john1311 Sunday, 08/27/17 02:51:44 AM Re: Hunchbackgeek post# 711 Post # of 848 For over a year now, I have been hammering away at the Financial Times that they are not reporting / treating the canna sector in a serious way. After all this is now a legal global industry. About 3 weeks ago I got two emails (customer service + editorial) that they would look into my complaints against the FT. And today I am a little happier. The Financial Times reports: Legalised marijuana is creating a property boom in towns hoping to find a pot of gold... https://www.ft.com/content/62c35d82-832e-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd Depending on who you are, where you live and what your risk aversion is, cannabis law in the US can be pretty much whatever you make of it. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, which defines it as having an elevated risk of dependency and no medical use or benefit. As a result, the possession, growing or use of marijuana is a federal crime, punishable by fines or prison. Yet a growing number of states — at present more than half the total — have legalised marijuana in some shape or form. Some states and even the District of Columbia, home to the White House and the US Congress, have legalised the use of cannabis for adult recreational purposes. In spite of this glaring conflict between state and federal law, most cannabis operations in states that have legalised cannabis, and that adhere to their specific state’s regulations, have been able to operate without any problem. The reason, many investors believe, comes down to increasing federal pragmatism defined, most recently, by a 2013 memorandum issued by James Cole, then US deputy attorney-general, stating that a “robust” enforcement system could concentrate on “replacing an illicit marijuana trade that funds criminal enterprises with a tightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and accounted for”.