Good or Bad? - Rescheduling Cannabis
Steve Goldner
Fractional Chief Marketing Officer | Brand, Marketing, and Strategy Consultant
Seems like just about everyone has an opinion on whether the reassignment of cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III drug is a good thing or a bad thing. Before you get on your soapbox or quietly come to a bias there are several things to recognize.
I wholeheartedly believe we really don’t know whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing because there is still a shrowd of secrecy and lack of transparency by Federal regulators. The Washington Post states, “implications of rescheduling?are still murky, and cannabis advocates contend it would not end the War on Drugs or eliminate the regulatory challenges.” Given lawmakers historical motivations for cannabis prohibition (i.e. disproportionate policing of BIPOC) and outright lies (i.e. no accepted medical benefits) there has been a tendency to believe the rescheduling will be motivated by political cronyism favoring lobbyist and big companies as opposed to legacy small operations. Many state “it doesn’t go far enough and that the drug should be de-scheduled outright and no longer deemed a controlled substance.”?
Social media has been a fertile ground for rants regarding the speculated outcome of cannabis rescheduling. Use your freedom of speech, but don’t just be an armchair critic. Now is the time for EXECUTE your voice; not just post on social media. “The White House’s Office of Management and Budget must review … The proposal, if accepted, would be formally published and would not go into effect for months until the PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO COMMENT.”
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE YOUR VOICE MATTER? Hopefully more than just posting and engaging on social media.
Facts we know:
1)?? Cannabis “would not legalize or decriminalize cannabis, but it would ease?barriers to research?and boost the bottom lines of legal businesses.”
2)? Rescheduling comes with some degree of financial relief. Financial management and profitability continue to be a major challenge for companies participating in the regulated cannabis market. “Under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, businesses that sell Schedule I substances cannot deduct business expenses, resulting in a substantially higher tax rate for companies that grow and sell marijuana. But with marijuana reclassified, they will be eligible for the tax breaks.”
3)?? “Removing marijuana’s Schedule I?status would ease some restrictions on studying the drug, but researchers caution barriers would still remain. To gain access to pot now, researchers?need to register?with the Drug Enforcement Administration under rules that would not apply if they studied Schedule II substances such as cocaine and fentanyl. They?must submit research protocols to the DEA that need to be reviewed?by the?FDA.?And they must meet?stringent requirements?for drug storage in electronic safes or vaults that some researchers say are too expensive and burdensome to follow.”
?
It is no secret that I fully support changes in cannabis regulation. The current classification and Federal prohibition is antiquated and clearly not align with the will of the people. (“An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use” – Pew Research)
?
Before anyone starts to evaluate (or implement) cannabis regulations, it should start with objective and goals.
I would like to propose the following objectives:
1)? All regulations and laws should be a represents of the will of the people.
2)? Enough limited biased research – Accurate research that unveils the ability to increase the quality of life AND identification of negative ramifications of cannabis consumption for specific groups of people.
3) New regulations MUST provide opportunities for people effected by the war on drugs and NOT simply open up income streams for pharmaceutical companies and "big money." We must recognize the intent and failures of cannabis social equity programs. We must support small cannabis operators.
?
Net-net – rescheduling has pros and cons. Transparency in execution of rescheduling is required.
?
?
?
No-Nonsense Payments & Specialized Financial Services Consult; Cannabis Industry Equity Contributor; Needle Mover; Hemp and Cannabis-Aided Spinal Replacement Survivor and Thriver.
6 个月Rescheduling it has only convinced me more of what THE ONLY play we should be running out of the playbook at this point should be: #ArticleVConvention -- but it has to be as calculating as it would be disruptive.
Cannabis + Hemp Industry | cGMP Oral Solid Dose Manufacturing | Marketing | Purchasing | Helping Brands Expand Their Product Portfolio with Convenient, Tested, Consistent Product Solutions
6 个月We're excited about the new research opportunities this opens up. Due to the nature of our business and that our CEO comes from a pharma background, we are already registered with the DEA. We'd only have to add a few more things (primarily cages or a safe) to our facility for approval to get the ball rolling as we already meet most of the guidelines for pharma manufacturing. I don't anticipate the rescheduling to be as bad as all the doom and gloom that others are predicting. Especially with the products being state regulated and bringing in significant tax revenue. But as with any industry, it does require businesses to adapt to change and roll with those punches. I'd like this to be more of a stepping stone towards complete deregulation, but only time will tell.