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.
So what is extactly AMMJ will get in terms of the share price?
Merger Agreement are anticipated to result in a share exchange whereby (i) each three hundred shares of Company common stock will be exchanged
for one share of HyperScale Nexus common stock based on an exchange ratio of 300 to 1, and (ii) upon the Effective Time and the consummation
of the Merger, each shareholder of Company Common Stock shall beneficially own not less than the greater of either: (i) one hundred (100)
shares of HyperScale Nexus Common Stock post-Merger, or (ii) the number of shares of HyperScale Nexus Common Stock that represents a value
of at least $2,500, (iii) each share of common stock of Merger Sub issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time shall
be converted into and become one fully paid and nonassessable share of the Company's common stock. No fractional shares shall be issued.
Just noticed that my 5M bid on 0.0005 was executed. Hope it will run again now
Good point, one of very few cannabis stocks which doesn’t dilute its share structure much during last several down years. It will move sooner or later
You guys are doing a great job!
— Thomas Crawford (@ThomasC82148175) February 16, 2021
Yes, TA matters, chart may bring it to 0.05, but not 0.5
This has moved more than SNDL already. 2300% from low. SNDL has real business and real rev. Does MCOA have? Still got Momentum to take it higher, but not 0.5.
That’s funny, at least we are playing garbage, but you even waste your time watching us play garbage and pretend you can make money, lol
$AMMJ is one of the few tiny #Marijuanastocks didn’t change its share structure much during last few years. Now it’s coming back strongly, will the history repeat it self? Let’s keep our fingers crossed.#cannabisindustry $TLRY $ACB $CGC $CRON pic.twitter.com/u92VeRvYOh
— Wei (@wz1993) February 3, 2021
Today’s volume is tiny compare to last Wednesday’s run. I think MM has loaded enough at low and is in total control now , get ready for the big run!
I own tons of it in my E*TRADE account
On August 28, 2018, the Company entered into a Subscription Agreement with Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (“Hydrofarm”), one of the leading independent providers of hydroponic products in North America, pursuant to which the Company agreed to purchase from Hydrofarm and Hydrofarm agreed to sell to the Company 2,000,000 Units, each Unit consisting of one share of common stock and one warrant to purchase one-half of a share of common stock for an initial exercise price of $5.00 per share, for $2.50 per unit for an aggregate purchase price of $5.00 million. The $5.00 million investment in Hydrofarm was recorded at cost and is included in Investments on the unaudited consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2020.
Company filed the audited 2019 annual report with rev of $15M. 2020 1st Q and 2nd Q will be filed shortly. “Sales for the first Half of 2020 remains strong despite COVID-19, and anticipate a strong revenue finish for the year”
The stock has total 366M shares outstanding, with about 85M floating. During last 3 months, there’re several days the trading volume were over 50M (means more than half of floating) and drove stock up each time, and then followed by pull back with tiny volumes. I think someone is loading up the shares in the big time, and floatings are very concentrated at this moment. SP may be due for the big movement soon based on the price action recently
Congressional Hearing Exposes Marijuana Research Limitations Imposed By Federal Law
Published on January 15, 2020
By Kyle Jaeger
At a congressional hearing on Wednesday, federal regulators recognized that valuable research into marijuana is being inhibited cannabis’s current legal status and described previously unreported steps they’re taking to resolve the issue.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held the meeting to discuss six cannabis reform proposals, including two that would federally legalize marijuana. Most of the hearing involved lawmakers pressing witnesses from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) on the obstacles to marijuana studies that those officials claim are needed before pursuing broader policy reform.
Conversation was more limited when it came to legalization bills such as Judiciary Chairman Jerrod Nadler’s (D-NY) Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which was approved by his panel last year. That said, formerly anti-reform Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) did lead a powerful discussion about the failures of prohibition and the need to deschedule cannabis.
Kennedy announced that panel leadership has agreed to hold a second hearing featuring the voices of people negatively impacted by marijuana prohibition, which he said “has failed.”
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said in his opening statement that “while state laws and public perception around cannabis and its derivatives have evolved over the years, much of the federal framework that regulates cannabis has stayed the same.”
After being repeatedly asked about the limited supply of research-grade cannabis and the lack of chemical diversity in those plants cultivated at the nation’s only federally authorized manufacturer, DEA Senior Policy Advisor Matthew Strait said the agency is aware of the issue and is actively developing regulations to address the problem by licensing additional growers.
“We actually have a draft regulation in place,” he said, adding that it’s currently being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and that regulators have a call scheduled for Thursday to discuss the proposed rule.
“We know that we have to probably do notice and comment rulemaking to implement regulations on two matters: one is how we’re going to evaluate all of our pending applications and two what additional types of regulations might need to be in place in order to impose on those that would grow,” he said. “That regulation is in draft form. I can’t talk too much about it, but rest assured, we have submitted to OMB, it’s been drafted and tomorrow some of us will be getting on a call to talk through it.”
DEA, FDA and NIDA witnesses all agreed under questioning that the current supply of cannabis for study purposes is inadequate and that researchers should be able to access a wider range of marijuana products.
Kennedy, who recently became a cosponsor of the MORE Act, followed up on his opening remarks with a brief statement on his personal evolution on the issue and frustration over policies inhibiting research.
“Meanwhile, millions of Americans—mostly black and brown—have been locked up for non-violent drug offenses. Meanwhile, desperate parents are forced to turn to a black market with no concern for patient safety to get their children the relief that they need. Meanwhile our cities and states are trying, and at times stumbling, to put in place thoughtful and thorough regulatory frameworks with zero support from federal partners. And meanwhile, a brand new corporate industry is rising up, rife with predictable economic injustices that spring up whenever government fails to regulate. Prohibition has clearly failed and America isn’t waiting for its government anymore.”
He then asked NIDA Director Nora Volkow and FDA Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs Douglas Throckmorton whether removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would make it easier for researchers to obtain and study it. Both said that the policy change would in fact simply research, though Volkow said it “may have unintended negative consequences.”
FDA and NIDA said their agencies would not be impacted if marijuana was descheduled, and DEA’s Strait acknowledged that his agency would because of its responsibility to enforce the CSA.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) said researchers are “are in a catch-22” under the current regulatory scheme because they “can’t conduct research until they show cannabis has a medical use, but they can’t demonstrate cannabis has a medical use until they can conduct research.”
“It doesn’t make sense—at least to me,” she said.
Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA) said that the “United States Congress made a mistake, and every Congress since has not had honest hearings and honest dialogue and has not allowed—truly allowed—the researchers in this great country to do the true research that needs to be done for us to properly categorize cannabis in this country.”
“As a result of that, we have millions of individuals in this country who have been subjected to incarceration and a criminal record that otherwise they would have a much more productive and better life and that as a society, we would be much better off, including the taxpayers, if we were to actually get this right,” he said.
There were several exchanges throughout the hearing—which was requested by four Republican members last month—where lawmakers opposed to comprehensive reform argued that cannabis is a gateway drug and that legalization represents a public health threat.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) brought cookies in plastic baggies and distributed them to members. He then pointed to an image of a THC-infused cookie that looks similar that are available in Oregon.
“Each of you, by the way, has a cookie in front of you. I have a pizza stand opening in an hour out in the hallway,” he quipped. “Now don’t worry, I didn’t get that carried away. You can actually eat these. The question is, how do you know if your child stumbled upon it?”
The congressman went on to say that descheduling marijuana “is a step too far and is something I cannot support.”
But there were other members who shared anecdotes about the consequences of prohibition, particularly on patients who stand to benefit from medical cannabis.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), for example, recalled that in the 1980s, he knew friends who would smuggle cannabis into a hospital for a man suffering from cancer and who wanted to improve his quality of life to spend time with his son. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) said her late husband, former Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) experienced “great pain” and was told that cannabis might treat it, but he declined in part because of its status as a federally illicit substance.
Several other lawmakers, including Cannabis Caucus Co-Chair Barbara Lee (D-CA), highlighted the hearing and remarked on its significance.
“Today, my [Energy Commerce] colleagues are holding a hearing on legislation to remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs and allow for more research on the uses, impacts, and health benefits of cannabis,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) said. “Looking forward to their discussion on these bills!”
“After years of working to advance cannabis reform in Congress, this critical hearing is an important milestone where another major congressional committee focused time and attention on our movement,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who spoke to Marijuana Moment on Tuesday about his expectations for the hearing, said in a press release. “It was important to hear a number of senior members of Congress affirming the change that is taking place at the state level and affirming the contradictions that are created by the federal government being out of step and out of touch.”
Pro-legalization group NORML also submitted written testimony for the hearing, stating that as “evident by the title of this hearing, our federal marijuana policies are stuck in the past.”
“It is time for Congress to amend them in a manner that comports with our current political and cultural reality,” the organization said. “For some 50 years, the cannabis plant has been improperly categorized and criminalized by federal law. It is time to re-examine and amend this longstanding failed policy.”
Ahead of the hearing, a coalition of cannabis reform groups—including the National Cannabis Industry Association, Cannabis Trade Federation and Minority Cannabis Business Association—sent a letter to subcommittee leadership ahead of the meeting, encouraging members to take action on the various pieces of legislation.
“As organizations that collectively represent thousands of state-legal cannabis businesses around the country, ancillary industries, and our communities, we applaud your decision to hold a hearing on cannabis policy so early in the new legislative session,” the groups wrote. “This is a wonderful opportunity to continue the robust and groundbreaking discussion on this issue that took place in Congress last year and we commend your leadership in carrying it over into 2020.”
“As an industry, we understand that many lawmakers have concerns about the impact of the changing legal status of cannabis. We do not take these concerns lightly. These concerns underscore the need to establish a legal federal cannabis framework, as current federal policies can cause and exacerbate these concerns. We welcome the opportunity to work with lawmakers and regulators to determine the best paths forward as state and federal cannabis policy evolves.”
In their written testimony, DEA, FDA and NIDA representatives generally described the current state of federal marijuana policy, unsurprisingly without advocating for changes to cannabis’s current criminal status. That said, both DEA and NIDA seemed to at least recognize that existing policies are inhibiting research into the plant and signaled that changes are on the horizon.
Volkow wrote that the growing availability of cannabis products, particularly with high concentrations of THC, “raise serious public health concerns.” At the same time, however, “despite the public health urgency, legal and regulatory barriers continue to present challenges to advancing cannabis research.”
“Obtaining or modifying a Schedule I registration [for researchers to study marijuana] involves significant administrative challenges, and researchers report that obtaining a new registration can take more than a year,” she said. “Adding new substances to an existing registration can also be time consuming.”
“It would be useful to clarify aspects of the [Controlled Substances Act] that have been sources of confusion and administrative burden for the research community,” she said.
Additionally, Volkow acknowledged that the current situation, where the government has only authorized one facility to cultivate cannabis for researchers, “limits the diversity of products and formulations available to researchers and slows the development of cannabis-based medications.”
“Although the University of Mississippi supplies cannabis for clinical trials, it does not have the capacity to manufacture a broad array of cannabis-derived formulations for research or to supply these cannabis products for commercial development,” she said.
Strait wrote that his agency remains committed to expanding the number of federally authorized cannabis manufacturers for research purposes, noting that DEA is reviewing the situation but that ” adjustments to DEA’s policies and procedures may be necessary under applicable U.S. law to be consistent with certain treaty functions.”
“In the near future, DEA intends to propose regulations that would govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law, taking into account recent changes in the Controlled Substances Act,” he said. “At present, a notice of proposed rulemaking is under review by the Office of Management and Budget.”
Volkow raised another issue, which other federal agencies have previously recognized, noting that “researchers supported by NIDA and other federal agencies are unable to access marketed cannabis products through state marijuana dispensaries.”
“There is a significant gap in our understanding of their impact on health,” she said. “The recent outbreaks of e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI), which has been linked to informally-sourced THC-containing vape products, underscores the critical importance of facilitating researcher access to different product sources.”
A NIDA staffer told Marijuana Moment in an email last week that “rigorous research is essential for understanding how the changing cannabis landscape will affect public health, for guiding evidence-based policy, and advancing therapeutics.”
“However, there are significant regulatory challenges to conducting research with marijuana and other Schedule I drugs,” the official said. “NIDA [has] been working with the DEA and FDA on ways to ameliorate these challenges, but there is nothing publicly available to share at this time.”
Source: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/watch-live-congressional-committee-holds-hearing-on-six-marijuana-bills/
Congressional Hearing Exposes Marijuana Research Limitations Imposed By Federal Law
Published on January 15, 2020
By Kyle Jaeger
At a congressional hearing on Wednesday, federal regulators recognized that valuable research into marijuana is being inhibited cannabis’s current legal status and described previously unreported steps they’re taking to resolve the issue.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held the meeting to discuss six cannabis reform proposals, including two that would federally legalize marijuana. Most of the hearing involved lawmakers pressing witnesses from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) on the obstacles to marijuana studies that those officials claim are needed before pursuing broader policy reform.
Conversation was more limited when it came to legalization bills such as Judiciary Chairman Jerrod Nadler’s (D-NY) Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which was approved by his panel last year. That said, formerly anti-reform Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) did lead a powerful discussion about the failures of prohibition and the need to deschedule cannabis.
Kennedy announced that panel leadership has agreed to hold a second hearing featuring the voices of people negatively impacted by marijuana prohibition, which he said “has failed.”
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said in his opening statement that “while state laws and public perception around cannabis and its derivatives have evolved over the years, much of the federal framework that regulates cannabis has stayed the same.”
After being repeatedly asked about the limited supply of research-grade cannabis and the lack of chemical diversity in those plants cultivated at the nation’s only federally authorized manufacturer, DEA Senior Policy Advisor Matthew Strait said the agency is aware of the issue and is actively developing regulations to address the problem by licensing additional growers.
“We actually have a draft regulation in place,” he said, adding that it’s currently being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and that regulators have a call scheduled for Thursday to discuss the proposed rule.
“We know that we have to probably do notice and comment rulemaking to implement regulations on two matters: one is how we’re going to evaluate all of our pending applications and two what additional types of regulations might need to be in place in order to impose on those that would grow,” he said. “That regulation is in draft form. I can’t talk too much about it, but rest assured, we have submitted to OMB, it’s been drafted and tomorrow some of us will be getting on a call to talk through it.”
DEA, FDA and NIDA witnesses all agreed under questioning that the current supply of cannabis for study purposes is inadequate and that researchers should be able to access a wider range of marijuana products.
Kennedy, who recently became a cosponsor of the MORE Act, followed up on his opening remarks with a brief statement on his personal evolution on the issue and frustration over policies inhibiting research.
“Meanwhile, millions of Americans—mostly black and brown—have been locked up for non-violent drug offenses. Meanwhile, desperate parents are forced to turn to a black market with no concern for patient safety to get their children the relief that they need. Meanwhile our cities and states are trying, and at times stumbling, to put in place thoughtful and thorough regulatory frameworks with zero support from federal partners. And meanwhile, a brand new corporate industry is rising up, rife with predictable economic injustices that spring up whenever government fails to regulate. Prohibition has clearly failed and America isn’t waiting for its government anymore.”
He then asked NIDA Director Nora Volkow and FDA Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs Douglas Throckmorton whether removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would make it easier for researchers to obtain and study it. Both said that the policy change would in fact simply research, though Volkow said it “may have unintended negative consequences.”
FDA and NIDA said their agencies would not be impacted if marijuana was descheduled, and DEA’s Strait acknowledged that his agency would because of its responsibility to enforce the CSA.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) said researchers are “are in a catch-22” under the current regulatory scheme because they “can’t conduct research until they show cannabis has a medical use, but they can’t demonstrate cannabis has a medical use until they can conduct research.”
“It doesn’t make sense—at least to me,” she said.
Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA) said that the “United States Congress made a mistake, and every Congress since has not had honest hearings and honest dialogue and has not allowed—truly allowed—the researchers in this great country to do the true research that needs to be done for us to properly categorize cannabis in this country.”
“As a result of that, we have millions of individuals in this country who have been subjected to incarceration and a criminal record that otherwise they would have a much more productive and better life and that as a society, we would be much better off, including the taxpayers, if we were to actually get this right,” he said.
There were several exchanges throughout the hearing—which was requested by four Republican members last month—where lawmakers opposed to comprehensive reform argued that cannabis is a gateway drug and that legalization represents a public health threat.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) brought cookies in plastic baggies and distributed them to members. He then pointed to an image of a THC-infused cookie that looks similar that are available in Oregon.
“Each of you, by the way, has a cookie in front of you. I have a pizza stand opening in an hour out in the hallway,” he quipped. “Now don’t worry, I didn’t get that carried away. You can actually eat these. The question is, how do you know if your child stumbled upon it?”
The congressman went on to say that descheduling marijuana “is a step too far and is something I cannot support.”
But there were other members who shared anecdotes about the consequences of prohibition, particularly on patients who stand to benefit from medical cannabis.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), for example, recalled that in the 1980s, he knew friends who would smuggle cannabis into a hospital for a man suffering from cancer and who wanted to improve his quality of life to spend time with his son. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) said her late husband, former Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) experienced “great pain” and was told that cannabis might treat it, but he declined in part because of its status as a federally illicit substance.
Several other lawmakers, including Cannabis Caucus Co-Chair Barbara Lee (D-CA), highlighted the hearing and remarked on its significance.
“Today, my [Energy Commerce] colleagues are holding a hearing on legislation to remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs and allow for more research on the uses, impacts, and health benefits of cannabis,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) said. “Looking forward to their discussion on these bills!”
“After years of working to advance cannabis reform in Congress, this critical hearing is an important milestone where another major congressional committee focused time and attention on our movement,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who spoke to Marijuana Moment on Tuesday about his expectations for the hearing, said in a press release. “It was important to hear a number of senior members of Congress affirming the change that is taking place at the state level and affirming the contradictions that are created by the federal government being out of step and out of touch.”
Pro-legalization group NORML also submitted written testimony for the hearing, stating that as “evident by the title of this hearing, our federal marijuana policies are stuck in the past.”
“It is time for Congress to amend them in a manner that comports with our current political and cultural reality,” the organization said. “For some 50 years, the cannabis plant has been improperly categorized and criminalized by federal law. It is time to re-examine and amend this longstanding failed policy.”
Ahead of the hearing, a coalition of cannabis reform groups—including the National Cannabis Industry Association, Cannabis Trade Federation and Minority Cannabis Business Association—sent a letter to subcommittee leadership ahead of the meeting, encouraging members to take action on the various pieces of legislation.
“As organizations that collectively represent thousands of state-legal cannabis businesses around the country, ancillary industries, and our communities, we applaud your decision to hold a hearing on cannabis policy so early in the new legislative session,” the groups wrote. “This is a wonderful opportunity to continue the robust and groundbreaking discussion on this issue that took place in Congress last year and we commend your leadership in carrying it over into 2020.”
“As an industry, we understand that many lawmakers have concerns about the impact of the changing legal status of cannabis. We do not take these concerns lightly. These concerns underscore the need to establish a legal federal cannabis framework, as current federal policies can cause and exacerbate these concerns. We welcome the opportunity to work with lawmakers and regulators to determine the best paths forward as state and federal cannabis policy evolves.”
In their written testimony, DEA, FDA and NIDA representatives generally described the current state of federal marijuana policy, unsurprisingly without advocating for changes to cannabis’s current criminal status. That said, both DEA and NIDA seemed to at least recognize that existing policies are inhibiting research into the plant and signaled that changes are on the horizon.
Volkow wrote that the growing availability of cannabis products, particularly with high concentrations of THC, “raise serious public health concerns.” At the same time, however, “despite the public health urgency, legal and regulatory barriers continue to present challenges to advancing cannabis research.”
“Obtaining or modifying a Schedule I registration [for researchers to study marijuana] involves significant administrative challenges, and researchers report that obtaining a new registration can take more than a year,” she said. “Adding new substances to an existing registration can also be time consuming.”
“It would be useful to clarify aspects of the [Controlled Substances Act] that have been sources of confusion and administrative burden for the research community,” she said.
Additionally, Volkow acknowledged that the current situation, where the government has only authorized one facility to cultivate cannabis for researchers, “limits the diversity of products and formulations available to researchers and slows the development of cannabis-based medications.”
“Although the University of Mississippi supplies cannabis for clinical trials, it does not have the capacity to manufacture a broad array of cannabis-derived formulations for research or to supply these cannabis products for commercial development,” she said.
Strait wrote that his agency remains committed to expanding the number of federally authorized cannabis manufacturers for research purposes, noting that DEA is reviewing the situation but that ” adjustments to DEA’s policies and procedures may be necessary under applicable U.S. law to be consistent with certain treaty functions.”
“In the near future, DEA intends to propose regulations that would govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law, taking into account recent changes in the Controlled Substances Act,” he said. “At present, a notice of proposed rulemaking is under review by the Office of Management and Budget.”
Volkow raised another issue, which other federal agencies have previously recognized, noting that “researchers supported by NIDA and other federal agencies are unable to access marketed cannabis products through state marijuana dispensaries.”
“There is a significant gap in our understanding of their impact on health,” she said. “The recent outbreaks of e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI), which has been linked to informally-sourced THC-containing vape products, underscores the critical importance of facilitating researcher access to different product sources.”
A NIDA staffer told Marijuana Moment in an email last week that “rigorous research is essential for understanding how the changing cannabis landscape will affect public health, for guiding evidence-based policy, and advancing therapeutics.”
“However, there are significant regulatory challenges to conducting research with marijuana and other Schedule I drugs,” the official said. “NIDA [has] been working with the DEA and FDA on ways to ameliorate these challenges, but there is nothing publicly available to share at this time.”
Source: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/watch-live-congressional-committee-holds-hearing-on-six-marijuana-bills/
Congressional Hearing Exposes Marijuana Research Limitations Imposed By Federal Law
Published on January 15, 2020
By Kyle Jaeger
At a congressional hearing on Wednesday, federal regulators recognized that valuable research into marijuana is being inhibited cannabis’s current legal status and described previously unreported steps they’re taking to resolve the issue.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held the meeting to discuss six cannabis reform proposals, including two that would federally legalize marijuana. Most of the hearing involved lawmakers pressing witnesses from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) on the obstacles to marijuana studies that those officials claim are needed before pursuing broader policy reform.
Conversation was more limited when it came to legalization bills such as Judiciary Chairman Jerrod Nadler’s (D-NY) Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which was approved by his panel last year. That said, formerly anti-reform Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) did lead a powerful discussion about the failures of prohibition and the need to deschedule cannabis.
Kennedy announced that panel leadership has agreed to hold a second hearing featuring the voices of people negatively impacted by marijuana prohibition, which he said “has failed.”
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said in his opening statement that “while state laws and public perception around cannabis and its derivatives have evolved over the years, much of the federal framework that regulates cannabis has stayed the same.”
After being repeatedly asked about the limited supply of research-grade cannabis and the lack of chemical diversity in those plants cultivated at the nation’s only federally authorized manufacturer, DEA Senior Policy Advisor Matthew Strait said the agency is aware of the issue and is actively developing regulations to address the problem by licensing additional growers.
“We actually have a draft regulation in place,” he said, adding that it’s currently being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and that regulators have a call scheduled for Thursday to discuss the proposed rule.
“We know that we have to probably do notice and comment rulemaking to implement regulations on two matters: one is how we’re going to evaluate all of our pending applications and two what additional types of regulations might need to be in place in order to impose on those that would grow,” he said. “That regulation is in draft form. I can’t talk too much about it, but rest assured, we have submitted to OMB, it’s been drafted and tomorrow some of us will be getting on a call to talk through it.”
DEA, FDA and NIDA witnesses all agreed under questioning that the current supply of cannabis for study purposes is inadequate and that researchers should be able to access a wider range of marijuana products.
Kennedy, who recently became a cosponsor of the MORE Act, followed up on his opening remarks with a brief statement on his personal evolution on the issue and frustration over policies inhibiting research.
“Meanwhile, millions of Americans—mostly black and brown—have been locked up for non-violent drug offenses. Meanwhile, desperate parents are forced to turn to a black market with no concern for patient safety to get their children the relief that they need. Meanwhile our cities and states are trying, and at times stumbling, to put in place thoughtful and thorough regulatory frameworks with zero support from federal partners. And meanwhile, a brand new corporate industry is rising up, rife with predictable economic injustices that spring up whenever government fails to regulate. Prohibition has clearly failed and America isn’t waiting for its government anymore.”
He then asked NIDA Director Nora Volkow and FDA Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs Douglas Throckmorton whether removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would make it easier for researchers to obtain and study it. Both said that the policy change would in fact simply research, though Volkow said it “may have unintended negative consequences.”
FDA and NIDA said their agencies would not be impacted if marijuana was descheduled, and DEA’s Strait acknowledged that his agency would because of its responsibility to enforce the CSA.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo (D-CA) said researchers are “are in a catch-22” under the current regulatory scheme because they “can’t conduct research until they show cannabis has a medical use, but they can’t demonstrate cannabis has a medical use until they can conduct research.”
“It doesn’t make sense—at least to me,” she said.
Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA) said that the “United States Congress made a mistake, and every Congress since has not had honest hearings and honest dialogue and has not allowed—truly allowed—the researchers in this great country to do the true research that needs to be done for us to properly categorize cannabis in this country.”
“As a result of that, we have millions of individuals in this country who have been subjected to incarceration and a criminal record that otherwise they would have a much more productive and better life and that as a society, we would be much better off, including the taxpayers, if we were to actually get this right,” he said.
There were several exchanges throughout the hearing—which was requested by four Republican members last month—where lawmakers opposed to comprehensive reform argued that cannabis is a gateway drug and that legalization represents a public health threat.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) brought cookies in plastic baggies and distributed them to members. He then pointed to an image of a THC-infused cookie that looks similar that are available in Oregon.
“Each of you, by the way, has a cookie in front of you. I have a pizza stand opening in an hour out in the hallway,” he quipped. “Now don’t worry, I didn’t get that carried away. You can actually eat these. The question is, how do you know if your child stumbled upon it?”
The congressman went on to say that descheduling marijuana “is a step too far and is something I cannot support.”
But there were other members who shared anecdotes about the consequences of prohibition, particularly on patients who stand to benefit from medical cannabis.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), for example, recalled that in the 1980s, he knew friends who would smuggle cannabis into a hospital for a man suffering from cancer and who wanted to improve his quality of life to spend time with his son. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) said her late husband, former Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) experienced “great pain” and was told that cannabis might treat it, but he declined in part because of its status as a federally illicit substance.
Several other lawmakers, including Cannabis Caucus Co-Chair Barbara Lee (D-CA), highlighted the hearing and remarked on its significance.
“Today, my [Energy Commerce] colleagues are holding a hearing on legislation to remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs and allow for more research on the uses, impacts, and health benefits of cannabis,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) said. “Looking forward to their discussion on these bills!”
“After years of working to advance cannabis reform in Congress, this critical hearing is an important milestone where another major congressional committee focused time and attention on our movement,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who spoke to Marijuana Moment on Tuesday about his expectations for the hearing, said in a press release. “It was important to hear a number of senior members of Congress affirming the change that is taking place at the state level and affirming the contradictions that are created by the federal government being out of step and out of touch.”
Pro-legalization group NORML also submitted written testimony for the hearing, stating that as “evident by the title of this hearing, our federal marijuana policies are stuck in the past.”
“It is time for Congress to amend them in a manner that comports with our current political and cultural reality,” the organization said. “For some 50 years, the cannabis plant has been improperly categorized and criminalized by federal law. It is time to re-examine and amend this longstanding failed policy.”
Ahead of the hearing, a coalition of cannabis reform groups—including the National Cannabis Industry Association, Cannabis Trade Federation and Minority Cannabis Business Association—sent a letter to subcommittee leadership ahead of the meeting, encouraging members to take action on the various pieces of legislation.
“As organizations that collectively represent thousands of state-legal cannabis businesses around the country, ancillary industries, and our communities, we applaud your decision to hold a hearing on cannabis policy so early in the new legislative session,” the groups wrote. “This is a wonderful opportunity to continue the robust and groundbreaking discussion on this issue that took place in Congress last year and we commend your leadership in carrying it over into 2020.”
“As an industry, we understand that many lawmakers have concerns about the impact of the changing legal status of cannabis. We do not take these concerns lightly. These concerns underscore the need to establish a legal federal cannabis framework, as current federal policies can cause and exacerbate these concerns. We welcome the opportunity to work with lawmakers and regulators to determine the best paths forward as state and federal cannabis policy evolves.”
In their written testimony, DEA, FDA and NIDA representatives generally described the current state of federal marijuana policy, unsurprisingly without advocating for changes to cannabis’s current criminal status. That said, both DEA and NIDA seemed to at least recognize that existing policies are inhibiting research into the plant and signaled that changes are on the horizon.
Volkow wrote that the growing availability of cannabis products, particularly with high concentrations of THC, “raise serious public health concerns.” At the same time, however, “despite the public health urgency, legal and regulatory barriers continue to present challenges to advancing cannabis research.”
“Obtaining or modifying a Schedule I registration [for researchers to study marijuana] involves significant administrative challenges, and researchers report that obtaining a new registration can take more than a year,” she said. “Adding new substances to an existing registration can also be time consuming.”
“It would be useful to clarify aspects of the [Controlled Substances Act] that have been sources of confusion and administrative burden for the research community,” she said.
Additionally, Volkow acknowledged that the current situation, where the government has only authorized one facility to cultivate cannabis for researchers, “limits the diversity of products and formulations available to researchers and slows the development of cannabis-based medications.”
“Although the University of Mississippi supplies cannabis for clinical trials, it does not have the capacity to manufacture a broad array of cannabis-derived formulations for research or to supply these cannabis products for commercial development,” she said.
Strait wrote that his agency remains committed to expanding the number of federally authorized cannabis manufacturers for research purposes, noting that DEA is reviewing the situation but that ” adjustments to DEA’s policies and procedures may be necessary under applicable U.S. law to be consistent with certain treaty functions.”
“In the near future, DEA intends to propose regulations that would govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law, taking into account recent changes in the Controlled Substances Act,” he said. “At present, a notice of proposed rulemaking is under review by the Office of Management and Budget.”
Volkow raised another issue, which other federal agencies have previously recognized, noting that “researchers supported by NIDA and other federal agencies are unable to access marketed cannabis products through state marijuana dispensaries.”
“There is a significant gap in our understanding of their impact on health,” she said. “The recent outbreaks of e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI), which has been linked to informally-sourced THC-containing vape products, underscores the critical importance of facilitating researcher access to different product sources.”
A NIDA staffer told Marijuana Moment in an email last week that “rigorous research is essential for understanding how the changing cannabis landscape will affect public health, for guiding evidence-based policy, and advancing therapeutics.”
“However, there are significant regulatory challenges to conducting research with marijuana and other Schedule I drugs,” the official said. “NIDA [has] been working with the DEA and FDA on ways to ameliorate these challenges, but there is nothing publicly available to share at this time.”
Source: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/watch-live-congressional-committee-holds-hearing-on-six-marijuana-bills/
The best part is it’s still so quiet here
The total shares outstanding by the end of 2018 is almost identical to the end of 2017. The cancelled over 200m shares. So no real dilution for last year.
How much do they sell for each can?
Trading halted per the request of company pending news
@0.005, PZOO has higher MC than DIGP, which has 2M rev in last 3Q, But with the momentum, it may get there
DIGP @ $0.5 is 20M market cap. PZOO @0.02 is 50M. DIGP has 2m rev I last 3Q, and PZOO has 0 rev. I hope PZOO can continue move up in next few days, but I think you are way ahead by comparing with DIGP
License received!
Isodiol just reported 5th highest quarterly revenue among all Canadian dollar reporting cannabis companies.
https://www.newcannabisventures.com/cannabis-company-revenue-ranking/
Here is the detail of the
INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
On August 31, 2018, we entered into an Investment Agreement with Tangiers in order to establish a possible source of funding for our operations.
Under the Investment Agreement Tangiers has agreed to provide us with up to $10,000,000 of funding during the period ending three years from the date of this prospectus.
From time to time during the period ending three years after the date of this prospectus, we may, in our sole discretion, deliver a Put Notice to Tangiers. The Put Notice will specify the number of shares of common stock which we intend to sell to Tangiers on a closing date.
The closing of the purchase by Tangiers of the shares specified in the Put Notice will occur on the date which is no earlier than five and no later than seven Trading Days following the date Tangiers receives the Put Notice. On the closing date we will sell to Tangiers the shares specified in the Put Notice, and Tangiers will pay us an amount equal to the Purchase Price multiplied by the number of shares specified in the Put Notice.
The maximum amount that we will be entitled to sell to Tangiers with respect to any applicable Put Notice will be equal to 100% of the average of the daily trading volume of our common stock for the ten consecutive Trading Days immediately prior to the delivery of the Put Notice, so long as the dollar value of the shares we sell is at least $5,000 and does not exceed $1,000,000 as calculated by multiplying the number of shares specified in the Put Notice by the VWAP. We may not submit a Put Notice until after the closing of the sale of the shares specified in any previous Put Notice or earlier than the eighth Trading Day immediately following the delivery of any Put Notice.
The number of shares to be sold by Tangiers in this offering will vary from time-to-time and will depend upon the number of shares purchased from us pursuant to the terms of the Investment Agreement. However, 12,000,000 shares of common stock is the maximum number of shares which we may sell to Tangiers.
For purposes of the foregoing:
Purchase Price means 85% of the average of the two lowest daily volume weighted average prices of the Company’s common stock during the five consecutive Trading Days including and immediately following the delivery of a Put Notice provided, however, an additional 10% will be added to the discount of each Put if (i) we are not DWAC eligible and (ii) an additional 15% will be added to the discount of each Put if we are under a Depository Trust Company “chill” status on the date Tangiers receives the Put Notice.
Trading Day means any day on which the Principal Market for our common stock is open for trading.
Principal Market means the NYSE MKT, the Nasdaq Capital Market, the OTC Bulletin Board or the OTC Markets Group, whichever is the principal market on which our common stock is traded.
VWAP means a price determined by the daily volume weighted average price of our common stock on the Principal Market as reported by (i) Bloomberg Financial L.P. or (ii) Stock Charts/Quote Media for the ten consecutive Trading Days immediately prior to the date of the delivery of a Put Notice.
Using the formula contained in the Investment Agreement, if we had delivered a Put Notice on April 19, 2018 specifying that we wanted to sell 200,000 shares of our common stock, we would have received $181,130 from the sale of these shares.
The number of shares to be sold by Tangiers in this offering will vary from time-to-time and will depend upon the number of shares purchased from us pursuant to the terms of the Investment Agreement.
We are under no obligation to sell any shares under the equity line of credit and we may terminate the Investment Agreement upon 15 days’ notice to Tangiers.
We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of the shares by Tangiers. Tangiers may resell the shares it acquires by means of this prospectus from time to time in the public market. We are paying the costs of registering the shares offered by Tangiers. Tangiers will pay all other costs of the sale of the shares which it may purchase from us. During the past three years neither Tangiers nor its controlling persons had any relationship with us, or our officers or directors.
24
The shares of common stock owned, or which may be acquired by Tangiers, may be offered and sold by means of this prospectus from time to time as market conditions permit in the over-the-counter market, or otherwise, at prices and terms then prevailing or at prices related to the then-current market price, or in negotiated transactions. These shares may be sold by one or more of the following methods, without limitation:
·
a block trade in which a broker or dealer so engaged will attempt to sell the shares as agent but may position and resell a portion of the block as principal to facilitate the transaction;
·
purchases by a broker or dealer as principal and resale by such broker or dealer for its account pursuant to this prospectus;
·
ordinary brokerage transactions and transactions in which the broker solicits purchasers; and
·
face-to-face transactions between sellers and purchasers without a broker/dealer.
In competing sales, brokers or dealers engaged by Tangiers may arrange for other brokers or dealers to participate. These brokers or dealers may receive commissions or discounts from Tangiers in amounts to be negotiated.
Tangiers is an “underwriter” and any broker/dealers who act in connection with the sale of the shares by means of this prospectus may be deemed to be “underwriters” within the meaning of the Securities Acts of 1933, and any commissions received by them and profit on any resale of the shares as principal might be deemed to be underwriting discounts and commissions under the Securities Act. We haves agreed to indemnify Tangiers against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the Securities Act as underwriters or otherwise.
We have advised Tangiers that it and any securities broker/dealers or others who may be deemed to be statutory underwriters will be subject to the prospectus delivery requirements under the Securities Act of 1933. We have also advised Tangiers that, in the event of a “distribution” of its shares, Tangiers, any “affiliated purchasers”, and any broker/dealer or other person who participates in such distribution, may be subject to Rule 102 of Regulation M under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 until their participation in that distribution is completed. Rule 102 makes it unlawful for any person who is participating in a distribution to bid for or purchase stock of the same class as is the subject of the distribution. A “distribution” is defined in Regulation M as an offering of securities “that is distinguished from ordinary trading transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of special selling efforts and selling methods”. We have also advised Tangiers that Regulation M prohibits any “stabilizing bid” or “stabilizing purchase” for the purpose of pegging, fixing or stabilizing the price of the common stock in connection with this offering.
We granted registration rights to Tangiers to enable it to sell the common stock it may acquire under the Investment Agreement. Notwithstanding these registration rights, we have no obligation:
·
to assist or cooperate with Tangiers in the offering or disposition of their shares; or
·
to obtain a commitment from an underwriter relative to the sale of any the shares.
Tangiers is entitled to customary indemnification from us for any losses or liabilities it suffers based upon material misstatements or omissions from the registration statement or this prospectus, except as they relate to information Tangiers supplied to us for inclusion in the registration statement and prospectus.
We will prepare and file amendments and supplements to this prospectus as may be necessary in order to keep this prospectus effective as long as Tangiers holds shares of our common stock or until these shares can be sold under an appropriate exemption from registration. We have agreed to bear the expenses of registering the shares, but not the expenses associated with selling the shares, such as broker discounts and commissions.
As the date of this prospectus Tangiers did not own any shares of our common stock. During the course of this offering Tangiers may acquire up to 12,000,000 shares of our common stock. As of August 31, 2018 Tangiers, did not own any shares or our common stock. It is not known how many shares of our common stock Tangiers will own after this offering. Tangiers is controlled by Justin Ederle and Michael Sobeck.
Tangiers’ obligations under the equity line are not transferable.
In December 2016 we entered into our first equity line agreement with Tangiers. The agreement operated essentially the same as the equity line agreement described above. As of August 31, 2018, we had received approximately $4,063,581 from the sale of 5,000,000 shares of our common stock to Tangiers pursuant to this agreement. In January 2018 we entered into a second equity line agreement with Tangiers. The second agreement operates essentially the same as the equity line agreement described above. As of August 31, 2018, we had received approximately $3,468,000 from the sale of 6,169,000 shares of our common stock to Tangiers pursuant to this agreement.
Seems to me it’s more like a line of credit than a share offering. The 6+m dollar is the assumed money it may get if based on the closing price of the date the agreement was signed (aug 31th). However no shares has been offered, nor have they received any money yet at this moment. Those shares maybe offered for less price in the future.
Can’t find anything about the deal. Can you please share a link for the news? Thx a lot!
Please go figure out the difference between fully diluted shares and authorized shares first.
SP has been 10 folds in last couple month, and the board is still relatively quiet. Very good sign on continually strength. I think we are going where we came from 6 months ago...
A question to the board: is MJNA's holding of AXIM shares free to trade? Or locked?
"The Company incurred net income of $2,967,808 compared to a Net Loss of $(936,665) for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively. "
Is this earning number of almost $3M correct? Or just a typo?
Does anyone know if MYDX has received the first payment of $100k per the March settlement? And have they paid off the last $35k convertible debt? Which is eligible to covert at May 13th.
Does anyone know if MYDX has received the first $100K payment from BLM? I asked that question, but they didn't response at the conference.
Anyone know that what is the current outstanding shares for ASTI? Thx!
Where do you look the share count? And how much is it now? The number at otcmarkets.com didn't change, and was not accurate anyway.
The price action is encouraging.
The chart looks pretty good now. If we can have another white bar tomorrow and close cross 20MA, we are off and go
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=charts&symbol=NO%5ENEWC