After nearly a decade of conversation and education on the Hill, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee finally held a markup on the Secure and Fair Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act. Previously known as the SAFE Banking Act, the “R” was included to account for Sen. Jack Reed’s (D-RI) concerns with Section 10. The senator shared his concerns publicly on May 11 during the “Examining Cannabis Banking Challenges of Small Businesses and Workers” hearing. Sen. Reed said that Section 10’s language “would make it more difficult for federal regulators to raise the alarm about relationships with any customer that presents significant risks to the bank” and shared that such a provision is “not limited to the marijuana industry or the cannabis industry,” but that it “could allow pyramid schemes or all sorts of other interesting activity to go on without an effective response by the regulator.” Since then, he and a group of bipartisan members, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), have worked endlessly to develop language to resolve such concerns while maintaining GOP support, leading to the SAFER Banking Act.
The difference between the SAFE Banking Act and the SAFER Banking Act can mainly be found in Section 10. Changes focus on and determines:
How regulators terminate bank accounts;
How the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) develops guidance for financial institutions serving state-licensed cannabis businesses;
How income derived from state-legal cannabis business activity is managed;
That personal and political beliefs cannot impact a financial regulator’s decision making;
That federal banking regulators and state banking supervisors and their secretaries of Commerce and Treasury would create rules to increase access to deposit accounts and how such individuals would enhance customer relationships with rural, low- and moderate-income, unbanked and tribal communities; and
How the FDIC would conduct a biennial survey and report on barriers for small- and medium-sized businesses.
During the markup on Wednesday, members introduced and discussed a range of amendments related to criminal justice reform, the racial wealth gap, federal regulators and their processes, rescheduling and the opioid epidemic. In total, there were six amendments, one by Chairman Brown, as well as Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and two by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA). Sen. Brown’s amendment, which would make technical changes to the bill, was the only amendment to prevail on a 17-6 vote.
To begin the markup, Chair Brown said that propelling this legislation is a critical step in reversing the damage done by the war on drugs and clarified that the SAFER Banking Act would create a better financial system for small and medium-sized cannabis businesses that lack access to such traditional banking services. Sen. Daines, who served as the committee ranking member in place of Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who was in California preparing for the Republican presidential debate, shared that although he opposes legalization or decriminalization, he agreed to sponsor and support the SAFER Banking Act because it would fix the current banking system for cannabis businesses nationwide. After hearing remarks from Sens. Lummis, Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sinema, the committee voted on the bill, and approved its passage to the Senate floor on a 14-9 vote. Senators voting in favor of the bill were Brown, Tester, Warren, Reed, Menendez (by proxy), Smith (by proxy), Warner, Fetterman, Cortez-Masto, Sinema, Van Hollen, Lummis, Cramer and Daines, and voting against the measure were Sens. Warnock, Scott (by proxy), Crapo, Tillis, Kennedy, Haggerty, Vance and Britt.
After the vote, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) thanked Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Republican Sen. Cory Gardner (CO) for their early efforts and for bringing the legislation and issue to the chamber’s attention and concluded that he hopes to have a robust discussion with the full Senate chamber.
With the bill out of committee, it heads to the Senate floor for additional input, discussion and potentially a vote. Majority Leader Schumer has said he intends to bring the SAFER Banking Act to the floor “with all due speed” and noted that he is committed to attaching Rep. Dave Joyce’s (R-OH) Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act and Rep. Brian Mast’s (R-FL) Gun Rights and Marijuana (GRAM) Act to the final legislation. Sen. Schumer also shared that such provisions would address the war on drugs, bolster social equity and criminal justice reform and protect Second Amendment rights for medical cannabis patients.
When the SAFER Banking Act will receive floor time remains unclear, but Leader Schumer has made numerous representations that he would like to see it done this year.
In that press conference last year, Sen. Booker emphasized the need to address social equity and restorative justice, laying out the foundation for what would soon be called the most comprehensive piece of cannabis legislation so far.
According to the Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA), the bill succeeds in doing that, offering a number of provisions that would help those most impacted by cannabis prohibition, offer funding for equity programs, support for minorities in the cannabis market and more. “The CAO Act represents a giant leap forward in federal cannabis policy by outlining the most meaningful solutions to address issues facing minority cannabis businesses we’ve seen in a federal legalization bill to-date,” says Kaliko Castille, president of MCBA.
Notable provisions in the bill also include:
Removes cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act scheduling entirely.
Allows states to implement their own policies without the federal government interfering.
Allows cannabis businesses access to financial services, removes the threat of 280E tax code impacting normal business deductions.
Regulatory responsibility would fall under the authority of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Immediate expungement for prior cannabis convictions and cancellation of any sentencing for those incarcerated for cannabis.
Raise allowable THC content in hemp from 0.3% to 0.7%.
Sets up a pilot program with the Small Business Administration (SBA) for minority-owned and economically disadvantaged cannabis businesses.
High taxes: Up to a 25% federal excise tax on top of state cannabis taxes.
Like this article and want to see more? Subscribe to our free newsletter here The cannabis industry could receive a significant boost if the recently introduced Capital Lending and Investment for Marijuana Businesses (CLIMB) Act passes Congress. The bipartisan bill was introduced by Rep. Troy A. Carter, Sr., a Democrat from Louisiana, and Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, a Republican from Pennsylvania. It is intended to boost the cannabis industry by creating greater access to capital, banking insurance and other business services. Unlike the SAFE Banking Act (which specifically addresses banking services for the cannabis industry), the CLIMB Act was introduced “to permit access to community development, small business, minority development and any other public or private financial capital sources for investment in and financing or cannabis-related legitimate businesses.”
Currently, the cannabis industry faces a serious dilemma with regard to accessing not only traditional banking services, but also essential capital and financing sources. The latest member of the cannabis bill alphabet soup attempts to remedy this by addressing two key issues.
First, the CLIMB Act would permit access to key “business assistance” programs from various financial institutions by prohibiting any federal agency from bringing any civil, criminal, regulatory or administrative actions against a business or a person simply because they provide “business assistance” to a cannabis state-legal company. The CLIMB Act defines “business assistance” broadly to include, among other things, management consulting work, accounting, real estate services, insurance or surety products, advertising, IT and other communication services, debt or equity capital services, banking or credit card services and other financial services.
This provision of the CLIMB Act would immediately create more access to traditional insurance, lending and credit. This broad protection would not only apply to private entities providing “business assistance,” but arguably means that the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) could not be penalized by Congress or another government agency for providing loans to state-legal cannabis companies. Moreover, currently the cannabis industry does not have access to use credit cards, as major credit card companies refuse to permit such transactions. The CLIMB Act could pave the way for major credit card providers to begin permitting cannabis transactions. Permitting the use of major credit cards like American Express, Mastercard and Visa could result in an increase in sales for cannabis retailers.
The second, and possibly the most important, aspect of the CLIMB Act is that it would amend the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to create a “safe harbor” for national securities exchanges like Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to list cannabis companies and would permit the trading of these cannabis businesses stock. Currently, plant-touching cannabis companies with operations in the U.S. can only be listed on a Canadian-based exchange and can also only be traded in the U.S. via the over-the-counter (OTC) markets. Trading securities on the OTC markets does not provide the same level of security as securities traded on a national exchange like Nasdaq or NYSE. Specifically, the CLIMB Act delineates that the federal illegality of cannabis is not a bar to listing or trading of securities for legitimate cannabis-related businesses.
This provision of the CLIMB Act has two immediate effects. First, the CLIMB Act would allow for U.S. cannabis companies currently listed in Canada to list on the Nasdaq or NYSE. Second, this provision would allow more traditional, “blue-chip” industry companies currently listed on Nasdaq or the NYSE who haven’t been able to operate within the cannabis industry as a plant-touching entity, to enter the cannabis industry as an active participant.
In announcing the CLIMB Act, Representative Reschenthaler stated that “American cannabis companies are currently restricted from receiving traditional lending and financing, making it difficult to compete with larger, global competitors. The CLIMB Act will eliminate these barriers to entry, and provide state-legal American cannabis companies, including small, minority, and veteran-owned businesses, with access to the financial tools necessary for success.”
It is important to note that the CLIMB Act, like the SAFE Banking Act, only represents one small, but important step toward cannabis reforms. Neither proposal would legalize, de-schedule or reschedule cannabis. Rather, the CLIMB Act addresses very real-world, operational issues facing the cannabis industry. With that in mind, the CLIMB Act would certainly provide much needed clarity for issues facing all cannabis companies.
Passage of the CLIMB Act is not a forgone conclusion, but rather is quite uncertain. Other pieces of cannabis-related legislation, like the SAFE Banking Act, have passed the House of Representatives multiple times without the U.S. Senate taking any action. Moreover, the CLIMB Act was introduced with only two legislative supporters.
By Abraham Finberg, Simon Menkes, Rachel Wright No Comments
Some states, like California, Colorado and Washington, have welcomed cannabis with open arms while others have taken a while to come to the party (or haven’t gotten there yet). Missouri, whose licensed sales only began in October 2020, is one of the late arrivals.
Perhaps it’s in the nature of the people of the Show Me State to wait for proof that something is a good thing rather than being early adopters. Even Missouri’s nickname came into being as a statement of skepticism when Missouri Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, in an 1899 speech in Philadelphia, said, “Your frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.” (Not surprisingly, perhaps, Missouri’s state animal is the Missouri Mule).
Missouri legalized the use of medical cannabis on December 6, 2018. Compared to many other states, Missouri’s definition of what constitutes medicinal use is more tightly defined. For example, most medical cannabis states allow “anxiety” as an acceptable condition for a prescription; Missouri does not.1
Current Status of Adult Use Cannabis
Missouri is now locked in a battle to legalize adult use cannabis, with the group Legal Missouri 2022, among others, working hard to put the measure on the ballot this year. At the same time, Representative Ron Hicks (R) is pushing to legalize recreational purchases with his Cannabis Freedom Act. “I want the legislature to be able to handle it so that when there are problems and things need to be changed, it can be changed,” Hicks said.2 Missouri Governor Mike Parson (R), who has been against recreational usage, has stated he would “much rather have the legislators have that discussion out here and see if there is a solution other than doing the ballot initiative.” Parson added, “If it got on the ballot, it’s probably going to pass.”3
Cannabis Business in Missouri: Only Cost of Goods Sold Deduction
Missouri has maintained its state tax code to be in conformity with Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which disallows deductions and credits for expenditures connected with the illegal sale of drugs, stating:
No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business … consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law.4
This is true for both corporation5 and individuals6 in Missouri.
Governor Mike Parson recently vetoed a bill to eliminate conformity with I.R.C. Section 280E. Eliminating conformity would have lowered the tax burden on medical cannabis businesses, and increased Missouri’s competitiveness.7
State Sales and Cannabis Taxes
Missouri taxes retail sales at 4% of the purchase price.8 In addition, Missouri taxes retail sales of medical cannabis another 4% of the retail price.9,10 The medical cannabis tax is collected by dispensary facilities who then remit it to the Department of Revenue using Form 5808.11
Tax compliance is burdensome in Missouri, with dispensaries having to file returns monthly, even when they have no tax to report.12 Missouri also doesn’t allow cannabis businesses to pay their taxes in cash.13
No Tax on Tax
It’s important to note that Missouri doesn’t charges sales tax on cannabis tax nor cannabis tax on cannabis tax (unlike high-tax states like California). Under Missouri’s law, the tax is “separate from, and in addition to, any general state and local sales and use taxes that apply to retail sales.”14 Under Missouri’s sales tax law, “ Tax collected as a part of a sale should not be included in gross receipts.”15 Missouri has not specified whether the medical tax constitutes tax collected as a part of a sale; however, its regulations state that gross receipts from the sale of cigarettes do not include the amount of the sale price that represents the state cigarette tax.16 If the medical tax is analogous to the cigarette tax, gross receipts from the sale of medical cannabis likely excludes the amount paid as medical cannabis tax.
If the Legislature-Sponsored Cannabis Freedom Act Passes
If the Cannabis Freedom Act passes, Missouri will have a number of additional interesting changes. The bill would only allow for double the number of current medical cannabis licensees to serve the adult use market. It would also allow for people with non-violent convictions to petition the courts to have their record expunged (cleared).
Adult Use Taxes
The Act would allow the Department of Revenue to set an adult-use tax of up to 12%. There would be no such tax on medical cannabis sales.17
Normal Tax Deductions Allowed for Businesses
Licensed businesses would also be able to make tax deductions with the state up to the amount that they’d otherwise be eligible for under federal law if they were operating in a federally legal industry.18
Amendment Added to Act
In a move seen by many as a bid to derail the Cannabis Freedom Act, Representative Nick Schroer (R) amended the Act to bar transgender women from accessing no-interest loans for women- and minority-owned cannabis businesses, adding that only women who are “biologically” female would be eligible for the benefit. In the end, this addition may have the effect of scuttling the bill.19
Multiple Efforts to Place Cannabis on the Ballot
Even if the Act doesn’t pass, there are multiple efforts to place cannabis before the voters, including one by Representative Shamed Dogan (R), the group Legal Missouri 2022, which got medical cannabis passed by voters in 2018, and Fair Access Missouri.20
Comparison to Neighboring Oklahoma
Oklahoma, like Missouri, has not legalized the use of recreational cannabis, only medical cannabis. Also, Oklahoma taxes sales of tangible personal property (except newspapers and periodicals) at 4.5%, which is close to Missouri’s 4%.21 Tax is imposed on gross receipts or gross proceeds.22 Gross receipts (or gross proceeds) = Total amount of consideration, whether received in cash or otherwise. Credit is allowed for returns of merchandise.23
Oklahoma taxes retail medical cannabis sales at 7% of the gross amount received by the seller.24 Like Missouri, it has not specified any exemptions from the medical cannabis tax. Oklahoma’s medical cannabis tax base is the same as Missouri’s. Oklahoma’s medical tax rate is higher than Missouri’s. Therefore, Missouri’s tax treatment of medical cannabis is even better than Oklahoma’s.
Note, however, that Oklahoma has made it explicit that there is no tax-on-tax. “The 7% gross receipts tax is not part of the gross receipts for purposes of calculating the sales tax due, if the tax is shown separately from the price of the medical marijuana.”25
Oklahomans appear to be far more favorably disposed towards cannabis than Missouri, however. 2021 cannabis sales per person in Missouri was approximately $34, while Oklahoma boasted an impressive $210 per person, besting even California, which had $111/per person in cannabis sales.26
The Hidden Opportunity
Although Missouri only began licensed sales in October 2020, the state’s monthly sales has shown a strong upward curve. By the end of June 2021, monthly sales were just above $16 million. That number had shot up to $29 million per month for December 2021, and almost $37 million for April 2022.27 Patient enrollment is also increasing significantly.28
The best move, many experts believe, is to get into the medical market now, before the inevitable happens and adult use is approved. Competition is low at the moment, due to the lack of medical licensed dispensaries in the state. Although obtaining a license can be difficult, the current lack of competition, as well as the opportunity to gain a foothold in the cannabis industry before recreational purchases are approved, could provide a 10 times revenue increase from current medicinal sales levels.
Tyler Williams, founder of St. Louis-based Cannabis Safety and Quality and one of the St. Louis Business Journal’s 2021 40 Under 40, is optimistic about the future of Missouri cannabis. The state, he says, has been left “with only a few cannabis growers and manufacturers with a head start over the impending recreational market that is likely to come within the next couple of years.”29
The Bottom Line
The State of Missouri’s treatment of legal cannabis has been mixed, but the demand for the product by many residents of the state is unquestioned. If an entrepreneur has the foresight to get involved before all the wrinkles of legalization have been resolved, there is a possibility for very strong return on investment.
Update: On April 21, 2021, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed the legislation into law, making Virginia the first state int he American South to legalize adult use cannabis.
On April 7, 2021, legislators in Virginia finally came to an agreement for their adult use cannabis legalization plan. Back in February of this year, lawmakers passed a bill to legalize adult use cannabis with a launch date of 2024, but Governor Ralph Northam wanted to move quicker than that.
Last week, Gov. Northam issued a number of amendments to the legalization bills (Senate Bill 1406 and House Bill 2312) that essentially tapers the time frame of legalization to July of this year. With the legislature approving those amendments yesterday, the state of Virginia has now finalized their legalization plans, setting in motion the launch of the very first legal adult use cannabis market in the American South.
Beginning July 1, 2021, Virginia will allow adults to possess up to an ounce of cannabis and up to four plants per household. The commercial cannabis market, and the regulatory framework accompanying it, will be set to legalize sales July 1, 2024.
The bill establishes the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority as the regulatory body overseeing the legal cannabis market. A five-member Board of Directors in that agency will develop and issue regulations and licenses. According to the bill, the Board can set the number of licenses, with a maximum of 400 retailers, 25 wholesalers, 450 cultivators and 60 manufacturers, aside from any medical cannabis and hemp processing license already issued. The Board is also in charge of licensing testing labs.
Vertical integration is not permitted under Virginia’s new legalization plan, but all of the medical cannabis licensees in the state are already vertically integrated. According to the bill, they can keep their vertical integration for a small fee of $1 million and after they submit a diversity, equity and inclusion plan.
In addition to Virginia’s normal 6% sales tax, a state tax of 21% is added to retail sales of adult use cannabis, excluding medical dispensaries. Local municipalities are allowed to issue up to 3% in additional taxes.
Update: Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed the bill into law on April 12, 2021, making New Mexico the fifth state to legalize cannabis via the legislature.
On March 31, 2021, legislators in New Mexico reached an agreement on SB2/HB2, a bill that legalizes adult use cannabis. The bill now heads to Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk, where she is expected to sign it.
Following the conclusion of the regular legislative session, the New Mexico House and Senate reconvened for a special session to finalize the cannabis legalization deal at the governor’s request.
The Cannabis Regulation Act (SB2/HB2) decriminalizes possession for adults over 21 and sets up a regulatory framework for licensing, commercial production and sales by April 1, 2022 (a year from now).
According to AP News, the New Mexico bill gives the governor’s office a lot of power in licensing the industry and “monitoring supplies.” That includes the power to appoint a superintendent of the Regulation and Licensing Department, which is in charge of regulatory oversight in the new market.
The Cannabis Regulation Act sets up an excise tax on adult use sales of 12% that rises to 18% over time, in addition to the “current gross receipts on sales that range from 5% to 9%.” The bill also removes taxes on medical sales.
On February 22, 2021, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed three bills into law, all of which legalize adult use cannabis in the state. A21 is the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act. A1897 is the accompanying decriminalization legislation and A5342 addresses discrepancies between the bills referencing underage possession.
The legislation becomes effective immediately upon the Governor signing the bills, but New Jersey residents won’t see legal adult use cannabis until June 2021, the deadline for the five-member Cannabis Regulatory Commission to establish detailed regulations. Possession of cannabis will also not be legal until sales are underway.
The license application window will open 30 days prior to the regulatory deadline. The legislation provides for licenses in cultivation, manufacturing, wholesale, distribution, retail, delivery and testing labs. Until 2023, cultivator licenses will be capped at 37. 25% of all of the licenses are earmarked for microbusinesses that are owned locally and have less than ten employees.
According to New Jersey-based cannabis lawyer Jennifer Cabrera of Vicente Sederberg LLP, the bills include a number of provisions aimed at promoting social equity in the cannabis industry and repairing damage caused by prohibition. The language mandates that 30% of licenses must go to businesses owned by women, minorities or disabled veterans. At least 25% should be allocated to residents of impact zones, which are municipalities that have more than 120,000 residents that: rank in the top 40% of municipalities in the state for cannabis-related arrests; have a crime index of 825 or higher; and have a local average annual unemployment rate that ranks in the top 15% of municipalities.
Advocates across the state are applauding the government’s work to include social equity provisions in the bills. States like Illinois and Massachusetts initially received a lot of praise for including a number of social equity provisions in their legalization plans, but the rollout has left a lot to be desired. Social equity applicants in Illinois are still waiting on licensing as lawsuits play out in court following allegations of corruption and ineffective distribution.
However, it looks like New Jersey is taking a much more thorough approach to social equity issues than other states. “New Jersey has adopted some of the strongest social equity provisions we’ve seen,” says Cabrera. “Contemplating these issues at the outset of the process will likely prove to be a big advantage for the state. It is much easier to build these considerations into the system than it is to go back and incorporate them later.” In other words, there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure an equitable regulatory framework is established.
Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey says the state’s laws can set a new standard for what justice can look like. “This is a new beginning – and the culmination of years of advocacy – and we must keep in mind that it is only the start,” says Sinha. “Signing these laws puts in motion the next phase of this effort: to work relentlessly to transform the principles of legalization into greater racial and social justice in New Jersey.”
It is estimated that New Jersey’s adult use cannabis market could be worth more than a billion dollars. As the state begins their rollout and implementation, all eyes are on New York and Pennsylvania, which are both expected to legalize adult use cannabis within the next two years. Both Governor Cuomo of New York and Governor Wolf of Pennsylvania have been clamoring for adult use legalization in recent months.
Earlier this month, the House passed HB 1438 in a 66-47 vote, with bipartisan help. Roughly 24 hours before that, the same bill cleared the Senate in a sweeping 38-17 vote. Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act (CRTA) into law on Tuesday, making Illinois the 11th state in the nation to legalize adult use cannabis and the first to do so via the legislature.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker campaigned and won the election on this issue and helped design HB 1438. Sponsors of the bill, Senator Heather Steans (Chicago-D) and Representative Kelly Cassidy (Chicago-D), along with Governor Pritzker, have been viewed as the architects of this piece of legislation.
Some supporters say the state legalizing cannabis in this particular fashion will have shockwave effects throughout the rest of the country. Not only did Illinois pass this legislation, but they did so with social equity and public health in mind. Back when the sponsors of the bill announced their intentions in January this year, Sen. Steans told a town hall meeting in Springfield, “We have a huge opportunity in Illinois to do this right and carefully… If we don’t address the social-justice issues of this, if we don’t address the collateral consequences of the ‘war on drugs,’ we will have failed.”
The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) has a handy overview of the legislation that breaks down exactly what was legalized. An MPP press release says this legislation is, “the most far-reaching social equity provisions ever included in a legalization law. It includes reinvestment in communities disproportionately harmed by cannabis prohibition, broad expungement provisions, and measures to ensure the industry includes communities that have been targeted by cannabis enforcement.”
As August comes to a close, it is clear that it has been one busy quarter for market development – all over the place. Developments in the UK and Germany in particular, however, have been dramatic. In turn, this is also starting to bring other countries online – even as potential producers move in on the market and before real domestic medical reform has occurred (in countries ranging from Turkey to Spain).
And, say no more, Canada finally announced its “due date” in October.
How all three markets will move forward is also very interesting. They are all interrelated at this point, and even more intriguing, increasingly in synch.
This trend is also one advocates should take note of to push forward on further legislative and access issues going forward.
In the future, no matter what happens with Brexit, developments in both the UK and Germany will continue to push the conversation forward in the EU, a region that is now the world’s most strategic (and globally accessible) cannabis market. Advocates, particularly in Canada and the U.S. right now, can also do much to support them.
Events here, while they may seem “slow” to outsiders, are in fact progressing – and as Cannabis Industry Journal has been reporting – quite fast even if the developments haven’t been (initially at least) quite as public. As this ‘zine wrote, breaking the news in July, the Federal German Drugs and Medical Devices Agency (BfArM) quietly posted the revised bid in July on a European tender site after refusing to confirm that it had sent out (undated) cancellation letters to previous hopefuls. Applicants for the new tender have until October 22 to respond. It is expected, given the new focus on “coalitions” that there will be many more applicants from global teams.
Even more interesting is the informal “reference price” that BfArM is appearing to set for bid respondents (7 euros per gram) and the impact of that on all pricing going forward across the continent.
Within a week, it also emerged that the Deutsche Borse, the organization that regulates the German stock exchanges, and working via its third party clearing arm, refused to clear any trades of any publically listed North American cannabis company that are also listed in Germany. This is an interesting development for sure – particularly now. How it will impact the biggest companies (read publicly listed Canadian LPs) is unclear, particularly because they can now raise capital via global capital markets – including the U.S.
Earlier in the summer, one of the largest public or “statutory” health insurance companies in Germany issued the “Cannabis Report.” It showed that cannabis has now moved out of “orphan drug territory” in Germany, and over 15,000 patients are now prescribed the drug. That said, over 35% of all claims are still being rejected. Most patients at this point, are also women older than 40.
It seems to be less than coincidence that the other big mover this quarter (and in fact most of the year) has been the UK. These two countries are linked by history and trade more than any other in Europe.
As of October, the country will not only reschedule cannabinoid-derived medicine to a Schedule II drug, but also allow more patients to access it. It is unclear how fast reform will come to a country in the throes of Brexit drama, but it is clear that this discussion is now finally on the table. What is also intriguing about this development is how far and fast this will open the door for other firms to compete, finally, with the monopoly enjoyed by GW Pharmaceuticals in the British Islands since 1998.
In one of the quarter’s biggest coups that stockholders loved but left the domestic industry with few illusions about the fight ahead, GW Pharmaceuticals also announced that it had managed (ahead of all U.S.-based producers and firms and even rescheduling in the U.S.) to gain U.S. federal government approval to import a CBD-based epilepsy drug (Epidiolex) into the United States from the UK and thus gain national distribution.
What is even more interesting is that the next formal “steps” in all three markets are now timed to coincide within weeks of each other in October this year.
Canadian producers of course are in the leading position to enter both German and British markets. Further their production centers now springing up all over Europe are supplying both their source markets and will be available for international distribution.
Back in November, New Jersey elected Democrat Phil Murphy for governor, who ran on a campaign of legalizing adult use cannabis and using tax revenue from that for important government programs like education and pensions. According to CNN Money, NJ State Senate President Stephen Sweeney says he wants to vote on draft legislation and have it approved within 100 days of Gov. Murphy’s inauguration.
That bill, sponsored by Sen. Nicholas Scutari back in May (the same Senator that sponsored the state’s now-implemented medical cannabis law), would legalize cannabis use, growing and sales, for those over the age of 21, while tacking on a hefty tax. The legislation, if it passes the vote and signed into law this spring, would also create a licensing framework and a “Division of Marijuana Enforcement,” the government body that would be tasked with regulating the industry.
Election victories throughout the state for Democrats means they now control the executive and legislative branches of the state’s government, opening the door for possibly legalizing cannabis within a year. This is a massive about-face for the state, previously controlled by Republican and Trump-supporter Chris Christie, a less-than-cannabis-friendly Governor who once called tax revenue from cannabis “blood money.”
But the newly revived fervor over legalizing cannabis in New Jersey comes with its own hang-ups. For one, Governor Phil Murphy claimed this could bring up to $300 million in tax revenue, which is a bit of a pipedream in the short term. The state would need total cannabis sales to hit $1.2 billion to reach that amount of tax revenue, something New Frontier Data doesn’t expect would happen until maybe 2025.
Amol Sinha, executive director of the ACLU of New Jersey, wrote an op-ed addressing Murphy’s campaign promises. Sinha says that Gov.-elect Murphy ran on legalizing cannabis “as a social and racial justice priority.” He argues that in order for New Jersey to legalize cannabis equitably, the legislation needs to have automatic expungement of previous cannabis-related criminal convictions, a provision for growing at home, fair regulations and community reinvestment of the tax revenue. On the surface, Sen. Nicholas Scutari’s bill introduced back in May of 2017 seems to have provisions in place to meet all of these requirements.
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.