It is now over 3 months, since the laughable CEO Seth Shaw announced personally acquiring 1,500,000 TAUG shares, but still no SEC Form 4 filing. What is this clown trying to pull? Shaw publicly committed to filing the Form 4 the week of the stock purchases, which reportedly took place during the period May 5 - May 9, 2022.
Ah yes! The investors have gotta love it. CEO Seth Shaw has now stiffed the shareholders for two quarters in a row. Shaw has chosen to ignore a CEO's fiduciary obligation to regularly apprise the Company's owners, the shareholders, as to the financial condition of the Corporation.
The 2022 Annual Report is long past due, but now the Q1 2023 report is nowhere to be found. Of course Shaw blamed these failures to report on the complexity of the regulatory environment. This flimsy excuse is most interesting, given little has actually changed since TAUG's quarterly reports for Fiscal 2020 and 2021 were filed, as required by the SEC. Yes indeed, it is complete BS!
No one, aside from the insiders (and most likely Shaw's lender buddies) have the foggiest idea regarding TAUG's financial health. Here's a thought! TAUG is so deeply in the toilet, Shaw cannot scrounge up enough cash to pay accountants and auditors to produce the quarterly reports.
How many shares of the financially crushed Vistagen (VTGN) is TAUG still holding? Oops....nobody knows, because the investors have not seen a TAUG Balance Sheet since the quarter ended December 31, 2021. The VTGN shares lost nearly 90% of their value in one day a few weeks ago. If TAUG was still holding the VTGN shares, it was a multi-hundred thousand dollar hit to the Company's Asset line.
Financial guru Seth Shaw is joke! The amount of investor funds that Shaw has trashed chasing hugely speculative "opportunities" has been obscene. Shaw views himself as a financial wizard; however, as a consequence of his oft proven lack of acumen and thorough due diligence, the TAUG investors have gotten creamed by idiotic business decisions for the last 10 years! Seth Shaw has pocketed roughly $2 million in compensation, while the shareholders have been treated to watching Rome burning on a daily basis!
I've only seen an amended lateness notification once before and the end followed shortly thereafter....there were no further shareholder communications.
Maybe the consultant knows something. He's still active, just not here. Wallpapering with warrants maybe.
Ok I’ll do that
A Form 4 filing is required IF he actually bought 1.5 million shares. The only possibilities are:
1. He didn't and the press release is fraudulent.
2. He did and his failure to file the Form 4 is evidence of his crookedness and/or incompetence.
The stock price has fallen 96% since January of last year in spite of plenty of news.
Put the wishful thinking on hold, step back a bit and have a good look at this thing. It's total crap.
Not sure, the stock price will fall with zero news
Per the TAUG PR and your post: "Chief Executive Officer, Seth M. Shaw, completed an insider purchase for 1,500,000 shares of Tauriga Sciences Inc. common stock (quoted on the OTCQB - symbol: “TAUG”). This Insider Purchase was completed between the dates of May 5-9, 2022 and a corresponding Form 4 will be filed this week. "
The market price during that period ranged from $.009-.02. The prices he actually paid aren't known because HE NEVER FILED THE REQUIRED FORM 4. WHY?
Is he crooked, incompetent or both?
A thoughtful, fact-derived response. Thanks!
Is TAUG shipping CBD-laced chewing gum from its e-commerce site in violation the Federal law, i.e. selling ingestible CBD? Best guess, I think not. So what is the business development issue? Again best guess, few know about the product and/or its value proposition! Welcome to Marketing 101, i.e. visibility and demand creation. Check out the marketing gurus/consultants Shaw has engaged, then check out how much money Shaw has spent on these folks! Good marketers are not bought for pennies! If Shaw's salary instead went to marketing, TAUG might actually be making some headway!
Can TAUG survive another year under the CEO Seth Shaw's reign? Not only is TAUG hugely under-funded, but Shaw obviously doesn't know jack about basic marketing and new product due diligence, plus the regulatory entanglement in Washington D.C. isn't going to improve anytime soon.
IMO, your response nailed it! Contrary to the oft stated opinion on this TAUG Board, there will be no Federal cannabis legislation in the foreseeable future. And surprise, surprise...CEO Seth Shaw will continue pocketing his gross over-compensation on the backs of the TAUG investors! Samo, samo...just like it has been for the last decade!
“If the product is for sale on Amazon or like sites, it is assumed the product is legal.”
Not with drugs imo, the vast majority of the public will refrain from shipping CBD/weed related products until legalization.
The hemp/CBD industry is in limbo until the Feds clear a path to allow retail sales of ingestible CBD products; topicals are allowed but that is not how people need to use CBD on a regular basis. The industry is a year away from potentially major growth. However, the caveat is that Congress will need to be the body that does the heavy lifting, and we all know the certainty of that happening, maybe 50/50(?).
Just this week, work started to make hemp/CBD a major component of the 2023 Farm Bill. The 2018 Farm Bill opened the door a crack, but FDA proceeded to close the door with their dithering. Hopefully Congress can work around FDA to get CBD "legalized" (emphasis on hopefully).
And imo it’s time to start reinvesting any money he collected monthly back into the company, the trend is towards legalization.
The more States that legalize the more chance at federal legalization same as same sex marriage, the consumer is confused about the legality of the industry in general, CBD weed and hemp etc, and their relation to State lines currently, even if you aren’t. The consumers are the buyers who want clarity and trust in a regulated industry.
I just noticed TAUG's 52-week high is .07. Today the shares are trading at 1/10 of the 52-week high, i.e. .007. Needless to say, investors are far less than enamored with CEO Seth Shaw and his laughable operation, as the share price has plummeted by 90% in just the last year. How 'bout that ineptly marketed CBD-laced chewing gum?
Does Shaw EVER do any due diligence and/or actual market research? Of course the one thing CEO Seth Shaw does do is never misses a monthly paycheck. It's been going on for 10 years! Shaw has pocketed well over $1.5 million, while the TAUG shareholders have gotten slaughtered by Shaw's whims of fantasy.
What does State-regulated marijuana have to do with TAUG and it's legal NON-MARIJUANA chewing gum???? 19 States, including California, the most populace State in the nation, plus Washington D.C., have already legalized recreational MJ, but even this has done little or nothing to support TAUG's CBD chewing gum business. So how will more State marijuana ballot initiatives in 2022 have any impact on Tauriga Sciences? I believe the referenced poster has already answered the question in previous posts. It will have no impact....right?
“Marijuana-Related Ballot Initiatives and Referenda:
POSTED ON JULY 29, 2022
Voters in several states will decide on marijuana-related ballot measures in November. Here is an update of where these efforts currently stand.
The group Responsible Growth Arkansas, led by former Arkansas Democratic House minority leader Eddie Armstrong, submitted more than double the signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot. On Friday, July 29, state officials verified that proponents had collected sufficient signatures. Now the state Board of Election Commissioners must approve the name and ballot title of the measure — at which time it will be certified for inclusion on the November ballot.
The proposed constitutional amendment allows adults 21 and older to purchase and possess up to an ounce of cannabis. Home cultivation would not be permitted, and the measure does not contain provisions to expunge past records or to provide for opportunities for social equity applicants.
Lawmakers have approved a proposed Constitutional Amendment, House Bill 1, which asks voters: “Do you favor the legalization of adult–use cannabis in the State of Maryland?” State lawmakers also approved complementary legislation, HB 837, which defines marijuana possession limits and facilitates the automatic review and expungement of past criminal records.
If approved by voters, the referendum will take effect on July 1, 2023. At that time, adults will be legally permitted to possess up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis and/or 12 grams of cannabis concentrates. Possessing amounts between 1.5 ounces and 2.5 ounces would be subject to civil fines, while the possession of greater quantities would be subject to existing criminal penalties.
Lawmakers would still need to enact additional legislation next session to establish rules and regulations governing a legally regulated cannabis marketplace.
A citizens’ initiative sponsored by the group Legal Missouri 2022 seeks to allow those 21 years and older to possess, purchase, consume, and cultivate marijuana while allowing those with nonviolent marijuana-related offenses to automatically have their criminal records expunged.
In May, representatives announced that they submitted more than 385,000 signatures on Sunday. That is more than double the total (171,592) necessary to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. However, because the proposed measure is a constitutional amendment, advocates are required to obtain a set percentage of signatures (eight percent) from six of the state’s eight congressional districts. Officials on Tuesday said that their initial counts only verified a sufficient number of signatures from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th districts.
In response, Dan Viets, Chair of the Legal Missouri 2022 Advisory Board and Executive Director for Missouri NORML, said, “We are in the process of working with the MO Secretary of State to show why local county clerks have undercounted valid signatures. We will have the appropriate number of validated signatures by the August 9th deadline.”
Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana (NMM) have submitted signatures supporting two separate measures for the 2022 ballot: 1.) The Medical Cannabis Patient Protection Act, which protects patients with serious health conditions and their caregivers from arrest, and 2.) The Medical Cannabis Commission Act, which regulates private businesses to provide medical cannabis to qualified patients.
In 2020, activists met the state’s signature requirement, but nonetheless had their measure struck from the ballot after the Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion finding that the initiative’s language violated the state’s single subject rule requirement. That is why this year’s effort is divided into two separate measures.
NMM turned in over 90,000 signatures for each of the medical cannabis legalization measures — just above the roughly 87,000 necessary to qualify them for the November ballot. In addition to the campaign’s slim margin, activists are also involved in a legal fight over the state’s ballot access laws.
Representatives from the group New Approach North Dakota have turned in 25,762 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. That total is roughly 10,000 signatures above the number of signatures necessary (15,582) to qualify it for the 2022 ballot. Those signatures await verification from state officials.
The proposed measure would legalize the possession of one ounce of cannabis, up to four grams of cannabis concentrate, and up to 500 milligrams of cannabis in an infused product; and the cultivation of up to three cannabis plants. Historically, North Dakota has long had one of the highest marijuana arrests rates in the nation, despite having among the lowest reported marijuana use of any state.
Advocates with the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol have agreed to a settlement that will postpone any opportunity for voters to decide on a citizens’ initiated marijuana measure until November 2023. During the interim, NORML Appalachia of Ohio is working with local partners to target municipalities across the state for local measures to eliminate criminal and civil penalties for marijuana possession. In past years, numerous cities throughout the state have approved local measures depenalizing marijuana-related activities.
Representatives from the New Approach PAC recently turned in over 164,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office in an effort to place a binding, statewide marijuana legalization initiative (State Question 820) on the November ballot. That total is well above the number of signatures necessary (94,911) to qualify for the 2022 ballot.
SQ 820 allows adults 21 and older to purchase and possess up to one ounce of cannabis and grow up to six mature plants and six seedlings for personal use. The measure also provides pathways for the resentencing and/or expunging of criminal records. Because SQ 820 does not alter the Oklahoma Constitution, fewer signatures are needed to place the measure on the November ballot.
Earlier this year, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt claimed that voters were misled when they approved medical cannabis legalization. In June, he signed legislation into law (House Bill 3208) imposing a moratorium on the issuance of any new cannabis business licenses. While campaigning for Governor, Stitt said that he personally opposed legalizing marijuana for adults and that he would campaign against it, but he also acknowledged that he would respect the will of the voters should they decide in favor of it.
For the second consecutive election, voters in South Dakota will decide on a ballot measure to legalize marijuana use by those age 21 or older. In May, the Secretary of State’s office confirmed that advocates had secured the necessary number of signatures to place Initiated Measure 27 on the November ballot. It permits adults to possess (up to one ounce), home-cultivate (up to three mature plants), and/or transfer without remuneration limited quantities of cannabis. The measure does not seek to establish a regulatory framework governing the licensed production and retail sale of marijuana.
Advocates limited the scope of the measure after a previous, more comprehensive measure that had been approved by voters in 2020 was struck down by the state Supreme Court.
The only way to change marijuana laws statewide in Texas is through the legislature, which meets every two years for approximately 140 days. However, localities have discretion for implementing first chance and/or diversion programs and more. For cities that are “home rule cities”, they can also pass any regulations or laws that it deems necessary unless the state law prohibits it.
Ground Game Texas is working in several home rule cities across Texas to depenalize personal cannabis possession. Recently, voters in the city of Austin, Texas overwhelmingly approved a local ballot measure, Proposition A, depenalizing marijuana possession and prohibiting police from executing ‘no knock’ warrants.
Similar efforts in the city of Elgin (pop. 10,231), Denton (pop. 139,734), San Marcos (pop. 64,053), and Killeen (pop. 148,573) have qualified for the November ballot. Harker Heights (pop. 31,657) area activists have also submitted their signatures for verification with the hopes of being on the November ballot. Learn about volunteer opportunities.”
There is value to buy Taug because the price of Taug might be lower than any manufacturer’s price, especially if distribution deals currently in place could be strengthened which they likely would be if a bigger company bought Taug, the new and increased funding would promise the manufacturer more manufacturing which allows the manufacturer to stay more independent as well. This is why some firms might buy a small company in the US before they bought its factories in China, it might take longer all things being equal and all things are not equal across the financial and legal boundaries of States and countries. Any company in general that has an e-commerce business in place has value to bigger companies that see opportunity to ramp it up, same with companies that are revenue effective but in too much debt.
They can provide the public with billions in advertising the public won’t believe it until the media reports it is legal.
I find the following comment interesting in light of the earlier claims and the Senate Appropriations Committee Report.
Contrary to the claim in the post, TAUG does not have chewing gum. Tauriga Sciences has a contract with a chewing gum manufacturer to distribute TAUG's versions of the chewing gum. TAUG is basically a distributor, i.e. a middleman.
The chewing gum manufacturer HAS the IP associated with its chewing gum, not Tauriga Sciences. Re: TAUG, there is little of value for a bigger more financially sound company to buy! Want proof? Check-out TAUG's balance sheet.
“is already very legal and can be sold via interstate commerce.”
You know that, but the general public doesn’t. The general public are the consumers.
“Just wait until there is chewing gum, coming from the big, well financed players, which is laced with CBD and THC or just THC!!!”
Have a big player buy this company then for .03 cents a share, it already has chewing gum and sales. Oh, maybe that is why the annual report wasn’t filed on time because Taug is in the process of being sold to a bigger company and there is a NDA. If there is a sense in the industry that Congress can’t get their job done then sell the company, and buy millions of shares in advance of that sales process which is exactly what occurred this year as per the PR and could occur soon again.
Per the posted Appropriations Committee report, there is nothing in the proposed bill that even comes close to legalizing the general use of cannabis. Plus, there is little doubt a final bill is months away. Passage certainly will not happen before the August recess.
CEO Seth Shaw can blow all the smoke he chooses, but the facts are clear! The gum business is a disaster. The gum business has produced a meager $861,318 in net revenue over the last 45 months. Conversely, TAUG has absorbed $10,027,061 in losses from operations over that same 45 months. Yes indeed, $861K in net revenue and over $10 million in operating losses, which will require over $9 million in future profits for the chewing gum to break-even! Just for grins, what's TAUG's biggest operating expense item? It is not marketing or research and development! G&A by far outstrips any other expense category. Guess what. G&A includes salaries and consulting fees. Yep! Shaw continues to receive his truckload of compensation, despite TAUG getting whacked with losses for the last 10 years! What's more, the G&A line more than doubled, when comparing the first 9 months of fiscal 2022 vs. fiscal 2021. Unfortunately, CEO Seth Shaw CHOSE to forego providing an Annual Report for fiscal 2022. The report should have been transmitted to the SEC as of June 30, 2022!
No CBD advertising, while awaiting Federal legislation to legalize cannabis? Oh really????? I suggest Googling "CBD Advertisements"! The ads promoting CBD are all over the various forms of media! Most folks now understand that CBD, minus THC, is already very legal and can be sold via interstate commerce. Wanna see real problems for TAUG? Just wait until there is chewing gum, coming from the big, well financed players, which is laced with CBD and THC or just THC!!!
“Senate Committee Calls For Marijuana, Psychedelics And Hemp Reforms In Draft Spending LegislationPublished 20 hours ago on July 29, 2022
Senate Democrats have released a massive package of spending bills and related reports for the 2023 Fiscal Year, including numerous provisions that deal with issues such as state-level medical marijuana protections, psychedelics research and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cannabis policy.
The newly unveiled legislation from Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) contains many familiar drug policy sections, some of which overlap with spending measures that were approved in the House this month. Both chambers have also notably excluded an existing rider that has blocked Washington, D.C. from implementing a system of legal marijuana sales—a decision that’s already drawn the ire of Senate Republicans.
And while the House has previously addressed psychedelic issues through the appropriations process, this marks the first time that the Senate has included report language that urges federal agencies to promote research into the therapeutic potential of substances like psilocybin.
Advocates hoped that the Senate would insert language in the base bill that would provide broad protections for all state and U.S. territory cannabis programs, but as introduced, the legislation only maintains a longstanding rider preventing the use of Justice Department funds to interfere in medical cannabis programs.
Of course, it’s still possible that the Senate could adopt the more holistic language as an amendment down the line, as the House did again this year. But Republican appropriators have already signaled that they will put up a fight over modest cannabis reforms such as the exclusion of the D.C. marijuana rider.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) voiced opposition to the removal of “legacy riders” in a statement on Thursday, for example, specifically complaining that the legislation “clears the way for marijuana legalization in Washington, D.C., and allows federal funds to be used to finance needle exchange programs in the nation’s capital without restriction.”
The newly released documents have not yet been approved by the Appropriations Committee, and at this point represent a starting point for further negotiations as proposed by the chairman. It remains to be seen to what extent the panel will go through a full markup process for each individual spending bill ahead of the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
Here’s a breakdown of the drug policy provisions of the Senate Appropriations Committee spending bills and reports:
Medical marijuana programs in states and U.S. territories would continue to be protected from Justice Department interference under a rider for the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) spending bill that’s been annually renewed each year since 2014.
“SEC. 531. None of the funds made available under this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”
A summary of the CJS spending legislation from the committee majority touts the provision, though it’s mischaracterized.
“This bill again contains language preventing the Justice Department from interfering with states that have medical marijuana laws, ensuring that the prescribing and dispensing of medical marijuana in those states is both legal and regulated,” the summary states. (The rider doesn’t ensure that the programs are legal or regulated; it simply restricts the use of DOJ funds to enforce the ongoing federal prohibition that in fact continues to remain on the books.)
“Patients and doctors in states that have approved medical marijuana need to know that they are safe from arrest and prosecution by the Federal government,” the summary says.
One of the more novel sections of the appropriations legislation addresses psychedelics research, with the committee urging federal health agencies to keep funding studies that look into the medical value of substances like psilocybin.
“Psychedelic Research.—The Committee encourages NIH to continue research funding for psychedelic medicines development and encourage psychedelic research at the NIH Clinical Center. The Committee also encourages NIH to continue to work with FDA in developing and supporting public private collaborations, including academic researchers and medicine developers, to advance all forms of psychedelic research for therapeutic purposes.”
Another new section addresses VA cannabis policy, with the committee expressing “concerns” about the department interfering in veterans’ medical marijuana access, including by preventing VA doctors from issuing cannabis recommendations to patients.
“Medical Cannabis.—The Committee has concerns with any effort by VA to interfere with the ability of a veteran to participate in a medicinal marijuana program approved by a State, deny any services from the Department to a veteran who is participating in such a program, and limit or interfere with the ability of a healthcare provider of the Department to make appropriate recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply with such a program.”
As noted, the appropriations legislation omits what’s known as the “Harris rider,” after Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), that has blocked D.C. from using its local dollars to allow commercial cannabis sales even though voters approved adult-use legalization in 2014.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chair of the Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee, highlighted that decision, saying that the bill “will increase transparency in political fundraising, strengthen our election security, remove harmful legacy riders that unfairly restrict the District of Columbia’s ability to fund reproductive services and regulate cannabis, and much more.”
While it remains to be seen whether that provision will stay out of the final package that’s delivered to the president’s desk, the mayor of D.C. did recently sign a bill that allows people to self-certify as medical cannabis patients in the District, effectively circumventing the congressional barrier. Also, for what it’s worth, President Joe Biden’s past two budget requests have maintained the Harris rider despite broad Democratic opposition.
There are several research-focused report sections dealing with marijuana. Appropriators directed federal agencies to take steps to support studies into the Schedule I substances and emphasized their ongoing concerns about research barriers under federal prohibition.
“Marijuana Research.—The Committee is concerned that marijuana policies on the Federal level and in the States (medical marijuana, recreational use, etc.) are being changed without the benefit of scientific research to help guide those decisions. NIH is encouraged to continue supporting a full range of research on the health effects of marijuana and its components, including research, to understand how marijuana policies affect public health.”
“Cannabis Research.—Although concrete steps have been taken towards ameliorating the regulatory and supply issues hampering cannabis research in the U.S., funding levels have not kept pace with widespread use of cannabis and substantial clinical interest in the field. Cannabis is fully legal in 18 States and the District of Columbia, effectively so in 20 others that permit some form of medical marijuana, and consumed by nearly half of American teens and adults at some time in their lives, yet there is surprisingly little information about its effects on body chemistry and cognition. Meanwhile, limited data exists on the clinical efficacy of cannabis despite this use. The Committee encourages NIH to continue to fund cannabis research, with an emphasis on medical cannabis therapeutic development for patients. The Committee encourages NIH to expand its current research agenda across its institutes, including additional research on higher potency THC, alternative cannabis formulations and extracts, and additional minor cannabinoids. The Committee also encourages NIH to continue to conduct research on the potential medical uses of cannabis, such as chronic pain, appetite stimulation, immune diseases, cancer, metabolic and digestive disorders, epilepsy, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, sleep disorders, and a variety of mental health conditions such as anxiety and PTSD. In addition, the Committee recognizes the benefits of cross-institute collaboration in the HEAL Initiative. Therefore, the Committee urges NIH to take an integrated approach to cannabis research, including by forming a cross-institute research group.”
Barriers to Research.—The Committee is concerned that restrictions associated with Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act effectively limits the amount and type of research that can be conducted on certain Schedule I drugs, especially opioids, marijuana or its component chemicals, and new synthetic drugs and analogs. At a time when we need as much information as possible about these drugs, including research on their therapeutic potential and on overdose reversal agents, we should be lowering regulatory and other barriers to conducting this research. The Committee appreciates NIDA’s completion of a report on the barriers to research that result from the classification of drugs and compounds as Schedule I substances, including the challenges researchers face as a result of limited access to sources of marijuana including dispensary products.
The spending report for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) also talks about exploring alternatives to opioids, which appropriators say should include studies into the therapeutic potential of kratom, a plant associated with pain-relieving qualities.
“Combating Opioid Overdoses.—According to CDC, there were more than 107,000 drug overdose deaths during the 12-month period ending in January 2022. The Committee notes and commends NIDA for its funding of research to examine the potential for kratom to reduce opioid use among people with opioid use disorder, given kratom’s reduced addiction and overdose liability as compared to opioids.”
The House spending legislation also tackles the issue of kratom research.
The new Senate proposals also contain ample report language on hemp and its derivatives like CBD, including a mandate that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implement enforcement discretion guidance for the marketing of the legal cannabinoid as the agency continues to look into rulemaking.
“Cannabis and Cannabis Derivatives.—The Committee notes that budget did not request additional resources for Cannabis and Cannabis Derivatives activities, and therefore directs the FDA to maintain funding levels to support regulatory activities, including developing policy, and for the FDA to continue to perform its existing regulatory responsibilities, including review of product applications, inspections, enforcement, and targeted research for cannabis-derived substances, such as cannabidiol [CBD]. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the FDA shall issue a policy of enforcement discretion with regard to certain products containing CBD meeting the definition of hemp as defined by section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1964 (7 U.S.C. 1639). Such enforcement discretion shall be in effect until the FDA establishes a process for stakeholders to notify the FDA of use of CBD in products that include safety studies for intended use per product and 112 makes a determination about such product. In addition, the FDA is encouraged to consider existing and ongoing medical research related to CBD that is being undertaken pursuant to an Investigational New Drug application in the development of a regulatory pathway for CBD in products under the jurisdiction of the FDA and to ensure that any future regulatory activity does not discourage the development of new drugs. The Committee also encourages the FDA to partner with an academic institution to expand sampling studies of CBD products currently on the market.”
The CJS bill, as well as appropriations legislation for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), contains longstanding provisions to safeguard state hemp programs from interference.
“SEC. 530. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (‘Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research’) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.”
“SEC. 741. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be used—
(1) in contravention of section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940), subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, or section 10114 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018; or
(2) to prohibit the transportation, processing, sale, or use of hemp, or seeds of such plant, that is grown or cultivated in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 or subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, within or outside the State in which the hemp is grown or cultivated.”
The draft also says the committee is concerned about existing regulations for the federally legal crop such as an “arbitrary” THC limit and limited industry access to certain USDA grant and insurance programs. It also encouraged DEA to continue developing field testing technology to help law enforcement distinguish hemp from marijuana.
“Hemp.—The Committee is concerned that the level of allowable THC content in hemp may be arbitrary and pose a burden on hemp producers that is not supported by scientific evidence. The Committee directs USDA to work with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Drug Enforcement Administration to study and report to Congress on whether there is scientific basis for the current limit of 0.3 percent THC in hemp and suggest alternative levels if necessary.
The Committee is concerned that producers of high value, horticultural hemp are being prevented from accessing USDA programs designed for specialty crops, including the Specialty Crop Block Grants and crop insurance. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the Committee directs the Secretary to establish a dual designation for hemp as a specialty crop based on the manner and purpose for which it is grown.”
“Hemp Testing Technology.—The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334) removed hemp and its derivatives from the Controlled Substances Act (Public Law 91–513, as amended), and authorized the production, consumption, and sale of hemp and hemp-derived products in the United States. The Act requires random testing to ensure hemp meets the definition under the law of having a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] concentration of less than 0.3 percent. The Committee is aware that DEA has developed field testing kits that can distinguish between hemp and marijuana on-the-spot. The Committee directs the DEA to continue to work to ensure State and local law enforcement have access to this field test technology so they can more efficiently conduct their drug interdiction efforts at the local level. The Committee further directs the DEA to report back to the Committee not later than 180 days after enactment of this act, and not less than every 6 months thereafter, until such time as testing kits are deployed to State and local law enforcement in the field.”
There’s also language directing USDA to explore hemp as a sustainable alternative to plastics, similar to language that’s included in the House version.
“Plastic Alternative.—The Committee recognizes the need for biobased and U.S.-grown alternatives. The Committee directs the department to explore U.S.-based hemp as a robust and dependable plastic alternative and issue a report to the Committee on how to best facilitate its cost-efficient use in government-produced or funded materials within 180 days of the passage of this act.”
There are additional USDA-specific sections that deal with hemp biotechnology and genomics research, as well as a mandate for the department to create a hemp germplasm repository at the Plant Genetics Resources Research Unit in New York.
“Hemp Cultivar Development.—The Committee encourages ARS to conduct biotechnology and genomics research in collaboration with capable institutions to elucidate the genetic control of key production and product quality traits in hemp to facilitate cultivar development. In addition, the Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2022 level for ARS to partner with institutions already engaged in such research to conduct hemp genetic improvement research and breeding with new breeding and editing techniques.”
“Hemp Germplasm.—The Committee recognizes the increasing demand for hemp for a variety of uses and its growing importance as a crop for U.S. farmers. When the Nation’s hemp germplasm was destroyed in the 1980s, researchers lost access to publicly available germplasm for plant breeding purposes. The Committee directs ARS to establish and maintain a hemp germplasm repository at the Plant Genetics Resources Research Unit and provides no less than the fiscal year 2022 level for this purpose. The Committee also encourages ARS and the Plant Genetics Resources Research Unit to partner with 1890 institutions that have existing institutional capacity on hemp germplasm research, education, and extension capabilities.”
Senate appropriators also talked about the “emerging market” for various hemp-based products and said that USDA should pursue research and development to help integrate cannabis into “existing cropping, processing, and marketing systems.” The report also discourages the department from imposing new user fees on domestic hemp production and directs it to help provide additional guaranteed loans for industry stakeholders.
Hemp Production Systems.—The Committee recognizes the emerging market potential for U.S. hemp and hemp-based products for a variety of uses. The Committee directs ARS to conduct regionally-driven research, development, and stakeholder engagement to improve agronomic and agro-economic understanding of effectively integrating hemp into existing agricultural cropping, processing, and marketing systems. The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2022 level for this purpose. Research, engagement, and technology transfer shall be conducted in strict accordance with all applicable Federal and State authorities and regulations.
Proposed User Fees.—The Committee continues to reject past proposals to administratively implement new user fees to cover the government’s full cost for providing services to certain beneficiaries, including licenses for…domestic hemp production…. The Committee strongly believes that USDA should not propose new user fees without taking into account the full impact on farmers, ranchers, and beneficiaries who would be forced to contend with rapid changes in these programs and additional burdensome costs without prior notice.
Hemp-Based Products.—The Committee recognizes the growing interest for U.S. hemp and hemp-based products for a variety of uses and directs FCA to work with the institutions under its jurisdiction to provide access to guaranteed loans for hemp producers and businesses.
The spending bill covering the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education maintains language that advocates say unnecessarily inhibits research into controlled substances like cannabis and psilocybin. On the House side, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) previously tried to remove it through an amendment, but it twice failed in floor votes.
“SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance included in schedule I of the schedules of controlled substances established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act except for normal and recognized executive-congressional communications.
(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply when there is significant medical evidence of a therapeutic advantage to the use of such drug or other substance or that federally sponsored clinical trials are being conducted to determine therapeutic advantage.”
Finally, the legislation also proposes to change the names of certain federal agencies to remove stigmatizing language around drug use. For example, the committee is recommending to remove the word “abuse” from agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), simply swapping that word with “use.” The National Institute on Drug Abuse would also be renamed to National Institute on Drugs and Addiction, for example.
While the path forward for all these drug policy provisions—particularly those that Republican leadership have already identified as controversial from their end—is uncertain, their inclusion in the base bill is a promising sign to advocates and researchers. And when bicameral negotiations begin, it’s important that there’s already overlap with the House on many of the provisions.
The House-passed appropriations legislation is similarly wide-ranging, touching on topics like cannabis research barriers, impaired driving and preventing use by youth and pregnant people. There’s also language on preventing the Department of Education from penalizing universities simply because the institutions are conducting research into marijuana.
Additional sections of the House spending package cover protections for immigrants who use cannabis, freeing up marijuana-related advertising and providing the industry with access to the banking system.“
“No demand = no sales”. They PR’d that they had 9000 e-commerce orders months ago. I can’t explain it any better, no one in the CBD or related industry is spending on marketing now because they are waiting on the Fed to allow banks to work with these companies, legitimizing the industry so regular people trust to buy the products. Then bill is about legitimizing the industry and Taug, if Congress doesn’t get the bill done by their vacation that would be bizarre imo. People are making up their minds and early voting is starting soon. Makes no sense to wait, the main points of the bill make common sense to me.