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.
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.
If DEA makes an announcement that will help free up the financing options for these companies, most will care.
It probably will and the federal government will continue to not care unless people/groups are acting outside of the state's laws.
That will probably be the case since they are trying to straddle both sides of the argument. It's a start though and may open more avenues for science to get more (sufficient) data. That is the key aspect here. When we get more data about the psychoactive elements of THC at various levels, then I believe they will refine the regulation and loosen things up more on the recreational end. That may be years away.
It means that the DEA isn't ready to put anything out yet. The DEA's spokesman (Russ Braer) had said they are not looking to impede the medical aspect of marijuana and that the DEA wasn't ready to announce anything last week. He even balked at the 8/1 deadline that was reported saying that they are not sticking to any "artificial" deadline. The fact that they haven't put anything out yet means they actually are evaluating the situation more than they have in the past. It just makes me think that the way they plan on treating cannabis may end up being complicated with respect to the recreation vs. medical aspect.
Their financials are due within 45 days after the end of the quarter. The 2nd quarter just ended, so the 2Q16 financials will be due in mid-August.
It's in the pre-clinical stage, so they have quite a bit more ground to cover.
Also, the key "lobbyist" in all of this is FDA since part of their job is to advise the DEA. FDA's stance has been that they need substantial clinical and scientific evidence to support medical marijuana claims. That evidence can come from a nano-cap company or a big pharma. Any clinical evidence is not necessarily sufficient clinical evidence. FDA has specific standards that have to be met.
http://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20150708medmarijuana.html
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2338251
No, my basis on a decision being "late" is based upon what Baer has said in a recent interview.
First, you are transposing what I said into other topics. I said good luck suing the DEA if they do not provide a decision by a desired deadline. You can try to sue the DEA for whatever reason, that doesn't mean you will be successful. We can go 'round and 'round on this forever, but the DEA did not give a hard deadline as to when they expect to make a decision. A hard deadline would have been them saying they will provide a decision by a certain date. Again, they said they hope to provide a decision in the 1st half of the year. The Senators want an update on the decision-making process by July 5.
Second, big pharma is working on clinical studies with CBD compound for the treatment of Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome which are rare forms of epilepsy in children. They are currently in pivotal Phase III for both of these studies where hundreds of subjects are being tested. Those studies have been the best argument in favor of the medicinal purposes of marijuana because they are much more detailed and thorough under FDA guidance than other studies that are cited by various pro/con websites. If they gain approval next year or sometime after, they can market CBD treatment for those 2 rare diseases in children. They are not evaluating a synthetic compound.
2 other big Pharmas are currently at Phase I studies for CBD treatment.
The synthetic compound you are referring to is Marinol which was approved awhile ago. There is one company that is seeking approval for a new means of delivering Marinol this summer.
Third, (again) the fact that they are taking their time is a positive sign on their decision making. I have seen it before with a different department of the federal government. If they made up their mind not to reschedule anything, they would have made a decision by now. Baer said in an interview that it is taking the DEA awhile b/c of the complexity of the number of compounds found within the plant. There are over 400 chemical compounds in marijuana. He said they are not looking to block medical research, so at the very least it seems CBD will be placed on a lesser restriction.
Good luck to whoever tries to sue the DEA b/c a decision wasn't made by a desired date. If it were that easy, different departments of the federal government would have been sued successfully a thousand times over for the past couple of decades. Senators gave a hard date, the DEA didn't.
Basically, FDA advises the DEA with and assessment that is based on scientific fact and clinical studies to support FDA's assessment. As the article says, the DEA performs its own analysis as required by law. As much as people complain about major pharmas, they have been key the last few years in the argument for the medicinal purposes of marijuana.
DEA answers to the Department of Justice which is a department of the executive branch. They all ultimately answer to the President. If they say they need more time to evaluate how they are going to approach marijuana, they will get more time.
First, I read the letter before I responded. You quoted a sentence that was written early in the letter. The 2nd to last sentence in the letter (ie. the sentence in which you pulled the July 5th date from) better clarifies what they are looking for by their deadline.
The Senators asked for a briefing on the status by July 5th, if a decision wasn't rendered by then. That doesn't mean DEA will necessarily have to give a decision by then.
Congress is the last entity that should be giving deadlines for others to do their job. They've written the book on kicking the can down the road over the decades.
DEA will respond with their analysis eventually, they said they are in the final stages. I think it happens soon, but it's probably not going to happen in the coming weeks. I think it happens in the 3rd or 4th quarter.
DEA said they hoped to have a decision by the end of 1H16(ie. end of June). They didn't say they would have a decision by then. There are websites and individuals that took the DEA response, misinterpreted it, and reported it incorrectly.
Key thing is for these companies to play within the rules laid out by the governing bodies. On their website, SEC warns investors that they are taking risks, esp with OTC stocks. They warned about MJ stocks back in 2014.
Also takes time. As we have seen in the mj sector recently, it can be awhile before the SEC finishes an investigation and builds a case against a company's officer(s).
SEC says they rely on insider tips, complaints, etc for their investigations. Problem is that complaints from retail investors is probably in the tens of thousands b/c there are thousands of companies out there and investors (in many cases) file complaints without substantial proof or due to their own naivety. A stock price plunging isn't proof that something illegal is happening. Now if someone can prove that an insider is illegally selling stock (ie. unregistered stock or transactions), that is something the SEC will act upon. The SEC lists what they are looking for, but (again) substantial proof such as a paper trail is needed.
https://www.sec.gov/complaint/tipscomplaint.shtml
DEA said they hope to have an answer by mid-year, not that they would. No promises were made.
DEA staff coordinator Russ Baer responded to the rescheduling situation and a timeframe...
On Legalizing Medical Cannabis: The DEA Responds
On Legalizing Medical Cannabis: The DEA Responds
At this stage, take what you can get in the near term.
Slim to no chance it gets descheduled. It could get lowered from Schedule II in the years to come as more data from the proper clinical studies comes about. The concern will be the exposure of the general population to much higher concentrations of THC and CBD over time at various stages of human development. From history, we can presume that the lower concentrations pose little to no risk for fully developed adults.
You make some valid points with unregulated growing.
I think many forget that FDA also monitors the manufacturing process in addition to approvals/clearances of drugs and medical devices sold in the US. This is to ensure that consumable products aren't contaminated with hazardous material and that the (advertised amount of) ingredients are present in manufactured goods. They warned some CBD manufacturers about false advertising recently.
FDA can be a pain to deal with, but they do perform some very serviceable functions.
They possibly could if they are allowed to modify the chemical structure of the plants without regulation. They would seek to give people a stronger, longer high. Could possibly seek to alter other characteristics too in order to attract more customers. There will definitely be a market for that. Big pharma (and possibly big tobacco companies) can afford to spend the money on the research with the best scientists.
It is here:
http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/06/18/news/us-govt-will-legalize-marijuana-on-august-1/1484.html
I'd be very skeptical of the details of this "news" until it happens.
FDA and DEA do not give 2 craps about Microsoft entering the market unless they can immediately bring substantial clinical trial data into the mix that favors cannabis and its derivatives.
Speaking of which, keep an eye on the sector over the next 2 weeks. There is a possibility we see a repeat of a mid-March catalyst.
Your welcome.
When I heard he joined Edible Gardens, I questioned why they would bring him along. Maybe he had leverage with some inside info at the other company. The dates I mentioned surrounding his start and the other events make me speculate about that more. I think there are MUCH better marketing choices out there than him. The signing of LPGA Pro Katie Burnett seems like history repeating itself and perhaps that he hasn't learned a lesson.
I don't have PM. The question of where the money came from should be asked on this board.
I have to make a correction after some deeper digging, the proxy was in early 2010. It took over a year. Was so long ago, that it seemed shorter than it was.
Here is a more accurate timeline:
~Michael James became a member of their board in Sept 2009.
~They voted for the R/S on March 12, 2010.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=7135269
~He became CFO in July 2010, hence having more control in the company.
~They announced the R/S on June 30, 2011 and it took effect 15 days later.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=8032936
~He took over as CEO about a year later.
I think the question surrounding TRTC's R/S revolves more around "when" and not "if". James has been an established member of TRTC's management for awhile now, so I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in less than a year after being voted upon (it will pass).
Why?
Kras had done little in the form of marketing for the products that he didn't bring with him to that company. They had already established a partnership with Muscle Maker Grill before Kras got there, under the previous CEO (in Dec 2010 to be more specific). They already established a partnership with West Point for the Surgex line before his arrived too. They weren't able to use that to create traction in anything else. If you looked at their competition, the competition have done more with less in the form of amateur models and body builders to bring in product recognition in the time that Kras and James had control in the other company. Kras and James signed deals with celebs that ranged from late round football draft picks to Martha Stewart. He was setting up deals that would have either:
a) backed the company into a corner financially with payments that would be due and no means to pay them (b/c higher profile names prefer sizeable amounts of cash instead of just stock), or
b) associated them with names that no one really cared about.
According to his LinkedIn profile, he's the Chief Marketing Officer for Edible Garden Lifestyle Brands as of Jan 2016. Not surprising he had things conveniently lined up for him to move along over to TRTC along with Inergetic's assets. It is convenient that he started at that position 1-2 months before the 3/1/16 incorporation date of the entity (in Delaware) that seized control of those assets and sold them to TRTC.
Of course Terra Tech.
I was in Michael James' other stock before he took control. In 2011, they put out a proxy to vote for a R/S for financing reasons. That happened about a year after he took over as CFO. It passed, and it was executed shortly thereafter. In 2012, James took over as CEO while maintaining the CFO position and the board of directors was dismantled. Kras became the Chief Marketing Officer at the same time. The rest is history.
Have they ever voted for a R/S and then declined to execute one?
Yeah, I read what she wrote and I've read the DEA's response to the questions about marijuana research.
I think DEA is trying to straddle the fence on this issue with respect to medicinal vs recreational. If they take longer than this summer to decide, I don't see that as a negative sign for the CBD side of things. If positive data comes from the PTSD research, then I think that opens things up for the recreational side of things. We may be years away from that data and decision though.
I know they are asking that at the minimum. There are members of Congress that want it to be rescheduled, but the problem is that not enough of them want it (during an election year) to get anything passed.
Key thing about the article is what she claims the DEA and other agencies has said. Readers who don't perform their own DD will rely on what she is saying. She said that the agencies would give a rescheduling recommendation by mid-year or later. She is implying that they are seeking to reschedule. That is not what they said publicly and I don't know if she has some inside source that everyone else doesn't have. DEA acknowledged FDA made a scheduling recommendation, and they (in turn) would make a determination on the scheduling.
I can see DEA relaxing rules so that further research can be conducted on the medicinal purposes. That is more than likely what FDA wants at a minimum since they have (big and small) companies conducting clinical trials.
It is an issue if an author is making a determination one way or the other and is factually incorrect. That can discredit her depending on how many errors (and the degree in which they are incorrect) she has in her article.
Several issues with that article. I will say she was fair to call out Mike Adams from Natural News on his potential BS, but she interjected her own.
First, that title is clickbait. DEA hasn't promised anything.
Second, I'm not sure who the author' source is, but the DEA hadn't decided anything back in April when the article was written.
They simply said they hope to make a scheduling determination in the 1st half of 2016. That means it could remain Schedule I regardless of what the public and other agencies want.
HHS made scientific and medical evaluations and made a scheduling recommendation. IMO, it's likely they recommended something other than I.
The possible catalyst to look for is the Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome clinical results that are expected to be released in June by that company. The Dravet syndrome clinical results from that same company acted as a boost for the sector in March. They are pivotal clinical trials for CBD treatment of rare forms of epilepsy in children.
Perhaps it's from borrowed money from TCA. Their original agreement was up to $5M. A fraction of that was used towards the purchase of the Jeep dealership. The collateral are the assets from the Jeep dealership. That is why TCA has filed a separate suit against Grimm and Associates. Since KATX defaulted on agreed payments to TCA (b/c they allegedly were not getting revenue from Grimm and Associates), TCA seized control of the assets. From what I remember, TCA mentioned that whole scenario in their court filing.
Ken is(was) also suing Grimm and Associates for court costs.
Looks like this thing is going to get dragged out til late July or August. Currently at "CASE MANAGEMENT HEARING" for both cases.
My phone app was showing as CVSI, but I just checked on my PC and it comes up as a number. I have Etrade. Should be resolved this week. I wouldn't stress too much about it yet.
DEA reschedules, not FDA.
They announced the plan early this year. Was going to be CVSS.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CVSI/news/CannaVest-Corp--Acquires-CanX--Inc--and-Its-Subsidiary-Canabine--LLC--Announces-Name-Change-and-Appointment-of-New-Director?id=122480&b=y
The new ticker symbol should show up in your account already.
It's just window dressing for the stock. For a name and symbol change, nothing else should happen.
DEA decision will be announced before any FDA approval.
GW isn't up for approval on anything right now. They are still performing clinical tests and are expected to release some results soon. May not get a decision on any of their drugs until next year.
DEA decision could come in the next few weeks, but not guaranteed. DEA said they hoped to decide in 1H16.