containing high-risk substances like heroin, LSD, and ecstasy—to Schedule III, where drugs like ketamine with lower perceived risk can be legally prescribed, would represent a significant shift for the marijuana industry.
In political terms, the move would give President Joe Biden a partial achievement as he approaches next year's election.
Biden introduced initiatives to mitigate penalties linked to marijuana use in October last year. This included pardoning federal simple possession offenses and encouraging governors to follow suit for state offenses. Furthermore, he requested the HHS secretary and the U.S. Attorney General to assess marijuana's classification, considering its medical applications, abuse potential, safety, and dependence risks.
Moving marijuana to Schedule III would be the most significant federal reform of this substance in modern history. But what would change for the marijuana industry?
Benefits for businesses from marijuana reclassification
MORE FROMFORBES ADVISOR
Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of September 2023
ByKevin PayneContributor
Best 5% Interest Savings Accounts of September 2023
ByCassidy HortonContributor
Marijuana operators would have preferred complete descheduling of marijuana, allowing for more flexibility to fully capitalize on the sector's potential.
Patrick Rea, managing director at Poseidon Garden Ventures, stated that full de-scheduling is preferable and likely the most suitable option for marijuana. However, Matt Hawkins, founder and managing partner of Entourage Effect Capital, noted that reclassification could substantially transform the landscape for all legal operators nationwide.
In practical terms, the reclassification of marijuana would mainly impact the taxation of marijuana companies throughout the nation.
Brady Cobb, CEO of Sunburn Cannabis, explained that the reclassification would be a massive step forward, validating the medicinal benefits of marijuana.
"The move will also allow for interstate commerce while removing the draconian effects of section 280E of the tax code," he said.
Under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, the federal law stipulates that businesses involved in trafficking Schedule I or II controlled substances, including marijuana, cannot claim tax deductions or credits. Marijuana's Schedule I current status hinders businesses from deducting essential expenses on their federal tax returns. Essentially, marijuana entrepreneurs are required to pay taxes on their entire revenue without the advantage of using business expenses to lower their taxable income. If marijuana were reclassified as Schedule III, this scenario would change, benefiting marijuana companies.
David Goubert, CEO of Ayr Wellness, also highlights that rescheduling will bring many benefits, including creating further opportunities for medical marijuana research and signaling to the criminal justice system that marijuana is not a high enforcement priority.
In fact, Dennis Curran, CEO of Acreage, emphasizes that there is still much work ahead. However, he acknowledges that the announcement indicates the Food and Drug Administration's recognition, which the HHS recommendation is built upon, of the potential health benefits of marijuana.
"We urge the DEA to follow this science-forward recommendation and to take the next crucial step, giving our industry the resources and validity needed to reach our full potential and drive success," he said.
Boris Jordan, executive chairman of Curaleaf, said that the announcement represents a significant political advancement and added, "It's past time" for political leaders "to listen to the voters on this issue," hoping that the reclassification "occurs promptly."
"We will not stop fighting for legislative reform - which is critical for the protection of employees, patients, customers, and businesses around the country," he said.
The news further triggered a positive response in the marijuana stock market, resulting in significant double-digit jumps for major players. In fact, Federal relaxation of marijuana classification could potentially enable major stock exchanges to list marijuana-related businesses and open doors for foreign companies to sell products in the United States.
Critics on marijuana reclassification
However, the reclassification of marijuana would still fail to address other crucial issues regarding the current status of marijuana in the country, and the announcement of the reclassification of marijuana hasn't been immune from criticism.
In a press statement, the Drug Policy Alliance explained that moving to Schedule III wouldn't adequately tackle the serious harms in communities affected by marijuana criminalization. The CSA's control would keep much of marijuana conduct federally illegal. State marijuana programs, both medical and recreational, would stay federally banned, leading to potential arrests. Noncitizens might face deportation for marijuana involvement. Federal arrests and prosecutions would continue, old arrests wouldn't be expunged, and many would remain imprisoned for marijuana offenses. This would also maintain the denial of federal benefits to those with prior marijuana convictions and impede fair competition between small, minority-owned businesses and larger corporations in the marijuana industry.
The Minority Cannabis Business Association notes in a press statement sent by email that although some see progress in the HHS suggestion to shift marijuana to Schedule III, it's crucial to realize that reclassification won't stop marijuana consumer arrests in prohibition states. During his 2020 campaign, President Biden pledged to "decriminalize" marijuana, a promise achievable solely by fully removing the substance from the CSA.
"We urge President Biden to make good on his promise to end arrests for marijuana and fully remove marijuana from the CSA. This is the only way to ensure equity, social justice, and economic opportunities in the cannabis industry," the MCBA's press statement reads.
NORML deputy director Paul Armentano said in a press statement that federal marijuana policy reform should bridge the gap between federal and state laws. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III doesn't effectively reconcile the conflict between state legalization and federal regulations, maintaining the divide between state and federal marijuana policies.
"Just as it is intellectually dishonest to categorize cannabis in the same placement as heroin, it is equally disingenuous to treat cannabis in the same manner as anabolic steroids," he said, referencing the substances listed in Schedule III of the CSA.
The timing of when the rescheduling could take effect remains uncertain. However, according to some experts, it might potentially be implemented in early 2024, a few months ahead of the 2024 Presidential elections.
so once you get 0.0001s you get bullish and see this company prosper....so far 0.0002 wont do...LMAO
Rescheduling Decision announcement is imminent !!!!!
Top Biden Health Official In Touch With DEA About Marijuana Rescheduling Recommendation
Published 2 hours ago on January 15, 2024By Kyle Jaeger
The head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says his agency has “communicated” the agency’s “position” on marijuana rescheduling to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and has continued to offer additional information to assist with the final determination.
HHS for the first time confirmed that it had recommended moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) on Friday, releasing a trove of documents it submitted to DEA last year amid a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit initiated by attorney Matt Zorn.
Xavier Becerra, secretary of HHS, told The New York Times in a new interview that his department “communicated to them our position” and “put it all out there for them,” referring to the comprehensive scientific review it conducted and submitted to DEA as part of a scheduling directive from President Joe Biden.
State Governors Urge Biden to Reschedule Marijuana by Year-End for Economic and Safety Benefits
“We continue to offer them any follow up, technical information if they have any questions,” Becerra said.
The status of DEA’s review is currently unknown, though some suspect the release of the cannabis materials in the FOIA lawsuit may indicate the scheduling decision announcement is imminent. Marijuana Moment reached out to DEA for clarification on the timing, and a spokesperson referred the inquiry to the Justice Department, which has not responded to requests for comment.
Congressional lawmakers, meanwhile, have touted the HHS Schedule III recommendation following Friday’s disclosure of the review documents.
“I’m encouraged by this news & urge the DEA to follow this common-sense scientific recommendation to move cannabis to Schedule III,” Rep. Dwight Evans (D-PA) said on Friday. “I continue to support full legalization but this would be a positive action.”
Thank you for all the news Bjones2..
How will the Marijuana reclassification effect PVSP & Zen?
The lack of volume tells me no interest even at these prices. Peeps looking at the revenue and taking a pass!! What's going to change the face of this public entity!! 🤕🤕🤕
Marijuana reclassification proposed over lower public health risk, documents show
By Fenit Nirappil, David Ovalle and Dan Diamond
Updated January 13, 2024 at 9:45 a.m. EST|Published January 12, 2024 at 8:45 p.m. EST
The Department of Health and Human Services in August recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration change marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug. (Arin Yoon for The Washington Post)
Federal health officials determined marijuana poses a lower public health risk than other controlled substances and offers possible medical benefits before they proposed ending its designation as among the riskiest drugs, according to documents released Friday.
The extensive scientific review illuminates the rationale underpinning a recommendation last summer that marked a significant shift in how the federal government has treated a drug that is legal for a majority of Americans to purchase. This is the first time the Department of Health and Human Services has publicly acknowledged marijuana’s medical use.
The health agency in August recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration change marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug, a designation reserved for substances that have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. The classification has long been a source of criticism that one of the most commonly used drugs is in the same category as heroin and LSD. The DEA has yet to act on the recommendation.
Marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes in 38 states and D.C. Federal officials proposed classifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug, in the same category as substances that can be obtained with a prescription such as anabolic steroids, ketamine and testosterone.
In the analysis conducted by the Food and Drug Administration, officials determined marijuana is less harmful than other drugs. The nation’s overdose crisis has reached staggering proportions, with opioids and other drugs killing more than 100,000 each year.
“Although abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of harmful consequences, including substance use disorder, they are relatively less common and less harmful than some other comparator drugs,” the document said.
Federal officials previously declined to answer questions about their justifications for recommending rescheduling and released heavily redacted documents outlining their rationale in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Washington Post. Matt Zorn, a lawyer in Texas, first released the unredacted documents Friday in his newsletter after successfully suing HHS for their release. HHS confirmed the authenticity of the documents.
Federal Scientists Recommend Easing Restrictions on Marijuana
New Your Times
In newly disclosed documents, federal researchers find that cannabis may have medical uses and is less likely to cause harm than drugs like heroin.
Federal scientists conclude there is credible evidence for certain medical uses of marijuana
The agency recommended loosening federal restrictions on marijuana in August based on the scientific review.
Joy Panyanouvong trims marijuana plants.
The Drug Enforcement Administration will have the final say in any changes to marijuana’s classification under federal law. | Eugene Johnson/AP
By NATALIE FERTIG
01/12/2024 09:40 PM EST
The Department of Health and Human Services concluded that marijuana is less harmful than other dangerous drugs and that there is some evidence of its medical benefits in recommending loosening federal restrictions on the drug.
The agency on Friday released a 252-page review outlining the reasoning that the Food and Drug Administration used to come to this conclusion. It states that that “there exists some credible scientific support for the medical use of marijuana in at least one of the indications for which there is widespread current experience in the United States.”
This and the other findings of the review are a major departure in how the federal government views cannabis. For the last 60-plus years, cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I drug — the same as heroin — under the Controlled Substances Act, which means it’s a substance of high abuse potential and no accepted medical use.
The review was conducted at the request of President Joe Biden, who instructed HHS in an executive order issued in October 2022 to look through all available research on cannabis and recommend if the drug should be moved within the list of federally controlled drugs or removed from it altogether. Bloomberg first reported in August that HHS had recommended marijuana be moved to Schedule III, and the release of these documents on Friday confirms that.
The Drug Enforcement Administration will have the final say in any changes to marijuana’s classification under federal law, with a decision expected in the coming months.
The documents were released to cannabis lawyers Matt Zorn and Shane Pennington and published on their blog On Drugs. The documents were released as a result of a lawsuit brought by Zorn and Pennington.
Cannabis legalization has spread rapidly across the country over the last decade. Two dozen states — representing more than half the U.S population — have legalized possession and use for adults, while 38 states have established medical marijuana programs.
The cannabis review was based on eight different scientific criteria, including its potential for abuse, the state of current scientific knowledge and the likelihood of psychological or physiological dependence.
While there are dozens of medical conditions people use cannabis for, the FDA looked at seven: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The review “identified mixed findings of effectiveness across indications.” Some data was inconclusive, some was favorable, and the “largest evidence base for effectiveness exists for marijuana use within the pain indication (in particular, neuropathic pain).”
That’s a big change because marijuana’s position in Schedule I indicated that the federal government believes there is no indication of medical use for marijuana — and this review unequivocally counters that.
The FDA also determined that the public health risk and potential for abuse are lower than other scheduled drugs. The FDA’s review concluded that while 10 percent of substance use disorder admissions in 2020 were for marijuana, the risk is much lower than other dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine. They decided this after going through numerous databases that keep track of ER visits, overdose deaths, hospitalizations and more.
Similarly, they found that cannabis use disorder — which is defined as psychological dependence — ranges from 10 to 20 percent in people who regularly use cannabis. That’s lower than tobacco, opiates and alcohol.
Up to 40 to 50 percent of people who use marijuana regularly can also experience physical dependence, but the FDA concluded that the symptoms are mild — things like irritability, difficulty sleeping, anxiety and restlessness. Some people also experience depression, physical discomfort, sweating and headaches.
In terms of the scope, duration and significance of abuse, the FDA found that alcohol, heroin and cocaine have the highest adverse consequences, while marijuana ranks lower. Notably, it was in the lowest ranked group for serious medical outcomes such as death.
“Although abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of harmful consequences, including substance use disorder, they are relatively less common and less harmful than some other comparator drugs,” the review read.
FILED UNDER: HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FDA, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
Followers
|
855
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
3
|
Posts (Total)
|
183628
|
Created
|
10/04/08
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators jobynimble DSherman allenc Urocka |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |