Tag Archives: patient

Do Varying Cannabis Laws Adequately Serve Patients, Businesses or Government?

By Jason Warnock
No Comments

Cannabis laws are changing at a rapid pace across all 50 states and around the world. Currently, Cannabis is legal in 11 states for adults over the age of 21, and legal for medical use in 33 states.

Across the nation, many states have been struggling to enact a viable medical and potential adult use cannabis system since Initiative 59 and the “Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998.”

Unfortunately, the program has been continuously impacted by the federal government’s presence, first with the passage of the Barr Amendment by Congress overturning the early legalization progress and continuing to delay the onset of the first medical sale at a dispensary until 2013. The federal government continues to exert influence and control over the program expansion including adding Congressional riders on every proposed update including the latest “Safe Cannabis Sales Act of 2019.”

In Washington DC for example, 18 organizations including the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), the ACLU and Law Enforcement Action Partnership petitioned the US House and Senate Financial Services Subcommittees to remove the rider given that “[the] Current law has interfered with the District’s efforts to regulate marijuana, which has impacted public safety. Without the ability to regulate marijuana sales, the grey market for marijuana flourishes despite the need and want of the District leadership and residents alike to establish a regulatory model.”

States with limited availability of medical cannabis, possession laws or with the ability to legally gift up to one ounce and the constant pressure by the federal government, the grey market has expanded with public safety and the safety of these pop-up businesses put at risk. The current state health and safety laws require a seed-to-sale tracking system and testing at independent labs for all medical cannabis, however the grey market consumers are afforded no such protection. The District of Columbia is unique in the US cannabis landscape as it grapples with the local government trying to provide clarity, safety and equity to a medical and adult use community, but it is hampered by what it can and cannot control through federal influence.

As the United States continues to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, control and use of tax revenue will move to center stage in all these communities and the cannabis tax revenue will return to focus.

Cannabis tax revenue has shown a massive disparity between projection and reality. In 2018, California projected upwards of one billion dollars in cannabis tax revenue, but in reality was only able to recover a third of that amount. California in response continues to increase the excise tax and even proposed changes to taxes dependent on the amount of THC, creating new pressure on producers, in-part pushing some back into the grey market.

During the pandemic, Colorado enacted emergency rules to extend cannabis sales online. Allowing customers to pay for cannabis via the web and then pick up their purchases at the store. In a testament to what is considered a “critical businesses” the cannabis industry is given opportunity to expand during the pandemic, but still hampered by severely limited access to standard e-commerce options as credit card merchants still remain concerned that cannabis sales are illegal under US federal law. Alaska, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois and Oregon also allowed online sales and curbside pick-up, but remain limited in sales as federal banking and access to credit is limited as the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act remains in limbo.

Overarching technologies such as DNA tracking that provide a clear indicator that the cannabis is produced and tested from legal sources, can be proven safe and protects local legal businesses’ products against out of market cannabis would provide such clarity.

As the country moves forward from the COVID-19 health crisis, all legal and safe ways to rapidly restart the economy will be needed, the cannabis economy will be no exception. We should be looking to this emerging market right now to help safely drive revenue and taxes into our states.

Soapbox

A Response to Governor Wolf’s Call for the Legalization of Recreational Cannabis

By Chris Visco
4 Comments

As a medical cannabis professional, I, like most industry leaders, have been left out of the conversation around the Governor’s call to legalize recreational cannabis. Much like flying a plane without the advice of the pilot, those of us who are rooted in this space should be given a seat in the cockpit if we’re headed in this direction.

While Governor Wolf has called for legalization, which is absolutely necessary, those who understand where legislation has gone wrong and what works well – including business owners and most importantly, patients – have been largely left out of the conversation.

I meet regularly with legislators and unlike many, I speak and listen to both sides. I applaud the call for legalization by Governor Wolf, however, I question his true intentions. Is this political posturing to make Republicans look out of touch? Any political strategist would say that if you actually want something done, you must work with the opposition. Like many issues today, change can only be created once we come together. This is no different.

Few people understand that cannabis was used as medicine for thousands of years and legal in the U.S. until 1969. In 1971, Nixon told us that cannabis was “bad” and drug abuse was public enemy number one, so Americans listened. Nixon then goes on to break American law, be impeached, resigns, and yet, Americans continue to follow his lead, vilifying cannabis users, 46 years later. As a society, we are taught to conform to what we are told by elected officials and community leaders as truth.

PA Governor Tom Wolf
Image: Flickr

Act 16 legalized cannabis – a term illegal to use by someone like me, who has been mandated by The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to use ONLY the racist term “marijuana” – but in a way that shames users. The system fails our patients at every turn leaving business owners hostage to an unmanageable “seed to sale” platform, leaving many patients without access to their medicine. Low income patients have been left out of our program by high prices and have not received any of the subsidies they were promised, even though the program has produced hundreds of millions of dollars.

Pennsylvania law strictly prohibits anyone charged with the use of cannabis to work in the industry. You cannot own a cannabis business or work for a cannabis company if you have been arrested for possessing a $10 joint. Yet, my customers skip to their cars with hundreds of dollars of weed in their bags and go about their day. Meanwhile, a 19-year-old black kid’s life just ended after he was pulled over, driving while black and the officer finds a joint. He can never receive financial aid for college or get a job because he has “a record.” The reality is, the black teen’s life will most definitely come to an end because of a joint while others can smoke walking down Broad Street and no one blinks.

Pennsylvanians want legal cannabis. It has a consistent history of reducing opioid deaths, state by state, by 25%. How many lives would be saved if we allowed those who cannot afford legal cannabis but fear prosecution for illegal use, to grow their own?

I have no judgement against those who have been conditioned to believe cannabis is an “illicit drug” because this is how we’ve been programmed. Cannabis has healed but has killed no one. We must educate our legislators before we vilify them. There are more Republicans quietly for legalization than against, but they need information, not shaming.

Legalization of cannabis is necessary to preserve our health and welfare, because we’ve become a society addicted to chemically derived pharmaceutical drugs designed to cause dependence. Cannabis is not physically addicting. It can prevent and eliminate seizures, shrink and even kill cancer tumors, settle the nervous system from diseases like Parkinson’s and MS and help those with anxiety, depression and PTSD. Legalize cannabis and clean up our homelessness, allow people of color to profit from an industry which has capitalized on them, allow low income people and all people to grow their own medicine, and reduce the violence in our streets caused by prohibition.

Pennsylvania needs a legalization law that includes real, hard-working Americans. I am one of the few, born and bred small business cannabis owners in Pennsylvania and I want opportunity for my neighbors and fellow Pennsylvanians in this space. We need legalization to save our communities, but we need two separate application processes – one that is directed toward those disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs which should be crafted to protect applicants who cannot afford thousands of dollars of application fees and the uncertainty of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars via legislative delays. The system is broken. There must be two points of entry.

Pennsylvania Republicans will legalize cannabis. Pennsylvania Democrats will not. Democrats hold no power or authority in our Republican controlled state, and they have shown no attempt to educate. Cannabis legalization is necessary to save the state, but money should not be the reason. Pennsylvanians deserve the education to understand what they do not understand.

Instead, lets legalize and allow 50% of the licenses to be awarded to social equity applicants (those disproportionately affected by the war on drugs) with a bill that is written in the best interest of the social equity applicant and the consumer. The other 50% of the applications should be open to current license holders (who should be grandfathered in with a high price license acceptance fee) and small business owners from Pennsylvania. (It is federally illegal to require residency requirements).

We must not eliminate the Multi State Operators (MSOs) because a free market depends on expertise and stability – and whether anyone wants to hear it or not, being disadvantaged is not enough to be a successful businessperson. We need a balance, but more importantly, as with our nation in crisis, we need to come together.

We CAN… 

  • Provide affordable, non-addictive medicine to patients.
  • Allow people to grow their own cannabis.
  • Create BILLIONS in tax revenue nationally by taxing adult use cannabis.
  • Demand social equity reform where anyone can profit from the plant.
  • Free Americans from prisons and parole and expunge records.

All of this is a cry for peace. As a wise person once said, “Drunk men in a bar start a fight, high men start a band.”  Spread peace not hate. Thousands die from excessive alcohol consumption every year, but legalization of cannabis does not increase usage. No one has ever died from cannabis. Tell me again why we shouldn’t legalize? Those who believe we should not might as well push for alcohol prohibition again – it has no medicinal properties and kills.

Hopes and dreams will not help our humanitarian crisis – but action and education just might…

german flag

Shakeups In The German Cannabis Market

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
german flag

As Germany begins to enter a summer where life seems ever more normal, there are fairly major shakeups underway in the German cannabis market. These are structural but will have a profound impact on the entire market going forward.

A Mass Of Distribution Licenses
It is an interesting metric to understand that before 2015, there were no specialty cannabis importer/distributors in Germany. As of July 2020, there are rumors that this number has now shot to close to 80 (either licensed or in the process to become licensed). That is a huge number. So was the last amazing number (40) as of the beginning of this year. Just the previous estimate would mean, literally, 1 specialty cannabis distributor for every 2 million Germans. That obviously is not sustainable. What it does indicate is the huge surge of interest in medical cannabis not to mention acceptance, as well as the amount of money actually now beginning to slosh around in the domestic market.

And that spells good news for both patients and insurers. The rest of the industry, however, will be under further pressure to reduce cultivation and operation costs to meet the challenge.How many of these distributors will survive is another question, particularly in an environment where the government is looking for just one to fulfil the needs of all of Germany’s pharmacies from what is grown domestically. This does not of course mean the end of specialty distribution. Indeed, far from it. There is not enough cannabis entering the market, presumably this fall, that is grown here to even come close to meeting demand.

No surprises here. This has been one of the enduring criticisms of the entire process, if not the bid itself since 2017.

However, one thing this does mean is that distribution fees, like pharmacy fees for processing the plant before them, are finally hitting a price adjustment phase.

This is also going to be good not only for patients, but also health insurers.

For all the standardization of the industry, including fees and mark-ups, one of the strangest things about the German cannabis market is how widely cannabis prices can differ even between pharmacies. This is as true of flower as it is of dronabinol.

The Wholesale Price Of Medical Cannabis Is Dropping
Again, no surprise here, the government will end up buying more cannabis than contracted for under the original bid. This was actually anticipated in the language of the contract that currently exists between the government and the three bid winners. Namely, an automatic 50% reduction in price is mandated for any cannabis sold beyond the 120% agreed upon qualities.

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

The growers domestically, in other words, who won the bid will be under a severe price restriction. This may have been the ultimate strategy of the government to begin with (namely to attract foreign capital and expertise but then begin to reign in the sky-high prices of medical cannabis so far.)

This means that the price of €2.30 a gram will undoubtedly fall. Where it will float is anyone’s guess, but right now it appears on course to hit about €1.87. Or about the same price that other governments across Europe (notably Italy) had previously negotiated with the big Canadian cannabis companies (notably on this one, Aurora’s military contract in Italy).

Implications For The Import Market
With domestic producers under the gun, this also means that all imports will begin to feel the price squeeze too. And that will also have a significant impact on point of sale cannabis prices.

And that spells good news for both patients and insurers. The rest of the industry, however, will be under further pressure to reduce cultivation and operation costs to meet the challenge.

Will Australia’s Cannabis Program Follow Canada’s Lead?

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

The news is intriguing in a world overwhelmed with pandemic news. THC Global, a Canadian-Aussie company now raising money and signing global deals, has just bought a “clinic network” of 30 prescribing physicians that will be able to supply up to 6,000 Australian patients this year.

In doing so, this entity is clearly beginning to establish a pattern of expansion in a new medical market not seen so far outside of Canada. Namely being able to obtain the all-important prescription for one’s brand at the doctor or prescriber’s office which is affiliated with a certain producer. Pharmacies and dispensaries downstream have no discretion for any other product to sell if the brand is written right on the prescription itself.

And this marks a new step in an industry frustrated with the high prices and high levels of red tape in other international environments where more widespread medical cannabis reform has come.

The Situation in Germany
Germany represents, so far at least, the destination market of choice for Canadian cannabis firms (for the last several years at least). This is for several very sound business reasons (at least in theory).

german flag
Photo: Ian McWilliams, Flickr

The German medical market is the largest in Europe. Health reforms which swept the country at the time of reunification also created a system that is in its own way a hybrid of the more European (and British) NHS and American healthcare. Namely, 90% of the German population is on the system, but it is tied to employment and income. Freelancers, even of the German kind, must use private healthcare as must all non-passport foreigners. If you make over a certain amount of money (about $65,000), you must also pay for private healthcare. As the cannabis revolution rolls forward, many cannabis patients are caught in changing rules and a great reluctance by public health insurers to allow fast entry of any new drug, including this one. This is based on “science” but also cost.

Bottom line? Yes, the market is lucrative and growing, and yes, cannabis is covered under public health insurance, but the ability of any producers to be able to maintain a reliable, steady market of “prescribers” is highly limited. Furthermore, unlike anywhere else in the world, pharmacists play an outsized role in the process – namely because there are no chains (more than four brick and mortar outlets are verboten). Prices and availability vary widely across the country.

There are also no “online” drug stores where patients can send prescriptions in the sense that this vertical has developed in other countries.

Hospital dispensation is, for all the obvious reasons, highly expensive and generally prohibitive for the long term, if not serving much larger numbers of patients.

The Problem in the UK
Like Germany, the UK decided to launch medical “cannabis” – or at least cannabinoid-related drugs under the purview of the NHS, but there are several issues with this.

Epidiolex-GWThe problems start with the fact that the system remains a monopoly for one British company, GW Pharmaceuticals. The medication produced by them, including Sativex and Epidiolex is expensive and does not work for many patients that it is produced “on label” for (such as MS or childhood epilepsy).

And then of course, the largest group of cannabis patients anywhere (chronic pain) have been explicitly excluded from the list of conditions cannabis can be prescribed for under public health guidelines in the UK. This, like Germany, has created a highly expensive system where those patients who obtain the drug on a regular (and legal basis) have to have both private healthcare and obtain help through private clinics. While there are several chain clinics now forming in the UK, this is not the same thing as “buying” patients in the thousands – the model seen in Canada from the beginning of 2014.

The market has a lot of potential, in other words, but like Germany, via very different paths to market than seen in Canada, in particular.

Why Is Canada Different?
The development of the medical market came through federal change in the law around the turn of the century. Namely, after patients won the right to grow for themselves, via Supreme Court legal challenge, patient collectives gradually formed to grow and sell cannabis that was more “professionally” cultivated. This, in turn, became the right of private companies and indeed household names in the Canadian market saw buying patient pools as their path to financing on the equity markets as of 2014.

This is not widely popular within the industry. Indeed, the last legal challenge mounted by the industry to ban non-profit patient collectives fell apart in 2016 – the year that the larger Canadian companies began to look abroad to Europe.

It is also undoubtedly why, beyond the red tape they face in Germany and the UK if not across Europe, Canadian firms are looking to hybridize a model which worked well for them at least in the early days of capitalization of the private industry. And maybe Australia will be “it.” Stay tuned.

UKflag

Access to Cannabis Is About to Get Easier in UK

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments
UKflag

As of March 2, right before the UN punted on reclassification of cannabis at the international level for another nine months, the UK government eased import restrictions for people in search of the drug.

Specifically, licensed wholesalers will now be able to import larger quantities of cannabis-based products and hold supplies for future use by patients with prescriptions.

Previous restrictions meant that patients had to wait for weeks or months to obtain the still highly expensive drugs (an import license from Canada can take 8 weeks).

Essentially, while welcome, this also means that every single potential cannabis patient who does not suffer from epilepsy or MS must import, via private means, a drug that is still unbelievably expensive. Those with the means are subjected to high prices and bureaucratic complications (like a regular thirty-day review of the prescription).

Cynical Cannabis Moves

While those who can afford to pay approximately $1,000 a month now have options, this is not exactly cannabis reform that is inclusive. Indeed, the entire conversation appears to be about making sure that private companies make profits rather than scientific advancement.

While the government is planning to engage with patients and to participate in trials to figure out how the NHS can utilize the drug, this is little help for sick patients now. Particularly in the middle of a global pandemic and almost as surely, global recession.

Soundbites by government ministers are also putting a cheery face on a situation that is dire, not just because of access but because of cost.

Per British Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock, “We still have a long way to go. We need more research into the quality and safety of these medicines, and to do all we can to cut down the costs and remove barriers so that, when appropriate, patients can access it, including on the NHS.”

How long that might be, however, is anyone’s guess. This discussion has now stuttered on for the last several years domestically.

Why all the Delay?

As recent events, including not only Brexit and cannabis reform, but indeed the now global pandemic have proven, healthcare systems globally are not up to the kinds of threats now thrown in their direction. Designed mostly after WWII, with a far different tax and economic base to support them, as well as far different demographics, most are also clearly not up to the rigors of the 21st century.

It is not just the supply chains for cannabis or even pharmaceuticals that are in the mix of course. Food security in the UK is now also, according to one international expert, Tim Lang, World Health Organization advisor, “in serious trouble.”

The Covid-19 pandemic, in other words, caught the world with its pants down, despite numerous warnings and even models predicting almost exactly this situation as recently as last year. Just like the AIDS crisis. This time, however, there are options available.

The question is, will governments and international organizations rise to the challenge to meet them?

A New World Drug Order

The British, while behind the Germans, are unfortunately, delaying a decision which has been already extended for too long. Relaxing drug import rules are one thing. But recommendations about the uses of the drug are still very narrow in the UK (even more stringent than in Germany).

Beyond that, overall food and drug security (supply chain) issues are in the room and for drugs far from cannabis. As many have begun to point out, cannabis is now prescribed for patients (and in many countries) and these patients are the most vulnerable to a virus like Covid-19. They are vulnerable not just because their immune systems are weak, but frequently because they are also economically exposed.

As the world battles another retrovirus pandemic, perhaps it is time that the lessons of the past be learned by those with the power to make decisions that will ultimately affect billions of people globally.

Doctors & Researchers Push Medical Efficacy Forward at 10th IACM

By Marguerite Arnold
1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Medical efficacy is no longer an unanswered question…

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

A full house of attendees for the patients panel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another “AIDS” Crisis?

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

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

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

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

Act Up, Speak Out, Silence Equals Death

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

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

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

The plea did not fall on deaf ears.

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

Bremen Steps Up Its Cannabis Campaign As Other Groups Lobby For More Access

By Marguerite Arnold
No Comments

The German city of Bremen (perhaps you know it from the Brothers Grimm and the animal musicians) is determined to force the federal German government to play another tune when it comes to basic access within the city.

For those without the special geographic knowledge that comes with being a “local” this is also a deliberately strategic political move. Bremen, like Berlin, is a strange German hybrid, a city-state.

Change here, of course, like Berlin, would have wide impact on other German states.

It is not a new campaign of course. None of these city campaigns for home-grow really are. They are the result of efforts, at this point with elected officials involved, of literally decades of patient activists, who are still necessary. But this time, they have politicians involved. When the national ones don’t listen, the local ones are being dragged in.

That said, don’t expect any breakthroughs or miracles from Bremen or Berlin either right now for that matter. This experiment, in Bremen just like the country’s capital, is still at least several years off, no matter its regular recycling in news stories for the last several years.

The German city of Bremen
Image: Chaim Dönnewald, Flickr

Politically right now it is hard to understand the CDU’s continued reluctance to embrace the weed. The CDU is Germany’s strongest and largest “middle of the road” party. Particularly because they along with everyone else of alternative political persuasions are highly alarmed by the right wing AfD’s popularity and spread. It is not inconceivable that even Germany’s largest if not highly beleaguered party might use a little cannabis to stop that. And they are being pushed, hard now, by the fringes.

The Outpricing Of The Patient Movement

Talk to any cannabis-connected company right now and chances are you will hear the phrase “patient first.”

That means nothing in an environment where most patient groups are kept out of the room when legislation opening markets is being written (certainly in Europe). And of course, it is precisely the individuals that these groups represent who cannot afford the legal medication hitting the markets early.

Here, because of the focus on high-quality, GMP-certified product, the chances of a patient collective actually being able to afford a cultivation license (for example) are so far non-existent.

As a result, there is an active foment on the ground right now in almost every country in Europe. This is meeting other kinds of frustration right now and that can be a powerful weapon for change. However, without funded lobbyists in most European capitals and Brussels, there is more power and money behind the established industry right now to keep the (almost) status quo.

As strange as they seem to the cannabis industry right now, GMP certification is a standard pharmaceutical designation.

The boogeymen in the room right now, in other words, for every strong patient group, with its own grey market distribution channels, are the well-funded companies who are in fact getting the laws to change.

Patients, in these environs, as well as their concerns, are left out entirely.

The Strength of The European Gray Market

For this very reason, the gray market problem is going to be large in Europe for quite some time to come. Patients are effectively priced out of the legitimate market if they cannot get insurer approvals and for most that is still the biggest problem in the room.

Are there large gray market grows all over Europe? Yes. As one German activist told Cannabis Industry Journal recently, echoing the comments and practices of thousands of others, “Yes, they made me jump through the hoops, and I have packaging from all the big guys. That’s how I carry my home grow these days.”

Forget “patient cards” that some enterprising distributors are trying to get patients to carry.

The cops don’t challenge legit packaging. And every producer, distributor and patient knows that. Buy once, no matter how exorbitant, and that is all she wrote.

For that reason, “patient numbers” if not “sales” actually mean very little.

It does not matter, in other words, if a cannabis company announces its market entry in any country right now. What matters is that they can prove consistent supply and sales and real patient numbers – which if GDPR (European privacy legislation) is strictly followed, producers and distributors should never really know at a level that such sales are trackable per patient.

And that is where this all gets difficult down in the weeds.

Are there large gray market grows all over Europe? Yes. Are they all under the purview of the criminal black market? No. There are very organized patient non-profit networks locally in just about every city and town in Europe. If not other places.

And, where those fail, certainly in Germany, there is always the area around every local train station. If you are hard up enough and desperate enough, skunk and hash albeit of an indeterminate source, will cost you about $12 per gram.

There is no cannabis company in the room anywhere in Europe that can provide legit product via any pharmacy, for that price at point of sale. Yet. And therein, as always, lies the rub.

Poland Gets Cracking (Sort Of)

By Marguerite Arnold
2 Comments

One of the surest ways to understand that you are entering not just another country, but what is called an “emerging market” is when you travel from Germany to Poland by train.

There is only one “intercity” option from Berlin Hauptbahnhoff – a far cry from the modern, internet-connected, fast ICE trains that go West. This line is run by the Poles. By the time you reach Warsaw five hours later, however, it is clear at least some parts of this country are booming. The skyscraper construction in the center of town rivals London and Berlin.

Like every emerging market, there are vast disparities in wealth and income, if not opportunity here. And into this discussion, now is coming the entire cannabis discussion. Visiting, as an American, in particular, one is reminded of a city that could be East Berlin 15 years ago.

As a cannabis journalist, it feels, from this perspective, like every American state in the 1990’s. Reform is on the tip of everyone’s tongue. But not quite realized yet, except for a few elites. Beyond such realities which are common in the world of cannabis, how very, well, Iron Curtain.

The difference of course, these days, is that the conversation next door in Germany, as well as other places, is finally forcing the Polish government to face reality. But it is clear, from interviews with activists and patients in particular, as well as the nascent newcomers from abroad testing the cannabis waters, that this fight is not going to be easy on the ground.

Then again, when and where has it ever been?

The Patients….

As always, real reform and market opening is driven by the sheer numbers of sick people who brave arrest to gain access to the plant. Some do it for themselves. Many do it for their children (of all ages). An elderly, boomer couple who talked to Cannabis Industry Journal about their ordeal also see it as a form of justified struggle. And Poles are no strangers to that, far from the cannabis kind.

That ethic is much in the room among the nascent industry that is also struggling to find respect. The Polish side of the discussion is looking at hemp. And growing THC illicitly, just like elsewhere.

But the budding movement here is highly organized, including on the business end, with hundreds of thousands of members. How this translates into a legal industry (besides media and hemp products) is of course, still up for grabs.

That is very much in the minds of those who brave the struggle daily. The patient collective in Warsaw is also highly organized – providing free and non-profit product to those most in need. It is an impressive operation. And further one that is increasingly distrustful of foreigners seeking “market share.” If not the already floating “suits.” Just knowing how to speak Polish, as the activists are, at least realizing, is not a guarantee that they will not be dealing with cannasharks only interested in their contacts and mailing lists. Patients over profits is a phrase you hear a lot here. This has nothing to do with not wanting to support a legit, safe industry. But when you are poor, you find ways to improvise. Including getting your medication.

The Foreign Companies…

Aurora and Canopy Growth are already in the room and there are other Canadians lining up to follow. However, these two are the only ones so far who have been able to get their products registered locally and even then, availability is still in the offing.

european union statesThese are also highly expensive products. And do not begin to compete with producers now eying the Polish market from North Macedonia and the rest of Eastern Europe.

The foreign companies, in other words, are already broadly falling into two camps. North American curiosity seekers (at this point), and companies, mostly from the East and South, who are looking to Poland to be the “next Germany.” Especially because their product is so price and geographically convenient.

A Battle For Poland’s Emerging Market

It is clear that at least the Canadian companies are already lining up against more home grown and patient interests. Just as what happened in Germany and the rest of Europe so far. And not even on purpose, but more on matters of price.

Like other pre-commoditized markets, the Polish industry is still trying to be (relatively) equal and fair, as much as there is a huge amount of positioning already just below the surface. Everyone is tired of struggling. Dreams of cannabis riches are enticing just about everywhere.

Of course, add to that, patients are dying here, and that always sets the tone – especially when only the richest and lucky few can afford to access the drug through legitimate channels. Face pain, unpleasantness or death or buy in the black market? For the Polish industry on the forefront of the debate, in other words, the stakes are high, the government is moving glacially, and those on the ground are organizing to meet the winds of change.

Foment for another kind of Green Perostroika? Perhaps.

There will, almost certainly as a result of these forces, be a call for a Polish bid – and further one that allows for local producers to enter the medical market.

But the bottom line is that this strange, and exciting and certainly new market is going to be as volatile, and wild west as any in Europe for the immediate future. Expect interesting things, if not more of the same.

Soapbox

Cannabis Growers and Distributors: Your Cyber Risk is Growing Like Weeds

By Emily Selck
No Comments

Cannabis growers and distributors are “green” when it comes to cyber security. Unaware of the real risks, cannabis businesses consistently fall short of instituting some of the most basic cybersecurity protections, leaving them increasingly vulnerable to a cyber-attack.

Cannabis businesses are especially attractive to hackers because of the vast amount of personally identifiable and protected health information they’re required to collect as well as the crop trade secrets they store. With businesses growing by leaps and bounds, and more and more Americans and Canadians purchasing cannabis, cybercriminals are likely to increase their attacks on the North American market in the coming year. Arm your cannabis business with the following best practices for growers and distributors.

Distributor Risk = A Customer’s PII

Cyber risk is the greatest for cannabis distributors, required to collect personal identifiable information (PII), including driver’s licenses, credit cards, medical history and insurance information from patients. State regulatory oversight further compounds the distributor’s risk of cyber-attack. If you’re a cannabis distributor, you’ll want to make sure to:

  • Know where you retain buyer information, and understand how it can potentially be breached. Are you scanning driver’s licenses into a database, or retaining paper files? Are you keeping them in a secure area off site, or on a protected network? Make sure a member of your management team is maintaining compliance with HIPAA and state statutes and requirements for cannabis distribution.
  • Institute strong employee oversight rules. Every employee does not have to have access to every sale, or your entire database of proprietary customer information. Delegate jobs behind the sales desk. Give each employee the access they need to do their job – and that’s it.
  • Distributors have to protect grower’s R&D information too. Most cannabis distributors have access to their grower’s proprietary R&D information so they can help customers understand which products are best for different medical symptoms/needs. Make sure your employees don’t reveal too much to put your suppliers in potential risk of cyberattack.

Grower Risk = Crop Trade Secrets

For cannabis growers, the risk is specific to crop trade secrets, research and development (R&D). If you’re a cannabis grower, you’ll want to:

  • Secure your R&D process. If you’ve created a cannabis formula that reduces anxiety or pain or boosts energy, these “recipes” are your competitive advantage – your intellectual property. Consider the way you store information behind the R&D of your cannabis crops. Do you store it on electronic file, or a computer desktop? What type of credentials do people need to access it? Other industries will use a third party cloud service to store their R&D information, but with cannabis businesses that’s typically not the case. Instead, many growers maintain their own servers because they feel this risk is so great, and because their business is growing so fast, there are not yet on the cloud.
  • Limit the number of people with access to your “secret sauce.” When workers are harvesting crop, or you’re renting land from farmers and planting on it, make sure to keep proprietary information in the hands of just the few who need it – and no one else. This is especially important when sharing details with third party vendors.

Cyber coverage is now ripe for picking

Although cannabis businesses are hard to insure – for just about every type of risk – cyber insurance options for cannabis companies have recently expanded, and come down in price. If you’ve looked for cyber coverage in the past and were previously unable to secure it, now is the time to revisit the market.

Know that cyber policy underwriters will do additional due diligence, going beyond the typical policy application, and ask about the types of proprietary information you collect from customers, as well as how you store and access it at a later date. Have this knowledge at your fingertips, and be ready to talk to underwriters about it when you’re bidding for a new policy – and at renewal time.

Unique Issues With Cannabis-Related Patents & Their Enforcement

By Michael Annis, Liam Reilly
No Comments

While enforcement of cannabis patents through litigation is common, there are other alternatives to litigation. Here we discuss some of the unique cannabis-related issues that could arise before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The growth and evolution of the cannabis industry in the U.S. are not slowing. However, the cannabis industry – with its tremendous upside – is still beset with uncertainty and limited legal guidance curbing its full potential. Intellectual property law, including patent protection, has emerged from the murky legal and regulatory landscape as a reliable business strategy with developing certainty.

A pioneering cannabis patent case in Colorado has progressed without any indication that cannabis patents are to be treated differently than other patents. Relatedly, PTAB recently upheld the validity of a cannabis-related patent as part of a post-grant proceeding. However, although the courts and the USPTO are not discriminating against cannabis patents because of their illicit subject matter, the true strength of these newly issued patents could be suspect.

The fledgling nature of cannabis businesses and the fact that cannabis is just now emerging from its statutorily imposed dormancy combine to highlight certain weaknesses of the USPTO and its mechanisms meant to strike spurious patents.

For several reasons, it is possible that applicants are propelling cannabis patent applications of questionable validity through prosecution beyond the point that similar applications could proceed. The USPTO’s experience with cannabis patents is limited. The universe of prior art available to patent examiners is also limited. There are only about three thousand active cannabis patents, which would only account for 0.6 percent of the total issued patents in 2015. The legal status of cannabis has also likely deterred the broadcasting of public use as prior art, and enabling publications or other public disclosures covering cannabis (e.g., published scientific studies) are limited as well. Taken together, patent examiners considering applications for cannabis patents are at a disadvantage compared to other applications that the USPTO considers in other fields.

Additionally, the post-grant proceedings before PTAB established to review issued patents of questionable validity are not designed to handle the historical context and unique issues of cannabis patents. The difference in the procedural rules and requirements of two common inter partes mechanisms for challenging issued patents, post-grant reviews (PGRs) and inter partes reviews (IPRs), creates a gap in coverage that is particularly salient to cannabis patents.

Although the cannabis patent case in Colorado is first of its kind, we can expect more to follow in its wake.Where a PGR petitioner is free to challenge an issued patent on effectively any ground, an IPR petitioner is limited to validity claims for lack of novelty or non-obviousness based solely on patents and printed publications. However, the PGR petitioner must be diligent, because it only has nine months from the issue date of the challenged patent to file a PGR petition. After those nine months, the challenger will have to rely on litigation or an IPR, with its limited basis for invalidity.

What this means for a cannabis patent is that unless a challenger – likely, a competitor in the cannabis space – can timely file a petition for a PGR, the basis for challenging the patent before PTAB are limited to those types of prior art that are especially rare in the cannabis space: patents and printed publications. What is more, meeting the nine-month requirement to file a PGR is no trivial task. The cost and time required to research and prepare a petition for PGR are particularly problematic for the cannabis industry with its lack of access to traditional forms of business financing.

As a result, it is reasonable to question the validity of contemporary cannabis patents. Further, because of PTAB’s enforcement gap, a patent challenger will likely have to resort to litigation to bring its invalidity arguments unrelated to claims of lack of novelty and non-obviousness based on patents and printed publications. Such broader invalidity arguments could include lack of patentable subject matter – which is an appealing challenge for patents that stem from naturally occurring plants or products, such as cannabis – or lack of novelty and non-obviousness based on other prior art.

Although the cannabis patent case in Colorado is first of its kind, we can expect more to follow in its wake. And, because of the weaknesses at the USPTO and PTAB, invalidity arguments in these early cases will likely be of increased strategic importance than in typical patent cases.