Tag Archives: canada

December 3, 2019

Is Australian Cannabis Going Corporate?

By Marguerite Arnold

Patient numbers in Australia are going in only one way – up. As of last month, the Australian government reported that it had approved a record 3,594 cannabis prescriptions in October 2019 – or about twice as many as it had approved in only July.

As patient numbers have grown, plans have proceeded afoot Down Under to capitalize on the growing willingness in Australia to accept that cannabis is not only medicine – but can now be prescribed by regular GPs – as opposed to specialists. Not to mention exported to a global medical market suddenly looking for high quality product at affordable prices in far afield places.

Leafcann is one of the companies in that elite territory right now. The new approval by the government for the expansion of facilities to both produce and research cannabis will double the company’s facility somewhere in Adelaide (the location is not being disclosed for security reasons). The new facility will also be the first in the world to produce oil from plant genes and distribute the same to patients.

But they are not the only ones. According to the latest market report by Aussie-based Fresh Leaf Analytics, the numbers of patients domestically are set to jump dramatically again next year.

And as the Australian market mushrooms (indeed European farmers are fielding interest from distributors from the region lately), will the Aussies, rather than any EU-based rival, become the first real global competition to the Canadians first in the race on the flower front?

Don’t count on that. There are too many contenders now for quality cannabis all over Europe for low priced medical cannabis from Down Under to be able to do any more than secure a few early harvests. See the activities of Aphria in the UK for example. Or the proclivities of Lexamed and a few other distributors in Germany.

However, what this development clearly shows is that the Aussie market for oil is not only driving large and well-funded production at home, but also having a knock-on effect internationally.

Whatever else is going on, in other words, the Australians are not only gearing up to go big on the weed front domestically, but driving the market for oil just about everywhere. Starting with CBD.

Don’t Bet The Farm On Aussie Production

Looking at what is going on, in fact, by the numbers, it appears that the Australian market is getting going in ways impossible for their northern brethren. In part that has to do with both Australian federal and state legislation.

It also, when you look at the numbers, is still a market dominated by less than THC medical grade product – the vast majority of patients are still only receiving CBD and most of them in oil form. Australian cannabis bound for pharmacies is also so far clocking in far closer to European prices than Canadian – in part because Canadian companies can ship directly to patients. Australia is also following a European distribution model. And recreational is off the table for now (at least until New Zealand does it). In the meantime, the medical business is proceeding apace.

This means two things: CBD oil is going nowhere either in or outside Australia unless it is either GMP or Novel Food certified – and that takes cash up front. Regardless, will the Aussie market look financially like the salad days of Canada’s medical market? Do not count on it. The flameouts of public companies if not volatility of the public sector, not to mention the growing longevity of the legal biz is creating other paths to financing. Including the fact that most savvy investors at any rate understand that price sensitivity is in the room from the beginning.

So yes, there certainly have been and will continue to be large, well-funded, corporate Aussies – indeed that is the shape of the future just about everywhere. But don’t expect the corporate playbook to be the same as the ones played by the Canadians so far.

December 3, 2019

What’s Going Down In The Danish Cannabis Market?

By Marguerite Arnold

1 Comment

Despite the fact that the Danes are going to do something that is still verboten in Germany and many other European locales (namely allow a recreational trial), the overall bloom is off the first heady days of the cannabis rose here in Denmark.

Medical sales have stalled of late because of both supply (and in part CannTrust problems) and of course price in a market with a lot of cultivation enthusiasm, but also one which still imports its medical cannabis (although domestic production is coming online soon).

This is even more interesting of course given some ideas floating in the current Euro cannosphere – namely that Canadian funded, Danish based cultivators are or were planning on importing to both Germany and Poland this fall. In other words, low sales at home for expensive product that can be bought for less at the revived Christiana marketplace are not a market entry strategy that brings ballast to balance sheets. And while the rec market is coming (obviously), the trial is in early days yet.

Further, while the German market certainly presents an opportunity for higher priced cannabis coming out of Denmark (for now), that also will not last. And is certainly not the case in Poland.

For that reason, it is clear there is at least temporary trouble brewing in what some initially thought was going to be a European-based cannabis paradise. But that too, is so 2018.

A Few Numbers

The medical trial in Denmark is now entering the beginning of its third year as of 2020. There are, according to official estimates just over 4,000 legal patients. 34 companies have permits to cultivate cannabis, including all the usual suspects – starting with Canopy Growth, Aurora, Aphria, ICC (Wayland) and The Green Organic Dutchman, plus of course all the indie locals.

Put this in perspective and is it really any wonder why Aurora also just recently announced the halting of partly built construction in both Denmark and Canada this month?

Especially with problems in Poland, slower than expected legal sales in Germany and of course the disaster that is still the UK, this newest setback for the company is also not exactly unexpected. The only cannabis company, European or not, who benefitted from the recent NHS pivot on medical cannabinoids was the home-based GW Pharmaceuticals, albeit at lower negotiated prices as the total pool of patients is now increased with the new NICE guidelines.

Given all of these headwinds, even with a few export possibilities, the Danish market that supposedly offered a promised respite from the problems of the German one (certainly on the cultivation front), has run into a similar problem at point of prescription and sales.

Even Danish patient number growth is anaemic compared to Deutschland – which is, by all reports, not even close to considering a recreational trial in Berlin, Bremen or any other jurisdiction which has suggested the same.

With bulk, high-grade production coming online, there is clearly going to be a regulated cannabis market in Denmark. How the decisions about who will qualify for medical will be made in the future is another question. And one that certainly the larger producers at least, are responding to in kind.

The Winds of Change

Given the amount of compliant cannabis now in the pipeline for the continent (and not just domestically) it will be interesting to see how 2020 shapes up. However, no matter how still sluggish the numbers, another domestic cannabis market has begun to come into its own as the continent moves forward on the issue generally.

December 2, 2019

Second Canadian Cannabis Company Admits To Illegal Grows

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

For the second time this year, a Canadian public cannabis company with interests far outside the country, has fessed up to unlicensed growing.

This time it is Hexo, a company with many issues floating since this summer’s bombshell disclosures about CannTrust.

Interestingly, of course, the company claims that it also only discovered the area on July 30 – after the acquisition of Newstrike Brands closed. And while cultivation was also immediately stopped in so-called “Block B”, this also raises many other questions – including about the level of due diligence – no matter the cannabis – in the room leading up to the purchase in the first place. That includes not just both companies on each side of the deal, but, as the Canadian press has also been quick to point out – the regulators themselves.

Beyond a similar window of timing with the sorry events of the summer on the CannTrust front, this decision also comes at a time when the beleaguered Hexo is closing the facility in question in an effort to contain costs. Nonetheless, the convenient timing and slap-on-the-wrist attitude from the regulators for this kind of “self-reporting,” is one thing. That this lenient response from regulators (CA$77 million in destroyed CannTrust product notwithstanding) has now happened twice in a row since summer, has led many to wonder what the regulators are doing when not being tipped off by whistle-blowers and company accountants about the inevitable.

In truth, coming as it does more or less on the anniversary of the first year of recreational reform and massive changes afoot in Europe, such realities should not be surprising.

Planes that are built as they are hurtling down the runway, to paraphrase a frustrated Canadian regulator last summer, tend to have a few bits that clank down to the tarmac upon wheels up. Assuming of course, that things do not just come completely unbolted at point of airborne lift.

There is no chance that this craft however, will be allowed to return to the barn, let alone land. There is too much at stake – economically, politically and medically, truth be told.

This cannabis horse has now left this territory.

And in its wake? The inevitable aftermath of a market that, while certainly deserving kudos in managing to create itself in the first place, needs time to iron out the kinks.

What Does This Mean For The Canadian Market Going Global?

With higher standards in Europe, none of this news about Hexo flies particularly well abroad. Why fight for the market entry rights of foreigners, in other words, who don’t even seem to care, much less respect domestic regulations in their own country?

So in truth, even though it is far too early to count some of the largest companies in the room out (see Canopy’s recent canna coups in Luxembourg), many of “The Canadians” – as Hexo is of course inevitably also tagged, who made the first enters since 2017, and “have all the money,” may in truth be struggling to maintain market share, if not control of their brands.

As many on the ground in Europe are indeed asking now, if large Canadian companies who are also public, cannot even meet Canadian standards, and lightly slapped on the wrist when caught, why trust the product?

The good news? The cannabis industry has proved it is resilient, if not exactly made of Teflon.

Hexo has gotten its issues out of the way for now – escaping censure apparently on a technicality and self-reporting.

However, as Canada now enters its second year of the recreational market and the seeds of not only deeper medical reform but recreational too are playing increasingly loudly in Europe, there are clearly new “shoots” in the room. And as the world prepares to say good bye to 2019, it is also clear that, especially given recent rumbles about the readiness of the Canadian market for international prime time, the dawning of 2020 will certainly begin to answer the many questions now certainly on the cannabis table abroad.

There may be heads who roll, in other words, but the show is rolling on.

November 19, 2019

Luxembourg’s Government Triples Medical Cannabis Budget for 2020

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

While Luxembourg is a tiny country in the middle of Europe, it is beginning to play an outsized role in pushing all aspects of the cannabis discussion forward in the EU.

The country has steadily moved forward on integrating cannabis into the medical system. In 2018, medical cannabis was tested in a pilot project and is now available, on prescription, from a limited number of hospital pharmacies since February of this year. The program, at least from the Department of Health’s perspective, has been “very successful” so far in the words of Health Minister Etienne Schneier.

So, as a result, the next phase of the transition is going into effect. The budget for doctor training and medical cannabis purchases will be increased from €350,000 to €1.37 million next year. The drug will also be available from all pharmacies. Overall, the government has allocated a budget of €228 million for its cannabis “pilot” next year – an increase of €22m in 2019.

Canopy Growth Moves Into A Prime Position

Canopy Growth also announced last month that it has now become the exclusive supplier of medical cannabis to the country in a deal that extends through the end of 2021 (in other words presumably until recreational reform becomes legal). This is an interesting twist of events, given that Aurora announced it was the first company to import the drug into the country last year.

This is certainly a new chapter in the ongoing competition between the two Canadian companies who have, since 2017, essentially split Europe’s “first entries” between them (with the exception of Tilray in Portugal).

It also comes at a time when Aurora has just lost its third license in Italy to cultivate.

The clash of the cannatitans continues.

Why Is Luxembourg’s Cannabis Experiment So Interesting?

The increasingly strategic position of this tiny country on the cannabis discussion cannot be discounted.

In the summer of 2018, it was the government’s decision to change the law on medical cannabis use that preserved the ability of Germans to continue to buy cannabis stocks. Confused? The Deutsche Börse, in Frankfurt, the third largest stock exchange in the world, claimed that it could not “clear” stock purchases last summer because their clearing company, based in Luxembourg, could not close the transactions in a country where even medical cannabis was still off the table. When Luxembourg changed their law, in other words, the Deutsche Börse had to reverse course.

Since then, this tiny country has continued to challenge the cannabis discussion in the EU – also announcing that a full-boat recreational program will be enacted within the next two years (almost certainly by 2021). This aggressive timetable will also move the discussion in almost every EU regulation still on the table, and probably position the country as the only one in Europe where a fully integrated medical and recreational policy is in place. Even Holland does not cover medical cannabis these days. Dutch insurers stopped covering the drug in early 2017 – just as the German government changed its own laws.

Luxembourg, in other words, has now effectively pulled at least on par with Denmark and Germany in the cannabis discussion, with recreational now the agenda. And appears to be willing to preserve its medical program after recreational comes.

Who says size matters?

The “Colorado” Of Europe?

One of the reasons Colorado was such a strategic state in the cannabis discussion in the U.S. was undoubtedly its “purple” status – i.e. a state which politically swung both ways on a range of policy issues.

Luxembourg in fact, as the seat of the European Courts of Justice, may end up playing the same role in Europe – but on a national level.

In fact, the battle here increasingly resembles not Canada, but the U.S., as individual countries begin to tackle the cannabis question in their own way – both within and beyond the EU rubrics on the drug.

Will the United States legalize federally before the EU changes its tune? That is unknowable.

However, for the moment, the market leader in the EU to watch is undoubtedly Luxembourg, no matter its geographical size and population count.

As usual, cannabis reform enters through a crack, and widens from there. Luxembourg appears to be, if not the only crack, then certainly one of them that is turning into a decently sized crevice in the unyielding wall of blanket prohibition.

November 19, 2019

The Great European Cannabis Cosmetics Confusion

By Marguerite Arnold

3 Comments

If the “recreational” discussion is off the table for now except in a few local sovereign experiments (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland), and the medical discussion is mired in “efficacy” and payments (Germany, UK), where does that leave this third area of cannabis products?

Namely cosmetics.

The answer? Because this conversation involves cannabis, as usual, the discussion is getting bogged down in confusion even as industry groups press for clarification and guidelines.

The Problem

Cosmetics, including externally applied creams, lotions and potions, are of course subject to regulation and testing beyond cannabinoids. Think of your favourite cosmetic product and the notices about no animal testing (et al). Yet when the conversation comes to cannabis, of course, even of the hemp kind, the current discussion in the EU is mired in confusion, and of course ongoing stigma. Not science. Or even logic.

The structure of cannabidiol (CBD), one of 400 active compounds found in cannabis.

According to the EU Working Group on Cosmetic Products earlier this year, ingredients containing CBD (even derived from hemp) should be banned from cosmetics production because of the ban on cannabis as an illicit substance under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Guidance under the Cosing Catalogue (a database of allowed and banned ingredients) gives individual EU member states a framework to set national rules for cosmetics.

To add to the confusion, the EU also added new entries to the EU inventory of cosmetic ingredients which outlaw CBD derived from extracts, tincture or resin. But – in a bizarre bureaucratic swerve, they did approve “synthetically produced CBD.”

Opponents of the ruling – including the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) have of course opposed the newest guidelines on regs. CBD, as the EIHA has mentioned repeatedly, is not referenced specifically in the 1961 Convention.

The EIHA wants the EU to treat cosmetics like other CBD products – namely requiring that they have less than 0.2% THC.

The EIHA Proposal

The EIHA has its own proposal for setting guidelines under Cosing. Namely that extracts from industrial hemp and pure CBD should only be prohibited from use in cosmetic products if they are not manufactured in compliance with laws in the country of origin.

Further, the EIHA has also pointed out that the seeds and leaves of industrial hemp and any products derived from the same are also clearly excluded from the 1961 Convention.

However, and herein lies the rub – even within the EU, there is not yet harmonization on these standards between countries. So, what may pass for “legal” in the country of production may also not pass for products that are then exported – even within the EU and or in Europe.

EIHA also has proposed new wording for the definition of Cannabidiol based on the International Nomenclature of Cosmetics Ingredients (INCI), the most comprehensive and widely recognized international list of ingredients used in cosmetics and personal care products.

Where Does This Cross With Novel Food?

Of course there is also the confusion in the room about cannabis extracts as “novel food.” Cosmetics of course are designed for external application, but cannabis tinctures and extracts containing “CBD” are being put in that category right now by regulators in the EU. The fact that novel food is also in the room may in fact be the reason that regulators are apparently sanguine about synthetic CBD in cosmetics, but not that derived from the actual plant.

The cannabis discussion is going to be in the room for many years to come and on all fronts – from medication to food to cosmetics.Bottom line? There are, at present, no easy answers. This leaves the CBD industry in the EU, at all levels, as the planet barrels into the third decade of this century, in basically a state of limbo. If not absolute confusion.

What Is The Outlook?

While it may not be “pretty” right now, the industry is clearly moving through channels to pressure and challenge regulators at key international points and places.

What is increasingly obvious however, is that the problem with cannabis – at all levels – will not be solved soon, or easily. Even calls for “recreational reform” or even “descheduling” will not cure them.

Cannabis as a plant, if not a substance used in everyday living has been so stigmatized over the last 100 years that a few years of reform – less than a decade if one counts the organization of the industry since 2013 globally – will not come close to fixing if not ironing out the bugs.

The cannabis discussion, in other words, is going to be in the room for many years to come and on all fronts – from medication to food to cosmetics.

November 18, 2019

Standardization: A Guide Through the Minefield

By Steven Burton

No Comments

Now that cannabis edibles have been legalized nationally in Canada, many existing and aspiring license holders have been surprised to discover that they must comply with food safety regulations. This became crystal clear when Health Canada published their Good Production Practices Guide For Cannabis in August 2019.

With this development, it should be obvious to everyone that Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) certifications are simply not enough.

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) based preventative control programs are now the absolute minimum and higher levels of certification (GFSI) should be on everyone’s wish list.

HACCP is a methodology that is all about identifying biological, chemical and physical hazards and determining how they will be controlled to mitigate the risk of injury to humans. Recently, bio-terrorism and food fraud hazards have been added to the list and it is a good idea to address quality hazards as well.

The process of developing a HACCP program involves identifying these hazards with respect to ingredients, materials, packaging, processes and cross-contamination points (explicitly required in Canada only). However, it is a specific ingredient hazard that I’d like to talk about here.

As this market has emerged, I’ve met with many cannabis companies as the onerous levels of knowledge and effort required to build and maintain an effective HACCP program manually has dawned upon the industry. Many are looking for technological solutions to quickly solve this problem. During these discussions, a curious fact has emerged that set off the food safety alarm klaxons around here.

Most people alive today are too young to remember this but, with few exceptions, the standardization of ingredients is a relatively modern phenomenon. It used to be that the fat content of your milk varied from season to season and cow to cow. Over time, the food industry standardized so that, amazingly, you can now choose between milks with either 1% or 2% fat, a level of precision that would border on miraculous to someone born in the early 20th century.

The standardization of ingredients is important in terms of both quality and safety. Take alcohol for example. We know that a shot of spirits generally contains 40% alcohol. Different products may vary from this standard but, if I pour a shot of my favourite Bowmore No.1 single malt in Canada or Tasmania, this year or 10 years from now, I can expect a consistent effect from the 40% alcohol content of the quantity I’ve imbibed.

Imagine a world in which this was not the case, where one shot would be 40% but the next might be 80%. Things could get out of control quite easily at the 80% level so, to avoid this, distillers monitor and blend their product to ensure they achieve the 40% target, which is called the “standardization marker”.

With respect to cannabis, the obvious standardization marker is THC. During the manufacturing process, edibles manufacturers do not normally add cannabis flower directly into their products but instead add a THC concentrate produced during previous production steps. However, we’ve found that the wisdom of standardizing these concentrates has not yet dawned upon many in the industry, which is alarming at best and dangerous at worst.

The reason for this is that, since cannabis is inherently a heterogeneous plant, one cannot precisely achieve a particular marker value so the outcome of the concentration process is variable. The food industry long ago overcame this problem by blending or diluting to achieve a consistent marker concentration, but the cannabis industry has not yet adopted this advance.

The cannabis edibles industry is still immature and it will take time to bring all the necessary risk mitigation processes into place but one excellent place to start is to seriously consider standardizing concentrates to a THC marker.Instead, manufacturers simply keep track of the strength of each batch of concentrate and then adjust the quantity added to their recipes to achieve the desired THC content. This seems logical on the surface but presents a serious risk from the HACCP perspective, namely a chemical hazard, “Excessive psychoactive compound concentrations due to human error at levels that may be injurious to human health”.

The reality is that workers make mistakes, which is why it is imperative to mitigate the risk of human error insomuch as possible. One of the best ways to do this is to standardize to avoid the scenario where a worker, faced with a row of identical containers that are differentiated only by a tiny bit of text, accidentally grabs the wrong bottle. The error isn’t caught until the product has been shipped, consumed, and reports of hospital visits start coming in after the authorities trace the problem back to you. You must bear the costs of the recall, your reputation has been decimated and your company is floundering on the financial rocks.

US-based Drip More, LP recently found this out the hard way after consumers complained that their product tasted bad, bitter and/or harsh. An investigation determined that excessive nicotine content was the source of the problem and a voluntary recall was initiated. Affected product that had already been sold in 26 states. The costs of this recall have not been tallied but they will be staggering.

November 18, 2019

The Women in Cannabis Study: A Q&A with Jennifer Whetzel

By Aaron G. Biros

1 Comment

Ladyjane Branding and Wolfe Research & Consulting are leading an ambitious study to explore and document the experiences of women working in the cannabis market. Women in Cannabis: A Living History officially kicks off on December 10^th at the National Women of Cannabis Conference.

Jennifer Whetzel, founder of LadyJane Branding and founder of the Women in Cannabis Study

Jennifer Whetzel, founder of Ladyjane Branding, says this is an opportunity for women to tell their stories about their experience working in the cannabis industry. Women can participate in the study by going to womenincannabis.study and sign up to take the survey. You can also sign up to be a sponsor or partner of the study at that website. Sponsors will get access to content like press releases and the opportunity to incorporate the study’s findings in their messaging. We invite our readers to participate, sponsor, partner, share and encourage friends to take the survey.

With beta testing starting the week of November 18^th, we caught up with Jennifer Whetzel to talk about why she decided to start this project, what they expect to learn from it and what the future may hold for professional women in the cannabis industry.

Cannabis Industry Journal: Can you tell us a bit about your background and how you came into the cannabis industry?

Jennifer Whetzel: My entrance into the cannabis industry was certainly a culmination of my personal experience and professional journey.

After moving to Maine, I became a medical user to ease symptoms of an immune and an auto-immune disorder. When I sought out treatment for PTSD, I found that a combination of cannabis, therapy, meditation and brain retraining was the most helpful and healthy solution.

This course of treatment for PTSD was life-changing as it allowed me to resolve symptoms from all of my medical issues, and I wanted to find a way to give back to the community that supported me. I had been working in marketing for over 25 years and realized I had quite the diverse professional background. My experience included retail merchandising and operations, public relations on a military base, research design and strategy for ad agencies, new product development and launch for animal health companies, and experiential marketing strategy and design. I’ve been lucky enough to work with small companies and Fortune 500’s which has led to finding solutions in unexpected places.

When pairing my knowledge and skills with the cannabis community, I realized I could make an impact by advising new entrepreneurs who needed help making their brands stand out. That’s how Ladyjane Branding was born.

CIJ: Can you give us an overview of the Women in Cannabis Study?

Jennifer: The Women in Cannabis study aims to understand how women are faring in the cannabis industry and whether we are doing enough to support women, their careers and their professional goals. It’s well documented that women in corporate America do not have the same opportunities for career advancement as men, holding fewer executive or board positions, having fewer opportunities for mentorship, sponsorship and career progression.

The study is comprehensive, with more than 80 quantitative questions along with qualitative telephone and video interviews of female-identifying professionals working in the cannabis industry – whether they are involved with cannabis, CBD or hemp. Through monthly infographics, video summaries, quarterly in-depth themed reports and a comprehensive year-end report, we will be telling the stories of women’s professional experiences in cannabis with the goal of transforming the industry into one where women can succeed and thrive.

Painting a picture of the women in cannabis, and understanding them as a group, we look at demographics to explore their diversity and reveal whether personality differences may affect their experiences, as well as experience with stigmas regarding cannabis use and working in the industry.

To understand professional trajectories and roadblocks on a path to success, we dive into work history, reasons for entering the cannabis space and the barriers they have faced on their journey. We explore opportunities for mentorship, support and leadership, the types of harassment, discrimination and disrespect they’ve experienced and how that may have impeded their careers.

We’d like to understand how (or whether) women find balance in their personal and professional lives, what sacrifices they’ve had to make for a career in cannabis, as well as best practices for women to foster success.

CIJ: Why did you decide to take on this endeavor and lead the work on this study?

Jennifer: While there are numerous studies looking at how women fare in corporate America, we found that there’s a lack of a recent and comprehensive deep dive into this topic specifically for cannabis. As an emerging industry, we have a unique opportunity to make valuable recommendations to potentially increase inclusivity for women in this early stage of industry culture before it becomes too entrenched. Our goal is to ensure we have the hard numbers to document a baseline now, then follow-up over time to understand how the industry changes.

By surveying and speaking to women in the industry, and understanding where strengths and weaknesses in the industry lie, we can make recommendations to improve the lived experience for women working in this industry.

The only way to make improvements to a system is to understand it.

CIJ: How do you think we can create a more inclusive industry?

Jennifer: I think it begins with an understanding of where we are starting – we don’t know what we don’t know. Being in the cannabis industry, we often hear the argument that anecdotes are not data. Just like we need the scientific data to prove efficacy for medicine, we need the data that shows the hard numbers about diversity and inclusion, the stigma and shame of cannabis use or working in this industry, about sexual harassment, disrespect and bullying.

This study is about generating information and creating knowledge on this issue so we can determine the education, policies, procedures and actionable recommendations that can help make the industry a welcoming space for everyone.

One of the best ways to create a more inclusive industry is through education.

CIJ: What hurdles do women face in the cannabis industry? How is that different from other, more established industries?

Jennifer: As we review research results from more established industries, it seems clear that women face similar hurdles in cannabis. Various studies have shown that working women are faced with unequal pay, fewer opportunities for mentorship or sponsorship, as well as discrimination and disrespect. The issues for female entrepreneurs are even greater as women are significantly less likely to receive venture capital funding, which certainly speaks to experience in the cannabis industry.

Because there’s little data specifically focused on the cannabis industry, we are just guessing. This study will provide us those answers.

CIJ: Looking ahead, how do you think women will fare in the evolution of the cannabis market?

Jennifer: I’d like to think that if we are all purposeful and intentional about creating an equitable, inclusive, and representational industry, that women will fare significantly better than they have in other industries typically dominated by men. If that can happen, everyone will feel welcome and respected, and it will no longer be surprising news when a woman is promoted to CEO or becomes a successful founder.

November 14, 2019

NHS Finally Approves A Few Cannabis-Based Medicines for England & Wales

By Marguerite Arnold

No Comments

You have to hand it to the Brits right now. There is nothing that seems to be working in a land caught in the gray zone of “Brexit or Not.”

That absolutely can be said for cannabis prescriptions and the subsequent availability of the drug, via the National Health Service (NHS). For all the hand-wringing and drama so far, it has only taken a year between possibility and execution. That said if Brexit were that “fast” who knows what might have already happened to the NHS to begin with?

Regardless of the many deservedly snarky comments in the room (from both the British and elsewhere point of view), here are the basics:

Cannabis-based medicine will be available only to treat two relatively rare forms of childhood epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, or chemo-induced nausea caused by cancer treatment. The drug can also only be prescribed by specialist doctors (not GPs).

Who says the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (or NICE for short) doesn’t move quickly?

Perhaps they should have attended the 10th biannual IACM conference in Berlin at the beginning of the month. There were certainly reform-minded Brits who did.

What Were They Thinking?

When reading the recommendations from NICE, it is hard to imagine how a medical policy body could get most of the cannabis discussion so wrong. While it is nice to know that dying children seem to be highly effective in setting drug policy in the UK, that is hardly comforting to the potentially millions of adult Brits who have absolutely been left out, this time.

This begs the question why an adult in chronic pain or suffering muscular spasticity of a kind not caused by MS (much less adult epileptics) is somehow in a different basket of care? Indeed, the idea of recommending against the use of THC specifically for chronic pain is, at this point, a sign of at minimum gross inability to read even recent medical studies from just about everywhere, not to mention patient evidence and testimony. Those adults who managed to get coverage, at least so far, will be given the right to continue treatment until their doctor decides otherwise. Not a very comforting place to be.

Here Comes The Gray And Black Market

All this will do of course, is push those who do not qualify for NHS coverage into either the private market (if they can afford it), or more likely, the existing gray and black market. The former of which of course, is, like other places, underground.

And while GW Pharmaceuticals has everything to cheer about, the rest of the established industry, at this point, surely should be ready to take a concerted stand.

The ridiculous posture of the NHS beyond that on cannabis in this day and age is hard to understand. Even the Germans are ahead of them. And Deutschland is hardly a country where the use of cannabis is anything like mainstream yet.

But then, welcome again, to the wacky world of cannabis reform where it is possible to take one step forward and then many back.

Is This The Face Of The British Conversation Post Brexit?

If there were a single conversation to unite a country right now, the medical coverage of cannabis for the country’s poorest and sickest might be it.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a conversation that will progress in the UK until it moves in the United States. Federal reform in America would of course open the doors, and immediately, to a state-like “recreational” market, where, theoretically, patients could buy any kind of cannabis they want.

Just like Colorado. Or California.

But here is the rub. In the United States, federal reform has not come yet. And even then, what health insurers decide to cover or not, and for what condition, is a topic many Brits have never had to really contemplate. And certainly not when it comes to cannabis. This new decision by the health authorities might just be a terrifying glimpse of what is yet on the agenda if and when Britain “divorces” the continent.

Is The Dream Of Medical Coverage For Cannabis Just That?

Here is the good news. Cannabis always makes progress, no matter how long the slog has been. If the Brits are determined to sit this one out while their citizens suffer, the conversation is still alive, if struggling, elsewhere. Notably Germany. And Israel.

These are, to date, the only two countries who have jumped in, seriously, on the issue of insurance coverage of cannabis, and for a broad range of conditions, although even here in both countries, there are still issues and controversies galore.

The terrible reality in the room however, is clearly writ large for all those who are brave enough to grasp it. Most patients are going to be on the hook for the cost of their medical cannabis for a long time to come.

November 12, 2019

Doctors & Researchers Push Medical Efficacy Forward at 10th IACM

By Marguerite Arnold

1 Comment

It is easy to forget as one steps inside this world-class medical conference (held this year in Berlin), that cannabis is disputed as medicine anywhere in the world.

Inside a packed conference hall in an upscale hotel in East Berlin, international researchers presented evidence that when taken as a drug, this simple plant can make a world of difference to patients suffering from a range of illnesses.

There were also doctors who talked about prescribing this as medicine (even to children), with dramatic and affirming results (if not heart-warming pictures).

In sum, as always, the IACM is the best place to find facts if not evidence galore to convince even the most hard-boiled egghead that this drug works – and across a broad range of so far “other” drug-resistant medical conditions.

As a participant in the IACM said after the opening remarks on the very first morning, it is so easy to ask the question – “Why are doctors still so afraid of if not resistant to this drug?”

Medical efficacy is no longer an unanswered question…

For those seeking affirmation and evidence, this year’s IACM did not disappoint. There were presentations on the drug’s impact on neurological, oncological and inflammatory conditions that while not all new, are increasingly impactful in an aging planet.

A full house of attendees for the patients panel

But that is not all that was discussed. The broader implications of adding cannabis into skincare, diets and medicine chests were also presented – from cannabis’ impact on lowering obesity and positively affecting acne to impacting the opioid epidemic.

Also intriguing this year was a far-reaching study on how polluted the CBD supply chain is in Europe, even for non-medical and nutraceutical products. Not to mention a socio-political plea for legalization of personal use in South Africa.

And that was just the presentations from the stage and in the poster hall.

The conversations swirling around were just as interesting. Because of course, nobody at this three-day gathering, for all the normalization on display, did forget that this gathering of doctors, scientists, cannabis companies and patients is still an anomaly.

The fact is that there are still too few doctors prescribing. And too few trials. And too many fights over efficacy still in the room.

As Alice O’Leary Randall (wife and former partner in activism with her late husband, Professor Randall who initiated the medical efficacy fight in the U.S. in 1975 over glaucoma) said to Cannabis Industry Journal, “It is hard to believe that we are still fighting the same fights all over again.”

Another “AIDS” Crisis?

There is a more dramatic sense of urgency at the IACM than other conferences that focus just on the “business.” In part, this is because the conference is made up of not only doctors and researchers who fight to prescribe the drug or get trials funded, but also patients on the front lines in a country where the drug is supposed to be covered by health insurance.

Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen (seen on the table) and others during a panel discussion

The patient panel, as a result, was an international face of accusation: To national authorities who still refuse to mandate cannabinoid care – across Europe and beyond. To medical establishments who are not demanding cannabinoid treatment be made mandatory in hospitals and emergency rooms in every country in the EU and beyond. To individual doctors who refuse to come to such conferences, where, if they wanted to, could learn how to begin prescribing the “next penicillin.” To payers and insurers who are still too slow to pick up the message if not the tab.

Indeed, one of the best panels of the conference was a gaggle of doctors, led by Grotenhermen, who discussed the particulars of approaching a new drug – for the very first patient and first time.

Act Up, Speak Out, Silence Equals Death

As the conference wrapped up with its awards dinner, there was of course, a sense of needing to go home with not wanting this to end. For those in the thick of this multi-generational fight, there of course were words of encouragement to colleagues from the industry, internationally. But there was also a new sense of needing to up the pace, if not create faster change.

The battles are far from over – in fact, they are just beginning in many places. As one questioner said of a panel about halfway through the conference – “We need to pick up the fight the same way the AIDS community did on this drug.”

That remark perhaps means less today than it did 20 to 30 years ago when an embattled LGBTQ subculture was the organized point of the spear that fought the early state legalization battles as pioneers for a cause that sought equality as much as it sought a cure.

The plea did not fall on deaf ears.

In the midst of studies, statistics and scientific evidence, in other words, there was a new sense of a need for a renewed fight – and from the medical and scientific community as well as patients.

November 12, 2019

Risks of Bare Concrete Flooring in Cannabis Grow Rooms & Greenhouses

By Kendall Youngworth

3 Comments

With legalization rapidly increasing across states, the cannabis market is exploding. And with estimates of sales in the billions, it’s no surprise that greenhouses and grow rooms are emerging everywhere. As growers and extracting facilities continue to expand one important consideration that most tend to underestimate, is how flooring can impact both their production and product. Bare concrete is often a popular choice in cannabis facilities, as there are typically very minimal costs−if any at all−associated with preparing it for use. However, concrete floors can pose unique challenges when left untreated, which could inadvertently create unforeseen problems and unexpected costs.

Understanding the Risks of Bare Concrete Flooring

Whether a facility is growing or extracting, the proper flooring can play a critical role in helping maintain optimal safety and sanitation standards, while simultaneously contributing to production. That’s why its important for growers and extractors to know and understand the potential risks associated with bare concrete.

Concrete is porous: While concrete is a solid material, people may forget that it is porous. Unfortunately, these pores can absorb liquids and harbor small particles that spill on the floor. They create perfect hiding places for bacteria and other pathogens to proliferate. Pathogens can then contaminate product within the facility, causing a halt on production, and/or a potential product recall. This can incur unexpected costs associated with shutdown time and loss of product.

Concrete can be damp: When in a facility with an untreated concrete floor, at times the slab can feel slightly wet or damp to touch. This is due to moisture within the concrete that can eventually work its way up to the surface of the slab. When this happens, items that are placed on top of the floor can be damaged by trapped moisture above the slab and below the object. When this happens, if a product is not protected properly, it can be damaged.

Concrete is dark and unreflective: An untreated concrete slab can often make a room feel dark and it does not reflect lighting within the room. This can result in the need for extra lights and electricity to properly grow cannabis.

Concrete lacks texture: When working in areas where water and other liquids can fall to the ground and accumulate, flooring with traction can play a key role in helping aid against slip and fall incidents. Untreated concrete typically does not provide sufficient texture and can become very slippery when wet.

The Benefits of Bare Concrete Flooring

While the previously mentioned risks can be associated with bare concrete flooring, there is an upside to the situation! Concrete is the perfect substrate for adding a coating that is built to withstand the industry’s demands.

Non-porous flooring options are impervious in nature, helping to isolate contaminants on the surface, thus enabling proper cleanup and disposal.

With the application of a fluid-applied or resinous floor coating, the risks of bare concrete flooring can be mitigated. There are a variety of resin and fluid-based coating systems that can be applied, such as:

Epoxy and Urethane Systems
Urethane Mortar Systems
Decorative Quartz Systems
Decorative Flake Systems

These durable coatings have numerous benefits and can offer:

Protection against the proliferation bacteria and other pathogens: Unlike porous concrete, a smooth and virtually seamless floor coating eliminates the little crevices where pathogens can grow. This in turn helps aid against the growth of bacteria, keeping hygiene standards at the forefront and grow rooms in full operations.
Protection against moisture damage: As moisture within the concrete can move upward to the surface of the slab, there are moisture mitigation coating systems, that keep it trapped below the surface, thus helping toprotect items placed on the floor.
Brighter spaces and light reflection: Installing a floor coating that is light in color, such as white or light gray, can help brighten any space. The benefits of this are twofold: First, it can help with visibility, helping employees navigate the space safely. Secondly, light reflectivity of the flooring improves lighting efficiency, resulting in fewer light fixtures and smaller electric costs.
Texture options to help aid against slip and fall incidents: Floor coating systems can offer a variety of texture options−from light grit to heavy grit−depending on how much accumulated water and foot traffic the area receives. Without additional texture in wet areas, slip and fall incidents and injuries are inevitable.
A wide range of colors and decorative systems: These coating systems can be designed to match the aesthetics of the building or corporate colors. Some manufacturers even offer color matching upon request. When it comes to colors, the options are virtually endless.

Choosing the Right Flooring: Considering Bare Concrete

Choosing the right flooring for a cannabis greenhouse or processing facility requires important consideration as every grow room and greenhouse is different. Bare concrete is a popular flooring option for manufacturing and processing facilities across industries, however, as discussed, it can pose unique challenges due to its innate nature. That said, by taking the right steps to ensure that the concrete substrate is properly sealed, it can then be an effective and hygienic flooring option, offering high durability and a longer life cycle.