Cold Open On Executive Action

SPEAKER_01 0:00

I think it is much, much easier, especially this day and age, to get common sense cannabis policy through executive action that will ultimately force Congress to act. And so using that and using current legislation and regulations, we can pretty much legalize anything having to do with cannabis in several ways.

Colorado Market Reset And Safe Harbor Hemp

Ben Larson 0:45

And I'm Anna Ray Grabstein. And it's Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026. And we've got a great guest for you today. We're bringing on Jason Attlestone of Harris Slawowski. And we're going to dive into all things international cannabis, cannabis law, rescheduling, all that kind of stuff. But before we get there, Anna Ray, uh, see your home. Uh it was nice hanging out with you in Colorado.

AnnaRae Grabstein 1:12

I know. We had fun. Colorado had gorgeous weather last week. I spent time in Fort Collins and in Denver. Went to a global cannabis networking GCNC event on Thursday night with you and saw a bunch of the people around the call. That's the event you were at. It was also the event I was at. That was the event you were at. We saw Jason at it as well. There were a bunch of Colorado old school legends there. So it was um it was a good trip. Colorado is an interesting market for sure.

Ben Larson 1:46

Yeah, it definitely felt like uh some of our old California meetups, a bunch of OGs and talking about the the cannabis ecosystem in Colorado. And um, it's been a while since I've been immersed in kind of like a state community like that. So uh it was nice. Um, I think I heard a stat where Colorado is the only market where prices for the final product are are increasing. So 14 years, I guess, to reach normalization.

AnnaRae Grabstein 2:20

Yeah, well, at some point you have to climb out of the doldrums and come back to creating some sort of kind of sustainable path forward for businesses. And and there's been a lot of MA that's happened in Colorado, mostly Virio consolidating the whole market. But when you've got the business people with the spreadsheets at the table, they're gonna figure out pricing that matches what they need in order to meet some type of margin threshold. So it doesn't surprise me that that Colorado, after being one of the cheapest places to buy weed in the country, is starting to find a way to start increasing prices to something that might be a little more healthy. It's still a great great great deal to buy cannabis products in that state. So I I wasn't I wasn't feeling it when I I did go buy a dispensary and I I had a good experience seeing good products, good quality stuff.

Ben Larson 3:14

It's also just an interesting market because not only are they the oldest legal cannabis market in the US, uh maybe by a couple hours. Uh sorry, Washington. Um they also seem to have some reasonable, uh a reasonable understanding and regulations regarding the confluence of hemp and cannabis. And so the the safe harbor laws that they've created, the hemp licensing structure alongside the regulated cannabis structure, does make it just a seemingly good home for for cannabis regulation and and in preparation of all the kind of uncertainty that that lay ahead for for the two markets.

AnnaRae Grabstein 3:53

Yeah, I've been pleasantly surprised at the approach that policymakers in Colorado have had about cannabis for a long time. And and um certainly the way that they've handled the safe harbor hemp laws, I think are reflective of just sensible approaches to making sure that businesses can exist and are doing things safely and in a regulated environment as opposed to operating illicitly. So provides some hope for sure. Um yeah, and and just shout out to all our friends that we saw and people that came up to us and tell told us that they listened to the show, and it's always just really meaningful. So thank you, anybody.

Ben Larson 4:29

It felt like it felt like the true kickoff to cannabis conference season. Uh so credit to the Ignited crew for for bringing everyone together. Um, and I think what California is next for for the Ignited conferences.

AnnaRae Grabstein 4:43

So yeah, I will be attending. Yeah, Los Angeles. Uh it's it's early October. Uh come hang out with us there.

Ben Larson 4:52

Which is very soon, which is startling. Yeah.

Massachusetts Rules Rewrite Amid Repeal Vote

AnnaRae Grabstein 4:57

And uh yeah, let's jump into some quick two little news updates for you, state level stuff. Um, I shouldn't call them little. I'm sure they are very big to those who are affected by them. Um, the first one is um Massachusetts regulators are rewriting their cannabis rules, which is a very interesting timing weeks before a repeal vote, which has been widely covered. People know that there is a ballot initiative right now in front of voters to end adult use cannabis um in Massachusetts. Um, and while that's happening, yeah. Boo. Boo Sam.

Ben Larson 5:37

Like they're just out there straight lying. They've been talking about how uh teen consumption has increased over the last years, where there's even a federal government study that has shown that just not to be true. So apparently you can just go out and lie to people to get them to vote.

AnnaRae Grabstein 5:56

Say whatever you want. The liars, they'd be lying. Um but yeah, so the cannabis control commission just laid out like a huge sweeping regulatory package that would change an enormous amount of um kind of systems and structures uh that include things like standalone medical dispensary license, new testing framework, being able to sell seeds, um, and possibly creating new license caps. Uh, but what's interesting is is the timing of it all. Um in the face of the repeal vote, uh, the this new regulatory package won't get um voted on internally until December. So it is a month after the voters will ultimately decide on question eight the repeal measure. Uh but to me, it seems like a signal that the regulators are pretty confident that the repeal is not going to move forward since they are seemingly business as usual and trying to do the work of regulators. Yeah.

Ben Larson 6:59

So do we think these regulations will improve the Massachusetts market?

AnnaRae Grabstein 7:05

You know, I haven't done a deep dive of what's been proposed, but I think that that is what is being said. That is the narrative around them, in particular in relation to the license caps. Um, Massachusetts has a really high concentration of dispensaries as a proportion of their population. And um, there are a lot, a lot of businesses um that exist there. And probably creating some amount of license cap or not issuing new licenses is considered a way to create more success for the existing companies. But um, yeah, more on that. If it moves forward, I I promise to come back with an opinion.

Ben Larson 7:47

You know, some businesses operate off of supply and demand, just throwing it out.

AnnaRae Grabstein 7:52

As opposed to regulatory capture, I don't know.

SPEAKER_03 7:57

So all right. It should be a decision when you're starting a business.

Florida New Licenses Under Forced Vertical Integration

AnnaRae Grabstein 8:01

Um the state would I which I would argue maybe has the deepest regulatory capture, Florida, um, has finally issued 22 more vertically integrated MMTC licenses, which are are Florida's medical marijuana um licenses. And the the issue the licenses were issued on September 11, 11th, um after many years of delays um due to administrative legal kind of friction in the process. And um ultimately the licenses were issued to the original people that were supposed to get them from November 2024, even though um it was considered that the applications need to be re-scored and that there was corruption in the scoring process. Uh, but these 22 businesses applicants now have the licenses and they have 10 days to place a $5 million bond with the state that shows that they are serious, and then they've got 180 days to get cultivation authorization. And this is a big deal because Florida is so intensely vertically integrated, it's forced vertical integration. So every retailer can only sell product that they cultivate, manufacture, and distribute directly to themselves. There is no commerce between licensees. So it creates a situation where there needs to be enough retail owned by a licensee that makes it financially viable for them to build cultivation and manufacturing infrastructure. So scale is sort of a prerequisite for coming to play in Florida. And that just kind of begs the question of is there really enough opportunity left in Florida that these 22 new licensees are going to take the risk to make the massive investment that it takes to really compete in the state? And and I would, I would be um, I would, I think I will I would be very careful of going into a state that has TrueLeave and CuraLeaf and and Cresco and others with such strong, big existing footprints already.

Ben Larson 10:21

Yeah, because all those companies have like upwards of like what 75. Doesn't TrueLeave have like 120 uh license stores?

AnnaRae Grabstein 10:31

Yeah, exactly. That TrueLeave has well over a hundred stores, a lot of other players have over 50 or 75 stores.

Ben Larson 10:39

Yeah, so they they get the benefit of the economies of scale. And like, how are you even going to compete with that when it comes to pricing? I I I guess I guess the strategy is doing craft cannabis and and creating the anti-brand to to these large chains.

AnnaRae Grabstein 10:54

Uh I don't know if that's the strategy. I think that in the end, you still have to reach some level of scale to pay for the cost of building these cultivation manufacturing assets, which are extraordinarily expensive to build. And so you're likely gonna have to have at least 10 stores just to be able to sell enough product to pay for and support the the cultivation infrastructure. And the challenge in Florida is kind of right sizing everything. It it's about growing enough to support the stores, but not too much that you have that you have, you know, aging product that that isn't high quality. And then if you want to open more stores, you need to be expanding your production at the same time. And it just takes it takes a lot to manage a healthy business in Florida. And there's a lot of folks that are so deeply entrenched that I'm gonna be watching who decides to actually make this investment. I will heavily doubt that these 22 licenses are all gonna commercialize. There will be five or so, is my prediction, that decide to take the leap and and make an investment in the state.

Ben Larson 12:02

Yeah. Wow, it's a it's it's 22 is such a small number compared to the total number of dispensaries in Florida. And in thinking about that compared to other states, like I mean, you have that many dispensaries churn in a year, probably, at least here in California. For sure.

AnnaRae Grabstein 12:21

Um, well, so let's um let's bring Jason

Jason Attlestone And His Cannabis Law Lens

AnnaRae Grabstein 12:24

on. Um, our guest today is Jason Attlestone. He's an attorney at Harris Witkowski, uh tackling cannabis policy at the intersection of federal and international law. His practice spans corporate formation, market entry, regulatory compliance, um, and works with operators navigating U.S. rescheduling in cross-border markets. Jason is also the co-founder of Project for 2029, an organization built around the premise that reform is likely to arrive through executive action rather than lobbying, which is really interesting. Um, he's been one of the most consistent trackers of the Schedule III litigation since it began. And he wrote a really interesting blog about um global right-wing politics that caused me to reach out and say, Jason, let's have a conversation on the podcast. So that's why he's here. Super excited to have him. Jason, welcome.

SPEAKER_01 13:24

Hey, yeah, thank you so much. Uh, Ben Anore, thank you for having me. And uh I'll just say it's Slawaski. It does not roll off the tongue super easy. Um, but I've had a lot of practice. Slawasky. Yeah.

AnnaRae Grabstein 13:39

Names are a hard one, man. They really are.

SPEAKER_03 13:42

Yeah.

AnnaRae Grabstein 13:42

Well, we kind of mentioned we got to hang out with you in person last week, which was great. Uh, you've you've got great style and and great intellect. So I I respect when those both things both show up at the table together, especially with for lawyers. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 14:00

Thank you so much. That is probably the best way I could start uh this podcast. I can't think of a better to start it. So I appreciate that. Yeah, it was so great to meet you both in person um and actually get to sit down and have a conversation. Um, it seems like while we're well past COVID, like there's still that just how many people you talk to that uh that you've known for years and then you finally get to meet. So it was great to kind of have just met you both uh in person and really kind of through email. Yeah, absolutely.

Ben Larson 14:31

Jason, it's uh I I think it do you justice to kind of just describe your background and how this journey has gone just really quickly, because um you kind of have grown up with the who's who of of cannabis attorneys in in the space. And um yeah, give the audience just kind of your lens through through the journey that you've gone through in cannabis.

SPEAKER_01 14:56

Yeah, so my journey started about 10 years ago. Um, law is my second career. I went to law school late in life. I was 34 when I went to law school and was in restaurants for 20 years before that. But when I went to law school, I knew I wanted to go specifically into cannabis, also restaurants, but at the time was mainly focused on cannabis. So I was incredibly fortunate. Um, before I decided to go to law school, I applied to be uh a dispensary manager at Ian Sieb. He's uh the the governor of Colorado's cannabis guy. He owned a dispensary before uh that position. I applied to He was also at the event. He was, he was. Um, love Ian, great guy. Uh thankfully he did not hire me, um, which ended up leading me to law school. But when I went there, I asked him, I was like, who should I work for? Um, because I knew I was coming back to Colorado. I went to law school in Syracuse, so I knew I was gonna come back here. And he said, you you Vicente Cedarberg. Like at the time it was Vicente Cedarberg. He introduced me to Jordan Wellington, had my interview and got the job there. And so I started my career working uh for Christian, Brian, uh Charlie Sean, um, and then a whole bunch of others who were a part of it. But those were kind of the main four uh partners when I was there. Um, and and then I for part of that time I got to work directly in a in a practice group where it was Christian Cederberg as the partner, Shane Pennington as the senior, and I was the junior, which was one of the best experiences I've ever had. And I mean, continues. Uh Shane and Christian are both mentors to me. I'm lucky that Christian, uh, when it became Vicente, um, and a few years after that, Christian joined me over here at uh Harris Lewowski. Um so I get to work with him directly a lot more. And uh Shane, though, I'm I'm in constant in touch with him all the time. I mean, he is by far one of the best mentors I've had. The guy's a genius. So I couldn't have asked for two better mentors to have than them. Um and yeah, and now I'm I'm over at Harris Lewowski where Vince Lewaski's been doing this for uh pretty much since the beginning of Oregon as well. And so I've just been extremely lucky to be surrounded by so many people who kind of led the way and have really kind of pushed policy forward and have helped me really advance my education in a way now. I'm trying to stand out on the international side with them. So uh yeah, it's it's just been really great.

Ben Larson 17:17

Well, and so it's no wonder why when you put out a thought piece, smart people like Anna Ray listen.

SPEAKER_01 17:24

I'm I'm lucky that that smart people like Anna Ray listen.

AnnaRae Grabstein 17:27

Wow, thanks, guys. Well, so let's talk about that.

Politics As The Real Global Indicator

AnnaRae Grabstein 17:32

I mean, I think you you just talked about some of these guys that have been mentors to you that are total legends. Um, but I think that you are sharing some really cool and exciting and interesting new perspectives. And you just wrote this piece about how so often people that are following international cannabis are tracking policy, but it's actually the politics that are driving as a leading indicator what we could be predicting about some of these governments. And and you highlighted how there is a movement towards right-leaning governments that have taken hold across a number of countries, like Germany and much of Latin America, and that it's kind of a reversal of some of the center left that drove some of the reform that we saw over the past decade. And um, I'd love for you to to give our audience a peek into what you shared in that article, and then we'll dive into the details of what this means ultimately for cannabis globally.

SPEAKER_01 18:30

Yeah, absolutely. Um, and I think that was a great way to phrase it just very succinctly, is that so many people do advise on policies, cannabis policy in particular, but they ignore the politics of each country that those policies are operating within. And as we've seen, especially in the US, um if laws are more difficult to change, but when policies are built on regulations and decrees, those can be kind of brought back. There can be changes that a lot of people don't really pay attention to. And I think that is one of the most important things that especially operators that are either currently operating in foreign foreign jurisdictions or especially now with rescheduling, those that are looking at operating in foreign jurisdictions, they really need to pay attention to. Because, for example, we have elections coming up in Brazil in about two weeks, and everyone is super excited about Brazil. I I mean, that is the one country that every single person asks me about is like what's going to happen in Brazil. And that's because the current president, president, he's called President Lula fondly. It's a nickname based on his last name, but he advanced cannabis policy allowing domestic cultivation, manufacturing, and just kind of is working on advancing the domestic market. There's a lot of uh people saying he's not doing enough, but the prior president, Bolsonaro, just prohibited it. He just wouldn't allow it to happen. So Brazil is moving forward, so they're they're gonna have a domestic market, at least as it currently stands, a domestic market as well as their robust import market that patients are allowed to access, uh, where you get an approval from Ant Visa, the regulatory agency, and you can get imports. The problem is we're seeing a huge right shift in South and Central and South America, especially. We just saw it in Colombia, um, where the the left-leaning president got ousted by a very right conservative uh president. And the concern is that the same thing could happen in Brazil. And a lot of South American countries, Brazil being one of them, you need to have at least 50% of the vote to win. And so if you don't get that, then you go to a runoff. And runoffs do not favor the incumbent because it shows that more than 50% of the population wanted change. And so when you go into a runoff, the challenger does tend to have the benefit in that next election. In this case, the challenger is the prior president Bolsonaro's son, Flavio Bolsonaro, who it's actually interesting. Since my article came out, um, some things have changed a little bit, but we expect him to have a similar policy to his father, where he's not going to be super psyched on expanding medical, definitely not adult use is even in the conversation. Um, but an article came out last week where he actually is he he named his health minister, or who would be his health minister, who is actually entrenched in the cannabis industry. And this is a good news, bad news thing. It's good news that there's someone who actually understands cannabis policy, but the bad news is he's a pharmaceutical focused uh cannabis operator. So you're looking at like SatovX, Abidialx type of program that he's gonna want to implement that does not really coincide with the current program in Brazil, which allows oils, tinctures, uh flour, things like that.

Ben Larson 22:01

I I was just I was just looking it up. I I didn't realize Brazil was as large as it was. And I don't think a lot of people do. Everyone's so focused on unlocking Germany and the 80 to 90 million people there. But Brazil is 214 million people. Like that's a massive market.

SPEAKER_01 22:20

Would probably be the largest market, yeah.

Ben Larson 22:23

Yeah, I'm I'm curious as to how many people from your perspective have been watching this and and banking on Brazil unlocking, or has it largely kind of gone under the radar?

SPEAKER_01 22:37

I would say it's a little bit of both. It's interesting because Brazil right now, um, I know of people exporting out of the US to Brazil through in visa authorizations, Delta 8, Delta 9, and hemp derived Delta 8 and Delta 9 into the medical program. Um, I don't advise on Brazil law, so I can't say if the sourcing matters on that end uh legally wise, but it is allowed to get into the system. They do have import authority to do that. And so there is a lot of opportunity already occurring in Brazil, which has led a lot of marijuana operators to be very gung-ho about Brazil and very excited about it. The one thing that has surprised me about Brazil, and it may be because of the stigma you see with a lot of uh Central South American countries where a lot of people are hesitant to go there because just there's a stigma about it. Um they have been more hesitant to actually make the advances and start to invest in being able to get to Brazil. So I do think there is a lot of excitement, but any, I mean, anytime I advise anyone, I bring up this political question mark that that will hopefully get answered next month, or we we will get answered next month. Um, and after that, if especially if Lula wins again, I think you'll possibly see far more investment going into Brazil because they have actually started to work on the cultivation and the manufacturing uh regulations, processes that will then allow more certainty moving forward. So um, yeah, there's a ton of excitement. So I expect after October, we'll probably start to actually see some more investment. But also US investment is just going to depend on rescheduling. Um, but you'll see a lot of, I'm sure, Canadian.

Ben Larson 24:15

It's it's really wild to hear that there's hemp derived Delta VII being exported into a medical program in Brazil, and to think of how that is impacted by the current hemp conversation happening this year.

SPEAKER_01 24:31

Um, I don't I I didn't intend to dive down that that rabbit hole like on this conversation, but um yeah, that that seems like a a a glaring kind of conflict with like what's I mean I think I think the conflict can be sums up pretty well in that the US is incredibly unique and that we've for some reason decided to bifurcate hemp and cannabis, even with with not it's not intoxication versus non-intoxication or industrial and everything else. It's just like intoxicating hemp, intoxicating marijuana, and then you have uh industrial. We're really the only country that does that. And so my guess is that at least on the Brazil side, the legal justification is that it's cannabis, which is what the world kind of just bases it on. I mean, the treaties use the term cannabis, they don't use marijuana and hemp, and most of the countries do as well. And so I assume it's just they're seeing cannabis at these levels and they're like, yeah, that aligns. Um, and it's not necessarily like the source, I don't think is really cared about there. Um, because it's not really cared about anywhere else, because you really can't export intoxicating anything um into most countries, even if it's sourced by uh source from hemp. Um most countries just won't allow it because it'll have to fall into their medical marijuana framework. And most other countries have a higher barrier, like EU GMP, no hemp operator here, as far as I know, would satisfy those requirements to get into the EU medical market with a hemp product.

Brazil Election Stakes And Market Size

AnnaRae Grabstein 26:05

Well, there's a lot to untangle there. Um I'm like wondering how far I should take it. Um but you know, I I think it's this this whole premise about right-leaning politics creating obstacles for cannabis policy feels like, in some ways, like an old narrative that the progressives want cannabis policy reform or opening up access, and that the conservative people are prohibitionists. And and I if there's one thing that I will say about the Trump administration, over the past two years, we're actually seeing more action for policy change in the US than we have seen in a very long time. Things are happening. And so I think that we no longer can make the assumption that that right-leaning political ideology means that you don't support cannabis. This starts to be almost like a bipartisan issue in some ways. And you see detractors on both sides as well. And I'd I'd like for you to kind of help us understand that from the global perspective. You talked about Brazil, but maybe choose another one of the countries that that you're looking at and help us help us understand how this is playing out.

SPEAKER_01 27:19

Yeah, absolutely. I think another way to look at that as well is that left-leaning uh governments are also maybe not the best for cannabis policy either. I mean, in Colombia, Petro, the former president, came into office, and I believe there was only one vote left uh in their Congress. I think they had to do it's either seven or eight votes in the Colombian Congress. We have to read the legislation, and then we could have gotten full adult use legalization. On the final reading, it failed. And my sources were telling me that the reason why it did is because Petro wanted his own bill. He didn't want to come in on someone else's bill and have that be the one that passed. And so he the left-leaning governments tend to have the perfect be the enemy of the good. And that failed, and we're definitely not going to get it now. They just started that all over again. It has to go through two legislative sessions. And I mean, it takes a really long time. So that was a huge problem um in Colombia was the left-leaning government had nothing to do with the right. Um, because we should have full legalization in Colombia right now. Um, and also you see that, I mean, to go to the right-leaning governments that aren't necessarily bad for cannabis policy either. Um, you have the Netherlands. They were uh pretty far right. They had, I think the guy was called like uh Mini Trump or something. I forget, I forget his name, but he would dress up like Donald Trump. He was really tall, kind of tried to look like him. Um, they didn't cancel the pilot programs or stop the pilot programs from occurring in the Netherlands. They let that continue to move forward. Um, they have now, there was a snap election about a year ago. They've moved a little more center. So still, we think those pilot programs are going to go forward. Switzerland went a bit right. Those pilot programs are moving forward and expanding, and there's even talk about full legalization in Switzerland. So I think that's a perfect example of the right not necessarily being um.

AnnaRae Grabstein 29:11

Double-click on that. So then do you see a difference between the governments that are more right-leaning and the type of programs? Like, is it more pro-business when it's a right government and more social equity focused when it's a left-leaning government, sort of the way that we've seen the debate in the US, or does it is it playing out differently in these in these other countries?

SPEAKER_01 29:32

I mean, when you talk about social equity, you're really just talking about, I think, the US and then Canada also has that with the Native American tribes there. Um, but it's it's interesting. Switzerland, for example, they're very science-based and they're very evidence-based, either the right or the left. And so the right is seeing the evidence coming out of these scientific pilot programs, and it's showing just pretty much unanimous success. There's very little problems that are occurring. Like all the data that's coming out, it's reducing the black market. There's no uh young uh kids aren't getting greater access to it. Um, it's it's helping with the quality of product. Um, and so they're they're basing a lot of it on just the science and data. And that's really a lot of how a lot of your novel concept. I know, right? I know. I'm moving to Switzerland. Screw this. I wish, I wish. Switzerland's an amazing country. Um, but yeah, so I mean, there's a lot of that. What I think is also really unique or not unique, or I guess it's unique in the US, is that we're having this medical conversation now, and there's still this the right is still largely against medical. I mean, we see the president, his administration's for it, but you can't get any really common consensus in Congress uh to pass anything, which would obviously need a lot of Republicans. You still have tons of Republicans trying to ban this move to Schedule Three. Um, in the rest of the world, medical is pretty accepted. I mean, when you have conversations, let's say in Germany with the right wing party taking over, when they took over, they wanted the the the CSU and the CDU, the the Christian conservatives, they wanted to roll back the adult use that had happened there, which isn't a commercial program, um, is more of just like personal possession, home cultivation, uh, and collectives. They wanted to roll that back, but they they didn't want to eliminate the medical market. They just wanted to eliminate the part of the medical market that's kind of a de facto adult use. So they wanted to kind of roll back the telehealth. That was a big one for them, but the EU law creates a huge problem with that because they could they they can prohibit German pharmacists and uh or uh uh doctors from doing telehealth visits. But if you're a doctor anywhere else in the EU, under EU law, you have to allow that. So it basically would have just been a problem for only German doctors, where other countries would have still benefited from being able to do it. They want to eliminate like delivery, um, which allows people in farther or people who can't actually go to the pharmacy to get delivery. And both those things have turned into more of a de facto adult use, which is why they were going after them. Um, but they didn't want to eliminate the medical market entirely. And you're not seeing that in France. Um, I don't believe that they would want to eliminate the whole market if the if Le Pen's party takes over in France. I think they would just scale it back. It's already a pretty scaled-back pharmaceutical uh kind of it's between a full pharmaceutical uh uh program and like a Germany, like they allow more products. It doesn't have to be like a Satovax um or epidielex, but it's not allowing flour. Um, they may scale that back to be a more pharmaceutical focus than it currently is. Um, Brazil, I don't think they'd get rid of it if Bolsonar wins. I just think, again, especially with this health minister, they would kind of scale it back to a more pharmaceutical. So the conversation of the rest of the world isn't like they've accepted medical efficacy or at least therapeutic use. Like that conversation, and in countries that have uh implemented medical programs, they've they've accepted that. And the right and left pretty much agree with it. It's just what type of program is really the conversation, not whether the program should exist at all.

Ben Larson 33:25

So I do want to try to start working us back towards the US uh as we kind of get into the latter half of the show here, but just to kind of like wrap this up, you you said it really well. People watch the policy and and not so much the politics. And uh I think I'm guilty of that. Um, you know, over the last 10 years, I've seen this kind of what looked like this slow, methodical uh global um rollout of cannabis, right? And it seemed like, oh, it's like, oh, we just keep our eyes on these markets as as they slowly evolve, and at some point it's gonna become interesting enough for us to expend those resources to expand there. And now now that's like maybe my foundation's being shaken a little bit. Um and I'm curious from your lens, like understanding what's happening in these different markets, do you see this as the kind of natural push and pull as we continue to expand global acceptance? Or do you uh now anticipate maybe some of those critical markets rolling backwards in the other direction because maybe they've seen too much, maybe uh maybe the hypothesis was wrong.

SPEAKER_01 34:37

It's kind of tough to say. I do think if we do see this right movement, I do think there's gonna be some, like if this continues, especially in Europe, I think we're gonna see some restriction and decline in demand just based on regulations that are implemented. For example, getting rid of telehealth, um, that would reduce demand. Getting rid of delivery is gonna reduce demand. And in the German market, that um is is pretty saturated right now. And that I think is just the reality of political shifts. I mean, then if it swings the other direction, we could get legalization in Germany with the subsequent uh party after that. And so I don't think it's gonna go anywhere. So I think if you're a solid company who has the ability to operate in these foreign jurisdictions, there's certainly opportunity. I'm just not sure, especially looking at US uh um US operators and their optimism on the global market. I I think it's gonna be restricted to only a few. And those few are are probably gonna have to deal with some hard times as really I mean, US operators should be used to that by now. But it's not, I don't think it's gonna be as gung-ho as a lot think. But I think you're gonna see

Europe Rollbacks Telehealth And Pilot Evidence

SPEAKER_01 36:05

like what CuraLeaf is doing with Aurora. I mean, that is, I think, a very smart move if they can pull this off, because that just gains you immediate access. I mean, being able to get existing access, I think is gonna be far more valuable because you're not actually kind of what Anna Ray was saying at the beginning of the show with like Florida, you're not having to spend all this money in a country that is already very well developed. You're just able to jump into that development and adjust as you need to there. And I think that's gonna be probably the winning move uh for for most. I mean, there will be some that will be able to jump in fresh, but I do think it is gonna be a bit more difficult, especially if these countries do move to the right um in the next year or so.

AnnaRae Grabstein 36:50

I love that you brought up Cure Leaf and Aurora because it's actually the perfect segue to talk about the US, um, but within the global lens, I I saw like a social post that was referring to um CEO of Aurora, Miguel Martin, basically starting to now in his kind of defensive posture to try to ensure that this hostile takeover fails, um, making the argument that Cure Relief is over-indexed in the US and for Aurora to be tying its future to a business that has so much of its assets based in the US. And the the US is basically this terrible flat environment for cannabis business, is just not smart. Whereas the opportunity to be able to participate in the global market that Aurora has is um is is much bigger greenfield opportunity. And uh it it takes us kind of into this now like American-Canadian trade war politics that are happening uh between between Mark Carney and and Donald Trump. And and it's like, oh my gosh, now now Aurora and and Kira Leaf are participating on both sides of this argument in some ways. But so much of the lack of opportunity that is afforded to US companies remains because of of Schedule One. And um and and we're we're deep in this process of looking at schedule three. And so I think it makes sense for us to talk about schedule three for a little while. I mean, we could we could go deep into cure relief as well, but but maybe maybe we don't. And and I'd love to I'd love to start talking about where we are with schedule three, because I think that you have a unique lens to help our audience understand the difference between the executive order and the ALJ process that has been unwinding. And in talking to you, I now have a better understanding of it. So if you could bring us to where we are today on September 22nd, um, with these two parallel schedule three processes, I promise that we'll bring it into a larger international conversation as we process it.

SPEAKER_01 39:05

Yeah, absolutely. Um, so right now we are in a situation where state legal medical marijuana is currently in schedule three. And that was based on the attorney general's final order issued in April. We also have a separate um ALJ uh hearing at the DEA that's continuing the rescheduling process that started under the Biden administration and then was paused uh the first year of the Trump administration and then picked up with an ALJ hearing a few months ago. And that is for to reschedule the term marijuana that is listed in Schedule One of the Controlled Substances Act. And so I'll start with that one because that one's probably the easiest one to explain. Um, so marijuana has been a Schedule I substance since the 60s and 70s when the uh US kind of forced the world to add cannabis to the single convention, and then we incorporated that into our Controlled Substances Act. And so today a lot of people are talking about it as adult use. That adult use rescheduling went through the ALJ. Well, that's sort of true. It doesn't really account for everything because this is for the entire term. So all of marijuana, as it's defined under the Controlled Substances Act, could move into Schedule III. DDA has recommended it, HHS has recommended it in their health evaluation. There were 43,000 comments. I think like 90% of those recommended it. And now the ALJ had a hearing with all prohibitionists and is about to recommend whether he thinks it should be in one, two, or three. If he recommends three, um, well, hold off, before that, I think DEA, we we've heard a lot of stories about the industry, and there's been a lot of publications about the industry paying, I think, about $13 million for the Schedule three to happen. So I do think DEA, no matter what ALJ says, is going to come out with a recommendation for schedule three. But the ALJ recommendation is incredibly important in this process, especially for the litigation that will certainly ensue. Um, because if the ALJ comes out with anything but three, if he recommends one, which I doubt, because I think medical efficacy was at least um argued well enough in in the hearing that I think two, which is the lowest possible scheduling that acknowledges medical efficacy, I think two is the only real other option. If the ALJ recommends two, then Sam, Kevin Sabet, and their Arsenal and War Chest are gonna have a good argument at the DC circuit that it shouldn't have gone to three if the DEA actually does issue a final rule moving to three. If the ALJ recommends three, then I think Schedule Three is done deal for the term marijuana. This would not, this is different than the medical marijuana framework that was implemented in April. All this would do, just taking it as a silo, would really eliminate 280e from all state or actually all operators, because 280E applies to only Schedule One and two substances. So if it moves to three, the no operators will be subject to 280E, which is a huge benefit. But would not there would not be this uh medical framework where state licensees are registering. Um adult use is definitely not going to happen. That you cannot have adult use in a medical framework. So anyone who's thinking that that by moving it into three, if they if it ends up there, um, will then allow adult use to participate the way medical marijuana operators are participating in this kind of regulated DEA registration system, like that's certainly not going to happen. Um, and so that's really all it does. It just sits there in three, and then everything that currently applies in the Controlled Substances Act would apply to marijuana. So all state legal operators, again, siloing this from the medical marijuana framework, um, all operators would still be operating illegally under federal law.

Ben Larson 43:00

Um can we can we pause really quick just because I I there were conversations happening in Colorado, a lot of people pontificating on the direction they thought things were going. So you're saying that everything marijuana cannabis would be schedule three. Yeah. If you're in the medical marketplace, then you can engage with the DEA and potentially get the benefits of whatever is to follow, be it interstate commerce or or or what have you, um, but be a federally sanctioned business. If you're in adult use, you might be schedule three, but you're still in conflict with the federal government, um, and therefore not working with the DEA, not benefiting from interstate commerce. And and I think that's an important clarification because I do think I heard some people talking about oh, we'll have uh dual DEA license applications and all this kind of stuff. And so you're saying no to that.

SPEAKER_01 43:57

I think, yeah, that's correct. But I also think I think that so the medical being able to participate with DEA will only apply if the medical marijuana final order that was issued in April, if that

Schedule III Two Parallel Rescheduling Tracks

SPEAKER_01 44:10

survives. If the medical marijuana final order does not survive, then the ALJ moving or the DEA moving um all of marijuana into Schedule Three, you would not be able to participate with DEA unless you got a DEA registration, which you would have to go through the Controlled Substances Act procedures to get a registration. That rescheduling would not allow for the state license to basically grant you DEA registration the way the medical marijuana framework did. Having said that, though, what I do think will happen, and I'll get into the medical marijuana framework in a sec, but I think if that survives, if it survives the DC circuit and you have medical marijuana legal in the US that made it through that litigation, I think what you have now, which let's, I'm just gonna make up numbers, but let's say 90% of the US is adult use, 10% is actually medical in states that have both. I think that'll flip. I think you'll end up with 90% medical, 10% adult use or less, because everyone, I mean, you're gonna want to be federally legal. States are gonna want to be federally legal. And so that's going to just create these new robust medical programs that'll be very different depending on the state. But I you know, and they'll just be de facto adult use as well, just called medical. Um, so I think that'll switch. But yeah, adult use, you cannot, it was kind of the difficult part about this ALJ hearing is that medical marijuana was removed out of the definition of marijuana and the Controlled Substances Act and put into three. So the only thing that was left was non-medical marijuana, which by definition has no medical efficacy. It's a it's not medical because medical was already removed. So it technically needs to stay in one because all you have left is non-medical. But what they were arguing is the therapeutic use of it and to move it into three. And so it's to be moved into three, it has to have medical use, and it cannot just be adult use. So you can't have like an adult use system in a medical framework. Like that just doesn't make sense. You need to pull it out like you do alcohol and tobacco. And so that's why adult use licenses will not just be added into it, um, into this medical framework. And now to go, maybe I should have started with the medical framework first. I thought it'd be easier going the other way around. But um, this medical marijuana framework um was based off of a statute, the attorney general rescheduled state legal medical marijuana under statute 21 USC 811 D1. I've been writing about this for a while, and one of my specialties is international treaty obligations. And 811D1 says that if international treaty obligations or in order for the US to maintain compliance under treaty requirements obligations, um, the attorney general can unilaterally reschedule or schedule a substance, and the keyword is substance to ensure the U.S. maintains compliance. I wrote a ton of the stuff that DEA that educated DEA on this whole process. I mean, we submitted tons of uh documents to them about the process, what's legal or what's allowed under the treaty system. Um, and the the problem that I have, well, before I get into that, so um so when you reschedule it, it moved all state legal marijuana, uh, medical marijuana from one to three, which immediately got rid of 280e uh for all state legal and medical marijuana. There's a lot of misinformation about that, but the order is extremely clear. Whether you register with DEA or not, 280E does not apply. The time frame of when it doesn't apply, that is more up to IRS. But as soon as they moved it, the attorney general is extremely clear that it is now in three, which means that 280E by definition and by statute just does not apply. And so that was a huge benefit. And then they did this whole thing where like to ensure treaty compliance, we're going to move, we're gonna basically accept all the state licensing. You're not gonna have to go through the federal framework because none of the state licensees would be able to pass that anyway. Um, so we're just gonna kind of allow that to happen. And then we're also gonna do this like I reread this yesterday um in preparation for this, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. But there's a really interesting ambiguity in the order where it both says that state legal medical marijuana operators need to participate in this buy-sell where DEA comes, they basically put their hands on the product, you pay them a nominal fee, and then they take their hands off the product, and now it's been bought and sold by DEA. Um, there are two places in in the order. One says that that does apply, and one says that that doesn't apply. So um there is some confusion on that. But there it is very there is a very clear statement saying that uh the buy-sell and the monopoly that DEA is supposed to have is not gonna apply. Um, which goes into oh, go ahead.

AnnaRae Grabstein 49:09

Yeah, I wanna I wanna dive into this a little. It's it's so confusing this idea that the executive order created this immediacy, but then there is this DEA framework that followed that also has operators feeling like they have to wait. Is and so if there's an immediacy in that medical cannabis immediately became schedule three, how much is the benefits, how much are the benefits of schedule three locked up behind the DEA framework? Or if businesses that are allowed currently today that are in schedule three to transact across state lines with each other, can people do that? Or are they stuck waiting for the DEA to tell them that they can?

SPEAKER_01 49:56

Um so right now they're stuck. And I think there's a lot of companies that'll be surprised to hear that because technically, DEA for every buy sell um that you that any company has that's registered, DEA is gonna have to issue a quota for that buy sell. And until you get that quota, you're not allowed to sell. And that's just under current DEA regulations and laws. And so assuming that that stays, DEA will be issuing quotas and it'll either be, we don't know exactly what it's gonna be, it could be for the state, it could be for the whole program, it could be for individual operators. Um, and and whether or not they're gonna have to apply for each purchase and sale to DEA to get approval, that's also unknown. Um, so a lot of operators right now have said that they're operating as if they are a DEA registrant. And that is not true. The order says that they're operating federally legally, they're not, they're not an illegal operation as long as you submitted in that early application window. So that's all that means is that you're not violating federal law at the moment if you're operating under your state license, which operating under your state license means that you cannot interstate commerce.

AnnaRae Grabstein 51:11

And so as of right now, because no state license has made it possible to do that, because all of their existing frameworks. And so that that's an interesting complexity to add to this. We've had conversations with regulators, and I don't want to call them out by name, but who have been very open with the fact that the DEA is not communicating with the states about how to do this. Because I would say that the cannabis regulators that I have talked to are kind of ready and willing to update policies in order to help the operators in their state and have been pretty optimistic about look, we're gonna do whatever it takes so that people aren't locked out from participating, but they don't want to make it so that you can, you know, change metric to do a transaction between Oregon and Missouri until until that's allowed or that they're that's clear. Uh but but it is very confusing how what what we're waiting for and what we can do today versus confused too.

Ben Larson 52:11

It's not like they elected to be in this situation, and they were just like, here, this is now yours. And and they're like, Oh, what do we do with this? So they're equally confused as as the state operators.

SPEAKER_01 52:21

And yeah, and there's not a whole lot of communication coming from home office to the field offices. They're kind of operating on their own at the moment from from the sound of it, and they're trying to work through processes that they've had that don't apply to this current system, and they don't seem to be getting guidance. And the interstate transport, I think, is just one of those. I know, I know many regulators are trying to find out about the quotas and how that's gonna work. And and I mean, just really how regulation, how this buy-sell is gonna work, because is that gonna have to go through metric? Um, and or I mean, like states like Arizona that don't have any of those, uh, any metric or anything, like those will probably be the easier ones. Um, but yeah, there's just so much confusion, both on whether or not, like I personally don't think this is gonna survive the DC circuits litigation. Um, so I'm not sure we're gonna have to worry about it, but it's going because the stay was denied, this process is gonna take months to get through, and licenses could start being issued as early as next month. I mean, that six-month window, a lot of people are calling it fact, like the order says you have to do it within six months. But there are three different places in the order. One of them says it has to, one of them says it may, and one of them says best efforts. So, whichever one that they want to take on that, like I don't think the six month is at all mandatory. But if they do start issuing those registrations before the litigation plays out, then you're really gonna have to start worrying about like how do you operate under these systems? And if DEA is not really communicating, I think you're still gonna have states that are saying, no, you can't export this out of state, whether it's international or domestic. And then you get dormant commerce clause litigation, which that takes time to play out. And I mean, that this is gonna be both for the litigation and at if it survives, is gonna be a a lot to deal with.

AnnaRae Grabstein 54:11

So, Jason, you and we're getting close to the end, but I want to touch on this because one of the things that was so amazing when the executive order happened is like, whoa, that's all it takes. We've been, we've been having like cannabis policy fails, like safe banking. I think eight times it's been introduced in the house for so long that it's like somebody can just wave a wand or the president can wave a wand with an executive order and make policy change. Um

Medical Order Limits Quotas And No Interstate Yet

AnnaRae Grabstein 54:40

I know that you are interested in this conceptually, uh, based on the organization that you founded, Project for 2029. Um I'd love it if you could just give us some ideas of what else could be done via executive order for cannabis policy and progress that um that the industry should be rallying behind.

SPEAKER_01 55:02

Yeah, so I've I, along with Shane Pennington again, have been screaming about 811 D1 for years, and all of the cannabis organizations pretty much told us to shut up. And so um happy that they actually used it. But now we're living in a world where executive action is basically like president the Trump administration has changed what's called the unitary executive theory. They've expanded it substantially, and what that means is that the president can dictate what his agencies do, can hire and fire based on them listening to him or not. Um, obviously hiring us to go through Congress, but firing is obviously a big way to make sure that people do what you want. And you can specifically say, I want you to do this policy and you need to do it. And that is fundamentally changed under this administration. And so using that and using current legislation and regulations, we can pretty much legalize anything having to do with cannabis in several ways. There's one way to do it under scientific pilot programs, and this is where I think DEA really messed up in their final order is if DEA had worked with FDA, then they could have set up scientific pilot programs in partnership with states. And so being in Colorado, you have Governor Polis uh working with the DEA and the FDA to create investigational new drug applications for the state programs. The FDA has authority to waive a lot of these requirements so that what was prohibitive before for cannabis could be permitted under these waivers. And so you can do that for anything from medical marijuana, adult use marijuana. If you want to do hemp versus marijuana, intoxicants, non-intoxicants, you can even do it with like the DoD. If the Department of Defense wants to give half a billion dollars to the hemp industry to help make hemp plastics uh for the military, that that can be a way to do it to expand cannabis policy. There's also descheduling that I think is on the table using the same process that the uh Biden administration used for Schedule Three, where you tell HHS to do uh you to study cannabis. Um, you do it just intoxicants. I'm kind of sick of this whole marijuana hemp thing. Um, but you you have it study it against alcohol and tobacco, find out which one's safer. And if HHS finds that cannabis is a more safer alternative for uh adults to consume, then they recommend that it's descheduled. And under statute, if HHS recommends descheduling, DEA must reschedule. The language is extremely clear. So if you get that done, you require it to be done within a year. You can get full descheduling, which needs regulation. There's huge problems if you deschedule without regulation. But I think that would force Congress to actually move forward. And that's what Project 42029 is intended to promote, is to educate presidential candidates. Because instead of lobbying all of Congress, you just need to lobby one person. Whoever the next president is is the only person you have to lobby to to get this done. And so I think it is much, much easier, especially this day and age, to get common sense cannabis policy through executive action that will ultimately force Congress to act.

Ben Larson 58:11

So it did come up in Colorado quite a bit. There was a panel that that you were going to be on about the one plant solution and this whole descheduling talk. I think for some of us that have been in the industry as long as we have, it's like we're just now getting progress after so long. Like, are we ready to have that conversation? And and maybe that's not maybe that's not the right way to approach the concept. It's maybe maybe it's independent of that because of the mechanisms. But like we don't even know what's going to happen with schedule three. Can we immediately start engaging in this descheduling conversation? And maybe this is a good opportunity to just talk about the strategy with project 2029 or for 2029.

SPEAKER_01 58:58

Yeah. Um, I I mean, I think it is the perfect time to do this because we are having a conversation where hemp beverages are probably getting the easiest coverage right now. And that seems to be if we're gonna get a path forward, it's gonna be beverages. There's also some talks about like other kind of changing the milligram dose or the milliligram requirement on the hemp ban. Um, but I think that right now it is the perfect time to be talking about this because right now, basing intoxicant legalization on hemp versus marijuana makes no sense whatsoever. And so I think we were talking about this in Colorado, is we have hemp included in these beverage bills when all I think if you just replace that with cannabis sativa L. So in the hemp beverage bill, if you take out the word hemp and you just replace it with cannabis sativa L, then that allows it becomes kind of a one plan. It's source agnostic. It just has to do with the intoxicant that is the end product. And that basically is legalization of marijuana that's, I think, more palatable than actually including the word marijuana. And we are having this discussion where people seem to accept that intoxicating cannabis should be legal. Like that seems to be, at least politically wise, something that seems to be gaining steam. And the fact that we're separating it in hemp and marijuana is just going to confuse everything. And I don't know if we get a hemp bill that's allowed, then that may just stall legalization at that point. Like there is an argument, I know Anna Ray has brought this up, that that may normalize it and help the conversation move forward. But I also think that there's a possibility that a lot of the people or a lot of the industries that are behind us, like the beverage industry, um, restaurant industries, I think they may be like, okay, we got this. Now, I mean, I think we're good now, right? Like a lot of people don't understand that there's a difference. So a lot of people that we would need to support us may just be like, all right, so we've we have kind of legalized. Like, what else do we need to do here? And so I think there just may be this kind of what's happening in Colorado. Like, we revised our regulations many years after we legalized, and now trying to even fix things, our legislators, like, we don't want to deal with it. Like, we just really don't want to deal with it anymore. And I could see that possibly happening. So I think it is a good time to have this conversation, especially in a world where the executive has so much authority that Congress isn't gonna agree as we we see now. Congress doesn't agree, they don't do anything, but they don't agree with what the president's doing in a lot of ways. Um, but if you have a Congress that wants to act, and I think marijuana policy is a place where you'll get a lot of consensus on acting, that if the president makes these bold steps, Congress is gonna be like, okay, okay, we're gonna do something to kind of rein this in in a way that we want it. How that happens is gonna be difficult, though.

AnnaRae Grabstein 1:01:58

I can't help myself. Um there is so uh threading the needle with politics and what we're talking about, it seems like we've got Gavin Newsome from uh California's governor as like a real potential front runner in the next presidential election. And I would call Gavin Newsome like a hemp hater to the 10th nth degree, if possible, based on kind of the the way that he has supported adult use legalization through Prop 64 in California and how he has really like prohibited all hemp products from um being in the market here here in the state. And so how much do these executive orders have the ability to just change um with the times? Because if what while I like what you've suggested about this cannabis sativa L in the hemp language, I don't actually see that happening. And I think that if anything happens, it's with language that is already being discussed today. So if that was to move forward and um a hemp beverage bill was to pass, and then we get a massive political shift, and we've got Governor Newsom as President Newsom, and he hates hemp, um, how much can an executive order undo or shift existing legal precedent and laws that have already been passed by Congress?

SPEAKER_01 1:03:27

So it can't contradict laws. So it couldn't, yeah, it can't contradict laws. Like everything I'm talking about is using current statutes, current regulations to push this policy forward. So that in that case, if we're living in a world where the hemp beverage bill passes and he comes into office, it's not like he could sign an executive order that says this no longer applies. Like that's not an authority the president has. What he could do is just basically give registrations and give uh the marijuana industry the ability to participate in pretty much the identical market without any of the barriers that the statute requires. So that is something that he could do. So there that's again just there are ways to work around the laws that we're learning under this administration

What Executive Orders Could Do Next

SPEAKER_01 1:04:11

that they're just like the Supreme Court is blessing. Whether Supreme Court would bless the same uh under a president newsome, um, I think is an open question. And I would be surprised if they they kind of gave his carte blanche of authority to a president newsome. But that's pretty much how it would be. They couldn't just contradict the statute, but he could work around it to make it pretty worthless to the people who actually are abiding by the statute.

Ben Larson 1:04:40

That's gonna be a very interesting end of the year, especially with the the midterms uh happening in early November. So we'll see just how much uh Congress can get done this year and what they're willing to get done in in the years to come.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:54

Yeah, I don't have I don't have much hope. I I just I'm betting on the another extension to March on the funding bill and whether or not Mitch McConnell is actually alive or he's uh weakened up burning it. I don't know. But if if he can get it stripped out or if it gets extended again till March and then they deal with it later, like that's I there just isn't enough time, it seems. They already are they've gone uh to recess till after the election, and then you just have a very small amount of time to get something going, and presumably there's gonna be a huge shift in who's in Congress. So um, yeah, I think it's just incredibly un uncertain right now. Um, and even if Democrats take over and get a huge win in both houses, like we saw Schumer hold up safe banking because he wanted CAOA um because there wasn't enough social equity in it. And so are we gonna see the same thing if we have Schumer as the majority leader in the Senate when you have a hemp bill up there? Um, so yeah, I I I don't know. Yeah, very confusing and designed.

AnnaRae Grabstein 1:05:58

So much that's unknown. And yeah, and this whole thing with the extension, the extension after extension, and it's like this inevitable, just it's I've I talk about it often of the lobbyist industrial complex. It's like the lobbyists know they're just keeping themselves at the table with everything and and keeping the industry in this place of uncertainty, job security in some ways. Um, but we could talk about this forever. Unfortunately, we can't today, actually.

Closing Advice And How To Support

AnnaRae Grabstein 1:06:25

So it is time for our last call. Um, Jason, uh, why don't you give us a final message for our listeners? Advice, call to action, closing thought. What do you got?

SPEAKER_01 1:06:35

Yeah, for me, it would just be for anyone moving forward, whether it's hemp or marijuana, just do so, I think responsively. Like don't jump over your skis, don't get way too ahead of yourself on this. Prepare for either a medical marijuana future where it's schedule three in the state system we have, or that hemp is going to survive in some way, but also prepare for it not happening and make sure that you're getting responsible guidance. I mean, one of the things I I try to do is just provide honest uh feedback on what I'm seeing and the law behind it. And so I think if you're looking for just kind of a uh a non uh uh or a non like one-sided focus on what's going on, if you don't want just the shiny news or the bad news, um, definitely reach out to me. I'm always happy to talk and advise clients just on what's going on, what I see um in both the US and international market, because education is going to be the biggest thing to help you be able to move forward in this ever-changing landscape. And that's what I try to do is just educate.

Ben Larson 1:07:40

Amazing. Stay informed, uh, stay prepared and stay responsible, people. Um Jason Attlestone, Harris Slawowski. Nailed it. Uh thank you for spending the last hour plus uh with us. Incredibly informative. We could absolutely do a part two. Maybe we should, as we get a little deeper into the decision making around schedule three and and hemp and everything.

SPEAKER_01 1:08:07

Yeah, thank you both so much for having me. This was great. And uh yeah, happy to join whenever. I love having conversations with people that understand this stuff. Um, because not many people do. It's a lot. But thank you. Thank you so much.

AnnaRae Grabstein 1:08:20

A little bit clearer. Yeah, it was really fun.

Ben Larson 1:08:24

All right, and thank you uh for watching and engaging and leaving comments in our live recordings on LinkedIn. Uh, please go over to YouTube or wherever you listen to your podcast and subscribe, like, share, do all the things. Thank you to our teams at Virtosa and Wolfmeyer, and of course, our producer, Eric Rossetti. As always, folks, stay curious, stay informed, and most importantly, keep your spirits high. Until next time, that's the show.