Tag Archives: illicit

June 16, 2023

Minnesota Legalizes Adult Use Cannabis: Part 2

By Abraham Finberg, Rachel Wright, Simon Menkes

In Part 1, we examined the current status of adult use cannabis in Minnesota, paying particular attention to the licensing framework, taxation and social equity considerations. In this article, we’ll cover some important need-to-know info if you’re considering opening an adult use business in the “Land of 10,000 Lakes.”

Starting a Cannabis Business in Minnesota: Important Considerations

As the state does not expect to begin issuing licenses before the first quarter of 2025, now is the time to plan a licensing campaign. With a population of 5,714,000, 64% of which live in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota is close in population to Colorado, with 5,774,000 residents. Colorado currently has around $1.8 billion in yearly retail cannabis sales. This may suggest a similar possible level of sales for Minnesota once its retail cannabis market matures.

In a recent op-ed piece for Marijuana Moment, the New York cannabis consulting firm of Bridge West Consulting suggested three reasons, in addition to low cannabis excise taxes and reasonable license fees, why entrepreneurs should consider investing in a retail cannabis business in Minnesota:

Minnesota legislation prohibits localities from banning cannabis businesses. This avoids serious problems that have plagued cannabis businesses in other states including California and Montana in which access for cannabis companies has been denied and, in Montana’s case, even reversed. (Minnesota’s new legislation does allow local governments to limit the number of cannabis retailers to one for every 12,500 residents, however.)
Minnesota has allocated funds to assist social equity cannabis businesses, including $6 million to the CanStartup which will fund non-profits to make loans to budding cannabis businesses.
Bridge West makes the interesting observation that Minnesota is bordered by four states—Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota and North Dakota—none of which have legalized adult use cannabis. Moreover, an estimated 1.9 million people live outside of Minnesota within a 50-mile radius. That means that not only will Minnesotans not have to compete with out-of-state cannabis dispensaries but will benefit from the purchases of out-of-state residents that live within a comfortable distance.

How a License Application is Scored

HF100 gives some guidance as to how the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) will score license applications, awarding points for the following 9 categories: social equity status, veteran status, security and record keeping, employee training plan, business plan and financial situation, diversity plan, labor and employment practices, knowledge and experience and environmental plan.

The OCM may award additional points if the applicant would expand service to an underrepresented market. Points may also be awarded to those applicants who can demonstrate a negative impact from cannabis prohibition such as arrest or imprisonment of the applicant or their immediate family. This is different from social equity status and the law says points may be awarded to the applicants “in the same manner as points are awarded to social equity applicants.”

Emphasis on Market Stability; Prohibition of Vertical Integration

Minnesota is taking measures to ensure “market stability,” which it doesn’t specifically define, but which it says involves:

Ensuring an adequate supply of cannabis, but not a glut.
Eliminating the illicit cannabis market.
Promoting a craft cannabis industry.
Prioritizing growth and recovery in communities that have experienced a disproportionate, negative impact from cannabis prohibition.

HF100 states, “The office shall issue the necessary number of licenses in order to ensure the sufficient supply of cannabis flower and cannabinoid products to meet demand, provide market stability, and limit the sale of unregulated cannabis flower and cannabinoid products.”

Continuing its emphasis on “smaller is better,” HF100 says, “Unless the office determines that the issuance of bulk cultivator licenses is necessary to ensure a sufficient supply of cannabis flower and cannabinoid products, the office shall not issue a bulk cultivator license before July 1, 2028.”

Vertical integration is also prohibited. “The office shall not issue licenses to a single applicant that would result in the applicant being vertically integrated.” HF100 goes on to state that microbusinesses are exempted, and that if the OCM determines that vertical integration is necessary to ensure a sufficient supply of cannabis and cannabis products during the first year of such products being sold to customers, it may authorize one or more applicants to be vertically integrated. However, such a group of licenses are very temporary and will expire at the end of that first year period.

An entity holding a cannabis retailer license may also hold a delivery license, a medical retailer license and an event organizer license. But no retailer may hold any other license. Also, no entity may own or operate more than one retail business in one city or county.

Interestingly, Minnesota is also allowing cities or counties to own and operate a municipal cannabis store, possibly similar to the way Utah has government liquor stores which compete with private bars, breweries, wineries and distilleries.

In Summary

Minnesota is just beginning to define and establish its adult use cannabis market. Like other states before it, it is attempting to promote social equity aims at the same time as it’s working to avoid the serious problems of a competitive illegal market and an over-or-under supply of cannabis to its citizens.

With low license fees and excise taxes and a good-sized population, 420CPA believes cannabis entrepreneurs should seriously consider Minnesota for possible investment. The first cannabis retail businesses are not expected to open for another 18 months, so now is the time for businesspeople to lay the groundwork for their applications and future locations.

November 9, 2022

A Q&A with Sundie Seefried, President & CEO of Safe Harbor Financial

By Cannabis Industry Journal Staff

No Comments

As the former CEO of Partner Colorado Credit Union (PCCU), Sundie Seefried has been in the credit union space for 39 years. Established in 2015, Safe Harbor Financial is now a leading provider for banking and financial services in the cannabis industry.

Seefried founded Safe Harbor as a cannabis banking program for PCCU, and since then it has withstood scrutiny of 16 separate federal and state exams. Entering its ninth year as a cannabis banking program, they have almost 600 accounts in 20 states and have processed over $14 billion in transactions for the cannabis market. In September, Safe Harbor began trading on Nasdaq under the symbol SHFS. The company has also announced a definitive agreement to acquire Abaca, an industry-leading cannabis financial technology platform.

Seefried has seen it all in the cannabis banking world. We wanted to get her thoughts on some current events, the future of cannabis banking and lending, and what the next few years might hold in store for an industry ready to grow.

Cannabis Industry Journal: Tell us a bit about yourself. What is your background and how did you find yourself in the cannabis industry? How did you get to become president and CEO of SHF?

Sundie Seefried: I’ve been in banking in the credit union space since 1983. I became CEO of Partner Colorado Credit Union in 2001 and stayed there for 21 years. Everything I do, I have a very conservative nature just from being in the banking world and doing things methodically and building good foundations that endure long term. In 2014 when FinCen issued guidance, I was supposed to retire, and I had dinner with some old friends that were attorneys who couldn’t get bank accounts for their clients in the cannabis industry. They asked me to help and I looked into it for them. I assumed the regulator would shut me down but he didn’t; he actually encouraged me to move forward and look further into things. As I educated the board, we saw just how unsafe Colorado was and the serious need for the community to figure things out with respect to banking and cannabis. Coming from that credit union perspective, I said I think we can do this, let’s try and I’ll go through the third parties necessary. And that’s how we got into this, just looking to try and help solve Colorado’s problems and get banking access for cannabis companies.

CIJ: Tell me about your company’s mission. What is your financing strategy in cannabis and of the companies you do business with, what do you look for most?

Seefried: Our mission remains the same, and that is to normalize banking in the cannabis industry as much as possible. Because the black market still exists, the issue becomes sorting the legal entities out from the illicit actors in the industry. We know that the illicit market is trying to hide amongst the legal environment, which really makes things difficult for upstanding cannabis businesses. We can normalize banking by making sure we help legitimize the compliant entities and sort out the bad actors. We really only want to work with legitimate players with licenses, who are fulfilling expectations on the regulatory level and have no problems with compliance. We have been able to do that on the depository side.

We have always been a low-cost provider and our clients count on that. As we move into the lending part of the industry, we’re looking to do the same thing. There are lenders who charge one-to-three percent per month, 18 to 36 percent per year. We, on the other hand, are targeting more of an eight to thirteen percent annual rate. More of a conservative approach. Real debt underwriting. No extremely high interest rates. We look for the collateral, we look for well-organized businesses and solid documentation. Those are the businesses we are trying to bring into the fold and offer them normal loans. Cannabis will always have a premium on it simply because it is illegal at the federal level and there are additional hoops we have to jump through. Because of the potential forfeiture and seizure, if there are bad actors, etc., it really behooves any clients coming to us to also place their depositary services with us so we can prove their legitimacy and provide loans to them.

CIJ: Let’s talk about the Canopy Growth news. They announced they are pulling the trigger on acquiring Wana Brands, Acreage Holdings and Jetty Extracts, under the Canopy USA holding company and ahead of federal legalization. On the surface, it looks like they are bypassing a lot of the hurdles American cannabis companies currently face with financial red tape. As a foreign company trading on the NASDAQ dealing with a schedule 1 substance, do you expect Canopy to have a significant, some would say unfair, competitive advantage with their early entry? Or is this perhaps more of a rising tide lifting all boats scenario? What effect will this have on the current market landscape?

Seefried: I find it a very interesting move on their part. Certainly, they have a big advantage in comparison to other companies. The consolidation in the industry is moving so quickly. Other players will keep up with this just as fast as Canopy is moving in. That’s my opinion in terms of what I see in the consolidation area of the market. I think what it really hurts is small businesses. My heart goes out to them. So many of them worked so many years to build excellent small companies with boutique shops, and this whole move will really change that part of the industry.

I see a lot of these small players, non-vertically integrated companies, being impacted in a negative way due to such mass consolidation and the entry of foreign businesses. We need to get more competitive on a global level in order for our companies to grow and thrive. This happened back in 2018, when so many companies started doing those reverse takeovers onto the Canadian Securities Exchange and suddenly, they were putting tens of millions of dollars into the U.S. market. People didn’t see that as a competitive disadvantage for American companies, but now this move by Canopy may really show that we have to look at things more globally.

CIJ: Biden’s announcement regarding the scheduling review for cannabis has a lot of industry folks very hopeful that federal legalization is closer to a reality than before. Do you share their optimism?

Seefried: Closer than before, yes. But how close? I am not convinced it will happen quickly. If they are really going to consider rescheduling or descheduling, everything happens in Washington very incrementally. Eight years and seven attempts at the SAFE Banking legislation and still no movement on that front. Tomorrow, we’re going straight to legalization? I have a hard time swallowing that one. I just don’t see that big of a jump all at once. I think it is interesting coming just before the midterms and votes are really needed now more than ever.

What Biden did was a great start. Especially for those people in prison for possession. The interesting part of it is, we are very serious about people who have used it, but the people who have sold it and are in prison might be in the same situation. Given how the laws worked for so long, just based on the amount of cannabis you had could get you automatically labeled as a dealer, which isn’t the case for a lot of incarcerated folks.

The fact is, the social equity and justice issue, who do you free or who do you not free from prison, is a very difficult issue to get through. I think it is a great step forward and it will help some people who were treated unjustly, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

“I believe we’ll start seeing pressure from the global market on the United States to move things along a little faster in our own country.”As far as rescheduling, if they go from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II drug, that will do no good, but it certainly is a bone to throw to the industry if you want to look like you are making some progress. Schedule II is still subject to 280E tax code so it will only do so much. If they want to make things more equitable and actually level the playing field, they have to do something about the 280E issue hindering every cannabis business in the country.

As far as full legalization, I am not optimistic because of all the players that need to be involved. Full legalization will require a change to the IRS tax code 280E as well as other tax issues. I think there are too many players: The DOJ, FinCen, the DEA, the FDA, the IRS. All of these agencies will have to agree on full legalization and moving forward in unison. The DEA is trying to fight illicit actors and illicit drugs. FinCen is trying to follow the money to find illicit actors. As long as there is an illicit market it will make their job tough, and on top of all of that, we have politics in play. That is just my take on legalization. It is going to be a much more complex problem than just legalizing the plant and moving on. Rescheduling seems like lower hanging fruit, but they will have to move it higher than a Schedule II.

CIJ: With the midterm elections here, there are a number of legalization measures in a handful of states, along with political control of Congress on the ballot. How do you think a Republican or Democrat controlled Congress will affect cannabis legalization progress?

Seefried: I just finished doing some lobbying in September in DC and spoke to some Senator offices in person, and I heard a lot of interesting topics being discussed. One of the things that keeps popping up is that social equity and justice is a huge issue. If we can’t solve this injustice in our system that has been going on for decades and decades, maybe they’ll hold banking legislation hostage. You can’t correct 50-60 years with one piece of legislation. Everything has to be incremental, unfortunately, so there will be some give and take there. I think that was a primary focus, especially with the Democrats and I do think it is a worthy cause.

On the Republican side, economically improving our competitive advantage as a country. They are starting to see the jobs being created and the tax revenue coming in and the growth of the industry. They will have to make that decision at some point in time whether they are going to leave the American cannabis industry behind or allow them to compete on a global level. I really think everything will move slowly and continue as it has happened in the past.

I believe we’ll start seeing pressure from the global market on the United States to move things along a little faster in our own country.

CIJ: As we inch closer to 2023, what do you expect the next year to offer for the cannabis financing market?

Seefried: I would say, with or without legislation, they’re finding greater access to banking. And the reason they are getting better access to banking is because none of us have been prosecuted for simply engaging in cannabis banking. I think we have set a precedent over the past eight years, not only us but other service providers in the industry and that we are not being prosecuted.

I see more financial institutions entering the market slowly. The second reason access to capital and banking will increase is because every financial institution in the country wants that lending relationship. In order to get there, they want to start with the depository relationship, and they don’t want smaller players presently doing it and getting all of those relationships before they enter the market. I think the competitive nature of the financial industry to land that lending relationship is going to force them into the game sooner than later.

June 22, 2021

Unnecessary Obstacles for the Canadian Edibles Market

By Steven Burton

1 Comment

The edible cannabis market in Canada is still green. Delayed by a year from the legalization of dried flower, the edibles and extracts market poses significant opportunities for manufacturers. Edibles and extracts typically have higher profit margins than dried flower (“value-added” products) and consumer demand appears to be high and rising. So, what is causing trouble for cannabis companies trying to break into edibles and extracts? Below are four observations on the market potential of edibles in Canada.

Canada’s Edibles Market: The Numbers

In 2020, Canada – the largest national market in the world for cannabis products – grew more than 60%, largely as a result of the introduction of new products introduced in late 2019, often called “Cannabis 2.0,” which allowed the sale of derivative products like edibles. Deloitte estimates that the Canadian market for edibles and alternative cannabis products is worth $2.7 billion, with about half of that amount taken up by edibles and the rest distributed amongst cannabis-infused beverages, topicals, concentrates, tinctures and capsules. More recently, BDSA forecasts the size of the Canadian edibles market to triple in size by 2025 to about 8% of the total cannabis dollar sales.

In December 2020, the Government of Canada reported that edibles made up 20% of total cannabis sales; Statistics Canada data shows that 41.4% of Canadians who reported using cannabis in 2020 consumed edibles. While sales have gone up and down over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are clear indications that there is a substantial demand for edibles and extract products, which can be consumed more discreetly, with greater dosage precision and with fewer adverse effects (as opposed to smoking).

While sales of regulated edibles products continue to grow, edibles, extracts and topicals sales in Canada are facing a similar problem as dried flower sales: inventory growth is outpacing sales. Unsold stock sitting in inventory is growing at a dramatic pace, showing a clear lag in demand for these products on the legal market. How do we understand this contradiction?

1) Complex Regulatory Standards are a Major Barrier

Cannabis edibles compound the already existing problems around the conceptualization of cannabis products regulation. How should it work? Edibles can be considered in any of the following categories:

Cannabis as a pharmaceutical with medical application. Requires strict dosage and packaging requirements;
CBD as a nutraceutical with health benefits claimed. Requires specific nutraceutical regulations be followed;
Food product to be consumed. Must comply with food safety regulations around biological, chemical, physical hazards through a risk-based preventive control program. A full supply chain and ready-to-recall based system of regulatory standards need to be followed.

Incorporating elements from each of these three regulatory regimes into a single regulatory standards body is a confusing logistical and compliance challenge for both the regulators, and the producers and retailers of the product.

In mid-2019, the Government of Canada released the Good Production Practices Guide for Cannabis. This merged cannabis-specific regulations with food safety-specific regulations. Rigorous food safety requirements were combined with equally rigorous cannabis production and processing requirements, resulting in extremely laborious, detailed and specific regulations. These span everything from building design and maintenance, to pest control, to employee sanitation, to traceability – at all levels of the process. Navigating these regulations is a challenge, especially for many smaller producers who lack the necessary resources, like automation technology, to devote to understanding and tracking compliance.

2) Low Dosage Regulations Give an Edge to the Illicit Market

When edibles were legalized, THC dosage was capped at 10mg per package. For more experienced consumers, especially those who are dealing with chronic pain and other medical needs, this limit is far too low – and the unregulated market is more than able to fill this gap. One analyst from Brightfield pointed out that the dosage restriction, in combination with other regulations, will make it harder for the edibles market to grow in Canada.

It also makes the unregulated market almost impossible to beat. Barely more than half of cannabis consumers in Canada buy exclusively from government-licensed retailers, while 20% say that they will only buy unregulated products. According to a Deloitte report, 32% of legacy cannabis consumers said that unregulated products were better quality, and 21% reported that they preferred unlicensed products because there were more options available. Almost half of respondents also reported that quality was the biggest factor that would cause them to switch to regulated sources, and 28% said that higher THC content would prompt them to switch.

3) There is a Big Price Disparity between Legal and Illicit Edibles

As a result of dosage requirements and other factors, price per gram of regulated edible product is much higher than that of flower, unregulated edibles and edibles available through regulated medical distributors.

If you take the BC Cannabis Store’s price for Peach Mango Chews as an example: a 2pc package is $5.99. Since the dosage limits at 10mg per package, that’s the equivalent of $0.60/mg or $600/gram. A quick Google search reveals that an easily available edible from a medical cannabis distributor contains 300mg of THC and sells for $19.00, a price of $63.00/gram.

That means that not only is 10mg too low a dose for many users to achieve the result they were looking for, but the dosage restriction also makes the products less attractive from both a nutrition and cost standpoint. Deloitte reportsthat higher prices is the reason that 76% of long-time cannabis consumers continued to purchase from unregulated sources. The regulated industry as a whole is missing its legal market opportunity, where consumers prefer a lower price product with a greater range of dosage availability.

4) The Range of Products Available is Too Limited for Consumers

For most of 2020, chocolate edibles were the dominant product in this category in the Canadian market, garnering 65% of all edibles sales. But is this reflective of consumer wants? Despite a demand for other kinds of edibles like the ever-popular gummies, there are still only a few edible brands that offer the range of products consumers are asking for. According to research from Headset, there are 12 manufacturers in Canada making edibles but only two of them produce gummies. In comparison, 187 brands make gummies in the United States.

While some of this delay is likely due to the long licensing process in Canada and the newness of the market, there are other factors that make it challenging to bring a variety of products to market. The province of Quebec, Canada’s second-largest province, has banned the sale of edibles that resemble candies, confections, or desserts that could be attractive to children – giving yet another edge to unregulated sellers who can also capitalize on illegal marketing that copies from existing candy brands like Maynard’s.

When companies do want to introduce new products or advertise improvements to existing product lines, they are restricted by stringent requirements for packaging and marketing, making it harder to raise brand awareness for their products in both the legal and unregulated markets. Industry players are also complaining about government restrictions on consumers taste-testing products, which further compounds challenges of getting the right products to market.

In the meantime, illicit producers have also shown themselves to be savvy in their strategies to capture consumers. It is not uncommon to find illicit products packaged in extremely convincing counterfeit packaging complete with fake excise stamps. New consumers may assume the product they are purchasing is legal. Availability of delivery options for higher dosage, lower price illicit products is also widespread. All of this adds up to significant competition, even if it were easier to meet regulatory requirements.

Conclusion: Significant Room for Growth Remains Limited by Government Regulations

These four challenges are significant, but there are a number of opportunities that present themselves alongside them. A year and a half into the legalization of edibles, cannabis companies are getting a better picture of what Canadian consumers want and low dosages are proving to be desirable for Canadian consumers in some areas.

Some of the many infused products on the market today

In particular, sales of cannabinoid-infused beverages far outpaced other edibles categories last year, likely tied to the availability of these products in stores over the summer of 2020. BDSA’s research has shown that, in contrast with American consumers, the lower THC dosage for cannabis beverages is an advantage for Canadian consumers. Major alcohol brands like Molson Coors and Constellation Brands are investing heavily in this growing product area – though there the dosage limits also apply to how many products a consumer can buy at a time.

At the same time, the large quantity of unsold cannabis flower sitting in storage also poses an opportunity. While its quality as a smokeable product may have degraded, this biomass can be repurposed into extracts and edibles. Health Canada has also shown some responsiveness to industry needs when it shifted its stance to allow for Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP), which will help improve shelf life of products.

While strict regulatory obstacles remain, challenges will continue to outweigh opportunities and the illicit market will remain a strong player in the edibles market. As regulations become clearer and producers become more accustomed to navigating the legal space, barriers to entry into the regulated cannabis market and specifically the extracts and edibles market, will decrease. Meanwhile, those getting into the edibles market will do well to be wary of the challenges ahead.

December 10, 2019

2020 Financial Trends for the Cannabis Industry

By Melissa Diaz

No Comments

The past year has been another strong year in cannabis. Investors continued to pour money into the burgeoning industry — surpassing 2018 investment totals in just 40 weeks — and new markets opened up for recreational and medical cannabis. And following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, CBD has proliferated and become one of the hottest health supplements in the country.

But as the year winds down, the industry appears to be poised for a more challenging shift in the new year, as once-heady expectations for some big companies don’t pan out and some states clamp down, rather than loosen up, certain regulatory hurdles.

Here are some financial trends to keep an eye on in cannabis over the next year:

Finding New Capital Investment Will Be Tougher

After an initial investment boom in recent years, cannabis investors are realizing not everything colored green turns to gold. With public cannabis companies not performing as well as hoped and restrictive tax laws still plaguing the industry, investors are growing more cautious when it comes to cannabis. Add in other macroeconomic trends that are pointing to a global economic slowdown, and 2020 is shaping up to be a tough year to find cannabis capital.

That’s not to say funding will completely dry up, but operators and business owners must be aware that investment deals that perhaps closed in a matter of days in previous years, likely will take weeks or months while investors dig deeper into books and perform higher levels of due diligence before inking a deal. This means cannabis businesses must carefully plan and watch their cashflow and pursue fresh capital or investment earlier rather than later.

Expect More M&A and Consolidation

With the green rush reaching a crest of sorts, reality is setting in for some smaller cannabis operators. Expect to see more consolidation with smaller dispensaries and cultivators being bought up and absorbed by the big kids. More limited capital and investment options coupled with continued regulatory and legal uncertainties mean unsustainable operating costs for independent and smaller operators, which means the only way to survive may be to sell to a larger player.

New Markets & Regulations

The new year brings new states opening up to recreational or medical cannabis sales, as well as newer or altered regulations in existing markets. Cannabis firms must keep an eye on these new markets and regulations to best determine whether they plan to expand or not.

How stringent or lenient regulations are written and executed will determine the size and viability of the market. One state may severely limit the number of licenses it issues, while others may not put any limit. For example, Oklahoma issues unlimited licenses to grow hemp at $1,500 a piece. While that sounds promising for smaller hemp producers, it also could potentially lead to an oversaturation in the market. On the flip side, a more restrictive (and costly) licensure structure could lead to a far more limited market where only the industry’s largest players will be able to compete.

Cannabis businesses also should keep an eye out for new regulatory hurdles in existing cannabis markets. For instance, California is raising its excise tax on cannabis beginning Jan. 1. That will result in higher costs for both consumers and cannabis companies. High state and local taxes have been a challenge industrywide because they make legal operators less competitive with the illicit market. Also, a proposed rule in Missouri could ban medical cannabis operators from paying taxes in cash. Such a rule would prove problematic for an industry that has had to rely on cash because of federal banking regulations.

Credit Card Payments

While cannabis businesses may face several new and recurring hurdles in 2020 on the financial front, at least one looming change should make business easier: credit card payment processing. Because of cannabis’ continued banking woes, dispensaries and other plant-touching operations have not been able to accept credit cards. Though federal banking limitations remain in place, in 2020 we will see payment processors introduce new, creative and less expensive ways to navigate current banking limitations that will allow cannabis sellers to take credit cards. Opening up payments in this way will not only make transactions and record keeping easier for customers and businesses alike, it also will attract consumers who don’t use cash.

While some of these trends may prove challenging, in many ways they are signs that the cannabis industry is shifting and maturing as we enter a new decade. Many hurdles remain, but the size and momentum of the industry will only continue to grow in 2020 and beyond.

September 12, 2019

Soapbox

Stemming the Cannabis Black Market

By Matthew Zandi

3 Comments

On July 18, 2019, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in California served search warrants at 56 illegal cannabis cultivation sites. This operation was spearheaded by 390 law enforcement personnel, whose mission was to combat the ongoing problem of illegal cannabis cultivation sites throughout California.

The raids resulted in:

47,939 marijuana plants confiscated
2,132 pounds of processed cannabis
47 tons of cannabis plants disposed
2 Butane Honey Oil Labs located
71 firearms
49 arrests

The target of the operation was illegal cultivation sites. Individuals or licensed businesses with permits to grow cannabis legally were not affected.

Illegal cultivation is far from just a California problem. For example, if Oregon halted cannabis production today, the state would not experience a shortage as it has a six-year surplus.

The fear for investors and legal growers is that, if some growers turn to the black market to unload excess inventory, federal enforcement will come into play, which will set back the legal cannabis industry to the stone age. Oregon is currently making moves to limit licensure for legal production, but some active licenses may also need to be revoked, which would leave those licensees with vast investment losses. In other words, legalized cannabis’s massive economic market is not without financial problems of its own.

Don’t Make a Federal Case Out of It

Several states have legalized recreational cannabis with the intention of reimagining this vast underground market as an above-board business that bolsters the state’s economy via transparent dealings. To date, however, the federal government has refused to budge regarding cannabis’s status as an illegal Schedule 1 substance. This classification puts cannabis on a par with opioids. As such, those states that have legalized recreational cannabis are extremely motivated to keep these businesses on the up and up and not to pique federal interest.

Black Market Vulnerability

One of the tenets of legalizing cannabis is stemming the proliferation of black-market suppliers and minimizing the negative effects that the “war on drugs”has had in minority communities. These positive impetuses have yet to flourish. As a result of the illegal status of cannabis at the federal level, cannabis-legal states are forced to operate as islands.

Generally, taking legally purchased cannabis across state lines – from a legal to an illegal state – is illegal, and this is not only confusing but is also a recipe for complications. This leaves cannabis-legal states vulnerable to black market activity. These pockets of legal recreational cannabis that are popping up around the country loosen the constraints of the cannabis movement while the legality of this movement remains problematic. The results are an environment that’s extremely hospitable to black market activity.

Supply and Demand

The reality is that – due to supply and demand – cannabis costs about half as much in cannabis-legal states as it does in states in which it’s illegal. Black market growers in legal states destabilize the market. Those legit companies which remain above board, pay their taxes and jump through every legal hoop, cannot compete with black market interlopers who eschew such niceties.

The point made by detractors of legal cannabis isn’t lost on the rest of us – the black market is burgeoning.States that have legalized production have inadvertently made it easier for illegal producers to hide in plain sight, and the line between legal and illegal operations can become blurred. This creates new frustrations for law enforcement and naturally cuts into the legal cannabis trade. The situation has left some opponents to legalization demanding new crackdowns – others characterize such suggestions as amounting to a new war on drugs.

No Going Back

Detractors of legalized cannabis claim the somewhat chaotic effects related to the current patchwork approach to legalization are a result of opening the gates to legalization in the first place. However, putting the genie of legalized recreational cannabis back in the bottle simply isn’t feasible for operational, financial and political reasons. With the proliferation of attendant illegal operations, however, it is becoming more and more clear that leveling the playing field – via some form of federal legalization – is inevitable. The current state-by-state solution leaves too much wiggle room for the illegal transport of cannabis from those states with looser restrictions to those states with tighter protocols. If politics is choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable, the billion-dollar cannabis conundrum is a great example. The question may no longer be should we legalize cannabis but, instead, how do we legalize cannabis.In other words, we need to find a path forward, and focusing only on the pitfalls that we’ve experienced so far isn’t going to get us where we need to be.

A Tale of Two Choices

The point made by detractors of legal cannabis isn’t lost on the rest of us – the black market is burgeoning. As such, we have an important decision to make. A blanket prohibition of cannabis may no longer be practicable, so we’re left to choose between legal and overt practices across the board or a hodgepodge of semilegal practices with covert ops in tow. Fostering illegal activity is rarely in our nation’s best interests, which leaves legalizing cannabis at the federal level as possibly the most practicable solution.

Protecting Public Health

As more states embrace the legalization of recreational cannabis, public health concerns remain an issue. Many of these illegal cultivators use chemicals that are banned in the United States and do not properly dispose of chemicals or waste products that destroy the environment, contaminate drinking water and have the potential to harm or even kill residents and domestic animals. Not only is this activity harmful, growers often steal electricity and water from surrounding residents.

Cobbling together a pastiche of laws, however, inevitably bolsters black market activity and does nothing to help protect public health. Even the staunchest proponents of legalizing cannabis don’t want minors involved in the equation. Additionally, few debate that unchecked usage is a healthy option. Quasi-legislation at the state level (and on a state-by-state basis), however, provides neither a check nor a balance.

Onward and Upward

The most likely next step for safeguarding public health, for stemming black-market activity, and for generating maximum revenues is toward thoughtful and comprehensive national legalization that comes sooner rather than later. In the meantime, law enforcement should protect the public, legal operations, investors, and the environment from the black market.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Guidepost Solutions or its clients.