CNR: Errata in Tax Foundation Marijuana tax data — NY, CA, NM
At my age, now that A.I. is taking over proofreading, I feel like a good thing I can do is to set the record straight. For instance, the Tax Foundation’s tax piece of its cannabis posting, https://taxfoundation.org/blog/states-act-2-0-federal-cannabis-reform/, has incorrect information, as of August 12. (I wrote an author August 8 and haven’t heard back.)
It has this:
But that’s been repealed:
+++
They have this:
But California collects ad valorem at retail – not with average rate.
FDA, FTC Issue Warning Letters to Companies Selling Food Products Containing Delta-8 THC That Mimic Chips, Candies and Snacks from Popular National Brands
FDA Statement
No
Press Release Date
July 16, 2024
Detailed Description
FDA, FTC issue warning letters to companies for selling food products containing delta-8 THC that mimic chips, candies and snacks from popular national brands
Short Description
FDA, FTC issue warning letters to companies for selling food products containing delta-8 THC
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued warning letters to five companies for illegally selling copycat food products containing delta-8 THC and introducing them into the marketplace in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The warning letters were issued to: Hippy Mood, Earthly Hemps, Shamrockshrooms.com, Mary Janes Bakery Co. LLC and Life Leaf Medical CBD Center. The FDA also issued a warning letter independently to the company GrowGod LLC for the same FD&C Act violations.
These warnings serve as part of the FDA and FTC’s ongoing joint effort to take action against companies selling illegal copycat food products containing delta-8 THC. In July 2023, the two agencies worked together to warn six other companies for selling edible food products containing delta-8 THC in packaging that could easily be confused for foods sold by popular national brands. All six of those companies no longer have such products in stock.
“Inadequate or confusing labeling can result in children or unsuspecting adults consuming products with strong resemblance to popular snacks and candies that contain delta-8 THC without realizing it,” said FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Namandjé Bumpus, Ph.D. “As accidental ingestion and/or overconsumption of delta-8 THC containing products could pose considerable health risks, the companies who sell these illegal products are demonstrating complete neglect for consumer safety. The FDA will continue to work to safeguard the health and safety of U.S. consumers by monitoring the marketplace and taking action when companies sell products that present a threat to public health.”
In June 2022, the FDA warned consumers about children accidentally ingesting food products containing delta-8 THC. From Jan. 1, 2021, to Dec. 31, 2023, the FDA received over 300 adverse event reports involving children and adults who consumed delta-8 THC products. Nearly half of these reports involved hospitalization or emergency department visits, and approximately two-thirds of these adverse events followed ingestion of delta-8 THC-containing food products such as candy or brownies. Adverse events included, but were not limited to, hallucinations, vomiting, tremor, anxiety, dizziness, confusion, and loss of consciousness.
Copycat food products containing delta-8 THC are particularly concerning to the FDA as they are extremely easy to purchase and are often available to youth. The FDA is also concerned about the processes used to synthesize delta-8 THC, as impurities or variations in the composition process can result in products that may be harmful or have unpredictable effects on consumers.
In addition, packaging that is almost indistinguishable from many popular snacks can be confusing for consumers. Several of the companies warned today illegally sell copycat food products containing delta-8 THC, including chips, cookies, gummies or other snacks that mimic well-known snack food brands by using similar brand names, logos, or pictures on packaging that consumers, especially children, may confuse with traditional foods. See below:
Hippy Mood “Trips Ahoy!”
Earthy Hemps “Slushers”
Mary Jane’s Bakery Co. LLC “Infused Sour Slizzles”
Life Leaf Medical CBD Center “Double Stuff Stoneo”
GrowGod LLC “Flamin Hot Cheetos”
“Companies that market and sell edible THC products that are easily mistaken for snacks and candy are not only acting illegally, but they are also putting the health of young children at risk,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Those that prioritize profits in front of children’s safety are at serious risk of legal action.”
The FDA encourages health care providers and consumers to report adverse reactions associated with FDA-regulated products to the agency using MedWatch or the Safety Reporting Portal.
The FDA has requested written responses from the companies within 15 working days stating how they will address these violations and prevent their recurrence. Failure to promptly address the violations may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
Quote Attribution
Announcement Type
FDA News Release
#CBD #Hemp http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-ftc-continue-joint-effort-protect-consumers-against-companies-illegally-selling-copycat-delta-8 July 16, 2024 3:19 pm
– contain THC, the intoxicant in marijuana, which creates externalities.
– will cost money to regulate.
– are federally legal only because of loopholes in the Farm Bill.
We can and should tax these hemp products.
– Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and other jurisdictions tax hemp now.
– SB3 would tax medical cannabis (used by certified patients only).
Taxing by percentage of price is weak.
– Prices will go down over time as industry matures; taxes shouldn’t.
– Prices may reflect frills, premium marketing, quantity discounts, and employee discounts rather than externalities.
Taxing by weight of THC is better than taxing by price.
– A THC tax aims straight at the intoxicant — the right target.
– Connecticut and Illinois already tax legalized cannabis by the THC it contains.
But you can tax too much – as other states have learned the hard way. If you tax too heavily,
– Illicit sellers will bypass not just taxes, but also all regulations.
– Revenue will evaporate.
Suggested language is below.
+++
Statutory Draft
Senator _______
moves to amend the bill as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee
on page 7, lines 31, by rewriting the line to read: “§ 18D-302. Fees and Taxes.”
On page 8, by adding the following after line 22:
(d) Taxes
(1) An excise tax of [$0.0xx] per milligram of the amount of total THC, as reflected on the product label, is levied on the sale of all hemp-derived consumable products sold at retail.
(2) “Total THC” means the sum of weight of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, multiplied by eight hundred seventy-seven-thousandths, plus the percentage of weight of tetrahydrocannabinol.
(3) The excise taxes on total THC are payable to the Secretary of Revenue by the retailer or by the importer who ships the products to consumers in this State.
(4) The tax on total THC is due on or before the 15th day of the month following the month in which the product is sold by the retailer or the importer to consumers.
(5) The tax on total THC is effective for sales and importation to consumers occurring on or after July 1, 2025. For transactions occurring before July 1, 2027, the tax rate shall be one-half the rate described in subsection (1) of this section. This amount shall be indexed on January 1 of 2028 and each year thereafter by the cost-of-living adjustment described in G.S. 105-277.1.
+++
Notes
Rate: How high should the tax be? A 1-cent per milligram tax would be about 8% of retail price for these products:https://www.southernease.com/collections/new-delta-9-thc-gummies. Connecticut taxes marijuana edibles at 2.75 cents per milligram. West Virginia’s ad valorem rate is 11%; Tennesee’s is 6%; Minnesota’s, 10%, Louisiana’s, 3% — all plus applicable sales taxes.
Target: Total THC reaches all “delta” forms of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol); it reaches THCA, as well, with a fractional reduction reflecting the weaker intoxicating power of THC. It excludes, for instance, CBD. This definition comes from the Connecticut statute: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_420b.htm#sec_21a-240 section 60.
Phase-in: The tax rate could be set deliberately low for the first few years as industry matures, and indexed thereafter.
Constructive comments welcomed. Sometimes they let the public speak.
Mr. Chairman, Thank you.
My name is Pat Oglesby. I’m a lawyer with the Center for New Revenue in Chapel Hill. Some of you all are old enough to remember Bob Dole and Lloyd Bentsen. I was a staffer for the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation when they chaired it. I’ve been a paid advisor to several states on cannabis tax policy.
As you’re discovering, hemp-derived cannabinoids create both costs and externalities. That’s why North Carolina should tax these substances – ideally by THC content – as part of a comprehensive cannabis strategy.
Louisiana, Minnesota, Tennessee, and West Virginia are four states that already collect extra excise taxes on these substances. Taxes that range from 3 percent to 11 percent of retail price.
But that’s just one approach. An alternative and more effective tax is one being used in Connecticut, Illinois, and all Canadian provinces. They tax legalized cannabis products by the volume of THC they contain. This THC tax aims straight at the target you want to hit.
Whichever taxes you choose — taxes based on price or taxes based on THC levels – there’s a risk of overdoing it. If you tax too heavily, illicit sellers will bypass the tax and you won’t get the revenue you hope for. I don’t work for industry, but I do know that other states have learned this lesson the hard way: Overtaxing backfires.
The journey you’re on won’t be easy. But please know that I will do what I can to help.
Examples of FDA Warning Letters that cite unapproved or unsubstantiated claims, tainted products or other health fraud* – related violations. For all FDA Warning Letters, click here.
Unapproved and Misbranded Product Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
*The FDA defines health fraud as the deceptive promotion, advertising, distribution, or sale of a product represented as being effective to prevent, diagnose, treat, cure or lessen an illness or condition, or provide another beneficial effect on health, but that has not been scientifically proven safe and effective for such purposes.
The SOT 62nd Annual Meeting and ToxExpo featured more than 70 scientific sessions, 2,000 presentations, 250 exhibitors, and 5,000 attendees.
2023 SOT Platform, Poster, or Workshop Sessions
Title
NCTR Author
NCTR Division
POSTER SESSION: ALTERNATIVES TO MAMMALIAN MODELS I
“Lessons Learned in Establishing a Reliable and Low-Cost Assay for Urea Production in Human Primary Hepatocytes Cultured in a Liver Chip for the Study of Drug Hepatotoxicity”
Shi, Q.
DSB
POSTER SESSION: ALTERNATIVES TO MAMMALIAN MODELS I
“AnimalGAN: A Generative AI Alternative to Animal Clinical Pathology Testing”
Chen, X.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: ALTERNATIVES TO MAMMALIAN MODELS I
“Cardiotoxicity Assessment of HESI Reference Compounds Using Human iPSC-CMs”
Bagam, P.
DSB
POSTER SESSION: ALTERNATIVES TO MAMMALIAN MODELS I
“Performance of the Three-Dimensional HepaRG Micronucleus Assay for In Vitro Genotoxicity Testing”
Guo, X.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
“A Systematic Analysis and Data Mining of Opioid-Related Adverse Events Submitted to the FAERS Database”
Le, H.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
“Assessment of Modified Sandwich Estimator for Generalized Estimating Equations with Application to Opioid Poisoning in MIMIC-IV ICU Patients”
Rogers, P.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
“RxNorm for Drug Name Normalization: A Case Study of Prescription Opioids in the US FDA Adverse Events Reporting System”
Zou, W.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY I
“Assessing the Developmental Toxicity of Busulfan in an In Vitro Human Placental Barrier-Embryo Co-culture System”
Wang, Y.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: CARCINOGENICITY
“DNA Methylation and Transcriptomic Alterations Induced by Extended Treatment of Normal Human MCF10A Mammary Gland Epithelial Cells with Non-cytotoxic Doses of Lorcaserin”
Willett, R.
DBT
PLATFORM SESSION: EXPLORING TIME AND CELL DIVERSITY IN TOXICOGENOMICS SPACE
“Effect of Food-Grade Titanium Dioxide on DNA Methylation in Human Cells”
Wells, C.
DBT
WORKSHOP SESSION: UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF SIMILARITY AND ITS APPLICATIONS TO TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND RISK ASSESSMENT
“Structure Similarity Based on Chemical Descriptors, Fingerprints, and Structural Alerts”
Hong, H.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: DNA DAMAGE AND REPAIR
“Evaluation of Newly Developed 14 Human TK6-Derived Cell Lines That Individually Express a Human Cytochrome P450 for Toxicity Studies”
Mei, N.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: DNA DAMAGE AND REPAIR
“Nitrosamine Drug Impurities Induce Genotoxicity in Human Lymphoblastoid TK6 Cells”
Li, X.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: DNA DAMAGE AND REPAIR
“Actein Contributes to Black Cohosh Extract-Induced Genotoxicity in Human TK6 Cells”
Le, Y.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: DNA DAMAGE AND REPAIR
“Assessment of DNA Damage-Induced by 10 Nitrosamine Impurities Using 2D and 3D HepaRG Models”
Seo, J.-E.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: DNA DAMAGE AND REPAIR
“Evaluation of the DNA Mutagenicity of N-hydroxycytidine in Mouse Lymphoma Cells by HiFi and Clone Sequencing”
Revollo, J.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: DNA DAMAGE AND REPAIR
“HiFi Sequencing for Detecting In Vivo Somatic Mutation”
Dobrovolsky, V.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: DNA DAMAGE AND REPAIR
“HiFi Sequencing Detects the On- and Off-Target Effects of a Cytosine-to-Thymine Base Editor in E. coli“
Miranda, J.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: BIOTRANSFORMATION/CYTOCHROME P450
“Study of the Roles of Cytochrome P450 (CYPs) in the Metabolism and Cytotoxicity of Perhexiline”
Chen, S.
DBT
POSTER SESSION: COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY I
“Using Language Model to Facilitate COVID-19-Associated Neurological Disorder Literature Analysis: A BERTox Research”
Wu, L.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY I
“Development of Random Forest Model for Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease Binders as Potential Candidates for Repurposing to COVID-19 Treatment”
Xu, L.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY I
“Opioid Agonist/Antagonist Database (OADB): A Database to Facilitate Opioid Drug Development”
Dong, F.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY I
“Machine Learning Models for Rat Multigeneration Reproductive Toxicity Prediction”
Liu, J.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY II
“Machine Learning for Predicting Risk of Drug-Induced Autoimmune Diseases by Structural Alerts and Daily Dose”
Chen, M.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
“Assessment of the Toxicity of Cannabidiol (CBD) in Rats upon Oral Developmental Exposure”
Camacho, L.
DBT
POSTER SESSION: REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY III
“Cannabidiol-Induced Transcriptomic Changes and Cellular Senescence in Human Sertoli Cells”
Li, Y.
DBT
POSTER SESSION: REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY III
“COVID-19 Effects on Pregnancy, Prenatal, and Postnatal Development”
Bidarimath, M.
DSB
POSTER SESSION: SAFETY ASSESSMENT: PHARMACEUTICAL-DRUG DEVELOPMENT II
“Obtain Drug Safety Rankings through Meta-analysis of Clinical Trial Data Using Penalized Bayesian Model”
Wang, D.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: BIOMARKERS
“T2-MRI Mapping as a Minimally Invasive Correlate of Central Nervous System (CNS) Toxicity in a Cuprizone Model: A Biomarker Study”
Imam, S.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: EPIGENETICS
“Effect of the Weight-Loss Drug Lorcaserin on DNA Methylation in Mammary Glands of Sprague Dawley Rats”
Roudachevski, I.
DBT
PLATFORM SESSION: ENHANCING TOXICOLOGY WITH MACHINE LEARNING
“PathologAI – A Deep Learning Framework for Whole Slide Classification in Preclinical Pathology”
Xu, J.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: ALTERNATIVES TO MAMMALIAN MODELS II Chair: Qiang Shi (DSB)
“Whole Genome Sequencing Analysis of Mutagenicity of N-Nitrosodiethylamine Using Caenorhabditis elegans Models”
Chen, T.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: BIOINFORMATICS
“Deep Learning-Based Genotype Imputation for Enhancing Toxicogenomic Data”
Song, M.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: BIOINFORMATICS
“Statistical Methods for Exploring Spontaneous Adverse Event Reporting Databases for Drug-Host Factor Interactions”
Lu, Z.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: BIOINFORMATICS
“Development of a Large List of Drugs for the Study of Nephrotoxicity in Drug Discovery”
Connor, S.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: BIOINFORMATICS
“Random Forest Model for Predicting μ Opioid Receptor Binding Activity for Assisting Development of Opioid Drugs”
Li, Z.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: BIOINFORMATICS
“DeepAmes: Deep Learning-Powered Ames Test Prediction Using Model-Level Representation”
Li, T.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: RISK ASSESSMENT II
“Informing Selection of Drugs for COVID-19 Treatment through Analysis of Adverse Events”
Guo, W.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: NEUROTOXICITY: DEVELOPMENTAL I
“Cytokine-Mediated Chemotherapy-Induced Cognitive Impairment in Cisplatin and Methotrexate Treated Sprague Dawley Rats”
Yeary, J.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: NEUROTOXICITY: DEVELOPMENTAL I
“Examining Immune Modulatory Effects of Perinatal Cannabidiol Exposure in Sprague Dawley Rats”
Gill, W.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: NEUROTOXICITY: DEVELOPMENTAL I
“The Neurotoxic Potential of a Single Dose of Ketamine in Adolescent and Adult Rats”
Talpos, J.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: NEUROTOXICITY: DEVLEOPMENTAL II
“Behavioral Effects of Cisplatin and Methotrexate Treatment in Juvenile Sprague Dawley Rats”
Flanigan, T.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: NEUROTOXICITY: DEVLEOPMENTAL II
“Investigation of the Developmental Neurotoxicity of Opioids Using Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells”
Cai, C.
DSB
POSTER SESSION: NEUROTOXICITY: GENERAL
“A Modified Approach of Fluoro-Jade C Labeling for Neurotoxicity Assessments”
Gu, Q.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: IMMUNOTOXICITY I
“Sex-Based Differences in Inflammatory Responses to Silver Nanoparticles”
Canup, B.
DBT
WORKSHOP SESSION 1195: MOVING STEM CELL-DERIVED NEW APPROACH METHODS TOWARD REGULATORY ACCEPTANCE Chair: Li Pang (DSB)
“Predicting Interindividual Variability of Doxorubicin Cardiotoxicity with Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Cardiomyocytes”
Pang, L.
DSB
POSTER SESSION: BIOLOGICAL MODELING
“A Multiscale Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Model to Predict the Plasma Concentration and the Tissue Distribution of Doxorubicin”
Li, M.
DBT
POSTER SESSION: BIOLOGICAL MODELING
“Using Various Machine-Learning Algorithms to Determine the Best Method for Predicting Population Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Plasma Profiles”
Fairman, K.
DBT
POSTER SESSION: KIDNEY
“Evaluating Renal Pathology in Post-COVID-19 Human Autopsy Tissues”
Masters, E.
DSB
POSTER SESSION: SKIN AND DERMAL TOXICITY
“Parallel Evaluation of Alternative Skin Barrier Models and Excised Human Skin for Dermal Absorption Studies In Vitro”
Salminen, A.
DBT
POSTER SESSION: LIVER I: IN VIVO Chair: Si Chen (DBT)
“Gene Expression Changes Predict the Severity of NAFLD-Like Liver Injury in Male Collaborative Cross Mice”
Tryndyak, V.
DBT
POSTER SESSION: LIVER II: IN VIVO
“hnRNP-Q and hnRNP-L Influence Drug Metabolism and Toxicity by Regulating mRNA Processing of Drug Metabolizing Enzymes and Nuclear Receptors in HepaRG Cells”
Li, D.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: LIVER II: IN VIVO
“hnRMP-Q and hnRMP-L Influence Drug Metabolism and Toxicity by Regulating mRNA Processing of Drug Metabolizing Enzymes and Nuclear Receptors in HepaRG Cells”
Li, D.
DBB
POSTER SESSION: RESPIRATORY TOXICOLOGY I
“Establishing a Continuous Aerosol Exposure Method for Evaluating the Respiratory Toxicity of Ortho-Phthalaldehyde”
Sun, Y.
DGMT
POSTER SESSION: LATE-BREAKING 2-4
“Potential Link of High-Fat Diet on the Expression of Alzheimer’s Disease-Related Genes in the Ileal Mucosa of Alzheimer’s Disease Model of Rats”
Karn, K.
DM
POSTER SESSION: LATE-BREAKING 2-4
“The Effects of Cannabidiol and Its Main Metabolites on Human Neural Stem Cells”
Latham, L.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: LATE-BREAKING 2-4
“Comparison of the Effects of Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol on Human Neural Stem Cells”
Liu, F.
DNT
POSTER SESSION: LATE-BREAKING 2-4
“Assessment of Potential Developmental Neurotoxicity of Purified Cannabidiol in Sprague Dawley Rats”
While a handful of smaller conservative states rejected pro-cannabis ballot measures in 2022, there’s no sign of a wider national rollback. In November 2023, Republican-run Ohio voted to become the 24th state to legalize pot. “Nobody has retracted or retreated,” says Pat Oglesby, a tax lawyer who teaches a cannabis policy class at the University of Virginia. “I think the momentum is for a loosening, not a tightening, of state marijuana sales.”
+++
Another policy tool is taxation. New York and Connecticut levy excise taxes on cannabis that increase with potency, just as liquor is taxed at higher rates than beer. But regulators have also found that high taxes on cannabis, while healthy for state coffers, can make illegal weed more attractive. A combination of high taxes, stringent regulations, and a lack of dispensaries has hamstrung California’s legal recreational market, while illegal producers are thriving.
California faces a law enforcement challenge in shutting down its entrenched illegal industry, says Mr. Oglesby, the tax lawyer, who has advised the state’s regulators. “Cops don’t want to arrest people,” he says. “And juries might not convict them.”
British Indian colonizers used “hemp drugs” generally, ganja and bhang and more for different products, cannabis rarely, and only for the plant (marijuana not at all):
Harborside, which is among the oldest and largest dispensaries in California, says on its website: “‘Marijuana’ has come to be associated with the idea that cannabis is a dangerous and addictive intoxicant, not a holistic, herbal medicine … This stigma has played a big part in stymying cannabis legalization efforts throughout the US.”
It’s clear why a business like Harborside would prefer the more scientific word for branding purposes, but does that mean everyone should follow along?
(I know the author, who is at the top of hemp drug journalism — I recommend the whold article)
Queen Adesuyi, senior national policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, brought up another aspect of marijuanausage. That is: Labeling marijuanaas racist or offensive may alienate many of the people most connected to the plant—and those disproportionately targeted by the War on Drugs.
“The word cannabis is very disconnected to most communities,” she said. “Your average person does not refer to the plant as cannabis.”
“As we’re working to advance legalization across the country, what we don’t want is a complete whitewashing of the history of marijuana criminalization and the impact that’s had on people of color,” Adesuyi added. “This is something we’re seeing the industry do. There’s an active attempt to revamp what the plant means, and who it represents.”
“When you think about ‘the new face of cannabis’” presented by some companies, she said, “it oftentimes is not in alignment with [those most affected by] the stigmatized and criminalized history of the plant.”
There’s also the question of political focus and wasted resources. “It’s important to lead the public discussion about the terms we use,” said Calvin Stovall, Leafly’s East Coast editor, “but I don’t think it’s productive to police how consumers or other members of the industry use the word marijuana.
“I’d rather see us direct our collective energy at the institutional level—to change the laws that are racist and offensive. Forcing people to take a political stance by only saying cannabis and never marijuana creates a dynamic where the legalization community gets caught up arguing among ourselves about terminology.”
Decision time in Word Court
After weeks of conversation and rumination, I find myself disagreeing with Rep. Melanie Morgan.
Let me say it clearly: Marijuana is not pejorative or racist.
The impulse that drove Morgan to change the language of Washington State law wasn’t unfounded, though. It’s time to update the legal conversation to cannabis. But Morgan’s diagnosis was imprecise and too simplistic. Marijuana is a problematic, complicated word with a problematic, complicated history. In the year 2022 it exists in a state of flux, loathed by some while used without malice by many.
Thriving in the cannabis world requires flexibility and quick adaptive reflexes. The language we use reflects that. We’re constantly reading the room to determine the appropriate verbiage. Mostly it’s cannabisor marijuana, but now and then it’s weed and sometimes it’s pot. Sometimes it can feel like living in a Key & Peele code-switch sketch.
That’s my answer today. Stay tuned. It’ll probably change, because language never stops evolving and neither should we.
Chelsea Stenson trims marijuana buds before packaging on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, at House of Cultivar in Seattle.
KUOW Photo/Megan Farmer
PLAYING5 MINS LEFT
Gov. Jay Inslee recently signed a bill striking the word “marijuana” from the text of all state law. The measure says to use the word “cannabis” instead.
The effort in Washington is part of a national movement to retire the word.
Washington Democrat Melanie Morgan, who sponsored the bill in the state House, calls the word marijuana “pejorative and racist.” Morgan said replacing it is merely one way to create change.
Some cannabis retailers and industry trade groups have stopped using the word. Earlier this year, Maine and Virginia also introduced bills about striking the word marijuana from their laws.
Recreational weed is now legal in these states. But lawmakers are seeking to address the ways that decades of anti-drug policies continue to affect communities of color. For instance, arrests and incarceration for drug crimes have hit Black and Latino communities hardest. Arrests can make it harder to find a job, buy a home and build generational wealth.
“This is just another layer, of peeling off the systemic racism that’s built in our system,” Morgan said of the effort to retire the word marijuana.
But some historians are raising concerns about this effort. They say those who support it are leaning too heavily on a version of cannabis history that’s seeped into popular culture. They say that Morgan and other reformers who point to racist usage of the word have based that assessment on an incomplete reading of cannabis history.
The marijuana story
Historians note that “marijuana” was the word most people in Mexico used for the drug cannabis by the 19th century. Here in the U.S., by the 1920s and ’30s, anti-drug crusaders spread false claims about the effects of smoking marijuana. The 1936 movie “Reefer Madness” famously repeated this misinformation, claiming weed-smoking led to murder, suicide and insanity.
Anti-drug activists often used the word marijuana in a negative way, and the media and government officials also turned it against people of color, including Mexican immigrants and jazz musicians. Then, in 1937, the federal government outlawed the drug.
That popularized narrative is part of why many now say the word marijuana should be retired. But historians KUOW spoke with believe the popular version of cannabis history is incomplete, and ultimately inaccurate.
“The idea that the word marijuana is racist, I just think it’s nonsense. Marijuana is just the Mexican word for drug cannabis,” said Isaac Campos, a professor of Latin American history who has studied the story of weed.
The making of a myth
Campos said stories about smoking marijuana leading to madness and violence didn’t originate in the U.S. They were first printed in Mexican newspapers, and it was the Mexican government that ended up outlawing the drug first — nearly 20 years before the U.S. did.
U.S. media reprinted anti-weed stories from the Mexican press. And as immigrants moved north, many carried negative stories about marijuana with them.
According to Campos, the more complete story of the word marijuana is a story about the influence of Mexican culture. He believes banning the word would erase that history.
Campos doesn’t deny that racists have sometimes used the word marijuana in a pejorative way. But he argues many other words, such as “salsa,” have also been used in racist ways without anyone calling for their retirement.
“The way we use the word marijuana in the United States is not unlike the way we use the word salsa in the United States. Salsa in Mexico just means ‘sauce.’ It’s any kind of sauce — it could be a Hollandaise sauce — it’s not necessarily what we call salsa in this country.
“But the fact that we use it for a certain kind of Mexican sauce that goes on tacos just shows that Mexican cuisine has had a huge influence in this country,” Campos said.
Another cannabis historian, Adam Rathge, said something else is missing from pop-culture histories of weed. Long before anyone in the U.S. linked Mexican immigrants with the word marijuana, doctors and lawmakers in America were raising concerns about consuming cannabis.
“If you read 19th century medical journals or if you go look at laws that are passed in the 19th century, at the state level, there’s immediate concern by American physicians about the potential negative effects of cannabis,” Rathge said.
But that story was forgotten. In its place, by the 1980s, the cannabis legalization movement instead preferred a partially made-up narrative, based largely on an influential book written by a pot legalization activist named Jack Herer, who claimed America had a simple love affair with hemp and cannabis before racist prohibition began.
The film “Dazed and Confused” satirized this version of history, with tales of George Washington smoking weed with Martha Washington’s assistance, back when the “whole country” was supposedly “getting high.”
For her part, Rep. Melanie Morgan stands by the new measure nixing the word marijuana from state law. But she also said she welcomes more information and debate about the linguistic history of the word.
“I’m glad that this is causing conversations, because what this is doing is actually opening the door to bigger issues,” Morgan said.
Morgan pointed to other bills to address structural racism that did not pass this legislative session, including an attempt to increase the number of cannabis businesses licenses that go to communities most affected by the war on drugs, and a bill she sponsored to address racial, economic and social disparities.
This is Part Two of a four-part series discussing European cannabis regulations. Click here for Part One. Part Two analyzes the differences between the UK, the EU and the US. Part Three, coming next week, dives into dosage, approvals and more. Stay tuned for more.
EU Regulatory Environment
We Europeans look with envy at the American market and wonder, why can’t we be more like that? The differences between the American market, the UK and the EU economic zone couldn’t be more different, but changes seem to be on the horizon. While both the UK and the EU apply the Novel Food law, implementation varies significantly.
In the EU, applications are submitted to the EU Commission, and approval can take up to nine months – just for approval of the application – not the testing that will follow. And while the application carries no fee, collecting the required data just to make the application can be expensive, and can run into six figures or higher. Once the application is approved, there may still be data gaps and uncertainties, with toxicology testing that can take years to complete, and ultimately must be approved and validated by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). The required toxicology testing is where things get really expensive, with both the EIHA (European Industrial Hemp Association) and EFSA estimating costs around €3.5 million.
The EFSA’s Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) has received 19 applications thus far for CBD as a novel food, with more in the pipeline. According to their website, NDA chair Prof. Dominique Turck reported that they “have identified several hazards related to CBD intake” and that many data gaps need filling before evaluations can go ahead. However, she concluded, “It is important to stress that we have not concluded that CBD is unsafe as food.”
As always, with food and drug reviews, it is up to the applicant to prove that a product is safe for human consumption. And for the EU Commission, EFSA is conclusive. And while initial testing is with animals, it also includes human testing, which helps explain the high cost.
At present, the EFSA has been unconvinced by the applications submitted so far, and seeks more data regarding the effect of CBD on the liver, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system, nervous system and on people’s psychological well-being, as well as the impact on human reproduction.
Thus, in 2019, the EIHA formed a German corporation, the “EIHA projects GmbH”, formed for the purpose of pooling partners money to pay for the application and toxicity testing. The Novel Food applications (NFAs) for CBD isolate and synthetic CBD were submitted on November 4, 2022 and full spectrum will follow in April/May of 2023. It should be noted that the application for synthetic CBD has been completely dropped as no testing was ever preformed.
The applications must be reinforced by a series of tox studies under the auspices of the EFSA and for the UK, the FSA. The EFSA will start the risk assessment as soon as the suitability check is performed. The suitability check is a process performed by EFSA to make sure that they have enough data to perform the risk assessment. According to their webpage, the risk assessment can take nine months.
In the case of the application put forth by the EIHA projects GmbH, the CBD isolate dossier will be submitted to the EFSA in September and enter the risk assessment phase. In this phase, the EFSA will go over the data and can ask for more data, should they feel it necessary. They are allowed 9 months to complete this task and submit their recommendations to the EU commission for a 27-member vote, whereby the EIHA projects GmbH application will be valid and legally binding. The EIHA projects GmbH is expecting a validation during the course of 2024. This is a huge game changer!
The application for Full Spectrum distillate should be readied by the end of 2023, whereby the EFSA should be finished with the risk assessment near the end 2024. As Full Spectrum takes into account minor cannabinoid as well as limited THC, it is more complex. It should be noted, that testing full spectrum distillate with a 0.2% THC limit, tests the limit for how much THC can be ingested by humans without side effects. This study is unprecedented and might well have an enormous impact on the issue of THC and its possible future legalization. It is also costing a further one million euros to bring to fruition.
The UK Regulatory Approach
The UK Novel Food approach differs greatly from the EU’s, which has both strengths and weaknesses. What makes the UK CBD market so robust is that the FSA allows products to be sold as long as they were on the market prior to February 13, 2020 and are linked to applications submitted before March 31, 2021. As a result, the FSA was flooded with applications – many later denied on technical grounds, in great part because they didn’t meet these terms. Currently, some 11,000 products worth a projected 1 billion GBP in revenue remain on the FSA list, having passed pre-validation while the FSA awaits the final toxicology report. Only 400 CBD products have been culled from the list, but to date, not a single application has yet been approved. Pre-validation status is incumbent upon a toxicology report, and it remains to be seen how many companies are able to produce such a report.
Important to note is that due to Brexit, a UK validation when it does come, will not be valid in the EU, but products with an EU application accepted on the Union list will be valid in the UK.
Still with a projected 1 billion GBP at stake, it is easy to why UK CBD manufacturers work to appease the FSA despite the regulatory hurdles. By keeping the door open, the UK has managed to keep investors interested in the CBD market and the public safe from unmonitored products.
This is certainly not the case in the EU, where despite a smattering of products still ducking the authorities, the EU market remains thin by comparison. Their approach has stymied growth compared to the UK where robust Novel Food regulation is in place, but approached differently.
At present, a market comparison of the EU to the UK or North America seems bleak, at least for now, but following approval, future EU-wide distribution could be highly profitable. As we inch closer to a Novel Food listing, the European market may yet prove to be one of the largest markets for the safest CBD products in the world.
The American Market
Still, it is the American market that makes our mouth water; where oils, tinctures, candies, cakes, and drinks with every cannabinoid from CBD to Delta 9, Delta 8, and HHC are available and producers are on their way to becoming millionaires. With a market currently estimated at $6 billion, forecasts reach upwards of $16 billion by 2026.
And the health-related concerns, the testing requirements? Are these limited to the UK and the EU? Let’s take a closer look! A mood of caution is emerging in the American cannabis market, that includes producers and lawmakers alike, who are pushing for stricter laws and enforcement.
In America, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has alerted the public to CBD’s potential harmful side effects on their website and hope to force congress to deal with the issue.
Many of their concerns validate those of the FSA and the EFSA. For example: on their website the FDA makes a reference to only one CBD product that has been approved: a medicine called Epidiolex. The FDA cites the review of the Epidiolex’s application in 2018 when they identified certain safety risks, including potential for liver damage. The EFSA requires testing on the same issue.
This is Part One of a four-part series discussing European cannabis regulations. Part One serves as an introduction. Part Two, coming next week, will analyze the differences between the UK, the EU and the US. Stay tuned for more.
As I walk through any European cannabis expo – events like Cultiva Hanfexpo, Cannafest Prague or Spannabis – it is easy to be struck by the differences to those in the U.S. First, there are no THC products, nor are there any CBD food products such as drinks or confectionaries. This is because of the EU Novel Food regulations: “which applies to any food stuffs not commonly used for human consumption before 15 May, 1997.”
As a result, American CBD manufacturers – with virtually no regulation of cannabinoid infused products – have an enormous advantage. In the EU, any “novel food” must be tested and proven to be safe for human consumption.
Still, hemp was not always considered “novel.” In 1997, hemp plant products were considered outside the scope of the regulations EC 258/97.” And more specifically, “that hemp flowers … are considered to be food ingredients” (e. g. used for the production of beer-like beverages).Hence, not ‘novel.’
So, right until the end of 2018, nature more or less aligned with the legal establishment, and many products made it safely to market because extracts of cannabidiol (CBD) were considered ‘novel’ only if the levels of CBD were “higher than the CBD levels in the source of the plant itself: Cannabis sativa L.”
However, in January 2019, the catalogue entries for “Cannabis sativa L.” were updated, such that even a naturally occurring level of cannabinoids are now excluded. For the industry, this was a frustrating turn of events, affecting any and all food products to which CBD might be added – confectioneries such as gummies, brownies or cakes, but also includes oils and tinctures containing CBD extracts and other cannabinoids.
Technically, all products on the EU market containing natural CBD or an isolate or distillate are illegal. So, the industry has been playing a cat and mouse game, where consumer labels display vague information or simply state ‘not for human consumption’. The result is a well-developed gray market, that hinges on benign authorities in your jurisdiction.
Sometimes, a producer is able to convince authorities that their product is allowed under Article 4 submission, whereby the producer claims that any CBD content in the food is naturally occurring and a traditional food.
Article 4 is a provision of the Novel Food Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 that allows an operator to check with the national authority on the status of a particular food before bringing the product to market. In the framework of this EU regulation, the operator checks whether the food is traditional or novel. If the food is considered traditional, then the food can be placed on the market immediately. But, if it is novel, it requires a Novel Food authorization.
Good news emerged on June 2, 2023, where in the EU, it has been agreed that once again, hemp leaves are considered a traditional food and are no longer considered Novel. Hemp leaves and tea can be marketed in the EU without further hurdles, but this does not include extracts.
In the case of extracts, CBD isolate and distillate are Novel, not traditional, and a firm must provide toxicology reporting. Both EU and UK law provides that any product containing a CBD extract placed on the market falls under the Novel Food regulations. Ultimately, tests must verify with a high degree of certainty whether CBD is safe to ingest in any amount. And how much is safe before changes occur to internal organs such as the liver or reproductive systems. The FSA will verify results in the UK, while the EFSA is responsible for the EU.
In the EU, the EFSA will send their final recommendation to the EU commission for approval, where after a 27-member vote, the item will be added to the Novel Food Catalogue. Approval at the individual state level, is next to impossible to acquire, for example, Austrian law states: “Oils/extracts containing cannabinoids placed on the market as such or in foods are considered novel foods and must be authorized in the EU.” No such approval is currently available. Placing it on the market is therefore not permitted.
No ambiguity there!
Some EU countries, such as Greece for example, appear more lenient and others not, but it is retail that is first in line for fines if an investigative authority walks in the door. The situation is certainly nerve-wracking, and having suffered through several of these AGES investigations, I closed my store as a result. Others have had similar experiences. One large retail chain owner reported that he fears the check by the authorities, as each one leads to a fine of some sort, or the demand to remove products. Without notice, he says, the health authorities could decide on even harsher punishments such as larger fines or even removing his business license. Then what, he wonders?
Here’s a list of cannabis supply architecture models that say what private sellers can get licenses. Maybe others have been used. (Jurisdictions listed are just examples, not exhaustive.)
All comers (Oklahoma with $2,500 fee)
All comers with significant fees (Doesn’t some state do that?)
All comers at the state level with local license needed (Colorado, California)
First-come first-served (Los Angeles for retail; no state starts with this, but moratoria in Oklahoma and Oregon transmute “All comers” into FCFS when licensing stops)
Grandfather existing medical marijuana sellers (lots of states)
University of Virginia Law School Professor Kim Krawiec, who had me talk to her class at when she taught at Duke, asked me to help her teach a class on cannabis legalization this fall. I was delighted to sign up to in person in Charlottesville for four Fridays.
This short course will examine various cannabis legalization regimes, both domestically and internationally, with a focus on the market and financial aspects of legalization. Specifically, we will consider license allocation methods, taxation, racial equity, reparative justice for casualties of the war on drugs, and the continuing existence of illegal transactions after commercial legalization.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
WRITTEN WORK PRODUCT
Students will be required to upload a final paper to EXPO by noon on Nov 24th. 2500 words maximum. That’s about five single-spaced or ten double-spaced pages. You’ll be able to choose among a variety of topics on implementation and regulation of cannabis commerce
La FDA y la FTC advierten a seis compañías por vender ilegalmente imitaciones de productos alimenticios que contienen Delta-8 THCLa FDA y la FTC advierten a seis compañías por vender ilegalmente imitaciones de productos alimenticios que contienen Delta-8 THCAnonymous (not verified)Thu, 07/06/2023 – 10:08
Short Title
La FDA y la FTC advierten a las compañías por vender ilegalmente imita
FDA Statement
No
Press Release Date
July 05, 2023
Detailed Description
La FDA y la FTC emitieron cartas de advertencia a seis compañías por vender ilegalmente imitaciones de productos alimenticios que contienen Delta-8 THC en violación de la Ley Federal de Alimentos, Medicamentos y Cosméticos (FD&C Act, por sus siglas en inglés).
Short Description
La FDA y la FTC emitieron cartas de advertencia a seis compañías por vender ilegalmente imitaciones de productos alimenticios
Hoy, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos (FDA, por sus siglas en inglés) y la Comisión Federal de Comercio (FTC, por sus siglas en inglés) emitieron cartas de advertencia a seis compañías por vender ilegalmente imitaciones de productos alimenticios que contienen tetrahidrocannabinol Delta-8, también conocido como Delta-8 THC. Estos productos pueden confundirse fácilmente con alimentos tradicionales como papas fritas, galletas, dulces, gomitas u otros refrigerios. A la FDA le preocupa que los consumidores, incluidos los niños, puedan ingerir accidentalmente estos productos o que los tomen en dosis superiores a las previstas. Las cartas de advertencia se emitieron a: Delta Munchies, Dr. Smoke LLC (también conocida como Dr. S LLC), Exclusive Hemp Farms/Oshipt, Nikte’s Wholesale LLC, North Carolina Hemp Exchange LLC y The Haunted Vapor Room.
“Los niños son más vulnerables que los adultos a los efectos del THC, y muchos de ellos se han enfermo e incluso han sido hospitalizados después de comer “productos comestibles” que lo contienen. Es por eso que emitimos advertencias a varias compañías que venden imitaciones de productos alimenticios que contienen Delta-8 THC, que pueden confundirse fácilmente con alimentos populares que son atractivos para los niños y pueden hacer que un niño pequeño lo ingiera en dosis muy altas sin darse cuenta”, declaró la Comisionada Principal Adjunta de la FDA, Dra. Janet Woodcock, “Los productos contra los que advertimos imitan de manera intencional marcas conocidas de refrigerios al usar nombres de marcas, logotipos o imágenes similares en el envase, que los consumidores, especialmente los niños, pueden confundir con refrigerios tradicionales. También nos preocupa que los adultos puedan consumirlos de manera involuntaria o consumir una dosis más alta de la prevista y sufrir consecuencias graves. Este riesgo es especialmente peligroso para aquellas personas que conducen, trabajan o tienen otras responsabilidades. La FDA mantiene su compromiso de tomar medidas contra cualquier compañía que venda de manera ilegal productos regulados que puedan representar un riesgo para la salud pública”.
Delta-8 THC es una sustancia que se encuentra en la planta de Cannabis sativa, de la cual la marihuana y el cáñamo son dos variedades. Tiene efectos psicoactivos e intoxicantes que pueden ser peligrosos para los consumidores y no ha sido evaluado ni aprobado por la FDA para su uso seguro en ningún contexto, incluso cuando se agrega a los alimentos. La FDA ha recibido informes de efectos adversos graves experimentados por personas que han consumido estos productos, como alucinaciones, vómitos, temblores, ansiedad, mareos, confusión y pérdida del conocimiento. A la FDA también le preocupa que las compañías estén produciendo Delta-8 THC de maneras que podrían resultar en productos con contaminantes dañinos.
“La comercialización de productos comestibles con THC que los niños pueden confundir fácilmente con alimentos regulares es imprudente e ilegal”, declaró Samuel Levine, Director de la Oficina de Protección al Consumidor de la FTC. “Las compañías deben asegurarse de que sus productos se comercialicen de manera segura y responsable, especialmente cuando se trata de proteger el bienestar de los niños”.
En junio de 2022, la FDA advirtió a los consumidores sobre el consumo de productos alimenticios que contenían Delta-8 THC. Como se indicó en la advertencia, la agencia recibió más de 125 reportes sobre efectos adversos desde el 1 de enero de 2021 hasta el 31 de mayo de 2022, relacionados con niños y adultos que consumieron productos comestibles que contenían Delta-8 THC. Diez de los informes mencionan específicamente que el producto comestible es una imitación de los refrigerios populares.
Si un consumidor cree que un producto podría haber provocado una reacción o una enfermedad, debe dejar de usar el producto de inmediato y comunicarse con su proveedor de atención médica. La FDA también alienta a los proveedores de atención médica y a los consumidores a informar las reacciones adversas asociadas con los productos regulados por la FDA a la agencia mediante MedWatch o el Portal de informes de seguridad.
Estas cartas de advertencia describen violaciones de la Ley Federal de Alimentos, Medicamentos y Cosméticos relacionadas con la adición de Delta-8 THC a los alimentos convencionales. La FDA ha solicitado respuestas por escrito de las seis compañías que recibieron cartas de advertencia en un plazo de 15 días hábiles en las que se indica cómo abordarán estas violaciones y evitarán que vuelvan a ocurrir. Si no se abordan de inmediato las violaciones, se pueden iniciar acciones legales, incluidas incautaciones de productos y/o medidas cautelares.
La FDA, una dependencia del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Sociales de los Estados Unidos, protege la salud pública asegurando la protección, eficacia y seguridad de los medicamentos tanto veterinarios como para los seres humanos, las vacunas y otros productos biológicos destinados al uso en seres humanos, así como de los dispositivos médicos. La dependencia también es responsable de la protección y seguridad de nuestro suministro nacional de alimentos, los cosméticos, los suplementos dietéticos, los productos que emiten radiación electrónica, así como de la regulación de los productos de tabaco.
Quote Attribution
Announcement Type
FDA News Release
#CBD #Hemp http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/la-fda-y-la-ftc-advierten-seis-companias-por-vender-ilegalmente-imitaciones-de-productos July 6, 2023 2:08 pm
#CBD #Hemp http://www.fda.gov/consumers/health-fraud-scams/2022-warning-letters-health-fraud April 23, 2024 4:52 pm
