Mark Collins MBA’s Post

Big news for the cannabis industry! 🌿🚀 In a move to reclassify cannabis could spell major tax relief and more banking options for businesses like Sonoran Roots. This shift from Schedule I to III not only eases financial burdens but also opens doors for more investments. While this change promises growth, it also brings concerns about big pharma and tobacco entering the market. https://bit.ly/4brGe8F #CannabisReform #BusinessGrowth #TaxRelief

New York's chief cannabis regulator got a big shakeup last week. New York State Office of Cannabis Management Executive Director Chris Alexander will leave the embattled agency in September when his term ends, after a month-long review ordered after Governor Kathy Hochul called the delayed rollout of legal cannabis in New York disastrous. So, why is this happening now? Who's to blame? Where do we go from here? It seems like the answers to those questions probably depend more on where you stand politically, rather than the reality on the ground. Expansive ideas of using cannabis as a vehicle to lift people out of poverty and help correct the decades-old harms of the War on Drugs on minority communities have crashed into the complicated realities of the rough-and-tumble world of New York politics, a challenging business environment amplified by byzantine regulations guiding the sale and use of cannabis, and a flurry of lawsuits from cannabis companies who say it’s not the government’s job to pick and choose who gets to participate in the free market. There are many reasons why New York's cannabis rollout has been so slow. But I'll go back to what I've been writing: The needs (and spending habits) of regular consumers got lost in the high-minded discussions of social equity and corporations fighting for profits. What do you think? Why are we seeing such a big shakeup in New York cannabis? Has the social equity program been a failure, or are these just growing pains? The latest Cultivated Media hit your inboxes this morning. Subscribe to get in your inbox every day. https://lnkd.in/e4gbEHdU

In the last 24 hours I have seen chatter from some intelligent folks about Schedule III being a problem and a door to Federal regulation and BigPharma. Below are my thoughts... I respectfully disagree. Since 2015 (when I began practicing in the cannabis space), even though cannabis was a Schedule I drug, the DEA and the Federal government have had very little appetite to regulate. They instead left it to the states. It defies logic that the top Federal Health agency and the DEA would agree that cannabis is not dangerous, agreeing to reschedule to Schedule III, and somehow that means that the Federal government now has an interest in spending time and money to regulate the cannabis industry . I recognize that other Schedule III drugs are highly regulated by the Federal government, but cannabis is its own thing; it is not ketamine. Just like cannabis was its own thing among Schedule I drugs; it is not heroin. The Federal government does not even want to even waste time or money to regulate hemp (which is why it delayed the 2023 Farm bill) and allows the intoxicating hemp industry to continue to exist. In terms of politics: the right loves state rights; the left loves social equity. Neither side wants to spend tax dollars or goodwill shutting down a system that countless states spent serious time and money implementing (even if most of those state systems are trainwrecks).

This, Schedule III is not going to turn cannabis into gatekeeped pharmaceutical where were all held to mercy of getting DEA licenses, FDA regulation, and customer prescriptions...Were thinking way to deep... Why would all the sudden the federal government want to extort the industry when they had the opportunity to under 280e and schedule I. How many recreational schedule I and schedule III drugs can you go buy with just a drivers license over the counter with no prescription? It would take a tremendous amount of effort on policy, enforcement, for the feds all the sudden to have an "interest" in our industry. I think all we'll see of this is tax incentives, more US research and industry hype now that every major news network has been talking about cannabis for the last week. We need to keep our eyes on our states and how they react to schedule III. Thoughts?

The big news in the cannabis industry: The DEA is in the process of rescheduling cannabis to a Schedule III substance. Our latest blog breaks down what this shift means for cannabis operators, especially in light of tax code 280E and federal regulations. Stay ahead of the curve and understand the potential impacts on your business! Read the full story here: https://lnkd.in/gRJMcVA2

The cannabis market is heating up just in time for the election. #KamalaHarris has officially rolled out her plan to federally legalize cannabis, setting the stage for what could be a defining moment for the industry. Now, all eyes are on #Trump to see how he follows up on his recent pro adult-use comments in Florida. The political winds are shifting, and as we anticipated, cannabis reform is becoming a center-stage issue right before the election. This momentum isn't just about policy—it's about new market opportunities opening up across the U.S. For investors, the timing couldn't be better. With federal legalization on the table, we could be witnessing the dawn of a new era for cannabis capital markets, regulatory clarity, and access to institutional financing. The question now is: How will both sides position themselves? Will we see a race to champion cannabis reform? Or will the market continue to be shaped by uncertainty? One thing is certain: those prepared to ride the wave of reform will reap the rewards. 🌱📈 #CannabisIndustry #CannabisInvestment #CannabisReform #CapitalMarkets #SAFEAct #Election2024 KEY Investment Partners Pete Karabas Jordan Youkilis Clayton Skulski Blaine Rhoden US Cannabis Council David Culver

"The incoming administration marks the sixth consecutive presidential term under which the cannabis industry will be forced to operate in limbo. America first began dabbling with legal cannabis more than 20 years ago, when California established a medical-use cannabis market in 1996, says Matt Karnes, founder of cannabis research firm GreenWave Advisors.   Cannabis is still prohibited at the federal level, even though it is fully legal in more than 20 states. The federal ban means cannabis can’t be transported over state lines, creating inefficiencies for growers such as Green Thumb Industries and Trulieve that operate in several states. American cannabis companies aren’t allowed to list on U.S. stock exchanges, or even to open a regular checking account at a major bank.  There is a slim chance that something could get done in the lame-duck session. Cannabis lobbyists say the Safer Banking Act, which would give pot companies access to traditional banking services, might pass in the next few weeks. But it is a long shot. Democrats, who have traditionally been friendlier to the cannabis industry, want to focus on other priorities before the end of the congressional term.   Trump isn’t antipot. He backed the unsuccessful ballot to legalize recreational cannabis in Florida. He nominated pro-cannabis Matt Gaetz for attorney general giving the industry hope, but the former congressman withdrew his name from consideration Thursday. Some of the states that voted Trump back into power are already enjoying a windfall from legal sales, so they won’t want a crackdown. Nevada and Arizona have collected $1.1 billion and $703 million in cannabis taxes, respectively, since legalizing adult-use sales, according to data from Gretchen Gailey, founder of cannabis advocacy firm Panoptic Strategies.  But there isn’t a real cost to Republicans to simply leave the issue in states’ hands and kick the can down the road on federal reform. Unlike abortion or immigration, pot isn’t a topic that motivates single-issue voters and it is low on the new administration’s list of priorities.  The failed Florida vote also challenges the cannabis industry’s belief that, as more states go legal, legislators will have no choice but to listen to the will of the people and scrap prohibition. Low-hanging fruit in the push to establish new markets may be gone: Several states that held cannabis legalization ballots on Election Day failed to get enough support to lift restrictions.  One potential positive for the industry is a Biden-led plan to reclassify cannabis. Marijuana is labeled a Schedule I substance alongside heroin and LSD. Because it falls into this category, cannabis companies aren’t allowed to offset regular business expenses such as rent or travel, which can leave their effective tax rate north of 70%."

The final report of the Cannabis Act legislative review was issued yesterday. The Expert Panel recommends the: 1️⃣ Reduction of financial and administrative burdens for operators in the legal cannabis market.   2️⃣ Easing of restrictions on packaging, such as allowing a portion of pouches to be transparent, including QR codes and other informational symbols (i.e organic, recyclable).   3️⃣ Review of the excise model, including an assessment of a progressive tax rate on high-THC products and potential removal for medicinal products. It’s great to see the Expert Panel acknowledge the financial struggles our industry is facing, and a commitment to unburdening operators from constraining regulatory processes. However, there’s more work to be done on a potential excise tax model if government is to establish a sustainable long-term supply of legal cannabis for Canadians. https://lnkd.in/g2U9JSVk

𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐬 - 𝐬𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 Thailand’s recent decision to backtrack on cannabis decriminalization has ignited a storm of reactions, painting a picture of political maneuvering and economic concerns. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin's statement last week of his intention to reclassify cannabis as a narcotic supposedly stems from a desire to regulate the industry against foreign investments and to appease conservative voters. The announcement, made on May 7, has stirred opposition from various quarters, including the many businesses that had invested heavily in the burgeoning cannabis sector. This policy shift will have significant economic ramifications, potentially derailing an industry projected to reach a value of up to US$1.2 billion by 2025. The backlash from cannabis investors, who feel blindsided by the government's reversal, underscores the challenges of navigating policy changes in this sector. Many fear the prospect of their investments being rendered illegal overnight. Amidst the uproar, there are contrasting opinions within the government coalition. While some factions support the re-criminalization of cannabis, others, such as the Bhumjaithai party, which played a key role in legalizing cannabis, advocate for a more measured approach. Behind the scenes, negotiations are likely underway to reconcile these divergent viewpoints and prevent the coalition from fracturing over the issue. The reshuffling of the cabinet reflects Prime Minister Srettha's efforts to consolidate support and push through his party's agenda. The decision on cannabis reflects broader challenges facing the government, including the need to deliver on election promises and stimulate economic recovery. Cannabis policy has emerged as a focal point for Mr. Srettha to rally support, particularly among conservative voters concerned about the social implications of drug use. While the government's stance on cannabis has changed , driven by political considerations and economic imperatives, there is a recognition of the need for regulation in an industry marked by rapid growth and predominant foreign investment. Stakeholders emphasize the importance of striking a balance between control and fostering a legitimate, regulated cannabis market that benefits the economy while still addressing public health concerns. In the midst of uncertainty, there is hope that Thailand can find a middle ground that promotes responsible cannabis use while harnessing its potential economic benefits. As one observer aptly describes it, the situation resembles a "rubber band " with the pendulum swinging back towards a more measured approach after an initial surge of enthusiasm for prohibition.