A new memo from pro-legalization advocates offers some insight for marijuana businesses, investors and consumers on how they can better support social responsibility in the increasingly legal industry.
The four-page document unveiled by the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) on Friday proposes guidelines to help assess whether a business is operating in a manner that recognizes the historic harms and injustices caused by prohibition. Specifically, the memo asks industry players to take a harder look at their policy positions, internal operations and practices, whether their company supports up-and-coming marijuana businesses and how invested they are in the local communities in which they operate.
As the document notes:
Repairing the harms of prohibition entails:
1) ensuring that the harm is not continuing;
2) supporting the development of an accurate historical record of the harms caused by marijuana prohibition, including how it has oppressed black and brown communities; and
3) supporting initiatives that create a remedy for past harms.
DPA, along with the Marijuana Policy Project, has been a driving force in funding moves pass marijuana legalization ballot measures and shepherd cannabis bills through state legislatures. Without its work, the market for legal cannabis in the U.S. would be much smaller, if it existed at all.
“Marijuana policy reform was not done to get people rich,” Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, which maintains a cross-country grassroots advocacy network that has helped push legalization, told Marijuana Moment. “It was done to end the oppression of those who choose to consume it. While reform has led to a growing marketplace, tragically the oppression continues and is even perpetuated by some in the industry itself.”
Other measures that address the costly effects of the drug war, according to the DPA guidelines, include opposing any rules or laws that would intentionally shut out people who have been arrested or convicted on marijuana-related charges from working in the industry, investing in communities that have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis enforcement and creating opportunities to help people from marginalized communities participate in the industry.
“The harms of marijuana prohibition have been devastating, particularly for Black and Brown people who have suffered dramatic rates of arrest, mass criminalization, heavy-handed policing, seizure of property with little or no process, and large-scale deportations,” DPA Executive Director Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno said in a statement. “Given this history, those investing and operating in the cannabis sector have some responsibility to support repairing the harms of prohibition.”
The organization suggested a list of questions for companies to consider concerning a range of topics: Among them, whether they support home grow—which ensures access for those who can’t afford retail marijuana or live too far away from a dispensary—how inclusive they are in who they hire and if they support scaled license tiers.
Other questions include:
• Does the company support a free and fair marijuana market that does not give it disproportionate advantages?
• To which causes or candidates is the company donating money?
• Does the company have a policy against drug testing employees?
• Is the business a social benefit corporation? B-Corp? Non-profit? Cooperative? Or collective? If not, what percentage of its profits is donated to nonprofits?
Jag Davies, DPA’s director of communications strategy, said the new guidelines are part of a broader shift in the organization’s work over the past few years toward emphasizing racial and restorative justice provisions in any legalization bill they’re involved with.
“It started with Prop 64 in California in 2016, which we played a leading role in making sure that it had a number of criminal justice and restorative justice provisions that other previous legalization bills didn’t have,” Davies told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview. That work continues with their campaigns for legalization in New York, New Jersey and New Mexico, he said.
“The debate is really not about whether legalization is going to happen. It’s how it’s going to happen and to what degree it’s going to repair the harms of criminalization and to what degree it’s going to repair harm among the people who were worst harmed by marijuana criminalization,” Davies said.
The National Cannabis Industry Association, which works to represent the interests of legal cannabis businesses, said in a statement shared with Marijuana Moment that the organization “fully supports social responsibility and equity in the industry, as well as repairing the harms caused by prohibition, and we will continue promoting those values to our members.”
In addition to supporting limited home cultivation and federal legislation like the Marijuana Justice Act, the association also helped the Minority Cannabis Business Association draft a model social equity ordinance for cities that was published this month.
But there’s still a long way to go before all of the cannabis industry’s major players start walking the walk, advocates say.
“The Drug Policy Alliance correctly identified one of the biggest problems emerging in the reform movement: the ‘I got mine and you’re on your own’ mentality,” Strekal, of NORML, said. “It’s a travesty to see business leaders making millions of dollars and bragging about how great they are while they do nothing to stop the practice of arrests in a nearby state or bring wholeness to their neighbors who have had their lives disrupted or destroyed by criminalization just a few years earlier for essentially the same activity.”
Photo courtesy of Nicholas C. Morton.
Company Gets Trademark For The Word ‘Psilocybin,’ Frustrating Decriminalization Advocates
As psychedelics reform efforts pick up across the U.S., there’s an increasing weariness among advocates about the potential corporatization that may follow.
That’s why many found it alarming when a California-based company announced on Thursday that it had successfully trademarked the word “psilocybin,” the main psychoactive constituent of so-called magic mushrooms.
Psilocybin™ is a brand of chocolates that do not contain the psychedelic itself but are meant to “begin educating, enlightening and supporting the community in upgrading their inner vibrations in order to get everything they want of their time here on earth,” according to a mission statement.
Soon after founder Scarlet Ravin shared news of the trademark on LinkedIn, advocates raised questions and concerns: What does that mean on a practical level for other psilocybin organizations? Why should one brand get exclusive rights (to a certain legal extent) to the scientific name of a natural substance?
The reality of this particular trademark is more nuanced than it might appear at first glance. While it’s true that the company was granted the distinction by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it’s specifically for educational materials and it’s listed on the supplemental register, rather than the principal register, which means it would be incumbent upon the brand to prove that it has earned distinctiveness of the mark if the issue went to court.
“It’s certainly good for her business to have that mark, but I think at the end of the day, it’s going to be somewhat weak,” Larry Sandell, an intellectual property attorney at Mei & Mark LLP, told Marijuana Moment. He added that this example is “indicative that people are trying to stake early claims to IP.”
“Even if they might be somewhat overreaching, people see a potential new market here and they want to stake out their ground,” he said. “It’s a big next space that people are anticipating a legal market. Maybe it’s where cannabis was five to 10 years ago.”
Despite those legal limitations, reform advocates view the trademark as emblematic of a bigger issue—that someone would presume to take ownership of a substance that’s at the center of a national debate on whether or not to criminalize individuals for using it.
Kevin Matthews, who led the successful campaign to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms in Denver last year and is the founder of the national psychedelics advocacy group SPORE, told Marijuana Moment that he didn’t doubt Ravin had the right intentions—to promote education into the substance—but he said the decision to trademark is nonetheless questionable.
“This being an open-source movement, trademarking the word psilocybin, in some ways it feels like—although I don’t think this is her intention—it’s lacking perspective,” he said. “Does that mean we can’t use psilocybin as SPORE because we’re an educational non-profit and she’s a for-profit branded company? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. She needs to let go of the trademark.”
Ravin said that her goal in trademarking psilocybin was to prevent the substance from being becoming the next cannabis, which she said has been corrupted from its “true spiritual, medicinal benefit” and turned into a corporate commodity.
“Knowing that psilocybin is going to be next [to be legalized] I feel strongly guided by the deepest part of my heart to really offer a sense of education of what could be when you take such a strong, beautiful medicine and to give people an education platform here and now to let them know what’s coming, how to receive it, how to get the most benefit from,” she told Marijuana Moment in a phone interview.
“We paved the way for this being a medicinal offering and not a consumer, recreational shitshow. That was our intention,” Ravin said. “The only way that we are going to have access to mainstream consumers is by having some sort of trademark on the word so that we can use it for something that’s not what it actually is.”
“With this being something that we can now put into market with a box of chocolates that has no psilocybin in it, but as you can already see, it creates a platform for discussion of what the beauty of this plant can do,” she said. “Me and my movement and my team, we don’t own the word. We’re not going to ever sue anyone who also uses the word—we’re opening a doorway for ourselves and anyone that wants to see this educated upon so that we can hit people who are unfamiliar with it now with downloads to actually have this be a safe, successful psychedelic transition.”
Asked to react to criticism about the trademark from advocates, Ravin said “we’re all here to follow spirit guidance to show love and light, and the visions I had of doing what we’re doing now was based upon breaking boundaries and breaking perceptions and allowing people to have an opportunity to sink into being one unit.”
“Yeah, it might be coming out, we might be using the platform of psilocybin. We can use any platform to do this,” she said. “We can use any platform to come together as a whole, and the longer that people sit in duality and say, ‘oh now she’s going to have a stronger voice than me is just looking at something not through their heart,’ it’s looking at it through ego and judgement.”
“The more that we describe what we’re doing, the more people I think will start to feel our unity and we’ll be able to move together as a stronger force than pointing fingers and trying to separate one another,” she said. “Those days are done.”
Ravin said that once the Psilocybin™ chocolates are ready for market, she plans to contribute 10 percent of profits to the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which is involved in researching therapeutic benefits of psychedelic substances.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia/Workman.
China Must Import More Hemp From U.S. Under New Trade Deal
After years of being one of the United States’s main sources of hemp imports, China will now be required to buy a lot more of the non-intoxicating cannabis crop from the U.S. under a new trade deal.
Hemp, which was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill, is one of a long list of agricultural products that China agreed to import on a larger scale over the next two years as part of an international trade agreement that was signed on Wednesday.
“The Parties acknowledge that trade and economic structural changes resulting from this Agreement and from other actions being taken by China to open up its economy and improve its trade regime should lead to improved trade flows, including significant increases in exports of goods and services to China by the United States and other countries,” the accord says.
“The Parties believe that expanding trade is conducive to the improvement of their bilateral trade relationship, the optimal allocation of resources, economic restructuring, and sustainable economic development, given the high degree of complementarity in trade between them. The Parties recognize that the United States produces and can supply high-quality, competitively priced goods and services, while China needs to increase the importation of quality and affordable goods and services to satisfy the increasing demand from Chinese consumers.”
While the deal didn’t specify just how much more hemp China will be importing, the document states that the country must spend at least $12.5 billion more than it did in 2017 on more than 200 agricultural commodities, including the cannabis plant, for calendar year 2020. The following year, it must spend at least $19.5 billion more.
Included in the deal is a particular form of cannabis, which is referred to as “true hemp” in the document.
“True hemp (cannabis sativa l.), raw or processed but not spun; tow and waste of true hemp (including yarn waste and garnetted stock),” the description of the item states.
Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment that hemp’s inclusion in the trade deal is a “really good development.”
“The fact that China would be importing our hemp and would be giving a new market for American farmers is pretty exciting,” he said, referring to the fact that the U.S. has historically imported the crop from China and that it has sometimes been criticized as being of inferior quality.
While cannabis has been cultivated in China for thousands of years, the country has only recently begun expanding the industry domestically. Part of the delay has to do with strict anti-drug laws, but as the legalization has spread internationally, more businesses are getting into the hemp, and particularly CBD, market.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the hemp industry has exploded, with bipartisan lawmakers working with regulators to ensure that hemp farmers have access to the resources they need to expand and meet booming consumer demand for CBD products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently finalizing its regulations for the crop after releasing an interim final rule last year.
USDA clarified in guidance last year that hemp plants and seeds are able to be imported from other countries. In 2018, the U.S. imported about $3.3 million in hemp from China, according to Hemp Industry Daily.
Photo courtesy of Pixabay.
Coca-Cola Denies CBD Beverage Rumor Spurred By Video
Coca-Cola denied that it has plans to enter the CBD market in a statement to Marijuana Moment on Thursday.
The comment comes after a man who said he obtained a prototype of a childproof can of Coke claimed to have insider knowledge of the soda company’s intent to launch a line of CBD-infused drinks in partnership with the Canadian cannabis company Aurora.
In a video shared on YouTube on Wednesday, the individual, who goes by Gabor the Blind Guy, said his father is an engineer for a company that “produces bottling and capping machines” for pharmaceutical and food businesses.
“Recently he was approached by Coca-Cola in Canada to design a machine that puts a childproof cap on cans of Coca-Cola,” he said. “In Canada, Coca-Cola is coming out with a new line of Coca-Cola that contains CBD extracts—pretty much cannabis-based drugs.”
“Obviously, they don’t want little kids popping open those cans and drinking them…so my dad was tasked with designing a cap that will prevent little kids from opening these cans of CBD Coca-Cola,” he said.
The description of the video on YouTube mentioned the alleged partnership with Aurora.
Watch a mirrored version of the now-deleted YouTube video below:
But on Thursday, a media relations officer for Coca-Cola told Marijuana Moment that the “rumors are untrue.”
“As we have stated many times, we have no plans to enter the CBD market.”
Gabor claimed that his father gave him a prototype of a non-CBD can with the cap he designed because he wanted to see if a blind person could open it. The video led some to speculate that he inadvertently disclosed confidential information that could be in violation of a non-disclosure agreement.
On Reddit, users questioned whether the video was authentic. Some wondered if the claim was an attempt to boost Aurora’s stock. However, marijuana wasn’t a main focus of Gabor’s YouTube prior videos posted over a period of years.
Marijuana Moment also reached out to Aurora for comment, but a representative was not immediately available.
This isn’t the first time that people have speculated about Coca-Cola’s potential interest in entering the cannabis space. Bloomberg reported last year that the company was monitoring the industry but hadn’t made any decisions yet.
Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey has said on several occasions that the company isn’t planning to get involved in the cannabis market.
“There’s been no change in my position, which is: there’s nothing happening,” he said in July.
“We want to sell drinks that people can drink each day. So it’s not like you have something once,” he told CNBC last year. “You have one a day. And if you can’t cross [off] those three things of legal, safe and consumable, it’s not an ingredient that’s going to work for us.”
— CNBC (@CNBC) October 30, 2018
Also in a statement last year, Coca-Cola said the company has “no interest in marijuana or cannabis.”
“Along with many others in the beverage industry, we are closely watching the growth of non-psychoactive CBD as an ingredient in functional wellness beverages around the world,” the statement read. “The space is evolving quickly. No decisions have been made at this time.”
With respect to prior rumors about talks specifically between Coca-Cola and Aurora, the soda company declined to comment when previously pressed. Aurora said in a statement that it had “no agreement, understanding or arrangement with respect to any partnership with a beverage company.”
Image via Gabor the Blind Guy.