This post is all spam.

What does this post do, contribute to the board as a sticky? Tilray going north the rest of year.

Thanks man time is on our side same to you.

Board has been a ghost town, now that bottom is no longer and headed up to the stars where is everyone? I guess will be back at first red candle.

"while we wait on legalization, which btw isn't coming anytime soon." Cause Biden said give me your vote and will decrim first year. Has done nothing since. Not a peep out of him about that lie for millions of vote no wonder no one likes him we all smoke weed. Is a drinker who pops pills who is running America home of the incarcerated disabled vet for using herb given to by God herself..

Short int is same. Ma and Pa Kettle been buying since the teens, shares in tight hands.

Have not heard a peep. Apparently people in the know believe loose lips still sink ships so remain mute.

17 cents to 24 in three weeks whens pops goes das weasels?

SAFE Banking Backed by At Least 9 GOP Senators; Bill Lies Largely in Democrats’ Court
https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/news/safe-banking-act-cannabis-gop-support-senate/

Federal cannabis banking reform now has public support from nine Republicans in the Senate, enough to avoid a possible filibuster on the floor of the chamber should Democrats come together.

This GOP threshold for support comes with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, adding her name as a co-sponsor July 13 to the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. Collins also co-sponsored the 2021 SAFE Banking Act.

The SAFE Banking Act—legislation that would allow federally regulated financial institutions to work with state-legal cannabis businesses that often are forced to operate in all cash—has been absent of Senate action the past four years despite large bipartisanship that has led to seven passages in the House since 2019.

Now, with major movement in the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, the legislation finally shows promise for a pathway to the Senate floor should lawmakers overcome an impasse in committee over concerns raised by majority member Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., Politico reported.

These concerns deal with Section 10 of the legislation: requirements for deposit account termination requests and orders. Specifically, Reed has concerns that this section of the bill would make it more difficult for federal regulators to raise the alarm about bad actors who pose significant risks to banks without “tipping off” these actors before enforcement measures.

Agree 100%, just gave you your first member mark.

Big pharma/government is the biggest drug cartel in the world all legal tender backed by congress who wont legalize marijuana as they call it.

Another thinks a rally is more likely than a revisit to 30's.

Lots of posts in concern of here is one

Our government is weak as smart herb smokers get fired right and left cause dont pop pills and or be a drunk.
Only pill poppers and drunks can get federally hired.

A top official with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) says that as more states have moved to legalize marijuana, public opinion has “shifted dramatically” and federal agencies are seeing an “uptick” in positive drug tests for cannabis that’s causing more workers to be fired.
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/u-s-forest-service-says-state-marijuana-legalization-drives-uptick-in-positive-thc-tests-for-federal-workers-as-perceptions-have-shifted-dramatically/

Shelly,
Thank you for this note. Especially liked reading mods should not be removing their own posts with that not being fair to all the others being non mods who cannot, just cause have power to do so. Abuse this privilege and might not be a mod any longer. Well done. Great policy.
<:-}#################><

Federally legalizing marijuana is both doable for the Biden administration and relatively easy, according to a new white paper that makes the case for reform.
The paper, released Monday by the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform, prioritizes “de-scheduling” – or removing marijuana from the list of federally controlled substances altogether – but also acknowledges that “rescheduling” marijuana to Schedule 3 or lower would be “a historic step along the path to necessary reform.”
The white paper was issued in the midst of the U.S. Health and Human Services’ ongoing review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule 1 narcotic, a review that President Joe Biden ordered last fall. The process has no set deadline for a final decision, but there have been hints a resolution may be announced later this year.
If that happens, it will be a transformative event for the U.S. cannabis trade, but what shape that transformation will take greatly depends on the outcome of the review.
The coalition argues in the paper that federal marijuana legalization in either form is long past due, and that it’s incumbent upon the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to issue a formal recommendation for cannabis to be moved from Schedule 1 – defined as any narcotic with “no accepted medical use” and a “high potential for abuse” – to Schedule 3 or lower.
Ideally the FDA would take it off the list completely.
The paper notes that it’s easier to die from a sugar overdose than from a THC overdose and estimated a person could die from sugar by consuming 20 pints of ice cream. To die from THC, according to the report, a person would need to “consume 1,500 pounds of plant material in 15 minutes.”
There also has never been a recorded fatality from a THC overdose, a stark contrast to many other drugs that are scheduled as safer and having an accepted medical use, including cocaine and fentanyl.
“Marijuana is plainly less dangerous than many drugs contained in schedules III, IV, and V, not to mention many consumer products and unscheduled products. It’s time for federal policy to reflect that reality,” the paper asserts.
But the coalition begrudgingly noted, “If FDA determines that it cannot find its way to recommending marijuana descheduling,” then rescheduling would still be a major help to the U.S. cannabis industry by nullifying 280E, the provision in federal tax code that bars marijuana companies from claiming standard business tax deductions.
However rescheduling would maintain a major legal disconnect between federal law and the 23 states that have legalized recreational marijuana, since federal statutes still have strict penalties for any business that traffics in federally scheduled narcotics, the paper noted.
“Even if marijuana were transferred to Schedule V, these provisions would make virtually every transaction in the adult-use marijuana market today criminal under federal law and therefore subject to criminal penalties,” the paper reads. “Descheduling is the only result that would remove marijuana from DEA’s purview and the CSA’s regime of federal criminal sanctions.”
Rescheduling could also result in requirements for all cannabis companies to register with the DEA so it can properly oversee the industry.
The DEA also has “broad discretion” to either issue or withhold “certificates of registration” to companies in the pharmaceutical supply chain, the paper notes, and to date the agency has “refused to grant them to entities that have violated federal law by participating in state-legal cannabis markets, regardless of their compliance with state laws.”
But if rescheduling is the ultimate decision that FDA lands upon, then the paper urges regulators to issue federal guidance for the industry, similar to the now-defunct Cole Memos, which were handed down during the Obama administration as rules of thumb for how states could run their marijuana markets without the DEA intervening.
Although the memos were rescinded under the Trump administration, many states still operate under the same guiding principles, such as preventing diversion to the illicit market and keeping cannabis away from children.
“American businesses need more clarity, not less,” the paper argues.

Former FDA officials contend FDA doesn't need a "harm-reduction" framework to regulate CBD-containing supplement products.
Josh Long | Jun 24, 2023

The heads of two Washington, D.C.-based trade associations representing ingredient suppliers, manufacturers and retailers of dietary supplement products contend a “harm-reduction” framework for CBD envisioned by FDA would undermine the law applicable to the commodity and is unnecessary.

The leaders of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and Natural Products Association (NPA) maintain FDA has sufficient tools under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) to regulate CBD-containing supplements and doesn’t need additional powers. DSHEA constituted an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

“When you have something that is clearly a botanical constituent and could be regulated under DSHEA, to move it out and say, ‘We don’t have the right tools,’ basically sends a message that DSHEA isn’t working,” said Steve Mister, a lawyer who’s been leading CRN since 2005. “And we know that it is.”

During a May 25 call with industry stakeholders, FDA official Patrick Cournoyer, Ph.D., said the “highly protective safety standards of the food ingredient and dietary supplement pathways” don’t provide room for risks. And he distinguished the regulatory pathway for drugs from supplements and food.

With FDA-approved drugs, “There may be risks but as long as they’re outweighed by a benefit … then a drug can be approved,” said Cournoyer, who leads FDA’s Cannabis Product Committee.

Mister contends FDA is misinterpreting the law.

“Everything has risks, including sodium, including sugar, including caffeine, and FDA’s job is to reduce risk,” he said. “It is not a risk-elimination category.”

“And in fact, when it comes to dietary supplements, the standard for safety is an unreasonable risk of injury or illness,” the lawyer added. “So, risk is built into the statute. So, when I hear FDA say, ‘Well, we need a new category that will allow for risk reduction because supplements don’t allow that,’ that’s simply not true.”

Supplements that pose "a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury under conditions of use recommended or suggested in labeling" are considered "adulterated" or unlawful under DSHEA, though FDA bears the "burden of proof on each element to show that a dietary supplement is adulterated."

NPA President and CEO Dan Fabricant, Ph.D., also has expressed concerns about the impact of a new regulatory framework on DSHEA. He oversaw FDA’s Division of Dietary Supplement Programs from 2011 until 2014.

A harm-reduction framework is the mechanism for tobacco, he said.

“Forget it,” Fabricant said when asked whether he would support a harm-reduction framework for CBD. “You kill the [supplements] category … It’s a slow cut in DSHEA.”

Fabricant for years called on FDA to set a safe limit for daily CBD exposure.

But during the recent stakeholder call, FDA's Cournoyer said establishing a safe dosage level is essentially asking FDA to perform a toxicological risk assessment that could take many years to complete. And following such a review, it’s perhaps likely that the acceptable daily intake for CBD “would be so low as to not be useful to the marketplace as is stands,” he said.

Fabricant isn’t persuaded, citing actions in Canada and the United Kingdom, for example.

In September 2022, a group of experts advising Health Canada concluded CBD is “safe and tolerable for short-term use (a maximum of 30 days) at doses from 20 milligrams per day to a maximum dose of 200 mg/day,” MJBizDaily reported. And in the UK, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) recommends no more than 70 milligrams a day of CBD for healthy adults, unless a doctor agrees to more.

“This doesn’t mean that these levels are definitely safe, but that the evidence we have suggests adverse health effects could potentially be seen above this,” FSA states in a consumer advisory last updated on March 31, 2022.

Referencing the recommendations in Canada and UK, Fabricant declared, "FDA can’t fall somewhere in that zone, which is ridiculous."

Ultimately, a new regulatory framework for CBD “is really in Congress’ hands,” Cournoyer acknowledged. But in general terms, he outlined such basic consumer protections for CBD as truth in labeling, disclosure of certain ingredients and ensuring products contain no contaminants.

Cournoyer also identified hazard-mitigation safeguards such as content limits on CBD or other cannabinoids, and measures to mitigate accidental risk of ingestion by children.

According to Mister, Fabricant and two other former FDA officials who worked in the Office of Dietary Supplement Programs (ODSP), the agency could implement the measures above through its current authorities. For example, Mister said mandatory child-resistant packaging was placed on iron products years ago through the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ensure kids don’t ingest high levels of iron in supplement products.

FDA, in collaboration with the CPSC, could require child-resistant packaging on all CBD products, Mister said. Robert Durkin, a partner in the nation’s capital with the law firm Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, agreed the CPSC could implement measures to mitigate CBD use by children. Before joining AGG in 2019, Durkin worked in leadership roles at ODSP, including as deputy director and acting director.

Durkin said FDA also has authority to require clear supplement labels under its cGMP (current good manufacturing practices) rule (21 C.F.R. 111) and could impose CBD content limits based on the adulteration standard in DSHEA related to products that pose “a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.”

Durkin described FDA’s proposed harm-reduction framework for CBD as “largely redundant to the risk-reduction framework” in effect for dietary supplement products.

In recent years, some manufacturers of hemp extracts containing CBD—including market leader Charlotte’s Web—have submitted premarket notifications to FDA to demonstrate their supplement ingredient “will reasonably be expected to be safe," based on a requirement in DSHEA. FDA determined the notifications failed to meet the applicable safety standard in the law. FDA also concluded CBD is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement since it was first authorized for investigation as a new drug.

Many industry professionals have interpreted FDA’s public pronouncements as evidence that FDA would find unacceptable risks with any new dietary ingredient notification (NDIN) for CBD, regardless of the comprehensiveness of the safety information presented to the agency.

In a 2023 response to a citizen petition filed by CRN, FDA rejected the argument that the NDIN process would sufficiently protect the public from potentially unsafe supplements if FDA opted to regulate CBD through a notice-and-comment rulemaking.

"Under current law, FDA has no systematic way to know when new dietary supplements are introduced to the marketplace and whether they have complied with the NDIN requirement," Douglas Stearn, deputy director for regulatory affairs for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), explained in response to CRN's petition. "Further, even when an NDIN has been submitted and evaluated by FDA, the NDIN authorities do not always prevent unsafe products from being marketed. For example, if an FDA response letter raises identity or safety concerns with a particular NDI, but the notifier nonetheless proceeds to market, FDA’s only recourse (once it becomes aware of such marketing) is to attempt to remove the product from the market by undertaking a resource-intensive enforcement action in which we would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the product is adulterated. In the meantime, the unsafe dietary supplement could remain on the market."

FDA anticipates "NDINs that would be submitted for CBD-containing products as proposed in the (CRN) petition would describe products that would not meet the safety standard for dietary supplements and would therefore be adulterated," Stearn wrote. "However, as a practical matter, FDA does not have the resources to take enforcement action against every violative product in this exploding market. The petition’s suggested approach would potentially strain our limited enforcement and NDIN review resources because they would be skewed toward CBD products at the expense of the rest of the dietary supplement marketplace, which would be to the detriment of the public health."

Durkin argued FDA's CBD proposal for a harm-reduction framework reflects an "unrealistic position" taken by the agency.

“The only reason FDA thinks it needs a harm-reduction framework for CBD as a dietary ingredient, beyond what is already provided by DSHEA, is due to its unrealistic position that dietary ingredients cannot present any risk of harm,” said the former ODSP official. “From this perspective, the safety standard for dietary ingredients—a reasonable expectation of safety under the conditions of use—would essentially be no different than the safety standard required for food additives and GRAS (generally recognized as safe) substances: a reasonable certainty of no harm.”

But “Congress explicitly rejected” the GRAS standard for supplements “when it passed DSHEA,” Durkin said.

One of Durkin’s former FDA colleagues, Sibyl Swift, Ph.D., is chief science officer and VP of regulatory affairs with cbdMD Inc., a marketer of CBD products.

Swift worked at ODSP from October 2014 until December 2019. In her role as associate director of research and strategy, Swift was co-chair of the Botanical Safety Consortium and led ODSP’s internal and external research portfolio and its enforcement strategy and priorities, she said.

When lobbying on Capitol Hill for FDA to regulate CBD, Swift said, she makes two main points.

“We are not marijuana. We are not trying to get someone high. This is a dietary supplement,” she said.

Then, she explains the regulatory framework applicable to supplements under DSHEA.

“The laws work, the rules work," Swift proclaimed, "and at the end of the day, we as an organization … are struggling to see how hemp is really truly different than any other botanical dietary ingredient."

https://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/regulatory/industry-groups-fda-harm-reduction-framework-threatens-dshea

25 Years Ago: DEA’s Own Administrative Law Judge Ruled Cannabis Should Be Reclassified Under Federal Law
https://norml.org/news/2013/09/05/25-years-ago-dea-s-own-administrative-law-judge-ruled-cannabis-should-be-reclassified-under-federal-law/

Friday, September 6, 2013 marks the 25-year anniversary of an administrative ruling which determined that cannabis possesses accepted medical utility and ought to be reclassified accordingly under federal law.

The ruling, issued in 1988 by US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling," determined: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."

Young continued: "It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."

Judge Young concluded: "The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II [of the federal Controlled Substances Act]."

GOP Senator Backs Marijuana Banking Bill, But Doubts Democratic Leadership Will Advance It

A GOP senator says that while he supports a bipartisan marijuana banking bill, he feels that Democratic leadership is being generally uncooperative, casting doubts on the prospects of passage.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), said that he’d be a “yes” vote on the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act if it reaches the floor.

“We need to get it passed, but the Democrats obviously control the Senate floor, and there is no way we can get it down there,” the senator, who won his seat after defeating former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a primary election, said.

“You know, a lot of them want to legalize marijuana entirely, which is a separate issue,” Tuberville told reporters last week, according to Alabama Today. “But SAFE Banking is about the access to basic banking services for businesses that are legal in the states where they operate.”

“Under current federal law, banks and credit unions are not allowed to bank for legal cannabis businesses or businesses that provide services to legal cannabis businesses,” he added. “So we’ve got to protect people’s cash.”

The senator said that he’s been in “contact with people from all over the country who have worked with cannabis over the last few years, and it is a major public issue of people storing cash in their businesses [outside of the traditional banking system].”

“We have got to make it safer; And if it is going to be legal in the state of Alabama, which medical marijuana is headed our way, then we have got to make sure people are safe,” he said. “That is what the SAFE Banking Act is all about, but getting it on the floor… [Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)] is not very cooperative with Republicans, and so we will see what happens with that.”

Schumer has been a vocal advocate for the cannabis banking legislation, and so it’s not clear what the senator means by suggesting that the majority leader represents an obstacle to the reform, though it could be an allusion to the desire of some Democrats to attach broader social justice provisions to the financial services bill. There is concern by some stakeholders that going too far in that direction could cause Republicans to oppose the measure, jeopardizing its chances of passage.

The bill from Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Steve Daines (R-MT) received an initial hearing in the Senate Banking Committee last month, and Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said earlier this month that he wants to hold a vote on it “in the next two or three weeks.”

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/gop-senator-backs-marijuana-banking-bill-but-doubts-democratic-leadership-will-advance-it/

Problem is the people in charge of HHS and FDA are directly connected to the pill mill cartel. Been revolving door for decades.

With respect to the scheduling review, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—and, specifically the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—is tackling the first part of the process, assessing the science of cannabis to determine whether it should be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Old news been priced in by now if not will get head examined by Dr. D. Lerious

Have a nice 3 day weekend all.

Nurses Report Positive Patient Experiences After Allowing Cannabis in the Inpatient Cancer Unit
Jun 15, 2023
https://www.oncnursingnews.com/view/nurses-report-positive-patient-experiences-after-allowing-cannabis-in-the-inpatient-cancer-unit


Amanda McKaig, BSN-RN, OCN; and Alyssa Ridad, BSN-RN, OCN, discuss how Ryan’s Law has changed their practice and how oncology nurses have responded to the changes.

With the roll-out of the Senate Bill (CA SB) 311, also known as Ryan’s Law, in 2022, California hospitals are now required to allow patients with terminal illness to access medical cannabis therapy if admitted.1,2 According to results of a survey of oncology nurses at UCLA, patients had demonstrable improvements in insomnia and anxiety after cannabis use. Further, no nurses reported any negative experience with the new protocol.1

According to Amanda McKaig, BSN-RN, OCN; and Alyssa Ridad, BSN-RN, OCN, who presented the survey findings during the 48th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress, institutions in California have updated their policies and procedures to allow patients to bring their own cannabis products to the hospital. At UCLA Health, following the implementation of Ryan’s Law, after doctors identify patients who meet the criteria for cannabis use, patients mut supply their own products which are then stored in a personal lockbox provided by the hospital pharmacy. Patients are then permitted to self-administer cannabis as needed. An RN documents the administrations. According to the 2 nurse investigators, survey respondents noted that the new protocol helped patients with their insomnia and anxiety, highlighting the potential value of alternative pain medications in supportive care.

“The main thing that we found very interesting was there have been a lot of studies that [demonstrated that] cannabis can help with chronic pain and especially cancer-related pain, but we found through our survey that nurses felt that it helped patients [handle] with insomnia and anxiety the most,” McKaig said. “There wasn’t a lot of literature to support [that], but that’s what nurses [responded] was most helpful in the inpatient setting for.”

In an interview with Oncology Nursing News®, McKaig, a clinical nurse at UCLA Medical Center, and Ridad, a registered nurse at UCLA Health in Santa Monica, discussed how they evaluated cannabis use in the inpatient setting and how nurses can continue to support patients with terminal illnesses.

Oncology Nursing News: Please describe Ryan’s Law and how it has affected care in California.

Ridad: Ryan’s Law was put in place in the beginning of 2022, and it was named after Ryan Bartel. He was diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer and was prescribed heavy doses of opioids [such as] morphine and fentanyl but didn’t want to take them—he asked his dad if he could take him off the fentanyl so that he could spend his last few weeks lucid and pain free.2

They moved Ryan to a facility that would allow him to self-medicate with cannabis and he was able to spend his last few days lucid and pain free like he wanted. After that, his father, Jim Bartel, made it his mission to ensure that other families had this option. That led him to write Ryan’s Law [which in California requires] that health care facilities now allow cannabis on their premises for terminally ill patients.

What was the rationale for investigating cannabis use in the hospital?

McKaig: We were interested in this topic because a lot of our patients were using cannabis products at home and then when they came into the hospital, suddenly they were not allowed to use it anymore. There was a disconnect between how patients are managing their symptoms at home vs how they’re managing it in the hospital. Now it is nice that we are able to let them continue that treatment when they’re in the hospital so that they’re having access to everything that they normally use.1

How did you evaluate cannabis use at your institution?

Ridad: Because we couldn't gauge the patients' [experience] by interviewing them, instead we interviewed the nurse’s [to gain perspective] on what their patient’s symptom management looked like or how comfortable they thought their patients were. For every patient who used [cannabis], we would give the nurse a survey, [which had] approximately 5 questions that gauged their perception on symptom management.

What are the overall implications for oncology nursing practice?

McKaig: This opens a lot of doors for looking at other methods to manage symptoms besides opioids or [products] that have a lot of bad adverse events. [Ryan’s Law] is starting a lot of conversations—especially between patients and their family, or nurses and the patients, [about] things that we don’t normally talk about [which has] been exciting.

Ridad: It’s important for us to be aware that [cannabis] is something that patients with cancer can benefit from because it’s proven is that it helps with chemotherapy induced nausea/vomiting, chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy, and anorexia, [which are] all things that our patients suffer from.

It should be our due diligence to educate ourselves and be aware of those symptoms so that we can educate our patients who are curious about what [cannabis] can help them with. To be able to empower nurses to educate them and create an open environment for them to want to talk about [cannabis] is important. I have had numerous conversations with patients who are curious about [cannabis] but didn’t know how to go about it or where to get it, [and asked] ‘can I bring it in the hospital?’ Having that conversation with patients who are curious and having that open environment where they can talk about it is important.

References

McKaig A, Ridad A. Nurses’ perspectives on compassionate access to medical cannabis. Poster presented at: 48th Annual Oncology Nursing Society Congress; April 26-30, 2023; San Antonio, TX. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://ons.confex.com/ons/2023/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/12684
West M. Ryan’s Law—legislation that permits access to medical cannabis for terminally-ill patients. American Bar Association. May 11, 2022. Accessed June 13, 2023. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/tortsource/2022/spring/ryans-lawlegislation-permits-access/

If the cartels have more money than the Treasury then think about the pharmaceutical pill industry as a cartel. Thee biggest cartel in the world and here in America half the commercials on TV is them hawking pills hand over fist. Sweet music in background no time given to read fine print at bottom saying all the side effects. They now are even saying have a pill for me so will no longer be addicted to the herb. All a bunch of mad scientists in the lab with test tubes humans the pigs from Ginny

All have our ways getting through this prohibition madness.

No thank you will stick to cash account margin accounts are a no go. Cash account shares are immune from being borrowed and shorted. And dont get ya in trouble with margin calls and gambling on calls and puts.

How do you know has not already bottomed? Currently is consolidating after falling from embarrassing and costly accounting screw up. But may fall again when reported in a few. Like a holdem game waiting on the flop.

They do gang up en mass when mustered to attack a company or in this matter the entire cannabis sector no argument there. Just want to see a few screw ups helping us at bottom of pecking order.

OSCEOLA COUNTY, Fla. — Osceola County deputies say they’ve taken a group of burglars off the streets.
According to the sheriff’s office, members of their West Criminal Investigations Division responded to a burglary at the Trulieve Cannabis Dispensary on Deer Creek Commerce Lane in Davenport Friday.

After the burglary, deputies say the four suspects in the case immediately fled the area in a silver Mercedes.
With the help of canine and aviation units, all four suspects were eventually found and arrested.
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/osceola-deputies-arrest-4-teens-burglary-davenport-medical-marijuana-dispensary/Q63QE5Z7XFGVREXXGV424J4Q5I/

""""""" so the shorts will sell into any rally so as to keep the price from rising...so, IMO, the recovery for CGC will be a long and arduous affair with many disappointments,""""""

Really? What if every time these shorts sell into rallies and keep averaging up their shorts in denial there are more runs with shorts averaging up into infinity before throwing in the towel.

I sure do there are latent Monsters in herb penny land no one apparently likes.

Thanks again for helping this blind squirrel locate too inexpensive acorns. Glad was not a case of the blind leading the blind.

Took new positions in both this morning.
Thanks John for bringing to my attention last week on tcnnf board did homework and both cgc - tlry passed muster. Feels good to be in two that so far are up crossing fingers never have to average down with {:-}#############><

If not there is for sure more ammo standing at parade rest for more buys in the 3's this time shares hopefully landing in tighter hands for no sell offs.

The pills mills through lobbyist and their crazy money give all the marching orders as own all of concern right on down to all media companies no matter the politics with continued prohibition their goal. If want to discuss the largest drug cartel in the world.

Good call so far. Looking at the calendar we spent 4 days hitting in the 3's sure glad to have been able to average down a good one buy prudently kept some ammo on the side in case would bust lower the next few days and now this fresh news for the kooks in charge to take a peek at cannabis in light of them getting no weed lobby money money money like pink floyd pill mills have given the past few decades.

The Biden Administration still insists cannabis consumers have no right to arms

In trying to meet that test, the Biden administration has cited 18th- and 19th-century laws that prohibited people from publicly carrying or firing guns while intoxicated. But that analogy is inapt because the restriction that the government is defending is much broader.

The law that the ATF highlighted last week applies to cannabis consumers even when they are sober, and it prohibits private as well as public gun possession. A truly analogous law would impose a blanket ban on gun ownership by drinkers, a policy that would be plainly inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

https://www.dailynews.com/2023/06/07/the-biden-administration-still-insists-cannabis-consumers-have-no-right-to-arms/

Recreational marijuana may be on Florida ballot; here's why leading pot advocate isn't happy
James Call
Tallahassee Democrat
A leader in the Florida cannabis community fears a proposed recreational marijuana initiative may be doomed because it offers little change for consumers, but provides a bigger market for the medical marijuana giant backing the proposal.

The Adult Personal Use of Marijuana proposed ballot measure would legalize marijuana for nonmedical use and has submitted the required number of signatures to qualify for the 2024 ballot.

But the executive director of the Suncoast NORML chapter is not celebrating the milestone.

Chris Cano said his review of the intiative finds people and consumers were afterthoughts in how it is written, while the interest of current marijuana industry players will benefit if the proposal becomes law.

“The amendment itself does nothing to expand the cannabis industry. It essentially allows the existing limited cartel structure of license holders to start selling over the counter adult use cannabis for a higher price,” said Cano, discussing the proposal last month.

Cano sits on NORML’s national board of directors. The 53-year-old advocacy group is the oldest and largest marijuana legalization organization in the country and lobbies for the legalization of marijuana at the state and federal levels.

In 2016, 71% of voters supported a constitutional amendment to legalize medical cannabis in Florida.

Now, Truelieve Inc., based in Quincy, is bankrolling the Smart & Safe committee, promoters of a recreational marijuana amendment for the 2024 election.

The company has 186 retail dispensaries across 11 states and has provided Smart & Safe with $38.5 million to collect the 965,000 signatures needed for the ballot language to be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court.

“Our investment demonstrates our firm belief that Floridians are ready to experience the freedom to use cannabis for personal consumption, a freedom which is currently enjoyed by more than half of America’s adults,” said Kim Rivers, Truelieve CEO, in a prepared statement.

Twenty-one states have legalized recreational marijuana use, which remains illegal at the federal level.

Citizens initiatives to amend the constitution must receive 60% of the vote to be adopted.

While most published polls show the proposal is supported by 65% of respondents, Cano wonders how solid that support is.

Consumers complain that the proposal solidifies the status quo with retention of a vertical-integrated industry where licensees cultivate, produce, and market marijuana from seed to sale.

Medical marijuana advocates fault the amendment for failure to allow home cultivation.

Cano questions if the proposal will generate the excitement needed to turn out the votes to win approval.


“It’s not like opponents have to actually win to defeat it. They just need to make sure Smart & Safe is denied 40.1% of the vote, because it can’t pass with 59.9%,” said Cano.

The amendment directs the Florida Legislature to create a regulatory framework that could address the criticisms raised. Lawmakers would have the authority to increase the number of licensees serving the public, and to allow home cultivation.

A Smart & Safe spokesperson said their challenge was to design a proposal the public would support within the guidelines the court has imposed.

“The language was written with two critical things in mind. First is public opinion. As such, polling consistently shows near 70% support from voters … And second, it also considers, as it must, the legal requirements that are required to pass muster with the Florida Supreme Court, “said Steve Vancore, a Smart & Safe and Trulieve spokesperson.

The proposal is now before the Supreme Court.

“It’s not like opponents have to actually win to defeat it. They just need to make sure Smart & Safe is denied 40.1% of the vote, because it can’t pass with 59.9%,” said Cano.

The amendment directs the Florida Legislature to create a regulatory framework that could address the criticisms raised. Lawmakers would have the authority to increase the number of licensees serving the public, and to allow home cultivation.

A Smart & Safe spokesperson said their challenge was to design a proposal the public would support within the guidelines the court has imposed.

“The language was written with two critical things in mind. First is public opinion. As such, polling consistently shows near 70% support from voters … And second, it also considers, as it must, the legal requirements that are required to pass muster with the Florida Supreme Court, “said Steve Vancore, a Smart & Safe and Trulieve spokesperson.

The proposal is now before the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Ashley Moody told the Court May 15 she intends to challenge the initiative for unclear ballot language and failure to adhere to a single subject requirement.

Cano finds Moody’s opposition ironic given that Smart & Safe hired the same public relations firm, Axiom Strategies, that is favored among Republican politicians including Gov. Ron DeSantis and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Really, it is just Republicans fighting against Republicans at this point. The fact is, people are an afterthought in this whole thing,” said Cano about the upcoming court hearing.

Rivers said she is confident the proposal meets the legal requirements and looks forward to a positive ruling from the court.

The Florida Supreme Court schedule gives Moody and opponents until June 12 to submit briefs to block the Personal Use of Marijuana amendment.

Smart & Safe Florida and its supporters have until July 5 to respond.



https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/07/recreational-marijuana-qualifies-for-ballot-but-pot-backers-arnt-happy/70288401007/

The biggest drug cartel in the world are the legal pill mills.

IS CBD TOXIC? ASK THE “EXPERTS”

Is CBD Toxic? Ask the “Experts”
Who are the “experts” behind this latest review of CBD studies? How did they conclude that CBD might be a toxic hazard for the general population?

First up is Jeremy Gingrich. An FDA employee. Technically it’s Dr. Gingrich, but his doctorate is in philosophy. Not medicine.

Suppuration Choudhuri. Another FDA employee. An actual scientist, he wrote Bioinformatics for Beginners. He’s also published a paper suggesting CBD interferes with male sperm.

Patrick Cournoyer. Heads the FDA’s cannabis strategy.

Jason Downey. An FDA employee and a former employee of the military-industrial complex. He worked for Leidos as a biomedical scientist.

Kristi Muldoon Jacobs. FDA and former US Pharmacopeia.

Now, we’re not saying these people aren’t qualified. With some exceptions, most are actually experts in plant medicine.

But their neutrality is called into question as employees of the FDA. The more simple-minded may think “government regulators are honest and trustworthy.” And 80% of the time that may be true.

But there’s a revolving door of pharmaceutical executives and FDA bureaucrats. And when the FDA holds a monopoly on certifications of food and medicine safety and efficacy, then it’s reasonable to dispute every claim they make.

Suppose the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a review of renewable energies. Let’s say they found wind and solar to be inadequate, and thus oil and gas were the preferred means for America’s energy source.

Suppose someone investigated this study and suggested the EPA has a bias since their funding comes from oil and gas lobbyists.

Nearly half of the FDA’s funding ($2.7 billion annually) come from the companies they’re supposed to be regulating.

It is not unreasonable to question the motives and biases of the authors behind a study asking if CBD is toxic.

IS CBD TOXIC? WHAT THE STUDY SAYS

Is CBD Toxic? What The Study Says
Is CBD Toxic? Yes, according to this study. They even have a section entitled “Toxicological profile of CBD.”

Here, they reference a number of previous studies that tested CBD on primates (Rhesus monkeys), rodents, New Zealand white rabbits, sea urchins, zebrafish, and chickens (including chicken eggs).

They found that CBD is toxic to the liver and negatively affects male and female reproduction, increases embryo-fetal mortality, suppresses the immune system (by triggering oxidative stress) and aggravates cancer cells.

Concerning the liver, I’ll let the study off the hook. https://cannabislifenetwork.com/is-cbd-toxic/