Breaking Down the Recent Cannabis Rescheduling Recommendation
For more than fifty years, the federal government has maintained that cannabis is a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value. That changed last week (somewhat) when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that cannabis be placed in Schedule III, meaning that it has moderate to low abuse potential, a currently accepted medical use, and a low potential for psychological dependence.
Why now?
In October 2022, the Biden Administration announced that it would ask the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. As the Brookings Institute outlined years ago, the Executive process for rescheduling is much more complex than the Legislative path.
It’s no secret that the presidential election is barely more than a year away, and the President seems to be looking to make good on his campaign promise to reform the nation’s marijuana laws.
What does this mean?
First off, it’s critical to note that HHS’ recommendation to DEA is just that: a recommendation. It is non-binding. The DEA may come to the same conclusion that HHS did, but is not required to.
If cannabis is moved to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, one positive outcome would be that 280E would no longer apply to plant-touching businesses, removing an incredibly punitive and debilitating provision in the tax code.
According to NCIA’s board chair emeritus, Khurshid Khoja, Esq., “…it’s important to remember that rescheduling would not apply the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to marijuana for the first time—it applies right now, and like the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), would continue to apply after rescheduling. But absent any statutory authority permitting FDA to do otherwise, the FDCA would continue to apply after descheduling too, just as it does to hemp products.”
Others claim that the shift to Schedule III would have minimal impact on businesses and individuals. Here at NCIA, we’re cautiously optimistic but recognize that moving cannabis to schedule III could have some limited benefit but does nothing to align federal law with the 38 U.S. states which have already effectively regulated cannabis for medical or adult use.
What now?
Now that HHS has made their recommendation, the DEA will begin its scheduling review process.
Many are divided about what a move to Schedule III would actually look like. Yes, there would be the elimination of 280E, but what about enforcement priorities? Interstate commerce? Criminal penalties? There are so many unknowns.
NCIA has previously produced a common sense, workable roadmap for that federal comprehensive reform and provided detailed feedback on legislative efforts. It is time for Congress to follow the will of the American people. Don’t get me wrong, there’s no doubt that this recommendation is a step in the right direction and is long overdue. But we can’t lose sight of the ultimate goal: removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely.
Have questions?
Join NCIA on September 14 at 1 pm ET for an engaging webinar where we will unpack all your questions! Register today and don’t miss your chance to hear more about what this means for the cannabis industry and your business.
Behind Closed Doors: NCIA at CANNRA’s June Conference
The discussion about the future of cannabis legalization is ongoing, to say the least. Recently, Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) held a two-day conference in early June to gather Marijuana government regulators, trade associations, and businesses. The Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) is a national nonpartisan organization of government cannabis regulators that provides policymakers and regulatory agencies with the resources to make informed decisions when considering whether and how to legalize and regulate cannabis.
Representatives from NCIA participated in the conference – NCIA Board Members Khurshid Khoja (Chair Emeritus) and Michael Cooper (Board Secretary), and we caught up with them in this blog interview to better understand the goals and outcomes of the event.
From a bird’s eye view, what was the overall goal of this conference?
MC: The conference was an opportunity for regulators from around the nation to hear directly from stakeholders on the current and future challenges that face these markets and different models of regulation to tackle them.
KK: I’ll add that our own goals, as the current Policy Co-chairs for NCIA, were to better understand the priorities of state and local cannabis regulators across the country, and anticipate future developments in cannabis policy early on, so we could take that back to the NCIA membership and the staff – especially Michelle Rutter Friberg, Mike Correia, and Maddy Grant from our amazing government relations team.
Let’s talk about who was invited to participate in these panel discussions. From cannabis industry associations to those who regulate cannabis, who else was there?
KK: Michael and I each spoke on a panel. The other speakers included reps from federal trade associations, lobbyists, vendors, and ancillary companies who were helping to underwrite the event (along with NCIA). Given that CANNRA is a non-profit that doesn’t receive any funding from their member jurisdictions, and has a single paid full-time staff member, I thought they were still able to obtain a fairly diverse and interesting set of speakers at the end of the day – including NCIA Board and Committee alums Ean Seeb, Steve DeAngelo, Amber Senter and David Vaillencourt (representing the Colorado Governor’s Office, LPP, Supernova Women and ASTM, respectively), as well as folks from Code for America, Americans for Safe Access, and the Minority Cannabis Business Association, U.S. Pharmacopeia, NIDA, the CDC, and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, representatives of the pharmaceutical, hemp, tobacco and logistics industries, and public health officials.
Were there any organizations or sectors of the industry that were not in attendance, whether they weren’t invited or just didn’t participate, and why is it important to note the gaps of who was not represented?
MC: No licensed businesses were invited. Instead, organizations that represent industry members were invited. As a result, we felt it was crucial to inform these discussions with the perspective of the multitude of small and medium-sized businesses otherwise known as Main Street Cannabis that have built this industry and continue to serve as its engine.
KK: Sadly, we did not have an opportunity to hear from members of the Coalition of Cannabis Regulators of Color. I can’t speak to why that was, but it was unfortunate for us nonetheless. And while we had some public health officials there, I know that CANNRA Executive Director Dr. Schauer would have preferred to see more of them in attendance.
Across the spectrum of policy and regulations and legislative goals, what topics were covered in the panel discussions across the two-day conference?
KK: We covered a ton, given the time we had, including the federal political and policy landscape; interstate commerce; the impact of taxes on the success of the regulated market; social equity and social justice; preventing youth access; regulation of novel, intoxicating and hemp-based cannabinoids; the prospects for uniform state regulations; technological solutions to improve compliance and regulatory oversight; and delivery models.
What information or perspectives did NCIA bring to the panel discussions that were unique from other participants? What does NCIA represent that is different from the other voices at the event?
MC: There really are a wide variety of perspectives on how best to regulate this industry. We felt it was essential that NCIA give a voice to Main Street Cannabis, the small businesses that so many adult-use consumers and medical patients rely upon. We emphasized, for example, that these are often businesses that cannot simply operate in the red indefinitely, but provide essential diversity (in the background and life experience of operators as well as in product selection and choice). NCIA wants to make sure that the future of cannabis isn’t simply the McDonalds and Burger Kings of cannabis. There are times when consumers want that, but there are also times when they want something unique and different. And it’s crucial that policy not destroy the small and medium-sized, frequently social equity-owned, businesses that provide those choices.
What else was interesting to you about this gathering of minds? Were you surprised by anything, or was there anything you heard that you disagreed with?
MC: There are a ton of different perspectives and approaches to cannabis, and that’s no surprise to anyone who has followed these issues closely because the tensions are very clear in the policy debates that are ongoing.
As the voice for the industry, we sought to urge an approach grounded in reality. Americans want these products. That’s clear from the ballot box and public polling. The question should be about how to encourage Americans to purchase regulated, tested versions of these products.
KK: There was definitely stuff we didn’t agree with – some of it from folks that we otherwise largely agree with. For example, our good friend Steve Hawkins of the USCC shocked a few of us in the audience when he seemed to indicate some receptivity to re-scheduling cannabis on an interim basis, rather than moving to de-scheduling immediately. I think that while rescheduling may benefit scientific research and pharmaceutical development, it could ring the death knell for Main Street Cannabis businesses. NCIA has consistently advocated for de-scheduling rather than re-scheduling.
After two days of panels, did anything new come through these discussions, or were any accomplishments achieved?
KK: I think there’s a growing recognition that addressing social equity solely through preferential licensing and business ownership for the few isn’t enough and that the licensing agencies and regulators that execute social equity policies have a very limited (and often underfunded) arsenal to comprehensively redress the harm caused by federal, state and local governments prosecuting the war on drugs. In my remarks, I said it was time for us to start discussing additional forms of targeted reparation and had a number of regulators approach me afterward to continue the discussion. Candidly, I expected my remarks to fall on deaf ears. They didn’t. That was very encouraging.
MC: There was definite progress. At the end of the day, these cannabis regulators are working hard to try to get this right. But in such a new area, and with so many competing perspectives and voices, their job isn’t easy. We were heartened to see the level of engagement from regulators on these points, including follow-ups to get more information on some of the pain points we identified for small and equity businesses in the industry.
It was definitely rewarding to provide NCIA and our members’ perspectives in a forum like this, and we’re looking forward to continuing to further strengthen NCIA’s relationship with CANNRA and regulators around the country.
Committee Blog: Social Equity Perspectives on Interstate Commerce – Part 3
Previously, in part 1 and part 2 of this series, the DEIC examined the problems inherent in existing social equity programs and the merit for federal social equity in regulating interstate commerce. The DEIC also examined the key components of a proposed framework to address these challenges, how to define social equity federally, and the merit of determining the types and numbers of permits to be issued.
Sadly, as written currently, all proposed federal bills fail to meet the critical objective of creating as much NEW generational wealth for the most number of those disparaged from participating in the legal cannabis industry because of the socioeconomic impacts of more than 80 years of federal marijuana prohibition and due to the barriers to entry created amid state regulatory regimes.
To conclude this policy framework proposal, the DEIC will look at the key considerations for a federal program to ensure it functions as designed and how this framework can create social equity technical assistance, qualification, and a phased approach of implementation to ensure that social equity operators have ample time to qualify, have adequate funded, and are set up for success with an equal starting line in the new interstate commerce industry.
Qualifying Social Equity Operators – Federal Technical Assistance Program
It is imperative that any federal social equity framework helps the industry and their new partners, by ensuring permit holders are qualified in both cannabis and business backgrounds, and by helping them bring financing to the table to start a permitted interstate commerce cannabis business that can be as ready, as quickly as possible, to help import, export, and transport cannabis between the States.
To carry out these provisions in the policy, we recommend that amendments to any federal act include:
Requiring that qualified social equity interstate commerce permit holders:
Have a path to educational qualification (training and development)
Can qualify with equivalent experience
Can pre-qualify for the SBA’s funding once they obtain education or equivalent experience (funds issued upon state licensing approval)
Obtain the majority of initial permits offered for interstate commerce (95%)
In alignment with how long and at what percentage the current industry has been dominating the ownership of licenses
Entities should have 51% or more verifiable ownership and control by a social equity qualified applicant.
Advisory Committee to determine how to verify the 51% social equity ownership
Providing social equity qualified permit holders exclusivity for at least 5 years to ensure the qualifying process takes place equitable to the average time in which the industry developed for adult use without considering social equity.
Mandating laboratory testing as national permitting for interstate commerce to work.
Ensure parity amongst states and tribal nations such that tribe-to-tribe trading and interstate trade routes can be protected.
Avoiding overly limiting interstate commerce permits, but also giving them value by not making them unlimited either.
DEIC suggests 1,500 permits as a starting point divided among the three primary types as a fair balance initially.
These pillars of federal act amendments will proactively resolve interstate commerce concerns that are inherent in descheduling cannabis. Further, pre-qualifying permit holders based on their experience, education, as well as federal financing for their business (contingent on state licensing), will accomplish two primary concerns:
Incentivizes state governments to create social equity licensing regimes that emulate federal efforts
Reduces “predatory” operating agreements that use “token” social equity applicants who do not participate in the business license, contribute little to no financing, and are thereby diluted by existing operators and investors
We believe the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is best to handle collaboration efforts to define this new “Minority Cannabis Business” (MCB) certification program for both program providers on the educational side and for pre-qualifying federal funding for qualified applicants.
Through this qualification, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and (SBA) would issue an interstate commerce permit to be tied to state licenses, and only then would funding be issued to the applicant by the SBA. All funding issued is contingent on obtaining a state licensed facility or partnership with an existing operator in any given state.
Phased Approach:
We believe it is also important that the amendments clearly lay out a multi-phased approach to the rollout of interstate commerce permitting to ensure those most qualified operators proceed first, and to then qualify others with enough time to do so. Encapsulating the proposed amendments, we envision the following steps to ensure a smooth transition that maximizes the opportunity for social equity applicants to succeed:
Initially, establishing the advisory board for the regulatory agencies and mandates to allow for education providers to apply and be approved to provide the educational qualification to social equity applicants. These education providers may also be prioritized based on social equity and curriculum requirements designed in collaboration with cannabis business experts and diversity, equity, and inclusion advocates in cannabis.
For those who lack the experience in operating an interstate commerce permitted business, but who are impacted by the war on cannabis, approved educational programs are invaluable to overcoming the barriers in not knowing how to operate a regulated cannabis business.
Those with experience may qualify, without the need of an educational provider, and each are evaluated for priority licensing according to the following priority:
Applicants with cannabis and business experience (most qualified)
Applicants with legacy experience but limited regulated business experience
Applicants with business experience but limited cannabis experience
Applicants with little cannabis or business experience (least qualified)
If qualified in both, the applicant goes first and can qualify for SBA funding fastest.
If they have limited experience in cannabis or business, then the applicant can take the coursework to qualify and apply for SBA funding.
During this time, it is also crucial to increase community education efforts so that communities impacted most by the war on cannabis can be made aware of the opportunity to qualify, be trained/educated, and approved, and get access to the information necessary to pursue the opportunity along the above pathways.
Provide an education fund for state and municipal governments to promote the benefits of cannabis social equity, responsibilities, and risks of cannabis.
Access to financing is critical for social equity applicants and must be made available through the qualification process for social equity qualified businesses. Once qualified on education or equivalent experience, the SBA may pre-approve funding for qualified applicants. By achieving these qualifications, applicants have access to *reserved* funding appropriated by the federal act. Pre-approved financing in the form of grants and low-interest business debt instruments that are contingent on successful completion of course requirements and other “qualifying” factors for a Minority Cannabis Business is critical to ensuring success for operators and the federal government.
These government loans say how one qualifies and is “pre-approved” so that applicants can negotiate with existing industry license holders as valuable partners and receive federal funding contingent on state licensing approval. The idea is to promote partnership and participation between the existing industry and newly established social equity entrepreneurs while ensuring equal opportunity for social equity operators who do not choose to partner with the industry.
Follow Through
To ensure the program functions as designed and that the advisory committee is provided with as much data as possible to improve upon these suggested amendments, the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee (DEIC) recommends a final amendment in the form of a best practices study, along with collected data from participating states, to be instituted and reviewed annually for the first five years and subsequently every three years.
The intention of this study and report is to ensure the enforcement of laws, standards, and programs and to monitor that the activities of social equity operators are in alignment with the intention of the program in benefitting the social equity entrepreneurs permitted, that policies against predatory operating agreements are being enforced, and that policies are truly beneficial to creating social equity in the cannabis industry. The study will provide evidence of the benefits and challenges of the program, as well as possible improvements at federal and state levels.
Conclusion
It seems obvious that unless any social equity partner can “bring more to the table” to balance a “mega player’s” contribution, be educated in all aspects of their chosen field in the industry, recognize predatory agreements, and otherwise be positioned more equally to meaningfully participate in the cannabis industry, social equity programs will continue to fall short of meeting the goal of creating new generational wealth.
History has shown that as long as there’s an opportunity for inequality to be wielded as a weapon for those in power, it will be. No amount of good intention can change that fact.
Social equity requires empowerment opportunities for social equity candidates to bring more to the table as equals with “mega players.” We recognize partnerships can be an ideal path forward when the power dynamics within them are balanced and fair. The DEIC proposes these amendments to any federal act to serve as solutions to the traditional problems of inequality, exclusion, and gatekeeping that once spurred prohibition in the first place and that continue to prevail in the inequity the cannabis industry is still experiencing and to solve the shortcomings of social equity programs thus far.
We recognize that the role for the federal government in these federal act amendments is to even the odds in interstate commerce permitting. Their role is to oversee the fairness in qualifying candidates, to ensure a meaningful value for the permits issued, to give permittees the chance to catch up to the privileged few already in the industry with lockout periods for non-social equity applicants, limited licensing, and to provide access to financing for those traditionally locked out of access to financing or wealth as aa result of systemic oppression caused under prohibition.
Interstate commerce permitting seems like the last true chance for America to atone for 80+ years of marijuana madness and its detriment on our society. It is also the last chance for the industry to search for its soul to balance the impacts prohibition has had on these operators in excluding their participation in legal cannabis initially – born as a result of systemic discrimination overall and colonized on by those with clean records.
In doing so, a more equitable federal act can create the bold ideas and incentive to bring traditional wealth and experience into partnership with underprivileged social equity operators and their expertise/culture to form partnerships that truly represent the intent behind the policies intended for social equity and to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive industry for all.
Committee Blog: Social Equity Perspectives on Interstate Commerce – Part 2
As the debate heats up on “how” rather than “if” cannabis legalization will happen, social equity and comprehensive reform are at the forefront of the minds of national legislators and advocates. Previously, in part 1 of this series, the DEIC examined the problems inherent in existing social equity programs and the merit of federal social equity in regulating interstate commerce. Sadly, as written currently, all proposed federal bills fail to meet the critical objective of creating as much NEW generational wealth as possible for those harmed by the war on drugs.Now, we examine the key components of a proposed framework to address these challenges, how to define social equity federally, and the merit of determining the types and numbers of permits to be issued.
Key Considerations for a Federal Cannabis Social Equity Program:
Fundamentally, any federal act for cannabis legalization should be a social justice bill that deschedules cannabis federally and that creates the most amount of new generational wealth for those most impacted by prohibition. Expungement for all persons with a past criminal record involving cannabis is the bare minimum these bills should do. However, proposed bills so far fall short of the latest innovative solutions to known problems in social equity programs and should be amended to include these key considerations.
Any proposed act must be amended to include provisions on regulating interstate commerce immediately after descheduling. The NCIA’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee (DEIC) believes any federal act must prioritize social equity ownership of interstate commerce permits issued by the federal government. Learning from the municipal and state social equity programs, this policy paper seeks to propose amendments that meet these objectives, by instituting the following amendments to federal legalization bills:
Defining the regulatory agency for federal interstate commerce regulation and taxation
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) roles and responsibilities
Defining number and types of seats for a Federal Cannabis Social Equity advisory board
Ensure a diverse and representative Federal Cannabis Social Equity advisory board members, e.g., federal, state, tribal nations, diverse city representation, NCIA, and social equity cannabis owners, and operators.
Defining who qualifies as a social equity interstate commerce permit holder:
Outlining what states must meet as a minimum standard set by the federal government to participate with equivalent/reciprocal qualification.
May be determined by advisory board to define social equity qualifications
With minimum areas defined such as: income, arrest history, disproportionately impacted area(s), residency or heritage to avoid gentrification issues at large.
Defining permit types (similar to wine wholesale model) such as:
Importing
Privileges to buy from exporters directly and sell to distributors or transporters and licensees into a state system from another state
Exporting
Privileges to buy from operators and sell from a state system to an importer in another state
Transporting
Privileges to sell to or buy from qualified cannabis licensed businesses within a state system and to move product from or to licensees in a state or between importers and exporters interstate
Testing
State labs that meet national standards to ensure consistency with results for other permit types
May not be strictly social equity since existing labs are more specialized in converting to federal standards and adding this permit
Defining these basic requirements offers a framework for interstate commerce permitting and establishes the essential agencies required to enact a robust social equity program federally. More importantly, it stalls illegal and gray area activity from taking root under the guise of federal legalization by ensuring interstate commerce activity falls under a specific regulatory agency already well versed in interstate commerce permitting and regulation.
Suggested Social Equity Definition:
To define social equity applicant qualifications, DEIC suggests the TTB and SBA move away from diversity supplier program definitions which are too restrictive for a new industry to qualify. In order to accommodate the cannabis industry, DEIC recommends looking at other state definitions of social equity qualification that have proven to be effective.
Factors like living in a disproportionately impacted area for 5 out of 10 years, being arrested for cannabis or having a family member who was arrested, as well as income below the poverty line, should become qualifying factors.
Additionally, minorities, women, and veterans should be given additional consideration in the definition of who qualifies as a minority cannabis business.
High poverty rate, unemployment rate and participation in federal or state income-based programs, a history of arrests, convictions and other law enforcement practices in a certain geographic area, such as, but not limited to, precincts, zip codes, neighborhoods, census tracts and political subdivisions, reflecting a disparate enforcement of cannabis prohibition during a certain time period (war on drugs started in 1971), when compared to the rest of the state.
Utilize the advisory committee and collaborate with cannabis social equity groups to make sure gentrification and displacement are taken into account. Many areas have drastically changed over the last 5-10 years. Where a person spent their formative, childhood years should also be factored in. Guarding against ‘gerrymandering’ types of map cutouts, where folks who grew up literally surrounded by DIA’s, and who dealt with many of the same issues growing up, are somehow not considered to be disproportionately impacted.
We believe the federal government should leave regulations within each state alone during this multi-year implementation and defer to the TTB and SBA to work in conjunction with any Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations with their primary focus pertaining to interstate commerce and taxation as it relates to social equity permit issuance.
Defining How Many Permits to Issue to Social Equity Operators
To address the common shortfalls of state programs, the DEIC realizes that social equity applicants are already a minority stakeholder in existing cannabis licensing. In most states, sadly, constituting less than 5% ownership. This is a huge difference compared to the proportion of individuals in prison for the same activities a licensed business is allowed to conduct.
Accordingly, the DEIC recommends a direct balance in ensuring a lock-out period on issuing new permits and ensuring, during that time, that 95% of the permits go to social equity owners/operators.
While some may consider such a counter-balance to be extreme, more and more states are increasing the committed amount of licenses for social equity to ensure a fair counter-balance. If anything, mega-players should be competing with each other for a select number of limited licenses – not the other way around.
We also realize that, in order to generate investment or value behind interstate commerce permits, there could not be an unlimited number of them initially issued. While the advisory board may issue more in the future, we feel a bold stand to increase the number of valuable permits for initial social equity applicants nationwide is necessary to ensure a balance that reflects the oversight to include social equity business into the industry thus far.
DEIC suggests 1,500 permits as a starting point divided among the three primary types (import, export, transport) as a fair balance initially.
The above policies may seem bold, but they are designed to seek to balance the industry and state’s failure to allow social equity participation. Most cannabis states left out social equity operators by mandating residency and felony-free requirements.
The reality is that interstate commerce means selling the products already owned and produced by non-social equity folks. Further, if it was not for these legacy operators, there would not be a cannabis culture. A culture that has been co-opted from legacy social equity operators by mega operators who kept “undesirables” from the industry at its inception.
These policies seek to balance the needs of traditional cannabis businesses that would most benefit from interstate commerce, with the needs of social equity businesses to create equal opportunity. By limiting the number and availability of interstate commerce permits for at least a 5 lock-out year period, the policy ensures traditional operators partner with social equity permit holders to export, import, and transport their goods between various markets.
The policy helps ensure partnerships that are more equitable for both parties and, in doing so, seeks to avoid “predatory operating agreements” or “social equity colonialism” that dilute social equity operators who are not given the opportunity or resources to bring anything to the table. Therefore, the DEIC stands by lock-out periods and a dedicated high percentage of limited licenses for social equity interstate commerce permitting as a policy to balance existing inequity.
In the next part of this policy paper series, the DEIC will examine how this framework sets up social equity technical assistance, qualification, and a phased approach of implementation to ensure the widest net is cast and that social equity operators have ample time to qualify, are appropriately funded, and set up for success with an equal starting line for interstate commerce.
NCIA Deputy Director of Communications Bethany Moore checks in with what’s going on across the country with the National Cannabis Industry Association’s membership, board, allies, and staff. Join us every other Thursday on Facebook for NCIA Today Live.
Committee Blog: Social Equity Perspectives on Interstate Commerce – Part 1
As the debate heats up on “how” rather than “if” cannabis legalization will happen, social equity and comprehensive reform are at the forefront of the minds of national legislators and advocates. Historically, people chose to legalize cannabis as a method of legitimizing the illicit cannabis market. Beyond the message that “Black Lives Matter,” the issue of the federal legalization of marijuana means, fundamentally, that the federal government must spearhead meaningful policies in diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice, to balance the scales of injustice during prohibition and early legalization efforts by the States.
Further, the Biden Administration’s priority of respecting the sovereignty and self-governance of tribal nations means federal trust and treaty responsibilities may finally be met by regularly having meaningful consultations with tribal nations to create federal policy. Thus, the inclusion of tribal nation’s representatives is imperative when creating federal policy to ensure their rights are secure and there is parity amongst states and tribes.
Any descheduling or legalization framework must hold a social equity objective that is clear at the core of its function: To create as much NEW generational wealth for the most number of those disparaged from participating in the legal cannabis industry because of the socioeconomic impacts of more than 80 years of federal marijuana prohibition and due to the barriers to entry created amid state regulatory regimes.
Sadly, as written currently, all proposed federal bills fail to meet this critical objective.
As soon as the federal government deschedules marijuana, it falls under Congress’ constitutional purview to regulate interstate commerce. Marijuana included. This is likely the ONLY opportunity available for those impacted by the war on marijuana to balance the scales of historic injustice, by providing an opportunity to participate in cannabis business ownership in a meaningful and valuable way.
If social equity is not adequately addressed in a federal act, it would require a secondary bill to tax and regulate interstate commerce activities. This would waste precious time and open a door to unregulated and taxed activities until congressional consensus and control are established. We have seen mistakes like this lead to disaster already amid state markets who leapt before ensuring a safety net. It also would NOT guarantee that social equity would be addressed in a second bill under new congressional, senate, or executive purview.
More importantly, the projected market cap of the U.S. cannabis industry is projected to be $85B by 2027 and was $18B in 2020. To put that number in perspective today, the largest tobacco company’s market cap is $95.6B – that’s over 5x the market cap of the whole cannabis industry. Similarly, the largest beverage distribution company has a $45.5B market cap – or over $2.5x of the current cannabis industry cap.
Both of these “big businesses” are in the cannabis industry already and they are preparing for federal legalization. The moment cannabis is de-scheduled, it quickly becomes an “extinction event” for social equity unless guardrails are put in place in the first Federal Act to offer social equity a fighting chance.
To avoid needless delay, to leverage effective taxation and regulation, to protect social equity from rapid market consolidation and control, and to spearhead well-thought-out and innovative ideas to address the inequities of the cannabis industry, the National Cannabis Industry Association’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion Committee (DEIC) presents these considerations to amend any proposed federal act – in order to preserve key concepts central to addressing interstate commerce and the short-falls of previously enacted social equity programs.
The Problems with Current Social Equity Programs
In analyzing the social equity programs undertaken at municipal and state levels so far, the NCIA’s DEIC has found multiple shortcomings in achieving the goal of generating new generational wealth for as many people who have been systematically discriminated against during the prohibition era of cannabis.
Namely, the following major issues continue to prevail:
Social equity applicants who are unqualified or do not participate meaningfully in the ownership or operation of the cannabis business. This can be because of the following reasons:
A lack of experience or expertise in business skills necessary to operate
A lack of experience or expertise in regulated cannabis operations
Fear of continued persecution and distrust related to trauma from being victimized by the war on drugs.
Based on the fact cannabis arrests have and still disproportionately affected BIPOC community members.
This causes many traditional, large, and privileged Multi-State Cannabis Operators (MSOs), in addition to established market entrants (Tobacco and Alcohol) as well as Special Purpose Acquisition Funds (SPAC’s) – collectively referred to as “mega players” – to decide to “take the wheel and drive” the cannabis licensing process and to put the social equity operator in the proverbial “back seat.” Another issue that remains unaddressed and underlies challenges in successful social equity programs is that:
Social equity operators do not have access to financing to meaningfully contribute to capital or operating expenditures to partnerships with cannabis companies who have capital and expertise.
This is certainly in large part due to generational prohibition and lack of access in being underprivileged.
Prohibition also impacts financing which systematically discriminates against the disprivileged; regardless of their interest to participate in the cannabis industry.
These individuals were prohibited from entering the legal market (when barriers were lower) and were initially labeled as “undesirables” because of past criminal history. This gave the cannabis industry and culture away to people who never suffered a day in the war on drugs.
The lack of access to education, experience, and wealth often drives the existing “mega players” who “hold the keys” to expertise and wealth, to justify operating agreements that contain provisions that make the social equity licensee’s position dilutable in the event they cannot meet their operating or fiduciary duties. Which brings up the third underlying problem in social equity programs which is connected to the above factors:
2. Attracting and grooming social equity candidates to qualify for licenses only to then leverage the applicant out of the licenses, is often how “mega players” skirt around social equity provisions. The justification in doing so is due to the above two factors and is justified as “what is best for business” by traditional operators expanding their footprint through social equity licensing.
In the social equity conversation, these partnership agreements are often referred to as “predatory operating agreements” which refer to the manner in which many “mega player” operators, knowing social equity applicants cannot bring education, experience, or money to the table, systemically target and groom qualified social equity applicants into delusions of wealth participation in cannabis only to obtain a license and then proceed into diluting the social equity partner – rather than educating them, providing them experience, or helping them obtain the wealth to contribute as equals.
Mega players, multi-licensed cannabis businesses, and vertical cannabis businesses may also engage in “social equity colonialism” in which they create “incubator programs” to educate, train, possibly fund, or partner with social equity entrepreneurs only to have them compete against one another in “pitch competitions” in which the mega player can cherry-pick the most controllable or affordable operator or otherwise leverage them to benefit including using taxpayer funds granted by the state or through discounts on licensing and/or taxes. Too often, the intent is to “tokenize” social equity operators, rather than empower them as equals.
Whether intentional or not, the impact of reducing social equity applicant participation after using them to obtain social equity licensing is a commonplace practice and shortfall of the programs analyzed by the DEIC.
To solve these problems, the DEIC acknowledges that the motivation for those in power to remain in power does not incentivize them to provide a truly equitable partnership simply because a program exists to do so. To address these diluting agreements, we recognize that the Government must play a role in addressing the underlying factors which justify the behavior driving “predatory operating agreements” and “social equity colonialism”.
Indeed, federal legalization and the regulation of interstate commerce with social equity at the forefront may be the last opportunity to address the harms caused by prohibition nationwide and the inequity of governments refusing to address social equity in cannabis. Similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the victims in the war on cannabis cannot depend solely on state and local governments to address social equity.
Over the next two parts of this series, we will outline a framework of components that may be amended or included in a federal legalization bill to resolve the problems in social equity identified and to provide a comprehensive reform for permitting interstate commerce and addressing the inequity prevalent in the cannabis industry.
Read more in Part 2 and Part 3 of this blog series.
Member Blog: 2022 Cannabis Supply Chain Concerns Demand Creative Solutions
If there was ever a year that we all learned the importance of the supply chain and its impact on our daily lives, 2021 was it. For anyone who somehow hasn’t realized the effect, take a look at grocery prices the next time you shop. The cost of dairy, produce, and countless other items all highlight a fragment of the ongoing concern across the supply chain.
Heading into 2022, just about every company is pondering a similar question: How do we mitigate current and potential challenges for the next decade?
How did we get here?
The pandemic shined a light on numerous glaring issues and failures in the current supply chain.
COVID-19 spotlighted an aging infrastructure in a way it had never been before. Life moved us all into the 21st century years ago. Yet, U.S. ports remained stuck behind using software better suited in a museum as a relic rather than a relied upon, integral component. Instead of being put out to pasture, we continue to rely on this tech to handle shipping volumes that fail to align with today’s demand. With outdated, turn-of-the-century software, ports could not address the volume of daily imports.
Compounding the issue are manufacturing and inventory programs with zero flexibility or ready-to-implement fail-safes in case of dire situations like the one we’re in today. Companies with non-redundant sites like single-sourced manufacturing for an entire global production perfectly highlight this problem.
Infrastructure is far from the only significant factor. The pandemic upended just about every forecast possible. Furniture and appliance demand surged as people stayed home. Hard goods and eCommerce helped fuel a packaging demand spike, further impacting aged tech at ports. Meanwhile, the auto sector is expected to plummet. But, demand surged while companies slashed manufacturing orders. Meanwhile, tech development is months behind as it attempts to update critical tech infrastructure and other supply chain components.
Over the past two decades, a race to the bottom on production prices led many to offshore manufacturing. Once considered a viable option is now a significant pain point as stability wanes and tariffs increase. Then there are material shortages that halt production. This predicament is well on display for any goods made using materials like paperboard, resin-based materials, dyes, and adhesives.
The pandemic certainly did much of the damage, but domestic factors worsened matters, like the South Texas winter storms in the United States. Adding to the goods strains is the consolidation of manufacturers, limiting supply options during crucial times. This underlying industry concern kneecapped numerous sectors operating with just a few producers.
However, the most significant impact is the shortage of people. The tragic loss of lives, mandatory isolation orders, and full-site shutdowns limited the people power needed to sustain the marketplace. From ports to factories to transportation, every facet of the chain continues to struggle with a lack of people.
What is the current state?
The current state of affairs presents critical concerns. Like the year before, companies must contend with concerns that are substantial enough on their own. When coupled together, they create historical challenges.
Labor shortages continue to affect production. The Omicron variant has been the latest problem, just as optimism returned to many workplaces and organizations. The workforce dearth has once again slowed or stopped progress. Expect delays even when labor returns to full force.
The circumstances leave us in a dire time. Inflation has run rampant, impacting labor, transportation, substrate, and countless other costs. While the times are tough, we can remedy the problems with the right frame of mind and proper implementation.
A World Not Without Hope
The ample amount of adversity offers its slivers of silver linings. One of the brightest bits of optimism is the versatility of options available. Just about anything could be viable.
Think dynamically. Listen, consider, forecast, and plan for the days and years ahead. Success lies within your team and customers. Consider all opinions when planning your next steps. Knowledge is vital to ensuring that these issues never happen again. With insights gathered, find the software, suppliers, and other needed components to make your supply chain thrive.
Now may be a good time to consider production closer to home. If impossible, make sure that your partners match timelines and production plan milestones before beginning any relationship. Sustainability is another concern that can’t be overlooked, even if it often comes at an additional cost. Its importance often clashes with sourcing consumers and other critical points mentioned here. That said, packaging can and must do what it can to reduce its carbon footprint—source from eco-conscious companies with options for recycled and/or recycled materials, alternative substrates, and other sustainable options whenever possible.
We should expect inflation to continue growing for some time despite substrate cost stabilization expected to help to a degree. As such, ask how prepared your company is for the challenges ahead. Evaluate every process component, from production to packaging to branding. Taking time to account for every possible hurdle ahead should best position your company to keep costs at a minimum while creating sustainable, consumer-friendly products that won’t get held up in ports and additional shipping lanes.
While times are tough, we can progress in the right direction. Now is the time to streamline the production process to develop customer-friendly products that puts sustainability into action. It’s a tall task, but creative thinking and proper implementation will work, benefitting us all in the process.
Elizabeth Corbett, VP of Sales for AE Global, is on a mission to build sustainable packaging & supply chain programs for cannabis and CBD companies which honor their brand identity, drive revenue growth, protect the product and do so cost effectively. “CannaBeth”, as she is fondly known, entered the cannabis industry more than eight years ago after spending the first part of her career developing packaging solutions for significant players in the retail and health & beauty markets such as Starbucks, Tiffany and Estee Lauder. Based in Seattle and Miami, Beth is passionate about finding environmentally responsible and sustainable solutions no matter what the form or substrate.
Take A Survey: U.S. Cannabis Industry Sentiment and Business Conditions
NCIA chief economist and his cannabis economics firm, Whitney Economics, are collaborating with NCIA to conduct a national survey of businesses and stakeholders in the U.S. cannabis industry. Below, please find a link to the Survey of U.S. Cannabis Industry Sentiment and Business Conditions. It examines the key issues facing the industry including what you are experiencing when doing business in the industry. The survey seeks to investigate what is working and what can be improved from the perspective of businesses and stakeholders in the cannabis industry.
The goal of the survey is to tabulate ancillary business and cannabis operator opinions on the state of the U.S. cannabis market. Responses are confidential and will be kept anonymous.
Your participation and insights will help policymakers understand the issues that face the industry from your perspective. The survey takes between 4–5 minutes to complete. Please complete the survey by Sunday, October 31.
The initial analysis will be made available to all participants later this fall.
If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact Beau Whitney from Whitney Economics at Beau@whitneyeconomics.com
Thank you for supporting this survey.
Video: NCIA Today – September 3, 2021
NCIA Deputy Director of Communications Bethany Moore checks in with what’s going on across the country with the National Cannabis Industry Association’s membership, board, allies, and staff. Join us every Friday here on Facebook for NCIA Today Live.
While marijuana has been around in Mexico since the 1600s, the real story begins in the 20th century during the Prohibitionist Era. After Mexico news outlets widely reported stories of cannabis users committing violent crimes, a cannabis stigma was created, resulting in Mexico banning the production, sale, and use of cannabis in 1920, followed by a ban of exports in 1927. The movement of cannabis was first regulated by the three U.N. conventions on narcotic drugs, beginning with the Single Convention on Drugs in 1961. The prohibition gave rise to the cartel’s involvement in the illegal cannabis industry in the ’80s, and these cartels have consistently supplied the U.S. market since. After the war on drugs significantly increased violence in Mexico and gave the cartels more power than before, Mexico began to alter its stance. In 2015, the country decriminalized cannabis use, and in 2017, legalized medical cannabis containing less than 1% THC. In 2018, the Mexican Supreme Court deemed the prohibition unconstitutional, and in December 2020, the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs transferred cannabis from a Schedule 4 to a Schedule 1 drug under the Single Convention. As of now, Mexico is on the edge of legalizing recreational cannabis use. This bill, “The New Federal Law on the Regulation of Cannabis,” is awaiting approval by the Senate and then only needs to be signed by the President to be passed into law.
With a population of 130 million and over 10 million regular cannabis users, Mexico will generate $1.2 billion in annual tax revenues while saving $200 million annually in law enforcement and creating thousands of new jobs. One estimate has cannabis legalization bringing up to $5 billion to the economy annually. One issue Mexico will face will be keeping the cartels from transitioning to the legal cannabis market. While those with criminal records can’t obtain any cannabis license, cartels have a deep network, and Mexican officials can’t always determine whether someone is connected to a cartel. Mexico’s legislators believe the cartel will be forced to operate legally over time as they won’t be able to compete in the illegal market and keep as much power as they currently have.
There are also many questions regarding how Mexico’s cannabis legalization will affect the U.S. market. The USMCA, formerly known as NAFTA, currently does not include cannabis, raising the question of whether Mexican producers will be able to import cannabis into the U.S. for a much lower price than the U.S. can produce domestically. However, the U.S. will likely implement trade barriers to protect domestic companies. Currently, the U.S. places trade barriers on tomatoes in Mexico, and many see similar actions being placed on cannabis.
The United States will likely place a trade barrier on cannabis from Mexico to protect domestic companies
There’s no doubt that cannabis legalization in Mexico will create investment opportunities in the U.S. It mostly comes down to whether the U.S. creates trade barriers with Mexico regarding cannabis. If they don’t, the U.S. cultivation and manufacturing sectors will be hurt badly as Mexico can produce much cheaper. The absence of trade barriers will also hurt testing labs as cultivation moves out of the country and uses testing labs in that same country. However, U.S. companies with distribution networks, retail operations, or strong brands will benefit from Mexican legalization through lower costs of goods sold. One solution that would benefit U.S. companies would be legalizing interstate commerce in the U.S. without federally legalizing cannabis. This means other countries wouldn’t export finished products or raw material with THC above 0.3% into the U.S., and the U.S. industry would develop and consolidate. Once the U.S. federally legalizes cannabis, they must create tariffs or some trade barriers against all the developing countries legalizing cannabis, or the U.S. companies will suffer.
Companies are also greatly affected by banking laws. Currently, companies touching the flower in countries where it is not federally legal cannot access regular banking and can’t list publicly on the NASDAQ or NYSE. However, Canadian companies touching the flower can list in the U.S. since it is federally legal in Canada. These laws mean companies operating in Mexico will also be able to list in the U.S publicly. However, the SAFE Banking Act recently passed the House of Representatives in April 2021 and is up for debate in the Senate. Passage of this act would grant banking access to cannabis companies touching the flower and open the door for these companies to list in the U.S publicly. This would create a large flow of money into U.S. cannabis companies and allow them to scale at a much quicker pace than previously available. One important thing to note is that the large U.S. stock exchanges are technically able to accept cannabis companies’ listings if they meet the exchange requirements. However, they don’t accept them to avoid punishment from the federal government. Therefore, as the government moves towards allowing these companies federal banking access, the main question regarding U.S. companies is raised. In absence of government pressure, will these exchanges allow U.S. companies to list and access their own public markets?
The SAFE Banking Act would reduce risk for cannabis companies transacting with only cash
Overall, companies and investors looking to take advantage of the booming cannabis market need to stay up to date on the fast-changing cannabis legalization process in many countries. Those that truly understand it will position themselves to benefit from what is projected to be one of the fastest-growing industries over the next decade.
Ms. Della Mora is the Co-founder of BLC, a financial advisory and investment firm based in Los Angeles with satellite offices in Houston, New York, London, Hong Kong, and Melbourne. During her tenure at BLC, she successfully invested, assisted in the capitalization, and helped business develop small cap oil companies in Kentucky, Texas, Louisiana, Illinois, Colorado, California, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska. She has also structured oil & gas partnerships in several U.S. states, and in Ecuador, Central America. Ms. Della Mora has been involved in many LNG (Liquid to Natural Gas) projects in the U.S., as well as many commodity trades worldwide. She has personally advised also Chinese conglomerates in their U.S. oil & gas investments.
Black Legend Capital is a leading Merger & Acquisition boutique advisory firm based in California with offices worldwide. Black Legend Capital was founded in 2011 by former senior investment bankers from Merrill Lynch and Duff & Phelps. We provide M&A advisory services, structured financing, and valuation services primarily in the cannabis, technology, healthcare, and consumer products industries. Black Legend Capital’s partners have extensive advisory experience in structuring deals across Asia-Pacific, Europe, and North America.
Supreme Court of Cannabis?
Photo By CannabisCamera.com
By Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations
While it’s become commonplace to hear cannabis come up in the halls of Congress, and increasingly so in the White House, there’s one branch of government that has been quieter on the topic: the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). However, this week, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas changed that when the court actually declined to weigh in on a 280E case.
Towards the end of 2020, a Colorado medical cannabis dispensary decided to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower-court decision that allowed the IRS to obtain business records in order to apply the 280E provision of the tax code. (Fun fact: NCIA member Jim Thorburn, of the Thorburn Law Group, was actually the counsel on record for this appeal!) According to the filings, the IRS overstepped its authority and also violated the company’s Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Some of the questions the company took to the highest court in the land:
Does the Fourth Amendment protect taxpayers from having confidential information released to the IRS and federal law enforcement authorities?
Does the application of Section 280E to state-legal marijuana businesses violate the federal constitution?
Again, while SCOTUS declined to consider this appeal, Justice Thomas took issue with the underlying state/federal discrepancy in the country’s cannabis laws and issued a searing statement. He specifically discussed a 2005 ruling by SCOTUS in a case called Gonzales v. Raich. In this ruling, the court narrowly determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation that took place wholly within California based on its authority to regulate interstate commerce. Check out a few excerpts from Justice Thomas’ statement below:
“Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning. Once comprehensive, the Federal Government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.”
“Given all these developments, one can certainly understand why an ordinary person might think that the Federal Government has retreated from its once-absolute ban on marijuana. See, e.g., Halper, Congress Quietly Ends Federal Government’s Ban on Medical Marijuana, L. A. Times, Dec. 16, 2014. One can also perhaps understand why business owners in Colorado, like petitioners, may think that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.”
“As things currently stand, the Internal Revenue Service is investigating whether petitioners deducted business expenses in violation of §280E, and petitioners are trying to prevent disclosure of relevant records held by the State. In other words, petitioners have found that the Government’s willingness to often look the other way on marijuana is more episodic than coherent.”
“This disjuncture between the Government’s recent laissez-faire policies on marijuana and the actual operation of specific laws is not limited to the tax context. Many marijuana-related businesses operate entirely in cash because federal law prohibits certain financial institutions from knowingly accepting deposits from or providing other bank services to businesses that violate federal law. Black & Galeazzi, Cannabis Banking: Proceed With Caution, American Bar Assn., Feb. 6, 2020. Cash-based operations are understandably enticing to burglars and robbers. But, if marijuana-related businesses, in recognition of this, hire armed guards for protection, the owners and the guards might run afoul of a federal law that imposes harsh penalties for using a firearm in furtherance of a ‘drug trafficking crime.’”
“Suffice it to say, the Federal Government’s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government’s blanket prohibition in Raich. If the Government is now content to allow States to act “as laboratories” “‘and try novel social and economic experiments,’” Raich, 545 U.S., at 42 (O’Connor, J., dissenting), then it might no longer have authority to intrude on “[t]he States’ core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.””
Just to be clear, these statements don’t change the law of the land, nor do they indicate formal policy developments. They do, however, show that the constantly shifting public perception of cannabis is affecting the way we as a society think about marijuana, which will, at some point, translate into policy. It’s no small feat that one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court has weighed in so substantially on this topic. Continue the momentum and join the movement with NCIA!
Committee Blog: Interstate Commerce – Breaking the Laws of Economics (Part 3)
Legal cannabis, for all of its promise, has failed – in some markets spectacularly – to live up to its economic potential. But while each self-contained state market faces its own combination of political and regulatory challenges, the core of the problem everywhere is basic economics. Legal markets exist to efficiently move goods from where they are best produced to where there is the greatest demand. But cannabis, straddling the line between emerging state regulation and the remnants of federal prohibition, has negotiated that legal chasm by violating the inviolable laws of supply and demand, with predictably disappointing results. Perhaps now, in the face of a disastrous recession, with legal and legalizing states in desperate need for jobs and economic stimulus, is the time to get it right by allowing licensed commerce between legal markets.
The inability to move cannabis across state lines creates myriad problems for legal cannabis market operators that have far-ranging effects for all stakeholders in the cannabis industry, from investors to employees down to the patients and consumers who use the end products. The hindrance to economic activity also slows economic growth, employment, and tax revenues to states that have legal cannabis sales.
Oversupply Vs. Undersupply
Oversupply of cannabis in states like Oregon, which has excellent growing conditions and a favorable regulatory environment, are completely artificial and created not by the true excess of cannabis, but by the current inability to export to more populous states. This oversupply causes prices to plummet, which benefits consumers in the short term but is disastrous for small and medium-sized businesses and has far-reaching impacts on the communities that rely on this agricultural cash crop. Long term, the effect of these artificially low prices is that small businesses fail and large businesses take their assets to scale, which reduces employment and revenues in the communities that produce cannabis and extract the profits for investors in the large firms. This reduces competition and diversity in the industry, which hurts the same consumers in the long run who briefly benefited from the low prices. This is not a theoretical or academic argument, as we have seen these exact dynamics play out in Oregon over the past three years, with a staggering failure rate and rapid consolidation across the industry. Hundreds of millions of dollars of local capital have been eradicated as small businesses funded by friends and family have been forced to sell out to larger operators just to cover the worst of their debts.
In states which experience undersupply of cannabis, whether due to poor growing conditions or unfavorable regulations (or both) prices rise, hurting legal customers and patients of state-legal operators right away. Businesses can ultimately suffer losses of potential revenue, even as prices climb when consumers turn to cheaper cannabis from the illicit market. This undermines the legal systems set up by these states and pushes consumers to less-safe, unregulated products. As consumers drift from the legal to the illicit market, again the small and medium-sized businesses that currently represent the majority of the industry become financially unsustainable will suffer most, with the same end result to cannabis stakeholders as an oversupplied market.
Meanwhile, the artificial boundaries make scaling a business nearly impossible without access to an unlimited pool of capital. If a company from Washington, for example, wished to scale up and access new markets, they would have to completely recreate their entire supply chain, and most of their administrative operations, equally increasing their overhead with physical space and labor, for each new state that they wanted to enter. Effectively, they would have to create a brand-new small business in each state instead of scaling their operations efficiently and just expanding sales efforts to new territories. This is complicated in the extreme, both logistically and financially. What is worse, those redundant operations will become completely obsolete when cannabis is de-scheduled and interstate commerce allowed. This will almost certainly lead to a mass lay-off in the cannabis industry for all multi-state operators seeking to consolidate their operations. This will improve their cost competitiveness and further accelerate price drops that particularly hurt small businesses and stakeholders across the industry.
In fact, the extreme difference between the current state of the industry and a future in which interstate trade is allowed creates perverse incentives to investment, as opportunities that may be attractive in the short-term will ultimately prove disastrous long term. For example, massive energy and water-intensive indoor growing operations would be needed for New York to supply its population locally, and those facilities would require billions in investment dollars. These investments would look fantastic if one could be assured that the current regulatory environment would not change. But, if de-scheduling or other federal action allows for interstate trade, these facilities would have only a few years to reap the benefits of high margins before having to compete on cost with cannabis grown outdoors in the fertile Emerald Triangle of Northern California and Southern Oregon, which can produce much larger quantities of high-quality cannabis with a fraction of the inputs.
Newly legal net consumption states like New York and New Jersey will struggle to match supply to demand for years after initial legalization, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue, lost employment opportunity, and lost tax collections as the state struggles to develop the capacity to meet demand in a place that has no history of large scale production. If states that have historically been net importers plan for interstate trade from the outset, they can have a thriving retail industry with fully stocked shelves by taking high-quality products from producer states like California, Oregon, and Colorado within months of being able to import. The rapid change from essentially no legal industry to a robust, rich, and diverse retail environment would provide immediate economic stimulus in the form of jobs, thriving small businesses, and tax revenues. If new states are forced to rely solely on cannabis that is grown, harvested, processed, and distributed within state lines, it could take many years to develop the full economic benefits that a legal market could bring to bear.
All of these issues can be avoided, or at least mitigated, by a shrewd approach to incremental interstate trade instead of an instantaneous switch from 25 or more siloed industries to one national, or potentially international, market. The dynamics of how different state regulations interact can be tested and worked out thoughtfully, allowing for a more seamless transition and a clear roadmap for federal regulation when cannabis is de-scheduled. Successful interstate trade on any scale, between even just two states, will clearly signal to investors that the future of interstate trade is of pressing urgency to incorporate into their investment strategy. An investor in New York could then focus on opportunities related to local product development with the promise that affordable raw materials would be available from California and skip investing in indoor agriculture. Consumers and patients in states that allow for trade across their borders will instantly have access to a wider array of products, and as the size of the market that the industry has access to increases the dramatic supply and demand swings will be dampened by a larger and more diverse base of both consumers and producers.
Ultimately, the purpose of markets is to maximize the efficiency and utility of the flow of goods. They should move from the places where they are cheapest to produce to the places where the demand is highest. This is most effective with commodities and consumer goods, like cannabis. The current restrictions against moving cannabis across state lines completely hobble the market’s ability to perform this critical function. The result is bad for producers, consumers, regulators, and state governments. Interstate commerce for cannabis means better markets for producers, more choice for consumers, and a massive economic stimulus for all participating states in the form of job creation and increased tax revenues.
Gabriel Cross is a Founder and CEO at Odyssey Distribution, LLC, a distributor for locally-owned craft cannabis producers and processors in Oregon. Gabe worked in the sustainable building industry for a decade before starting Odyssey and brings his experience with sustainability and systems thinking to his work in the cannabis industry. Odyssey manages logistics, sales and marketing for boutique producers so they can focus on creating great craft cannabis products for the Oregon market.
Gary Seelhorstof Flora California has a passion for developing high-quality cannabis products so their most therapeutic effects can be realized. His 25 years in pharmaceuticals and medical devices helps him bring scientific rigor to the cannabis industry. Gary is very active at both the State and Federal level as an advocate for policy reform/higher quality standards. He enjoyed lengthy stints at Eli Lilly and Pfizer (in clinical development and corporate development) and worked with several start-ups developing corporate and compliance strategies. Gary has a B.S./B.A. from UC San Diego in Biochemistry/Psychology, an M.S. in Clinical Physiology from Indiana University, and an MBA from the University of Michigan.
Committee Blog: Interstate Cannabis Commerce Will Benefit Public Safety, Consumer Choice, and Patient Access (Part 2)
By Sean Donahoe, Founder and CEO, Sungrown Developments Inc. Member of NCIA’s State Regulations Committee
In Northern California’s legendary cannabis growing region of Mendocino, the elected county sheriff was recently a competitor at a homebrew festival, jovially pouring samples of his “Pretty Sour Powerful Sider” (jokingly referring to the “Public Safety Power Shutoffs” recently implemented by the electricity utility PG&E to prevent wildfires.) While this relaxed scene of neighbors bonding in the wake of shared inconveniences was not exceptional in itself, here, Sheriff Allman was posing for selfies with licensed (but possibly a few unlicensed) cannabis cultivators sharing the liquid bounties of harvest for the benefit of a local nonprofit.
For nearly a decade, the elected officials and staff of Mendocino county have worked together to normalize the local cannabis farmers by providing a pathway for medical cannabis cultivation permits, long before the state established a licensing system. This public policy process brought once-outlaw cannabis growers into conformance with every regulation of modern life: from building code standards to streambed alteration regulations to the quantification of gross receipts for tax collection. Bringing regulators onto these farms has curtailed previous practices that may have threatened consumer safety: pesticide and other chemicals are now tracked and regulated, while every gram can now be tracked back to its very plot of origin (in case of a safety recall or other concerns post-harvest.) This has been unquestionably difficult for and disruptive to many heritage and small farmers, but it has also allowed in these regions for simple scenes of social bonding and neighbors trusting neighbors again, as participants in the illicit sector were normalized into first their local county’s community then into a system of state license and next (hopefully soon) into a web of regulated interstate commerce. The process of bringing every farm into the regulated supply chain is far from complete, of course, and there are still illicit operators producing for consumers in urban areas in the state and beyond.
Rather than dwell on the incomplete success of California’s ongoing efforts to bring order to the world’s largest cannabis marketplace, it is essential to focus on the quality of life benefits from every cannabis operation successfully brought over from the traditional market to the regulated sector. Each licensed operation makes for one more safe workplace, one more source for lab-tested products for consumers and patients, and one more farm abiding by environmental regulations while providing stable employment and economic sustainability in rural communities. Under the previous medical cannabis paradigm, while there was certainly an abundance of responsible operators, there was virtually zero guidance from the state on matters of workplace safety, manufacturing standards, or environmental compliance. We are now several years into a robust legislative and administrative rulemaking process that has established a (mostly) clear set of rules of the road for commercial cannabis activities. It has unquestionably been a bumpy road for many of the legacy farmers to comply with new regulatory standards, but we are nonetheless able to say that there are now thousands of well-regulated cannabis farms in California (and southern Oregon) eager to sell their clean and craft quality products in a hopeful system of interstate commerce.
Has every cannabis farm in California transitioned? Of course not, but neither have the illicit cannabis economies been entirely supplanted by adult-use cannabis retailers in Colorado and Washington. Sensible and sustainable cannabis policy reform is a process, not a simple flipping of a switch from “illegal” to “legal,” and Americans should be realistic about the progressive and iterative nature of this process. This process, like most evolutionary processes, has already experienced several inflection points, transformative moments that noticeably shifted public opinion or opened up new frontiers in policy reform. While the earlier era of medical cannabis state laws certainly created a base of public opinion and laws, it was questionably the passage of adult-use ballot measures in Colorado and Washington which brought onto the global stage and accelerated the awareness that adult consumers could buy cannabis in clean, responsible retail locations rather than furtive or even dangerous transactions in the illicit marketplace
Throughout this policy process, we have established that licensed retail options can be scaled without negatively affecting public safety and are highly efficient competitive enterprises, offering consumers ample product selection and low prices. In both Colorado and Washington states (but also in later states) we have seen imbalances for some time as market forces, regulatory factors and new cultivation capacity coming online have all helped to create price fluctuations, product shortages, and other supply disruptions. These disruptions were not unique to these early states and will likely continue in every market as new in-state regulated options come online in fits and starts (but when interstate commerce becomes possible we should expect significant price fluctuations unlike any seen to date.) During these fiscally trying periods, we have often seen cannabis operators attempt to cut corners on compliance to make ends meet, which can lead to compromised consumer safety and public safety. The goals of consumer availability and cost competitiveness should be foremost in the minds of policymakers crafting cannabis policy reform nationwide, most notably in the anticipated markets of the Northeast. As these next anticipated adult-use states are designing the framework of their retail and distribution systems, strong consideration should be taken on the potential benefits of quickly and effectively scaling their programs by incorporating interstate commerce as soon as (politically) possible.
The Interstate Commerce Conversation
As the serious policy conversations about compliant interstate cannabis commerce begin, it is helpful to study how in our proverbial laboratories of democracy we can see that decreasing retail friction and shifting consumers from the illicit marketplace benefits crime reduction efforts and improves overall public safety. We should also note that retail cannabis sales have continued to grow in Colorado and Washington, even after the initial novelty and the surge of tourism waned, while legal sales have supplanted illicit sales. These early-adopting states have created models that are addressing consumer demand as national interest in cannabis for wellness and adult-use purposes are soaring and the cultural normalizing continues to occur on a global scale. Interest is high, consumer demand is real, and evidence shows that our drug reform policies should be crafted to bring every cannabis consumer transaction into the regulated supply chain in order to fulfill the demand while benefiting from increases in public safety.Interstate commerce could provide not only safer products but also a greater variety of quality and highly competitive offerings. For medical patients and wellness-oriented consumers, interstate commerce may be the only viable means of access for certain formulated cannabis products or cultivars, especially in smaller state markets.
In addition to the above benefits, regulated interstate cannabis commerce system could provide a more robust and differentiated production and distribution network combined with the ability to rapidly scale retail sales and address insufficient cultivation capacity in new adult-use markets.Cannabis consumers are price sensitive and illicit market retail options continue to entice consumers in states with functional adult-use programs such as California (or Canada), where there is an insufficient amount of licensed retail options to address total consumer demand. With the beginning of adult-use sales in Illinois and larger adult-use states yet to come, it is frankly a bit difficult to envision how total consumer demand will be able to be fulfilled in any near term by relying on licensed cannabis cultivated in-state alone.
The Safe Vaping Discussion
While moving to allow interstate commerce will best position licensed operators to compete with the prices available to consumers in the illicit sector, moving towards a borderless system of production and distribution will also increase safety and access for patients and consumers. Most prominent is the recent nationwide discussion on vaping and vaping-related issues, where tainted products and resultant injuries have been found in the unregulated, illicit sector (or in a very few instances from licensed but arguably under-regulated sources.)Notably, NCIA’s Policy Council established a Safe Vaping Task Force to work on these issues and has released a more comprehensive document advocating for the expansion of a regulatory approach for the safe manufacturing and distribution of cannabis products, whether vape cartridges or otherwise.
The issue of vaping extends to broader issues of product safety including educational campaigns, quality assurance, and testing programs, supply chain integrity, track and trace, and other reporting systems, and (when all else fails) a capable and sophisticated product safety recall system and these are all necessary components of a well-regulated marketplace. These consumer safety programs have already been carefully designed and stress-tested in Colorado and California and the insights from these systems and those in other states should be incorporated into the crafting of interstate cannabis policy (which will require significant harmonization of Certificates of Analysis and testing standards, packaging and labeling standards, etc., again all of which will benefit patients and consumers by offering greater predictability and reliability of their preferred products.)
Multi-State Coordination
In various forums, we have begun to see state regulators liaise with each other and we hope to see more coordination in the future and potentially an earnestness in harmonizing standards where statutorily possible. This multi-state coordination on product safety standards would be accelerated as part of the regulatory coordination efforts that are likely necessary for interstate commerce and, again, consumers and patients will benefit from safer cannabis and cannabis products, and we see NCIA as the critical player in this coming national conversation. In conclusion, moving to a system of regulated interstate cannabis commerce will have tangible benefits for the general public, for consumers and patients and I encourage forward-thinking members of the industry to participate and help manifest a system of interstate cannabis commerce with NCIA, its Allied Associations and other industry groups.
After studying Russian affairs and working as a political consultant, Sean Donahoe co-founded the California Cannabis Industry Association. He served as its Deputy Director through 2014 when he transitioned to consulting for investors and operators, communicating with public stakeholders, serving on local government committees, and advising industry trade groups. He holds an MSc in Government from the London School of Economics and is CEO of Sungrown Developments Inc., an advisory firm and holding company in Oakland, California.
Committee Blog: Ending The Ban On Interstate Commerce (Part 1)
Oversupply and shortages, high prices and lack of choice for patients and consumers, illicit markets, tainted products, and the inability to access banking and capital all plague the burgeoning cannabis industry. While cannabis advocates and industry leaders are working on each of these problems, there is one solution that would ease the burden on all of them. Allowing for interstate trade between states with legal cannabis markets would improve each of these issues while supporting the individual solutions to each that the industry has been working on. This is the first post in a series that explores the benefits and barriers to setting up a legal framework for interstate trade, even before wholesale legalization at the federal level.
Since the beginning of legal, adult-use cannabis, when Colorado and Washington passed the first ballot measure allowing for adult-use, the industry was guided by the Cole Memo, which laid out the parameters for the federal government staying out of the states’ cannabis experiments. Among other things, the Cole memo stated that the DEA could crackdown on cannabis moving from states with well-regulated systems to states that do not allow cannabis. This statement has been interpreted conservatively to mean that no cannabis should cross state lines for any reason, ever, based on the fact that at the federal level, cannabis is still a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.
Today, there are 10 states which have legalized adult-use, another 19 which allow for medical use, and six more which allow the use of CBD products only. Many of these states share borders, and producer states could serve several nearby markets without ever entering a state that does not allow cannabis in any form. Furthermore, the Cole Memo, which was rescinded by Jeff Sessions in 2018, has not been replaced by any guidance whatsoever. This means that each U.S. Attorney’s office is free to set their own enforcement priorities around state-legal cannabis activities, and there is no official overriding policy at the DOJ on interstate trade between states with medical or adult use. Corresponding guidance from FinCEN, however, remains in effect and similarly discourages the transfer of cannabis between states.
Cannabis markets vary widely from state to state with regard to the underlying market dynamics and challenges that they face. Some states produce too much while other states experience shortages. Meanwhile, new states pass legislation or have voter initiatives that allow medical or adult-use every year without any infrastructure in place to supply that state’s demand. In each new legal market, the vast majority of demand had long been met through illicit market supply, and generally from outside of the state’s boundaries.
The artificial boundaries around cannabis markets have far-reaching impacts for local economies, patient access, illicit market activity, and social equity. Later posts in this series will take a deep dive into each of these issues, and in this post, we will look at how this has impacted states, the industry, and consumers so far.
Lessons Learned:
Washington State chose to take the strictest possible reading of the Cole Memo, and insist that not only must cannabis not cross state lines but also sources of funding must come from within the state. Combined with their high capitalization requirement for licenses, the result was a disaster from an equity standpoint: only wealthy and well-connected individuals in the state (which are overwhelmingly white males) were able to even attempt a license. This decision was based substantially on the fact that interstate trade was not allowed.
In Oregon, which has an ideal growing climate and a long tradition of exporting cannabis (albeit in the illicit market), the artificial boundaries created by the ban on interstate trade lead to a massive oversupply for its small population, which crippled the industry and tanked many small businesses. Despite the fact that Oregonians consume more cannabis per capita than any state, their climate and culture have led to growing massive quantities of world-class cannabis that cannot reach patients and consumers, even in neighboring states that might have under-supply issues. The result is that hundreds of small, mom-and-pop shops and family farms have gone out of business, eradicating millions of dollars of local capital, and accelerating mass consolidation of the industry into the hands of a few foreign corporations. Meanwhile, in medical markets like Illinois and Michigan, patients have had sporadic access to quality cannabis-based medicines.
When Nevada originally launched, due to the influence of local liquor distributors, it was almost impossible to get products to market, and the state’s dispensaries sold out on the first day of sales. After ironing out some of the kinks, sales are going strong, but the practice of growing thirsty plants indoors in the desert is of dubious value when the same plant can be grown with a fraction of the inputs in northern California and southern Oregon.
California’s legal system is a perfect example of how over-regulation fuels illicit market activity. Because of the structure of their regulatory framework and high taxes, the state is served by only 800 licensed dispensaries, whose prices are double and triple those found on the illicit market for similar products. This has led to the emergence of thousands of “pop-up” or unlicensed dispensaries, selling untested products tax-free in a thriving illicit market. The booming illicit market in California has also led to massive wholesale markets of hardware, branded packaging, and flavoring and cutting agents (all technically legal) to supply the illegal operators with everything they need to look legitimate. This is a major contributing factor to the wide-spread vaping related illness cases popping up all over the country, as many illicit market operators purchase their supplies in downtown Los Angeles.
The ban on interstate trade promises to continue to create new and novel problems as well. If New York, the 4th most populous state in the union, legalized adult-use (which seems likely in the near future), and interstate trade were still banned, it would require a massive investment, on the order of billions of dollars, to create enough indoor and greenhouse grow facilities to supply the demand created by its 19 million inhabitants. The recent legalization of hemp under the last Farm Bill has created a number of legal dilemmas as well, as some individual states that do not recognize any difference between hemp and cannabis flower have seized products and arrested individuals taking hemp legally grown in one state to a market where it is legal to sell.
Some suggest that these issues will be sorted in local markets, and in each state individually this approach might seem to make sense. When you add these problems together, though, a much more elegant, efficient, and obvious solution emerges: let states that have always exported cannabis send it to states that have always imported it. A set of different and seemingly unconnected problems become each other’s solutions.
Historically, people across the country have consumed cannabis, and the vast majority of it was grown in a few locations that are particularly well-suited to the plant. It is highly likely that a fully-matured nationwide legal market (one which must account for not only interstate, but also international competition) will ultimately be best served by the same general market dynamics. The only question is: how long will we allow the artificial market boundaries around each state to decimate local capital, curb access for patients and consumers, encourage investments that are attractive short-term but disastrous long-term, and prop up the illegal markets that pose a public health risk?
Interstate trade between states that allow some form of legal cannabis would provide much-needed relief on a number of fronts for cannabis businesses, and could be structured in such a way to support social equity efforts. With a little guidance on enforcement and thoughtful programs and agreements between states, there is a path to legal interstate commerce even before cannabis is removed from the Controlled Substances Act. The state of Oregon has already passed legislation allowing for the export and import of cannabis products provided that the Federal Government allows it. This could be either through legislation such as the proposed Blumenauer/Widen State Cannabis Commerce Act, or though DOJ enforcement guidance (whether from the Attorney General or the relevant local U.S. Attorney’s). There are multiple paths that can lead to the end of banned interstate trade, and it seems increasingly inevitable that we will see legal cannabis trade across state borders in the near future. For most operators in the cannabis industry, and for all patients and consumers, this will be a good thing, and can’t come soon enough.
Gabriel Cross is a Founder and CEO at Odyssey Distribution, LLC, a distributor for locally-owned craft cannabis producers and processors in Oregon. Gabe worked in the sustainable building industry for a decade before starting Odyssey and brings his experience with sustainability and systems thinking to his work in the cannabis industry. Odyssey manages logistics, sales and marketing for boutique producers so they can focus on creating great craft cannabis products for the Oregon market.
This site uses cookies. By using this site or closing this notice, you agree to the use of cookies and our privacy policy.
MC
by Mark Slaugh, 
Elizabeth Corbett, VP of Sales for 
Ms. Della Mora is the Co-founder of 
Gabriel Cross is a Founder and CEO at 
Gary Seelhorst
After studying Russian affairs and working as a political consultant, Sean Donahoe co-founded the California Cannabis Industry Association. He served as its Deputy Director through 2014 when he transitioned to consulting for investors and operators, communicating with public stakeholders, serving on local government committees, and advising industry trade groups. He holds an MSc in Government from the London School of Economics and is CEO of Sungrown Developments Inc., an advisory firm and holding company in Oakland, California.