The bill establishes the Office of Cannabis Management, which will launch and manage the regulatory system for the commercial cannabis market in New York.
According to Steve Schain, senior attorney at Hoban Law Group, the Office of Cannabis Management will have a five-member board that will oversee not just the adult use cannabis market, but also medical cannabis as well as the state’s hemp market. For the medical market, the new legislation provides for more patient caregivers, home cultivation and an expanded list of qualifying conditions.
Troy Smit, deputy director of the New York NORML chapter, says the bill might not be perfect, but it’s a massive win for the cannabis community. “It’s taken a great amount of work and perseverance by activists, patients, and consumers, to go from being the cannabis arrest capital of the world, to lead the world with a legalized market dedicated to equity, diversity, and inclusion,” says Smith. “This might not be the perfect piece of legislation, but today, cannabis consumers can hold their heads high and smell the flowers.”
The MRTA sets up a two-tier licensing structure that separates growing and processing licenses from dispensary licenses. The bill includes a social equity aspect that requires 50% of the licenses to be awarded to, “minority or women-owned business enterprise, service-disabled veterans or distressed farmers,” says Schain.
Melissa Moore, New York State director of the Drug Policy Alliance, says she’s proud of the social equity plan the bill puts in place. “Let’s be clear — the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act is an outright victory for the communities hit hardest by the failed war on drugs,” says Moore. “By placing community reinvestment, social equity, and justice front and center, this law is the new gold standard for reform efforts nationwide. Today we celebrate, tomorrow we work hard to make sure this law is implemented fairly and justly for all New Yorkers.”
Schain says the new tax structure in the bill shifts to the retail level, with a 9% excise tax and 4%-of-the-retail-price local excise tax (split 25%/75% between the respective counties and municipalities). Revenue from cannabis taxes will enter a fund where 40% will go to education, 40% to community grants reinvestment fund and 20% to drug treatment and public education fund.
It appears that businesses already established in New York’s medical market get a head start on the new adult use market, while other businesses enter the license application process, according to Schain. “Although the existing Medical Marijuana licensees should be able to immediately to sell Adult-Use Cannabis, it will take up to two years for the New York’s Adult Use Program to launch and open sales to the public,” says Schain.
Cannabis presents a plethora of challenges for entrepreneurs not seen in more traditional industries. Akin to the dot-com boom of the early 2000s, the cannabis industry has seen an astonishing flurry of business over the past decade. Within this dynamic landscape, new cannabis companies come and go on a near-daily basis.
To capitalize on novel markets’ potential, hopeful entrepreneurs from all walks of life have “jumped headfirst” into the cannabis space. This new breed of entrepreneurs must not only be smart, but they must also be challenging. Yet, as the cannabis industry evolves under the forces of legalization and innovation, our understanding of what defines cannabis entrepreneurs continues to change.
Cannabis businesses are shaped by the regulations, challenges and opportunities of specific market niches. As such, cannabis entrepreneurs have evolved with the environments in which they do business.
California & Proposition 215
California paved the way for the industry of today by legalizing medical cannabis in 1995. Since the passage of historic Proposition 215, cannabis has continued to gain momentum across the globe. This progress has happened through the visions and hard work of small business owners.
The early days of legal cannabis in California are now criticized for their lack of regulation. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, all you needed to start a cultivation business in California was a place to grow a garden. While early dispensaries did need local business licenses, they could legally purchase and sell untested products from unlicensed growers.
The genealogy of the modern cannabis industry can be traced directly back to the days of California’s Prop 215. During this era, the first cannabis dispensaries were founded – this model has since been replicated thousands of times. Also, the Prop 215 model gave rise to America’s first legal, commercial cannabis farms.
Cannabis entrepreneurs in California’s medical space focused primarily on developing the blueprints for a brand-new industry. To this end, they did not have the time or luxury to finetune the businesses for such things as operational efficiency and brand awareness. Even more, these people did not have to deal with such complexities as employee screening, product testing and seed-to-sale tracking.
Medical Cannabis Entrepreneurs
New medical markets stand in stark contrast to those seen in the early days of California. To this end, today’s medical markets operate within a web of stringent government regulations. For entrepreneurs, these rules set forth major emphases on both compliance and technology.
The Pennsylvania medical cannabis industry provides an excellent platform for understanding how the regulatory system of a market shapes entrepreneurial paths. For instance, medical cannabis cards are only issued to patients that meet the minimum criteria of 23 qualifying conditions, including severe conditions like aids, cancer and epilepsy. Beyond that, cannabis dispensaries in Pennsylvania must meet a slew of challenging criteria to operate and pay large sums of money in licensing fees.
To handle the regulatory requirements in places like Pennsylvania and remain profitable, medical cannabis entrepreneurs are incredibly dependent on technology. To this end, dispensaries utilize point-of-sale (POS) and seed-to-sale software to track inventory and stay compliant carefully. Even more, they use state-of-the-art security systems to safeguard their operations.
Cannabis entrepreneurs in medical markets must be able to run compliant operations and support their businesses with requisite technology. These elements stand in stark contradiction to the “wild west” mentality that pervaded the early industry. As such, it’s safe to assume that the rules of today’s markets force entrepreneurs to be more professional than in the days of CA Prop 215.
Adult-Use Cannabis Entrepreneurs
The most considerable difference between medical and adult-use cannabis companies has to do with their available customer base. Importantly, adult-use cannabis companies are only bound by minimum age requirements and state borders. Furthermore, limited restrictions on licensing create highly competitive markets that require sophisticated sales and marketing operations.
As there are no limits on potential customers, and limited regulations on license counts, business opportunities in adult-use markets are primarily directed by supply and demand rules. Because competition is the driving force in adult-use markets, entrepreneurs in this vertical have a good deal in common with peers outside the cannabis industry.
Perhaps the most defining characteristic of adult-use entrepreneurs is an emphasis on branding and marketing. As adult-use markets mature in places like Colorado, a phenomenon known as “brand concentration” occurs when a few companies come to dominate a majority of the market. As smaller companies fight for market share, they must develop professional brands that appeal to a broad customer base.
Cannabis entrepreneurs in adult-use markets must master the skills required in medical cannabis while also expanding their knowledge base in modern business dealings. Of these, the development of professional brands is one of the most defining characteristics of adult-use entrepreneurs.
It’s astonishing to see how much the cannabis industry has grown and matured looking back just a few short years. As business opportunities come about with new legalization efforts, entrepreneurs quickly rise to take advantage of untapped markets. As the cannabis business continues to evolve with the times, entrepreneurs must pivot to stay compliant, relevant and successful.
While the early Prop 215 market in California barely resembles today’s industry, it’s important to remember where we came from. Namely, our understanding of the contemporary cannabis business results from everyone who came before us. As the industry progresses, we will continue to complement established best practices with the requisite innovations that come with new opportunities.
It was supposed to be cut and dried. Change the law (after getting sued by patients). Eliminate “home grow” by the same. Set up a nice, neat, efficient sub-department of the German version of the FDA (or BfArM for short). Put the bid online, in an attempt to take the paperwork out of the whole process, and let it rip.
Done and dusted by last summer. Right? Wrong.
In fact, as of now, the second bid deadline has been extended to (at least) December 2018. There is already a pending lawsuit, which has pushed the deadline back this fall several times.
BfArM as usual, is sending out non-statements. They cannot comment. This is, again, a pending EU bid.
However, this is, as Germans at least are rapidly realizing, not just another bid. To begin with, there is never a normal first in this industry. And the highly bumpy road auf Deutsch is just a redo of industry realities in every other legalizing jurisdiction.
That the dramas involved are both Shakespearean and of a lesser kind is also part of the mix. Here, for our reader’s benefit, are the summaries of the acts:
The Story So Far
Cue the German Parliament. Change the law. Issue the tender. Get sued. And this is all before last summer was over. Generally speaking that was more or less Act I.
Act II, so far, has been the response. The government, along with BfArM have been engaged in a remarkable discussion in public that is already dramatic by German standards anyway.
enterprising entities are getting import licenses.First, a federal German court called out a fault by a federal agency, which was bad enough.
However, in what appears to be an ongoing act of defence in this very strange second act indeed, BfArM appears to be playing defence to prevent any more legal action. Notably, as the threat of a second lawsuit appeared this fall against the second bid and revised bid issuance, the agency just moved the deadline back, repeatedly. It is now set for some time in December, although industry rumours suggest that the agency will continue to move the goalposts back until after the court date next spring, if necessary.
That does extend the time for intermission. In the meantime, enterprising entities are getting import licenses.
The Major Drama
As in all of the greatest acts and periods of historical change, there are far greater currents that carry the main story line forward. The revolutionary rumbles surrounding cannabis legalization earlier in the decade in the United States have now been felt on a far greater, global scale. Politically, the right to take cannabis has been tied closely to states’ rights in the U.S. since the turn of the century.
Now in the second decade of all of this tumult, cannabis reform as global revolt echoes the zeitgeist of the times. The Donald is now in the second part of an already historically constitutionally convoluted time in the U.S. The U.K, potentially spurred by similar forces might appear to still be on the brink of Brexit. And the EU has begun to try to organize, both on an individual country basis as well as collectively, to deal with political populism.
Shifting regulation in Europe may be groovy, but from a public health perspective, there is much to prove.There is a great deal of political and economic discontent just about everywhere. Law suits, particularly against governments over issues as intransigent as cannabis, in other words, are a powerful tool right now for the disaffected just about everywhere. Not getting a license to grow cannabis and participate in a valuable, multi-billion dollar economy is a powerful grudge.
There is also, beyond this, the overarching flavour of a new trade agreement called CETA which specifically gives corporations the right to sue federal governments. Strange times indeed. Maybe that is why the German Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, just oversaw a historic lifting of the import quota of medical cannabis from Holland to Germany?
The Minor Drama
There are quite a few acts to this play too right now. Shifting regulation in Europe may be groovy, but from a public health perspective, there is much to prove. This is true of cannabis that is reimbursed by health insurers. It is also true of the novel food debates now springing up across the continent, particularly tied to isolates that have made their landing here.
There are also other issues in the mix that include the idea of an agriculturally based economy that might also damn the bid to a kind of strange purgatory for some time. Germans, despite their historical nostalgia for the same, are not an agrarian society. This is a culture ruled by tradition and science, for all the many conflicts that generates. This means the “cannabis as pharmaceutical” conversation is in the room is a part of the national DNA. No matter how much cheaper unprocessed flower might be.
There are two, broad camps here at the moment. The first are firms that made the cut the first time around (i.e. the large public Canadian LPs). The second is everyone else.
Nobody seriously expects more than one upstart German firm to make it through to getting a cultivation or processing license at this time. Those are widely expected to go to the major firms who have been in the front position from last spring, such as Canopy, Wayland, Aphria and the Dutch Bedrocan.
But those “upstart” Germans are furiously trying to deal themselves into the game. For some it means starting with CBD cultivation. For others it means slinging lawsuits. The last go around, one of the most serious litigants was not an agricultural producer, in fact, but a German wheelchair company.
In other words, while a bit more European in flavour, those who still clamour for a chance to cultivate are every bit as iconoclastic as those on in other climes.In the meantime, the import business is flourishing.
The Concluding Act?
There are several ways the current situation could end. The first is that the bid is concluded next April. The second is that it is not. In the meantime, the import business is flourishing. And, even better for the German government, the industry is not cultivating domestically.
In the eventuality that the bid is run off the road again next spring, in other words, the government is gamely lining up behind the idea that imports, at least for now, are the way to move into the next segue.
That said, at some point, tired of getting sued if not delayed, the German bid will conclude and German crops will be grown. For now, however, the safest conclusion for this particular drama looks to be 2019. But with plenty of room for a curtain call the year after that too.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.