Tag Archives: medical

On The Cusp of Revolution: 9th IACM Conference on Cannabinoids in Medicine

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

As cannabis conference backdrops go, Cologne (or Köln as it looks to the locals) has some major plusses. Cologne is a German city that has all sorts of both historical and cutting edge things to explore. Plus of course there is the timing. This part of the world just pre-Oktoberfest is a refreshing splash of multi-hued natural colors populated by people who wear lederhosen and dirndls in public (and with great enthusiasm).

Beyond its postcard settings, Cologne is a German center of medical research, as well as public policy making. The intricacies of pre and post war, not to mention post reunification politics, have made this whole region (which includes both Düsseldorf and Bonn) a major powerhouse in both deciding how things get done and then making sure they do. Including on all things scientific and medically focussed.

Overview of the Conference

Where German geographical proximity intersects with the global cannabis research and medical community is the work of the people who have made the International Association for Cannabis Medicines (IACM) one of the leading international scientific and medical cannabis conferences in the world. One look at the speakers list confirms that the top people in the cannabis research world came, spoke and even discussed unpublished research. Yes, that is the mark of a real academic conference. But in a world where medical efficacy is still being challenged, it is worth saying.

Even if you were not old enough to know about cannabis or well read, and had just showed up for the day, the subject matter and presentations were clear, easy to understand and stunning both individually and altogether.

Doctors Janice, Jessica and Rachel Knox, founders of the American Cannabinoid Clincs

Topics and abstracts ranged from trial data to changing legislation. Peppered between those were visions of where cannabis as medicine is clearly going as well as a far greater understanding of the role of the endocannabinoid system.

As a medical doctor, researcher, public policy expert or medical cannabis distributor, in other words, it is already a must-attend event. It is also packed with investors, not only from Europe but far from its shores.

If there was a message beyond the fact that the cannabis industry is now jumping the shark and going global, it was that the industry has now arrived in Europe and there is no turning back. On any front.

Most Interesting Highlights

It is very hard to pick which was the most ground-breaking research. It all is at this point and it is all fascinating. One of the most heartening abstracts was submitted from Montana. It was just a single patient study. However it showed visual evidence of a stage 1A malignant melanoma completely resolving after 60 days of treatment both topically and orally. Research out of Tel Aviv (of course) was presented showing that low doses of THC might even reverse age-associated cognitive impairments.

All of the genetic research into the plant not to mention new knowledge about terpenes was, literally, spell-binding to those who follow the science. Some of the presentations about ingestion technology in particular, were a clear indication of how much this world will be impacted by tech, where it is not already.

It was stunning just to sit and listen to ground-breaking science that is being produced by globally-known scholars at internationally renowned universities, but still ignored in every place where medical cannabis is not only still illegal, but out of reach of patients.

The current dire situation facing German medical users, of course, was frequently mentioned throughout the conference, and even from the presenting stage, as a human rights crisis.

The Ambassador Program

The conference was, by definition, not only an exchange of information and research, but also a gathering of the scientific cannabinoid community with a global reach. It was also clearly a gathering of academics and scientists on a mission. The dire need to educate both doctors and patients as the details and kinks get worked out on the ground is well recognized here. The IACM at least is also trying to do something about it.

On Friday night, the first full day of the conference, IACM organizers invited conference participants to a side meeting they at first wanted to limit to 30. The idea was to discuss the launch of an ongoing “Ambassador” program as well as a pilot project to help doctors and researchers communicate with each other. More than 60 people showed up and stayed, even if it meant standing against the wall for several hours.

The mood was helpful and light. Dr. Franjo Grotenherman, the best known and leading cannabis advocacy doctor in Germany, kicked off the gathering by serving food to guests before opening the floor to attendees to introduce themselves.

The idea clearly here, is to spread the word, no matter how, as quickly as possible.

An Intimate, Science-Based Networking Event

The event has a different vibe from purely “industry” events. While the industry was clearly in attendance, in other words, it was clearly there in a supportive role. The star of the show was the unbelievable wealth of scientific knowledge that spilled from the stage.

That is not to say that there was not a lot of business conducted here. On all levels. The networking is terrific. And this being the cannabis industry, most people are friendly, open and willing to give a polite stranger a few minutes of their time.

This is an absolutely intriguing event to consider, particularly for Americans who do not have much insight into the European medical or scientific worlds when it comes to cannabis. That includes cannabis clinics in legalizing states to prescribing doctors looking for medical evidence of using CBD in treating their patients. Canadians, Israelis and Swiss were here in force, beyond the locals with representatives from most countries in Europe. If looking to network with an international crowd of doctors, scientists and companies on the cutting edge of cannabis globally, this is absolutely one of the best places on the planet to be.

Ask The Expert: Exploring Cannabis Laboratory Accreditation Part 1

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Laboratories throughout the world and in a variety of industries get accredited to demonstrate their competency. In the cannabis industry, some states are beginning to require it and many labs get accredited even if their state doesn’t require it. So what does accreditation mean and why is it so important?

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is a standard-setting organization that works to promote industrial and commercial standards. The standards set by ISO are designed to help prove a product’s safety and quality to a certain minimum level.

The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard sets specific requirements to demonstrate the competence of a lab for carrying out tests. It essentially shows customers or regulators that a lab has the skills and scientific know-how to perform testing, certifying the lab is capable. Accreditation means certifying a lab to that standard and is synonymous with both quality and competence of an organization.

Michelle Bradac, senior accreditation officer at A2LA

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), founded in 1978, is a non-profit, internationally recognized accreditation body in the United States that offers laboratory and laboratory-related accreditation services and training. They have worked in the cannabis industry to accredit a number of cannabis laboratories to the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard. In this series of articles, we sit down with experts from A2LA to learn more about cannabis lab accreditation, why it’s so important and some of the challenges labs face when seeking accreditation.

In the first part of this series, we sit down with Michelle Bradac, senior accreditation officer at A2LA, to learn the basics. Michelle earned a bachelor’s degree in Biology at Towson State University and then attended Hood College, earning a master’s certificate in Regulatory Compliance in Biomedical Science. She has worked at A2LA for eight years, assisting in the accreditation of food testing, environmental testing and cannabis testing laboratories to ISO/IEC 17025, as well as performing quality system assessments. She also facilitates a number of accreditation programs including Field Sampling Measurement Organizations, STAC (Air Emissions) and Cannabis Testing. Bradac is also a member of the ASTM Cannabis Working Group and the ACIL Cannabis Working Group.

In the next part of this series, we will hear about specific requirements in states, some of the benefits of using ISO/IEC 17025 and the influx of start-up or novice testing laboratories.

CannabisIndustryJournal: What is Laboratory Accreditation? 

Michelle Bradac: Laboratory accreditation is a formal means of determining and recognizing the technical competence of laboratories to perform specific types of testing, via the use of an independent third party accreditation body. It provides laboratory users a mechanism to identify and select reliable testing organizations. Use of ISO/IEC 17025 as a basis for laboratory accreditation is internationally recognized as THE conformity assessment standard to which laboratories are accredited; it is used in the USA by both Public (State, local, federal (FDA, USDA, CDC, DoD and EPA) and private laboratories for testing of foods & feeds, drugs, cosmetics, tobacco, natural products and cannabis (among other materials and products).

CIJ: How does laboratory accreditation benefit the cannabis testing laboratory? 

Michelle: It provides a framework for continuous improvement and self-correction where the cannabis testing laboratory data management system is independently reviewed and blinded sample Proficiency Testing is encouraged.

CIJ: How does laboratory accreditation benefit the medical cannabis recommending physician?

Michelle: The physician gains a greater degree of assurance that the material provided by the dispensary is what the label says it is. This is especially important in working with patients that are immunocompromised where heavy metals, residual solvents and harmful pesticides could have negative health consequences.

CIJ: How does the testing of medical cannabis by an accredited laboratory benefit the patient?

Michelle: The patient gains increased confidence that the label accurately reflects the potency and chemical properties of the product.

CIJ: What specific challenges does A2LA face in accrediting cannabis testing laboratories?

Michelle: Much of the typical infrastructure is lacking or only now being developed. This ranges from proficiency testing programs, Reference Material Producers, method development and sampling procedures. There is also difficulty in ensuring that laboratories are appropriately validating methods in states where cannabis product is not yet available.

CIJ: Why is A2LA the optimal choice for ensuring the quality and reliability of the results produced by medical marijuana testing laboratories?

Michelle: A2LA has by far the most experience as an accreditor of laboratories that perform testing of natural plant products. We have been performing assessments of and granting accreditation to these types of laboratories for over twenty years. This results in our staff and our assessor corps who are then able to provide valuable insight and technical sophistication that other accreditation bodies do not have. Specific to the cannabis industry, A2LA is also represented in all the major standards development organizations, tradeshows and industry groups; which strengthens our understanding of the industry and ability to assist our customers towards meeting their goal of obtaining accreditation.

PA Approves First Two Cannabis Labs

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

According to a PennLive article, Pennsylvania’s Department of Health approved the first two cannabis laboratories for their medical cannabis program. ACT Laboratories of Pennsylvania LLC and Keystone State Testing LLC are the companies that were approved to perform analytical testing for safety and quality in cannabis products.

Both laboratories expect to be operational before the end of 2017, according to the PennLive article. Those labs are required to test for CBD and THC content, pesticides, moisture content, residual solvents and microbiological contaminants.

The temporary lab testing regulations are somewhat comprehensive, detailing lab reporting, licensing, sampling protocols and ownership stipulations, among other rules. ACT and Keystone, the labs that were approved by the Department of Health, have their approval for two years and can renew their license after.

While the state still expects the program to be fully implemented by 2018, Health Secretary and Physician General Dr. Rachel Levine said last week they are hoping to launch the program sometime next year, according to a press release. December 2017 will mark a full year since the state opened applications for licensing businesses.

January 2018 has long been the goal for the full implementation of the program. “We have made significant progress in getting this program off the ground since Governor Wolf signed the Medical Marijuana Act into law last year,” says Dr. Levine. “These proposed regulations for patients and caregivers to participate are one of the final pieces we need to have in place to launch the program sometime next year.”

Digipath Expands To California

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

In July, we sat down with the folks at Digipath, Inc. when they received their testing license in Nevada for the adult use market. In that conversation, they mentioned they were looking to expand into California.

According to a press release published September 25th, DigiPath, Inc. has entered a joint venture to establish their first cannabis-testing lab in California. They will be working with Don Ashley, an experienced real estate developer and cannabis entrepreneur, to launch Humboldt Botanical, LLC, conducting business under the name “Digipath Botanical Testing”.

Ashley says they expect to be fully operational by Q1 of 2018. “We expect to break ground on this project in the next few weeks and hope to be operational in early Q1 2018 just after the state-wide adult-use market is expected to launch, as we have already obtained approval from the local planning authorities for the entire complex,” says Ashley.

Todd Denkin, founder and president of Digipath

Todd Denkin, president of Digipath, is optimistic for California’s market and the coming regulations. “The state of California is estimated to be the single largest cannabis market in the U.S. Adult-use cannabis legislation was approved by California residents last November, and we expect these new regulations to be implemented in 2018,” says Denkin. “The good news for the industry is that the requirements for cannabis testing will be significant, and we are excited to partner with Don and his team to pursue this opportunity in Humboldt County.”

Ashley is contributing roughly $2 million to build and equip the lab with instrumentation, while Digipath Labs will manage and supervise operations at the lab. According to the press release, Digipath will provide a non-exclusive license to use its intellectual property for the operation of the lab. Digipath Labs will retain rights over all the scientific data generated in the lab.

Cindy Orser, PhD., chief science officer at Digipath

According to Cindy Orser, PhD., chief science officer at Digipath, that data will be put to good use. “Digipath Labs has developed an algorithm for use in strain authentication based largely on terpene profiling from our testing lab in Nevada and we are eager to further test our hypothesis with an expanded dataset from cannabis grown in Northern California,” says Orser.

While testing labs are primarily seen as safeguards for public health and safety, using data to correctly identify strains is a relatively new concept. “Digipath Labs is all about public health and safety through testing for adulterants,” says Orser. “Another component to quality is having confidence in product authenticity at the dispensary level. Not only is the consumer buying quality assured products but truth in advertising when it comes to strain nomenclature.”

Denkin says they were proactive in working toward getting the license early on. “Our partners have been dealing with the local regulators while we have been providing the proper SOP’s for the local government in order to receive the proper licensure in the area,” says Denkin. Taking their experience from Nevada to California, Orser says they have been asked to present to the California Toxicology Association on their experience with cannabis testing in the highly regulated marketplace of Nevada.

The laboratory in Humboldt is going to be part of a “cannabis industrial park,” alongside an R&D facility, oils/concentrate manufacturing center, health and wellness center, distribution and processing facility, tissue culture nursery, hemp clothing outlet, and coffee bistro, according to the press release.

Looking forward to growing their business, Denkin says they hope to launch a lab in Southern California. “We do expect to have a larger footprint in California because of the size of the market and are looking for locations in Southern California as well,” says Denkin. When asked about any new plans to expand elsewhere, Denkin says they’ll let us know. “We are continuing with our business plan and actively seeking the right mergers and acquisitions. Stay tuned.”

EVIO Logo

EVIO Labs Expands To Florida

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment
EVIO Logo

Currently, there are no lab testing regulations for Florida’s medical cannabis market. Chris Martinez, co-founder and chief operating officer of EVIO Labs Florida, a veteran-owned business, is looking to change that.

Chris Martinez, co-founder and president of EVIO Labs Florida

When Martinez co-founded EVIO Labs Florida, he saw the need for a dedicated cannabis lab to ensure safety and quality of medicine for patients in the state. Partnering with EVIO Labs to accomplish this goal, Martinez secured a 5,500 sq. ft. facility in Broward County to test for potency, pesticides, microbial contaminants, terpenes, residual solvents and heavy metals. Their lab, a first of its kind in the industry, qualifies as a true pharmaceutical-grade clean room. This week, Martinez also secured their 2nd laboratory location in the City of Gainsville, where they will test for potency, microbials, terpenes and residual solvents. And he isn’t doing it on the cheap. “Our Broward lab is powered by Shimadzu with over $1.2M in the latest testing equipment utilizing LCMS technology with the world’s fastest polarity switching time of 5 m/sec and scan speeds of 30,000 u/sec with UF Qarray sensitivity 90 times that of previously available technologies,” says Martinez.

Martinez, an entrepreneur at heart, started the lab with a team of experts to become the first completely cannabis-focused laboratory in Florida. Jorge Segredo, their head chemist and quality assurance director, has over 18 years of experience in the development of nutraceutical and pharmaceutical products under ISO and FDA accreditation. Segredo has helped launch three independent FDA-accredited laboratories and has extensive knowledge of HPLC, GCMS, LCMS, ICPMS technologies and development/validation of testing methods and procedures. Cynthia Brewer, their director of operations, was an active participant in the 2017 state legislative session and has been an advocate for medical cannabis, working with legislators on a suitable framework to increase patient access to cannabis.

The EVIO team is using instruments from Shimadzu

EVIO is one of the nation’s leaders in cannabis testing, research science and advisory services. It is an evolving network of laboratories with nine EVIO cannabis laboratories operating in five different states: Oregon, Colorado, Massachusetts, Florida and California. “After speaking with industry chemists around the country for months, the EVIO name was constantly brought up in conversation,” says Martinez. “When we spoke with the EVIO Team it was an easy decision for us to partner.” He says Lori Glauser, chief operating officer of EVIO, and William Waldrop, chief executive officer of EVIO, are truly visionaries in the cannabis industry.

According to Martinez, their licensing agreement with EVIO Labs (OTC:SGBYD) marked a first for the publicly traded company with exclusivity in the Florida market. The agreement includes proprietary testing methodologies, operating procedures, training and support.

In addition to testing cannabis for safety and quality, they are launching a technology platform called MJ Buddy, essentially a software tool that takes efficacy feedback from patients and uses testing and genetic data they gather from EVIO Labs across the country. “This will provide real data to the cannabis industry as to the medical benefits for thousands of patients in relation to the genotype and cannabinoid profiles of their medicine,” says Martinez.

Of the states that have legalized some form of cannabis, a large number of them have some lab testing regulations on the book, with some more comprehensive than others. Martinez says he hopes the Florida Department of Health, Office of Medical Marijuana Use follows some of the more thorough state programs, such as Oregon. His team has compiled a set of documents for regulators with recommendations for regulating the lab testing industry.

Without any regulations on paper, it is up to businesses to produce safe and quality medicine, without any oversight. EVIO Labs Florida follows FDA Good Laboratory Practices, has an ISO 17025:2005 accreditation pending, and is working on TNI 2016 accreditation.

When discussing what he wants to see happen with Florida’s regulatory framework, Martinez says the rules need to be specific to Florida. For example, due to the climate being so humid, microbial contaminant testing for things like yeast and mold will be particularly imperative. Because processing methods like butane and alcohol extraction are legal, he emphasizes the need for comprehensive residual solvents testing. “The most important regulation would be to have the laboratories select the samples at the MMTC facility and have the state randomly verify laboratory results to ensure accurate unbiased testing,” says Martinez.

In addition to that, he hopes their pesticide thresholds will be realistic and based on actual science. “We believe the public should receive carcinogenic data for products that are inhaled,” says Martinez. “Chemicals may be introduced into the processing of cannabis to vape liquid that may cause harm. This is important information for public health and communication of the risk related to exposure to such materials.” Martinez says EVIO Labs Florida was founded on the belief that through technology and science we can increase safety and patient outcomes.

Canopy Growth and Spektrum Cannabis Form Alliance With Spanish Alcaliber

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments

Canopy Growth (based in Ontario, Canada) and its subsidiary, Spektrum Cannabis GmbH (in St. Leon-Rot, Germany) have been making waves all year.

As of early September, Canopy and Spektrum also announced their next strategic European move. They have just entered into a supply license agreement with Alcaliber, S.A., a leading Spanish pharmaceutical company. Alcaliber specializes in research, as well as the development, breeding and preparation of plant-based and other raw materials into narcotic medicine. More significantly, it is already a leading company in the global pharmaceutical and narcotic space.

According to Bruce Linton, chairman and chief executive officer of Canopy Growth, the partnership opens a lot of doors. “This agreement gives us additional resources to aggressively enter the European market where federally permitted by law, while we continue to work to establish our own complimentary production footprint for cannabis cultivation, value-add oil extraction and Softgel production in the European Union,” says Linton.

Bruce Linton, CEO of Canopy Growth
Photo: Youtube, TSX

Alcaliber is one of the largest producers of morphine in the world (27% of global production) and supplies 18% of its codeine. Cannabis is also considered a narcotic drug in Europe. This kind of track record is exactly what governments are looking for as they figure out how to integrate cannabinoids as medical products into existing pharmaceutical production and distribution. They are equally excited about the possibilities this partnership brings, according to Jose Antonio de la Puente, chief executive officer of Alcaliber. “There is a clear demand for pharmaceutical cannabis produced in accordance with pharmaceutical standards and the expertise we have developed manufacturing narcotic derivatives for over 40 years,” says de la Puente.

The agreement is also the first of its kind between a Canadian cannabis company and a separate, established, international pharmaceutical company. The fact that Alcaliber is located in Spain (albeit Madrid and not Barcelona) makes this new alliance even more interesting, and for several reasons. Not just in Europe or even Canada for that matter.

In the EU? GW Pharmaceuticals, the only other existing pharmaceutical manufacturer and grower of cannabis in Europe, and based in the UK, just got major European if not global competition.

And then of course, there is what is going on Down Under. Australian and Tasmanian companies moving into the game now (with pharma connections, background in opioids and a global footprint) as the medical market in Australia begins to take shape, are about to go head to head with the Canadian-Spanish-German alliance now forming on the other side of the world.

Cross-Continental Plays Are Now Forming

Just as in the U.S., Europe is turning out to be literally a state-by-state chess game of legalization, regulation and supply. Unlike the U.S., however, European countries are bound by both European law and in some cases, sub-regional agreements – like what exists in the so-called Schengen States.

However, even here, the new world is graduating into federal and regional law. And how that will play out in Europe, where the focus is still largely on medical use, is going to be interesting.

What does this mean for Canada’s largest LP? A strong, multi-country presence in the medical cannabis space that, strategically, is par to none other. There are other Canadian LPs who are planning production facilities in other EU countries of course. And some Canadian companies who appear to see Europe as one giant export market. Germany is just one of them. However, the German-Spanish connection is interesting for several reasons: The two most interesting markets globally right now from both a strictly medical perspective with a clear pathway to much broader acceptance as it transitions into some kind of recreational reform, are Spain and Germany. While the former has not signed up for full-boat medical acceptance, the recent independent assertion by the Catalonian government that they would formalize the cannabis club system is seen here as one more step towards the inevitable. So are ongoing and significant Spanish medical cannabis trials.

This move also gives Canopy and Spektrum something else: access to much cheaper Spanish labour and production. This means that no matter where they grow their crops in Europe, or process them, the company now has a two-country supply system for a multi-country medical market that is just waking up. And that is highly valuable right now.

Why?

It gives Canopy direct market entry into several European states, with federally approved, medical grade cannabis and medical products. Those who are coming to the rest of Europe from a Spanish base only, will not at this juncture meet strict medical growing requirements for the German market for starters. On the Spanish side of things, this also means that cannabis clubs might be pressured to stop growing their own (at least outside of Catalonia) and rely on more corporate entities to actually grow and process the plant.

What Does This Mean For Euro Industry Development?

Canopy, strategically, has been at the forefront of interesting strategic plays in the global industry for at least the last 18 months to 2 years. They have eschewed the American market (unlike other Canadian competitors) in lieu of other game elsewhere. However their current expansion strategy, geolocationally, has clearly also been at least 12 to 18 months ahead of just about everyone else.

The cross-country chessboard game is also something that other Auslander (foreign or international) companies are clearly trying to play, particularly in Europe. This is true of both actual cannabis production and distribution entities as much as tech. The hop-scotching of both Leafly and Weedmaps across the continent in search of a business strategy that makes sense is just another face of this. Advertising rules in Europe, including online, and especially for cannabis, are a lot different from say, California state law.

However what Canopy appears to be doing is establishing both a brand and production presence in a way that guarantees not only European entry, but potentially dominance in the medical market as the market here continues to expand and open up.

What they are also doing with this announcement is telling the German government, for one, that they can supply patients in the EU with EU-sourced product, even if not grown or produced in Germany itself. This alone will help keep prices down as German cannabis production gets underway over the next several years.

It will also help Canopy deal with what is expected to be at least supply pressure as of next year as the Canadian recreational market gets underway. There is a very good chance that Spanish grown cannabis might end up not only in the rest of Europe but will also be shipped back to Canada if the supply problems there are severe enough.

Whatever the end result, this is an interesting alliance, and coming at an interesting time for not only the German cannabis industry, but a regional market as well. And further, it is also clearly a play with not only hemispheric implications but global ones.

What’s Happening on Capitol Hill? Part 3: The Medical Bills

By Brian Blumenfeld, J.D., M.A.
No Comments

This article continues the bill-by-bill review begun in the August 1st article on cannabis reform legislation proposed in the 115th Congress. In the next article and final piece in this series, we will examine the banking and tax reform bills related to cannabis.

Medical Cannabis Reform Bills 

S. 1008 – Therapeutic Hemp Medical Act of 2017

HR. 2273 – Charlotte’s Web Medical Access Act of 2017

Policy: These bills would amend the CSA to end federal prohibition over all CBD products and all hemp plants with THC content levels of below 0.3%. In other words, people and businesses would be free to grow hemp and/or manufacture CBD products without any fear of federal prosecution. These products would most likely then fall under the regulation of other federal and/or state agencies, but the bills do not specify what agencies they might be or what controls might be put in place.

Impact: The impacts from these bills nationwide have the potential to be massive. Hemp is a plant that can be put to highly effective use in many different industries, from textiles and construction to foodstuffs and seafaring. The efficiency of its growth and the breadth of its utility will make it a highly valuable commodity and a competitor with many other raw materials. For state-legal cannabis businesses, the legalization of CBD and hemp at the federal level could fundamentally change the market for those products. States that legalized cannabis already have provisions in place dealing with hemp and CBD—sometimes alongside their cannabis laws, sometimes handled by a separate state agency—and they could either leave those as they are or open up those markets to interstate activity. In states that have not legalized, CBD and hemp are typically included in the state’s definition of cannabis, and therefore they will remain illegal under state law unless further action is taken. Most likely, if federal prohibition ends on hemp and CBD, state prohibition will follow suit. Because legalization at the federal level will allow for interstate commerce in hemp and CBD, expect the emergence of a nationwide market, driven by online sales and interstate marketing, and developing independently from a cannabis industry still constrained to in-state activities.

Procedural Status:

Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) Photo: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

S. 1008

  • Introduced: May 2, 2017 by Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO)
  • Cosponsors: 7 Republican, 4 Democrat
  • Referred to Senate Committee on:
    • Judiciary

 HR. 2273

  • Introduced: May 1, 2017 by Representative Scott Perry (R-PA)
  • Cosponsors: 10 Republicans, 10 Democrats
  • Referred to House Committee on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health
    • Financial Services

S. 1276 – Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act

Policy: This bill would accomplish two objectives: First, it would open channels for researchers to access and experiment with cannabis and cannabis extracts. Second, it would initiate the process at the end of which the Attorney General must make a determination as to which Schedule of the CSA is most appropriate for cannabidiol (CBD).

Impact: The impact on this legislation to state-legal cannabis businesses is rather remote—in both time and practice. The research access provisions will certainly create an uptick in medical and psychological research activity, the outcomes of which will add to our knowledge of how consuming cannabis in different forms and amounts effects the brain and body. This type of government-regulated research takes many years to process and complete, as both bureaucratic and scientific standards must be met. As for initiating the re/de-scheduling review process for CBD, this is a direct response to the 2016 denial by the DEA to re/de-schedule cannabis. That determination, published in the Federal Registrar on August 12, 2016, was made following a comprehensive study of the medical benefits and harms of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although such an in-depth study and its resulting negative determination pronounced so recently would normally rule out the chances of success for another re/de-scheduling attempt so soon after, the DEA did leave the door open with its statement that it “did not focus its evaluation on particular strains of marijuana or components or derivatives of marijuana.” It is just this door that S. 1276 seeks to exploit. By focusing the re/de-scheduling process on CBD specifically, the presumption is that the outcome of the scientific CBD studies would have a far better chance at satisfying the re/de-scheduling criteria set forth in the CSA. If such a determination was made, then the impact would come in two potential varieties. One, CBD would be rescheduled and become available for medical use according to FDA rules applicable to other prescription drugs. Two, CBD would be descheduled and would fall under the prerogative of the states, in which case the above analysis for S. 1008 and HR. 2273 would pertain.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Photo: Daniel Torok

Procedural Status:

S. 1276

  • Introduced: May 25, 2017 by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
  • Cosponsors: 3 Republican, 2 Democrat
  • Referred to Senate Committee on:
    • Judiciary

S. 1374 – Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act of 2017

HR. 2920 – Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act of 2017

HR. 715 – Compassionate Access Act of 2017

HR. 714 – Legitimate Use of Medical Marijuana Act (LUMMA) of 2017

Policy: All four of these bills would make an exception to the CSA for state medical cannabis laws. Federal prohibition, in other words, would end for medical cannabis in those states that have legalized, and it would be left to those states to devise how it would be regulated. In states that have not legalized, both state and federal prohibition would remain. The companion CARERS Acts in the House and Senate, along with HR. 714, would also amend FDA rules to widen access to cannabis for research purposes.

Impact: The impact of these bills on the rules for state-legal medical cannabis businesses would be relatively minor in terms of functionality. This is so because they leave not only the determination to legalize up to the states, but they leave the design of the regulatory system up to the states as well. In other areas, however, big changes will be seen that benefit the industry: banking will open up for state medical businesses, and so will the opportunity to write-off ordinary business expenses. Investment risks over legality will end, making for easier access to capital. Questions about contract enforcement and risks of federal prosecution will become moot, and when state regulatory bodies make decisions on how to govern the industry, they will no longer have to concern themselves with U.S. DOJ enforcement and/or prosecutorial policies. Enactment of any of these bills would be a big win for medical cannabis.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) Photo: David Shinbone, Flickr

Procedural Status:

S. 1374

  • Introduced: June 15, 2017 by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
  • Cosponsors: None
  • Referred to Senate Committee on:
    • Judiciary

HR. 2920

  • Introduced: June 15, 2017 by Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN)
  • Cosponsors: 1 Republicans
  • Referred to House Committee on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health
    • Veterans’ Affairs
      • Subcommittee on Health

HR. 715

  • Introduced: January 27, 2017 by Representative Morgan H. Griffith (R-VA)
  • Cosponsors: 2 Republicans, 1 Democrat
  • Referred to House Committee on:
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations

HR. 714

  • Introduced: January 27, 2017 by Representative Morgan H. Griffith
  • Cosponsors: 1 Democrat
  • Referred to House Committee on:
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

HR. 2020 – To Provide for the Rescheduling of Marijuana into Schedule III of the CSA

Policy: As its wordy title indicates, this bill would bypass the schedule review process and by legislative fiat move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA.

Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL)

Impact: Businesses handling drugs in Schedule III must register with the DEA and comply with DEA record keeping and security requirements. Doctors would be permitted to prescribe cannabis products. Importing/exporting will become available by permit, which would bring state businesses into competition with foreign cannabis firms. The biggest impact will be that cannabis sold pursuant to federal law will have to undergo the FDA’s New Drug Application process conducted by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the largest of the FDA’s five centers. This includes clinical testing and a comprehensive chemical/pharmacological review. The drug would then be subject to FDA regulation for marketing and labelling. For states that wanted to maintain their legal medical cannabis systems, a conflict would remain because cannabis cultivators and dispensaries could operate in compliance with state law while simultaneously failing to meet new FDA and DEA requirements. States will then have a choice: bring state laws into line with federal laws, creating all of the advantages of federal legality discussed above, yet causing major disruptions to the industry; or retain the status quo, allowing the industry to grow as is with all of the in-state advantages but without the advantages of federal legalization. This all would of course leave behind recreational cannabis which would remain in the legal gray zone.

  • Introduced: April 4, 2017 by Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
  • Cosponsors:
  • Referred to House Committee on:
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health
    • Judiciary

HR. 331 – States’ Medical Marijuana Property Right Protection Act

Policy: Section 881(a)(7) of the CSA subjects to federal forfeiture all property involved with cannabis activities. This bill would make an exception to that provision for all property in compliance with state medical cannabis laws.

Impact: Although not legalizing medical cannabis, this bill would be a strong step in the direction of legitimizing state-legal medical cannabis businesses. As a result of the property forfeiture clause of the CSA, two impediments faced by the medical cannabis industry is that investors are hesitant to invest and land lords are hesitant to lease or otherwise engage the medical cannabis market. By eliminating the risk of such property loss due to the federal-state conflict, this bill would have the very welcomed impact of easing access to capital and expanding opportunities for land use.

  • Introduced: January31, 2017 by Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA)
  • Cosponsors:
  • Referred to the House Committee on:
    • Judiciary
      • Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
    • Energy and Commerce
      • Subcommittee on Health

The Future of California’s Regulations: Q&A with Josh Drayton

By Aaron G. Biros
1 Comment

Josh Drayton, deputy director of the California Cannabis Industry Association, has an extensive career in local and state-level politics, with his origins in Humboldt County as a political organizer. As a coffee shop owner about ten years ago in Humboldt, he let city council candidates use his space for community engagement, which eventually steered him towards a career in politics. As a heavily involved resident of Northern California and an advocate in local and state matters, he came to understand cannabis as a strong economic driver for the region and beyond.

Drayton saw firsthand how local economies benefit from cannabis as a source of income, economic activity, and providing occupational opportunities for many families in Humboldt County. After running a handful of local campaigns in the Humboldt region, Drayton served as deputy director for a state senate campaign in Riverside.

Josh Drayton, deputy director of the CCIA

Towards the end of his tenure with the Democratic Party in California, the state legislature began working on medical cannabis regulations. “As we saw those regulations moving through, cities and counties began to ban cannabis throughout the state, which was a very unintended consequence,” says Drayton. “The goal was to put regulations forward that would create a framework for the industry to survive and function under, but they were not very fond of cannabis at the time. It was clear that we had a lot of work to do.” Politicians shying away from cannabis issues and a lack of real representation in the legislature for those stakeholders drove him to leave the state’s senate for the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA).

In January of 2016, he jumped on board with the CCIA as their deputy director. Ahead of the California Cannabis Business Conference, September 21-22 in Anaheim, we sit down with Drayton to hear his take on the future of California’s cannabis regulations.

CannabisIndustryJournal: Give us a quick update on the regulatory framework in California and the changes we should expect.

Josh Drayton: One of the biggest challenges that California has faced has been the reconciliation of medical regulations with adult use regulations. Although California had medical cannabis legalized in 1996, we did not get those regulations put forward until 2015. That was called the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. That was approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor into law. It was created in the legislature. When Prop 64 passed, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, in November of 2016, it was passed through by a voter initiative. Any time that a piece of legislation goes to the voters, it trumps any legislation or regulations written by the state legislature. The real work has been to reconcile these two pieces of legislation into one regulatory structure. With that being said, we saw the initial trailer bill, attempting to reconcile these regulatory structures. That trailer bill is meant to address the new framework. Currently, we are waiting for the second viewing of the updated trailer bill SB 94 with all current amendments. Then we are anticipating those in the next couple weeks and we will see the regulations that will affect all these changes by November.

CIJ: How strong will local and municipal control be in the future?

Josh: It is incredibly strong and it is meant to be. I will say that California is like its own country. In Northern California, what they are willing to accept is very different in comparison to Southern California. Every city and county still has the ability to fully ban adult use and they can create and draft their own ordinances and regulations as long as it doesn’t go above state requirements. They can craft an ordinance to fit the needs of their city or county. Lets say you are in a rural area, delivery services might be important for patient access. Some areas might not allow brick and mortar dispensaries, and all that control lies in the cities and counties.

CIJ: Will there be a dosing limit for patients buying infused products? What about for adult use?

Josh: For adult use, there is going to be a limitation. Every edible has a maximum potency of 10mg of THC. For example, a chocolate bar can have a maximum of 100mg [of THC] but must be perforated in to 10mg pieces.

We have been advocating for, and what has been a priority for CCIA, is a lift of any sort of limits on medical infused products. Many patients have a higher threshold or tolerance and they may need 100mg and we don’t want them eating an entire chocolate bar to get that. We are anxiously awaiting the new trailer bill to see if we have been able to lift that concentration limit.

CIJ: Some have said the first draft of lab testing rules is extreme and overreaching. Can you speculate how those have been modified?

Josh: The lab testing is a huge educational issue for the industry and regulators. No state right now has been able to fully analyze the effects of different pesticide levels for a product that is smoked. We are basing all of our standards currently on food consumption. A lot of testing labs are concerned they are unable to test at the state’s threshold for some of these contaminants and pesticides; the detection limits seem very low. The testing portion will take years to work out, I am sure we will remove and add different pesticides and contaminants to the list. But again, the data and research isn’t fully there. There is a big push across the board that we will be able to do more research and testing so that the future of regulations can reflect reality, and ensure that consumer safety is priority.

CIJ: What do you think of the lack of residency requirement? When Oregon lifted it, outside investors flocked to the market. How might that impact local, California ownership and smaller businesses?

Josh: Well I do think that is a concern across the board. That is something that cities and counties have been adding to their requirements for the matrix of items needed to get a license. I think there is a very gray area when looking at investors opposed to operators. At what threshold does an investor become an owner? And if that person is from outside the state, how will that reflect on the evolution of the industry? It is a concern. Keeping limitations on the size of outdoor cultivation might help limit folks from outside the state coming into that arena. After living in Humboldt County for years, and living next to Mom and Pop growers for a long time, I don’t want to see them displaced by businesses coming from another area. We have been doing this a long time and I believe we have the best operators in the world.

CIJ: How is the CCIA helping businesses gear up for changing regulations?

Josh: Well one of our biggest areas of focus is education. Educating our own industry is one of the biggest parts in making sure the industry will be successful in this regulated market. Our legislative committee will take a position of support or opposition, which goes to our board, and those recommendations go to the state. The manufacturing committee has worked very closely with Lori Ajax [director of the Bureau of Cannabis Regulation] and her office, to educate on a variety of areas, guiding the way for state departments on how to properly regulate the industry. We have a Diversity and Inclusion Committee, Retail/Delivery, Testing, Distribution and Agricultural committees; across the board our committees create white papers that we submit to the regulatory departments of the state. We take regulatory officials on tours of facilities to get a hands-on view of what they are regulating. They have been speaking with scientists and growers, who often have a better understanding of current industry standards. We see these tours as very helpful. We have brought groups of regulators from LA County, Long Beach, Napa, Alameda and many others on tours of Bay Area commercial manufacturing facilities, dispensaries and nurseries. They have a lot of questions and we want to make sure we are a resource for them. Putting folks in touch with the right people and, in moving forward with this process, in an educated manner. Cannabis is a foreign language to many people and I get that.

CIJ: If you have one recommendation for regulators, what would that be?

Josh: My recommendation to regulators: do not over-tax this industry. Do not make taxation the priority for regulation. Over-taxation will strengthen the illicit market and that is not the goal. We need to make sure the taxes are reasonable to encourage businesses to operate in this market, not in the illegal one. If cities decide to ban, they need to know they can be hubs for illicit activity. Cities with bans might draw the illicit market because illegal operators won’t have to pay taxes or license fees. It is a long play, but responsible taxation is the best path to draw people out of this illicit market. We want to help protect public safety and health, safe medicine, safe products and keep cannabis out of the hands of children.

Consumer Education: Transparency is King

By Gabrielle Wesseldyk
2 Comments

Making Cannabis Transparent: The Future of the Industry is Information and Data

The last decade has been marked by great strides in the cannabis industry, as public awareness surrounding the health benefits of marijuana-infused products has spread and products have become increasingly well researched and scientifically advanced. Despite this significant progress, however, cannabis legislation and regulations continue to vary widely between states, ultimately contributing to a lack of clarity within the industry.

This issue was at the forefront of the DispensaryNext Conference and Expo agenda held in Denver a few weeks ago. During the expo’s Consumer Safety and Education discussion, a panel of industry leaders including Kevin Gallagher, director of compliance and government affairs at Craft Concentrates and executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance (CBA); Eileen Konieczny, registered nurse and president of the American Cannabis Nurses Association; Kevin Staunton, director of business development at RM3 labs; and moderator David Kotler, a partner at Cohen Kotler P.A., highlighted a number of important issues for cannabis patients and adult-use consumers, as well as what’s next for physicians, testing labs and dispensaries across the industry. A number of common themes resonated in their discussion of opportunities and challenges, ultimately pointing to a need for increased research and data, and most notably, a growing demand for transparency industry-wide.

Medical practitioners and dispensary technicians need qualified and legitimate information.

Konieczny opened by stressing that the industry must stop calling dispensary sales associates “budtenders.” “I prefer the term ‘dispensary technician.’ These are knowledgeable people who are on the front lines, helping patients understand the products available to them. They deserve a title to reflect that our industry and their knowledge is much more than ‘bud,’” says Konieczny.

These are knowledgeable people who are on the front lines, helping patients understand the products available to them. The most prominent information gaps in the industry lie at the level of dispensary technicians and medical practitioners. The ideal scenario for patients who are looking to use cannabis as medicine is that their medical practitioner is educated about the endocannabinoid system and that the products are available locally so that a treatment plan can be developed based on their needs. But the reality is that many patients enter their local dispensary without much knowledge or support at all, relying on the professionalism of the dispensary staff to help them navigate the dizzying array of products.

Putting the patient’s safety and success first, it is imperative that everyone involved has the proper data and information to make the best choices. However, dispensary technicians should be extremely careful to avoid making health or benefit claims. As Gallagher noted, “It is not only illegal, but also unethical to make medical claims as a dispenser. There is a difference between a claim and a personal experience. A dispenser can tell their customer that a certain strain helped them personally, but they cannot tell the customer that the strain will cure their specific ailment.”

The industry needs transparency.

New cannabis consumers may have a certain degree of misunderstanding of the products they are consuming and unfortunately, manufacturers do not offer a high level of transparency in disclosing ingredients, thereby preventing these customers from becoming better informed.

While educating the public is essential, educating the industry is of equal importance.Furthermore, labels often contain small barely legible type, along with confusing and unnecessary content. According to Gallagher, the labels need to be simpler. “Products are overloaded with redundant, confusing language that most consumers don’t understand. This turns them off—especially if they’re inexperienced in this realm,” says Gallagher. When customers who are new to cannabis find products off-putting, it hurts not only the industry, but also their own health. Ill-informed consumers may have trouble understanding how cannabis can help them, and therefore they can miss the benefits it provides.

While these issues are prevalent, there are many ways they can be resolved—with transparency at the core.

Research is critical and paramount.

For cultivators or manufacturers, research and data hold the key to attracting new consumers. By providing details about what is in a product and implementing certifications to show the product is contaminant-free, manufacturers are able to provide transparency and offer differentiation.

During the panel, Konieczny pointed out another common mistake that many manufacturers make—not sharing test results. “Not many are posting their test results, and yet this is one of the leading avenues that can increase revenue,” says Konieczny. “Most people just want to feel well again, so providing test results adds a layer of legitimacy for patients who are wary to try a new product.”

With all of this in mind, it is perhaps most important to consider the way that this information is conveyed. Facts and research are useless if they are not accessible to consumers, who may not comprehend complex data. “We need to present information in plain language, keeping it clear and simple to understand,” expressed Konieczny. The simpler the delivery, the better it will be understood and knowledge is a very powerful tool for patients, consumers and the bottom line.

Educating the educators.

While educating the public is essential, educating the industry is of equal importance. For instance, thoroughly training dispensary technicians to ask the correct questions and identify first-time users will ensure consumer safety while avoiding improper use.

The industry as a whole depends on transparencyEducating professionals on better product labeling is another critical way that the industry is working to improve itself. There has recently been a push at the manufacturing level for standardization in product labeling, as establishing a clear standard can aid customers in successfully using cannabis. “In working groups with Colorado’s MED (Marijuana Enforcement Division), we aim to standardize specific product categories, remove irrelevant names, and harmonize medical and retail labeling regulations,” says Gallagher. “Ultimately, we want to consolidate language and make it more transparent in promoting public health and safety so that it can be easily read and understood.”

All panelists agreed transparency is paramount for the future of the cannabis industry and for growing a brand. Using lab data can provide value, setting a brand apart and building loyalty among consumers looking for someone they can trust.

“Transparency is king,” Gallagher urges. “The more we educate consumers and professionals, the more clarity we will see at all levels, ultimately minimizing risk and creating greater demand among those consumers. The industry as a whole depends on transparency.”

Soapbox

The Problem With Puerto Rico’s Medical Cannabis

By Dr. Ginette M. Collazo
1 Comment

Recently Puerto Rico approved the law that regulates the production, manufacturing, dispensing and consumption of medical cannabis. Although medical cannabis was already “legal” through an executive order and was “supervised” by local regulation, there was no law to back up the industry and protect investors.

The creation and approval of laws resides in the hands of elected individuals. Expecting absolute knowledge is unrealistic, especially when we refer to cannabis as a medicine. Sadly, the lack of knowledge is affecting the patients, and an emerging industry that can be the solution to the Island’s current economic crisis.

I am in no way insinuating that Puerto Rico is the only example. I have seen this type of faulty thinking in many places, but cannabis is the perfect manifestation of this human defect. Check some of your laws, and you will find a few that nearly qualify for the same characterization.

As we can see, lack of knowledge can be dangerous. Objective, factual information needs to be shared, and our leaders need a formal education program. Patients need them to have a formal education program to better understand and regulate the drug.

The approval of this law is a significant step for the Island. Still, many Puerto Ricans are not happy with the result. The lack of legitimate information coupled with conservative views made the process an excruciating one. It took many hearings, lots of discussions and created tensions between the government and population, not because of the law, but for the reasons behind the proposed controls. Yes, it was finally approved, but with onerous restrictions that only serve as a detriment to the patient’s health, proving the need for an education program designed specifically to provide data as well as an in-depth scientific analysis of the information, then, you address the issue at hand.

Let’s take a look at some of the controls implemented and the justification for each one as stated by some members of the government.

  1. Patients are not allowed to smoke the flower in its natural state unless it is a terminal patient, or a state-designated committee approves it. Why? Because the flower is not intended for medical use (just for recreational) and the risks associated with lung cancer are too high. Vaporize it.
  2. It was proposed to ban edibles because the packaging makes it attractive for children. Edibles made it, but with the condition that the packaging is monochromatic (the use of one color), yes, insert rolling eyes here.
  3. It only allows licensed pharmacists to dispense medical cannabis at the dispensary (bud tending). The rationale? Academic Background.
  4. The new law requires a bona fide relationship between the doctor and the patient to be able to recommend medical cannabis, even if the doctor is qualified by the state and is a legitimate physician. This is contrary to their policy with other controlled substances, where a record is not required.

When there are different beliefs on a particular topic like it is with medical cannabis, you are not only dealing with the technical details of the subject; there is an emotional side to it too. Paradigms, stigma, stereotypes, beliefs and feelings affect the way we think. We let our judgment get in the way of common sense. When emotions, morals and previous knowledge are hurting objectivity, then we have to rely on scientific data and facts to issue resolution. However, when the conflict comes from opinions, we rely on common sense, and this one is scarce.

Now education: what can education do with beliefs, morals and emotional responses?

David Burns in his book “Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy” discusses ten thinking errors that could explain, to those like me that want to believe this is a legitimate mistake, that there are cognitive distortions that affect the result of ours thoughts.

Now let’s analyze …

  1. There are many things wrong with this prohibition. First, the flower is natural and organic. It is the easiest to produce and the cheapest alternative for patients; there are more than 500 compounds all interdependent to make sick people feel better. There are seas of data, anecdotal information, serious studies collecting information for decades and opinions of highly educated individuals that support the consumption of flower in its natural state for medical purposes. The benefits are discarded, and personal opinions take the lead. Based on Burns’s work this is a textbook case of Disqualifying the Positive: dismissing or ignoring any positive facts. Moreover, let’s not forget the benefit for illegal growers and distributors.
  2. Keep out of reach of children, does it ring a bell? For years and years, we have consumed controlled substances, have manipulated detergent pods, bleach and so many other products that can be fatal. The warning is enough, just like is done with other hazardous Here we can notice how we can fall into the Fortune Teller Error, which believes that they know what will happen, without evidence.
  3. Not even the largest drug stores in the USA have this requirement. There is one pharmacist per shift, and a licensed pharmacist supervises pharmacy technicians. Medical cannabis is not even mentioned in current Pharmacy’s BA curricula. Most pharmacists take external courses in training institutes. On the other hand, bud tenders go through a very comprehensive certification process that covers from customer service to cash management and safety and of course all technical knowledge. If anything, a botanist (plant scientist) makes more sense. What a splendid example of magnification (make small things much larger than they deserve). This is an unnecessary requirement.
  4. The relationship between a certified doctor and patient has to be bona fide (real, honest). In practical terms, the doctor has to treat the patient for some time (sometimes six months) and have a history of the patient. Even though this sounds logical, not all doctors are certified to recommend cannabis, but all can diagnose. Are we penalizing the doctor or the patient? The only thing that you need to qualify as a patient is the condition. Besides, I had prescriptions filled for controlled medications at the drug store with no history. Why are we overgeneralizing Do we think that all doctors are frauds?