California cannabis brands and retailers are implementing new initiatives for vape packaging and disposal in response to a state law that went into effect July 1.
New requirements under California Business and Professional Code 26152.1, include a ban on using the term “disposable” to describe marijuana vape products in advertising, labeling and marketing.
The rules also mandate that THC oil, vape pens, and batteries be disposed of at hazardous waste collection facilities or other approved businesses, according to media reports.
The burden of disposing of defective, returned or used vape products likely will now fall on retailers.
“The consumers themselves, however, have no real recycling solutions that are dedicated to cannabis products, specifically vaporization products,” said Jeremy Green, CEO and co-founder of Los Angeles-headquartered Final Bell Holdings, which provides supply-chain services for California and Canadian brands.
South Dakota voters will once again decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana. This is the third time they have weighed in on the question.
On Monday, Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office validated a measure for the November general election ballot. In 2020, voters passed a measure that was ultimately struck down in court, according to media reports. In 2022, voters defeated another attempt.
Twenty-four states have legalized recreational marijuana. Ohio voters most recently did so in November 2023. Florida voters will also vote on the issue this fall. Other efforts are ongoing in additional states, including North Dakota.
The South Dakota measure would legalize recreational marijuana for people 21 and older. The proposal has possession limits of 2 ounces of marijuana in a form other than concentrated cannabis or cannabis products. The measure also allows the cultivation of plants with restrictions.
If successful, measure backers plan to work with the Legislature to implement business licensing, tax, and other regulations.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration plans to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, which could have far-reaching implications for American drug policy.
The proposed measure, which is yet to be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, aims to acknowledge the medical benefits of using cannabis and recognize the fact that it is less prone to abuse in comparison to some of the most dangerous drugs in the country and reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug.
However, it does not seek to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.
Five people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive regulatory review confirmed the agency’s move to the AP on Tuesday. The move clears the last significant regulatory hurdle before the agency’s biggest policy change in more than 50 years can take effect.
According to the DEA, the following are examples of Schedule I drugs:
Heroin
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)
Cannabis
Methamphetamine
Methaqualone (Quaalude)
Peyote
According to the National Institute for Health, California became the first State to make it illegal to possess cannabis. In the 1930s, the then U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics warned of the increasing abuse of cannabis, and by 1937, 23 States had criminalized possession.
By 1970, the Controlled Substances Act passed, and the Federal government categorized marijuana as a Schedule I substance.
The planned DEA rule change followed an August 2023 recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that DEA reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Any change to the status of marijuana via the DEA rulemaking process would not take effect immediately.
State Attorneys General (AG) have a history of getting it wrong with respect to hemp and hemp products. Earlier this week, attorney Amber Lengacher with the Kight Law firm wrote an article about the Arizona AG’s position statement on delta-8 THC.
Previously, I, attorney Rod Kight wrote in his blog, engaged in good faith with the South Carolina AG, only to have him issue a convoluted and illogical legal opinion that delta-8 THC was illegal. This week, a group of 20 state AGs signed a letter to Congress “to address the glaring vagueness created in the 2018 Farm Bill that has led to the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products across the nation and challenges to the ability for states and localities to respond to the resulting health and safety crisis.”
Aside from failing to provide any evidence of a “health and safety crisis”, the letter also fails by not understanding the hemp market, not offering any concrete proposals, undermining small businesses, and ultimately attempting to interfere with the right of adults to make choices of what legal products they decide to consume without government interference.
First, the state AGs fail to understand that protecting hemp farmers means protecting their end markets. Although hemp fiber and seeds are promising markets, they have not taken hold in a way that incentivizes widespread adoption of hemp as a cash crop. Instead, the current end markets for hemp primarily take the form of consumer products, some of which are intoxicating. As many readers are aware, a Whitney Economics report from October 2023 states:
“Currently, the total demand for hemp-derived cannabinoids is valued in excess of $28 billion and supports the employment of 328,000 workers, who earn $13 billion in wages. Overall, the total economic impact of the hemp-derived cannabinoid industry on the U.S. economy is in excess of $79 billion. While they may seem large, these estimates are actually conservative because they do not account for demand and employment from gas stations, grocery stores, and convenience stores.“
In other words, protecting hemp farmers means protecting these hemp cannabinoid products.
Additionally, attempting to regulate hemp products based on their capacity to produce intoxication is the wrong approach. It’s a classic “Fool’s Errand” that I have written about before. To begin, it is impossible to define “intoxication”, in a way that is workable from a legal or regulatory standpoint. Attempting to eliminate or control intoxication by redefining “hemp”, prohibiting an entire class of hemp products, and/or via capping the allowed milligrams of THC and other compounds that are allowed in a product or package is totally unnecessary. This approach amounts to a “Nanny State” method of addressing an issue that should instead be based on an adult’s personal preference.
As I’ve discussed before, rather than regulating hemp and its products based on “intoxication”, the proper approach should be focused on:
(a) restricting access by minors (ie, age gating),
(b) requiring quality control for production and manufacturing of hemp and hemp products (ie, requiring manufacturers to comply with cGMP and other objective quality standards), and
(c) requiring proper and informative labeling/marketing (ie, ensuring that the consumer is adequately informed about the product).
This three-pronged approach allows adults to make an informed decision about the products they choose to purchase and consume while limiting access to minors and sidestepping the impossible task of defining and regulating products based on their potential to cause intoxication. To use an alcohol comparison, an adult can purchase a low-alcohol “session” beer, a nice bottle of wine, or a large “handle” of hard liquor.
The choice of “potency” is left up to the adult consumer, who can rest assured that the products are properly manufactured and that the label will provide sufficient information about the alcohol content to help her make an informed decision about what to purchase and how much to consume. Of course, alcohol causes both intoxication and a host of health and social problems. The fact that it is lawful and widely available across many retail distribution platforms, including convenience stores, while hemp products are being decried as a public health crisis is, frankly, insane.
Finally, I’d like to comment on that last point, namely, the sale of hemp products in convenience stores, another topic I have previously discussed but is worth revisiting. I frequently hear the claim that “hemp products are sold in convenience stores” used as an argument about how bad and unregulated the hemp industry is. This is a red herring. Of all the possible distribution outlets for hemp products, convenience stores are among the best.
Think about it. For decades, convenience stores have been selling highly regulated products such as alcohol and tobacco that are subject to strict age-gating. To be clear, I favor all properly-regulated distribution channels and platforms for hemp products, from e-commerce sites to boutique hemp wellness centers to convenience stores.
However, to claim that the hemp industry is somehow bad and unregulated because its products are sold at convenience stores, which are highly regulated and frequently subject to agency audits, licenses, high fines, and even criminal action if certain products are sold to minors, is ridiculous. The “convenience store” argument against hemp should die because it is totally unfounded.
There is a war raging against hemp, but it goes much deeper than that. At stake is the future of cannabis reform in the US, the ability for small businesses to thrive in an emerging market, and the right for adults to make their own determination about what they choose to ingest.
Provided that regulations are in place that address age-gating, quality control, and proper labeling, it is difficult to imagine why we need to concern ourselves with “intoxication” or any of the overreaching regulations and blood-sucking tax regimes that are currently strangling the marijuana industry. As the DEA seems to be balking at even a modest rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule 3, hemp stands as the new path forward for broad cannabis reform.
Based in Asheville, NC, Rod Kight is a renowned attorney in the cannabis industry.
This article is not intended to be legal advice and should not be used as such. The matters discussed are novel and involve complicated and unsettled legal issues. Before making any decisions regarding THCA, you should first consult with an experienced attorney.
Attorney General William Tong today filed seven new enforcement actions against wholesalers and retailers engaging in the distribution and sale of potent, illicit cannabis products in Connecticut.
Wholesalers include Shark Wholesale Corp. in Bridgeport, Star Enterprise 74, LLC, in New Britain, and RZ Smoke, Inc., in Suffield. The four retailers are Greenleaf Farms in New London, Smoker’s Corner in Norwich, Anesthesia Convenience & Smoke in New Haven, and Planet Zaza in East Haven.
In each instance, the Office of the Attorney General is alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, which carries fines of up to $5,000 per violation, according to press release.
“Cannabis is legal for adults in Connecticut, but it’s not a free-for-all—retailers must be licensed and legal cannabis products must comply with strict safety standards. Today, we are suing seven businesses—three wholesalers and four retailers– who have sold potent, high-THC cannabis products in violation of Connecticut laws,” said Tong. “None of these products have been subject to Connecticut’s rigorous testing standards or contain appropriate warnings.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong
“Some are sold in dangerous and misleading packaging designed to appeal to children. These products are designed to deceive consumers into believing they are safe, tested, and regulated—that is false. We have multiple active investigations into additional retailers and wholesalers, and we will keep the heat on so long as these dangerous, illegal products are sold.”
Residents over age 21 can legally possess and consume cannabis in Connecticut. Cannabis products may only be sold in the regulated market and must meet rigorous testing and packaging requirements. Cannabis products sold outside of the regulated market continue to be illegal and may subject sellers to civil and criminal penalties.
Despite that, the sale of illegal delta-8 and delta-9 cannabis products and other high-THC cannabis products continues in Connecticut, according to Tong.
In unannounced visits to vape shops and gas stations, investigators from the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Consumer Protection continue to routinely find illegal cannabis products for sale, including blunts, marijuana flower, and edibles mimicking popular youth-oriented snack foods, including Fritos, Skittles, Airheads, and more.
Illegal look-alike cannabis products pose a unique health threat to children, who may unknowingly ingest high doses of potent psychoactive chemicals. In the regulated adult-use market, edible cannabis products may only be sold in containers that contain a maximum of 100 milligrams of total THC and 5 milligrams of total THC per serving size. Children who accidentally eat an entire snack-sized bag of “chips” or “candy” may be exposed to more than 100 times the maximum adult serving.
Since 2021, the Connecticut Poison Control Center has received 400 calls regarding cannabis exposure in children, including 181 children under the age of 6 exposed to cannabis edibles. The majority of those cases required treatment at a health care facility.
Greenleaf Farms New London
Greenleaf Farms is a CBD retailer in New London with no license to sell cannabis products in Connecticut. Despite that, investigators from both the Department of Consumer Protection and Office of the Attorney General on multiple visits discovered numerous illegal high-THC products for sale, including potent edibles designed to look like children’s cereal. Greenleaf Farms also offered for sale marijuana “blunts,” which were offered in various THC concentrations.
The products lacked a variety of required warning statements and labels, and do not appear to be produced by licensed facilities or tested in accordance with state law.
Further, Greenleaf Farms represented itself as a licensed dispensary in the sign shared below despite lacking such a license.
Smoker’s Corner
Smoker’s Corner is a smoke shop in Norwich with no license to sell cannabis products in Connecticut. During multiple visits, an investigator from the Office of the Attorney General observed illegal high-THC edibles for sale. Further, after the investigator asked if there was any “pot” available for purchase, a Smoker’s Corner employee retrieved a mason jar full of marijuana flower from a back room. The employee then weighed the marijuana on a scale, bagged it, and sold it to the Office of the Attorney General’s investigator. The cannabis products lacked required warnings and labels, did not appear to be produced by licensed facilities or tested in accordance with state law, according to Tong.
Anesthesia Convenience & Smoke
Anesthesia Convenience & Smoke is a smoke shop in New Haven that is not licensed to sell cannabis in Connecticut. On multiple unannounced visits, investigators from the Department of Consumer Protection and Office of the Attorney General observed thousands of high-THC products, including those more potent than any product available in the regulated cannabis market. Products included potent edibles, as well as marijuana flower. The cannabis products lacked required warnings and labels, did not appear to be produced by licensed facilities or tested in accordance with state law, according to Tong.
Planet Zaza
Planet Zaza is a smoke shop located in East Haven with no license to sell cannabis in Connecticut. Investigators with the Department of Consumer Protection and Office of the Attorney General inspected the store on multiple dates, finding numerous high-THC cannabis edibles for sale more potent than any authorized for sale in Connecticut.
Further, investigators discovered unauthorized labels, including fake prescription labels falsely indicating that the store is a licensed dispensary and that the illegal products were medical-use cannabis. The products did not appear to be produced in a licensed facility or tested in accordance with state law, according to Tong.
Wholesalers: RZ Smoke, Star Enterprise, and Shark Wholesale
Star Enterprise is a New Britain-based smoke and vape wholesale business. Shark Wholesale is based in Bridgeport. RZ Smoke is a New York-based smoke and vape wholesale business with a warehouse in Suffield. These wholesalers each supply illicit cannabis products to retailers throughout Connecticut. All three provide products packaged in a manner that deceives consumers into reasonably believing they are purchasing cannabis products from Connecticut’s legal, regulated market. In fact, each wholesaler offered highly potent products far in excess of allowable serving sizes and THC levels.
Star’s products contained THC levels 35-times the maximum permissible in Connecticut’s regulated cannabis market, as well as serving sizes at least five times the maximum allowed. Further, the packages were labeled in such a way as to appeal to youth, including brand names and packaging identical or similar to non-cannabis snacks. Shark’s products contained THC levels 15-times the maximum limit, and serving sizes six times the maximum legal serving size. RZ Smoke’s products contained THC levels 10-times the maximum allowed, with serving sizes five times over the legal limit. Their products were also designed to mimic existing names and packaging of non-cannabis snacks, according to Tong.
Ongoing Cannabis Enforcement Actions
“Today’s filings follow a series of enforcement and educational actions taken by Attorney General Tong to combat the sale of illegal cannabis in Connecticut, including high-THC delta-8 and delta-9 edibles. Last year, Attorney General Tong sent warning letters to all Connecticut licensed retailers of electronic vaping products advising them that sale of delta-8 THC by unlicensed retailers may be illegal,” the release states.
The Office of the Attorney General now has 10 pending enforcement actions, and has secured judgments against four additional Connecticut retailers totaling $40,000 for alleged violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act over the sale of illegal delta-8 THC products.
A portion of the payments will be suspended if the retailers comply with terms of the judgment, including ceasing all sales of illegal cannabis. Additional investigations are active and ongoing. Last week, Tong issued a cease and desist letter to HighBazaar organizers that its unlicensed cannabis marketplace appears to violate multiple state statutes. An additional letter was sent to the Masonic Temple Day Spring Lodge in Hamden, which currently hosts the market, according to Tong.
Control of the U.S. cannabinoid market will be fueled by lobbying and lawsuits in 2024.
By Rod Kight
During the past six months, I have repeatedly been asked to predict what will happen with the U.S. Farm Bill. This is because the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, better known as the “2018 Farm Bill,” expired at the end of September. “Will it change?” “Will hemp be outlawed?” “Will I still be able to sell [insert THCa, delta-8 THC, D9 gummies, etc.]?” “What can we do to ensure that hemp remains legal?” Although I routinely discuss this with lobbyists and associations, the fact is that no one knows what will happen with the next Farm Bill.
Fortunately, that issue will not be decided for almost another year, which is plenty of time for the rapidly expanding hemp industry to grow even bigger.
(a) Extension.—Except as otherwise provided in this section and the amendments made by this section, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authorities (including any limitations on the authorities) provided by each provision of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–334; 132 Stat. 4490) and each provision of law amended by that act (and for mandatory programs at such funding levels), as in effect on Sept. 30, 2023, shall continue, and the authorities shall be carried out, until the later of—(1) Sept. 30, 2024; or (2) the date specified in the provision of that act or the provision of law amended by that act.
President Biden is expected to sign the act.
This means that we will not likely have a new Farm Bill until the fall of 2024. Given that the 2018 Farm Bill is the basis for the hemp cannabinoid market, which Whitney Economics recently reported has a demand of $28.4 billion (more than the marijuana industry and on par with the craft beer industry), maintaining status quo for another year is a good thing for the industry.
Rod Kight
In addition to an additional window of time to continue its progress of bringing cannabis to people in the U.S., the extension will allow hemp companies to expand their sales and operations internationally. This is because hemp can cross borders, and many current hemp products meet the emerging standards set by countries who are creating cannabis programs.
This does not mean that the hemp industry will take a break from politics. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. There is a growing dispute, known as the “Cannabis Civil War,” between the hemp and marijuana industries. At stake is control over the rapidly expanding and lucrative market in cannabinoids and cannabis products. I use the term “cannabis” in this context as a generic botanical term to encompass both federally legal hemp and federally illegal marijuana. In addition to intensive lobbying efforts by both sides of the cannabis industry, there have been a number of important decisions in recent lawsuits.
For this reason, I will spend the rest of this article discussing important rulings in four recent lawsuits filed by hemp companies and hemp organizations against various states regarding laws and rules that they contend violate state and/or federal law. My firm has worked with the hemp plaintiffs in some of these lawsuits.
Additionally, I will discuss the landmark ruling in a trademark dispute between two private parties that addressed the legal status of delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (D8 THC) and a decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding D8 THC in the context of a criminal seizure. These cases appear to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg in the Cannabis Civil War, and I anticipate several more to follow.
BioGen v. State of Arkansas. In this case, several Arkansas hemp companies filed a lawsuit against the state, seeking an injunction prohibiting enforcement of Senate Bill 358, enacted on April 11, 2023, as “Act 629” (the Act). This bill criminalized all hemp products “produced as a result of a synthetic chemical process” and “[a]ny other psychoactive substance derived therein.”
The hemp companies argued that the Act is preempted (i.e., superseded) by the federal 2018 Farm Bill and that its provisions are unconstitutionally vague and thus void. The U.S. District Court agreed and entered an injunction barring enforcement of the Act. In its ruling, the court made three important findings: (1) the Act is preempted by federal law under the principle of “conflict preemption,” (2) the Act is preempted by federal law under the principle of “express preemption,” and (3) the Act is unconstitutionally vague and thus void.
Maryland Hemp Coalition Inc. v. Moore. The Maryland hemp industry sought an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of Maryland Code Ann. Alc. Bev. §36-1102, known as the Cannabis Reform Act (CRA), “against any person who was already lawfully in the business of selling hemp-derived products prior to July 1, 2023.”
In an expansive ruling in favor of the Maryland hemp industry, the Washington County Circuit Court found that “the interests of [the hemp industry] plaintiffs are not ‘merely academic, hypothetical or colorable,’ but rather, they are interests of survival, prosperity and, indeed, of life, liberty and property.”
In its ruling, the court addressed the issue of “whether the strict and exclusive licensing scheme under the CRA and as applied to the hemp industry is a valid exercise of legislative prerogative.” In finding it is not a valid exercise, and thus prohibiting enforcement of the CRA against the state’s hemp industry, the court ruled that the CRA “creates a monopoly that unfairly excludes many from their right to continue, or enter, a profession of their choosing, all to the detriment of the public.”
The Washington County Circuit Court went on to state that “[b]ased on the evidence and argument offered thus far, the court cannot find a rational basis to support the exclusive and exclusionary licensing scheme that has put plaintiffs out of their legitimate businesses.”
In short, the court found that the CRA creates an illegal monopoly, it unlawfully puts legitimate hemp companies out of business, and it is a “severe” and “Draconian” licensing scheme that fails to “actually benefit the communities found to have been impacted.” It also noted that the plaintiffs were not challenging the health and safety portions of the CRA.
Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture LLC v. the Commonwealth of Virginia. Several Virginia hemp companies sought an injunction prohibiting enforcement of SB 903, which state lawmakers enacted “in response to the growing concerns regarding delta-8 and other adulterated hemp products on the market.” The restrictions placed on hemp products by SB 903 are dramatic enough to destroy most of the state’s hemp industry.
The hemp company plaintiffs argued that SB 903 was preempted by federal law, namely the 2018 Farm Bill. The hemp companies made two preemption arguments. The first was based on federal and state definitions of hemp, and the second was related to the ability of Virginia hemp processors to ship or transport hemp through the commonwealth. The U.S. District Court found that these arguments failed, and the court denied the request for an injunction. Consequently, SB 903 is currently in effect.
The Travis County District Court ordered the DSHS to “remove from its currently published Schedule of Controlled Substances the most recent modifications of the definitions to the following terms: ‘*(31) tetrahydrocannabinols’ and ‘*(58) marihuana extract’ and any subsequent publications of the same (if any) until further order of this court.”The court further “enjoin[ed] the effectiveness going forward of the rule stated on DSHS’s website that delta-8 THC in any concentration is considered a Schedule I controlled substance.” Consequently, D8 THC is not a controlled substance in Texas.
AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro LLC.Unlike the cases summarized above, this case did not arise from a lawsuit filed by hemp companies. Rather, it arose in the context of an intellectual property dispute between the two private parties. The plaintiff, AK Futures (AK), makes vaping products. It sued Boyd Street Distro (Boyd) for infringing on its trademark and copyright rights by selling a fake version of its “Cake”-branded vaping products that contain D8 THC.
In an unusual defense, Boyd argued that AK’s case should be dismissed because its trademark rights were unenforceable based on its position that D8 THC is illegal under federal law. In ruling for AK, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the injunction issued by the lower court, ruling the 2018 Farm Bill legalized the D8 THC products. Specifically, the 9th Circuit held that D8 THC is not a controlled substance under the plain and unambiguous text of the 2018 Farm Bill and that it fits within the legal definition of “hemp.”
The court also found that the method of manufacture is irrelevant. Since most D8 THC is produced through an isomerization of cannabidiol rather than an extraction from the plant, this portion of the ruling is particularly notable.
Elements Distribution v. State of Georgia. This case arose out of a criminal seizure in which the plaintiff, Elements Distribution LLC (Elements), sought the return of business records, money and products from law enforcement. In February 2022, Gwinnett County, Georgia, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant upon a warehouse owned by Elements and seized business records, currency and edible and nonedible products containing D8 THC and D10 THC.
The warrant was issued based on the affidavit of a law enforcement officer that Elements had violated OCGA §16-13-30(b), which prohibits the possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute by possessing and selling products containing D8 THC and D10 THC. In ruling that Elements was entitled to a return of the seized items, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the warrant authorizing the seizure was not supported by probable cause.
The state argued that even though D8 THC and D10 THC are not themselves controlled substances, edible products containing them are controlled substances unless those products also meet the definition of “hemp products” under OCGA §2-23-3 of the Georgia Hemp Farming Act. The court found the state’s argument to have “no merit” and ordered the state to return the items it seized from Elements.
As the cases above demonstrate, there is a growing body of case law regarding the legal status of hemp and hemp products, particularly D8 THC. Of note is an emerging trend by hemp companies to sue state agencies regarding laws and regulations that severely restrict distribution of the products they sell.
The 2018 Farm Bill, which is the foundational federal law regarding the legal status of hemp, has just been extended to Sept. 30, 2024. Meanwhile, the Whitney Economics report discussed at the beginning of this article found that total demand for hemp-derived cannabinoid products exceeds that of the marijuana industry and is on par with the craft beer industry.
The latter report and extension of the 2018 Farm Bill means we can expect to see the Cannabis Civil War—and lawsuits regarding hemp products—continue in 2024.
Based in Asheville, North Carolina, USA, Rod Kight is a world-renowned attorney in the cannabis industry.
Martha Stewart CBD has launched a line of need-based CBD gummies.
The new line was developed in response to consumer demand for targeted solutions that address their most common needs: sleep, stress, and the discomfort of aches and soreness, according to press release.
Each product is formulated with higher levels of CBD and powerful co-active ingredients selected for their known efficacy.
“I’m often asked how I maintain my energy with such a busy schedule, and for me it’s essential to start each day well-rested, unbothered, and pain-free,” said Stewart, a chef, television personality and entrepreneur. . “I discovered CBD several years ago as a simple, effective, and natural solution to help address the discomforts of everyday life. Having benefited greatly from it myself, I set out to create a delicious and premium line of gummies that taste as good as they make you feel.”
In partnership with Marquee Brands and Canopy Growth Corporation, Stewart’s new solution-oriented formulations combine “her signature elevated flavor profiles with Canopy Growth’s unique consumer insights” and industry innovation. The new offerings include:
Sleep CBD Gummies: A berry medley with notes of Montmorency cherry, elderberry, and boysenberry;
Chill CBD Gummies: A citrus-forward concoction of tangerine, yuzu, and pomelo;
Extra Strength CBD Gummies: An orchard-inspired blend of pluot, apricot, and California red peaches.
“As consumers focus on finding the ways to feel their best, CBD use continues to grow, fueled by categories like gummies that have become an integral part of wellness routines,” said Tara Rozalowsky, chief growth officer and president for Canopy Growth, according to a press release. “Martha Stewart is a trusted household name because people of all ages turn to her for candid advice and simple, sensible solutions to everyday problems. The new Martha Stewart CBD needs-based gummies deliver just that – accessible, reliable relief when and where you need it most.”
The Blinc Group, a cannabis vaporizer industry innovator, announced that Pete Sahani, who has been serving as the company’s COO since 2022, has been named CEO. Sahani is replacing vaping industry legend Arnaud Dumas de Rauly, co-founder and current CEO.
Dumas de Rauly will be stepping down from that role to embark on a new strategic direction within the company as chief experience and science officer (CXSO) and will retain his position on the Blic Group board. This transition will become effective as of Dec. 1, 2023.
Dumas de Rauly has been at the helm of The Blinc Group since 2018, guiding the company through substantial growth phases and establishing it as a key player in the cannabis vaping space, according to a press release.
Pete Sahani
“Arnaud has been a visionary leader, under whose guidance Blinc has established itself as a major player in the cannabis vaping space, and has always done so while keeping a strong focus on consumer safety,” said co-founder and chief innovations officer Sasha Aksenov. “His strategic foresight has been invaluable, and we are certain that he will continue to play a pivotal role in Blinc’s future.”
As CXSO, Dumas de Rauly will drive Blinc’s growth through strategic partnerships and innovation. He will focus on integrating analytical science and consumer safety with superior customer experiences, ensuring Blinc paves the way in both technology and user satisfaction.
Sahani brings a wealth of experience to his new role as CEO, having been instrumental in a number of key initiatives at Blinc since joining the company as COO in April 2022.
“Pete has been a pivotal figure in our leadership team, playing a significant role in not only steering us to positive EBITDA and Net Income but also in the introduction of innovative services like Scale Now Pay Later (SNPL) and Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI),” commented Arnaud Dumas de Rauly. “With his exceptional skill in operational management and strategic planning, I am confident that Pete is the ideal leader to propel Blinc into a future marked by sustained profitability and expanded service offerings.”
Pete Sahani expressed his enthusiasm about the new role, “It’s an honor to step into the CEO role at The Blinc Group. I am excited to build upon the strong foundation laid by Arnaud and our team by leading the company towards new heights of innovation and market leadership.”
The leadership transition is part of The Blinc Group’s ongoing strategy to adapt and thrive in the dynamic cannabis industry. The company remains committed to its mission of delivering high-quality, innovative vaporizer solutions and complimentary services while expanding its global footprint.
Ohio is the 24th U.S. state to allow adult marijuana use for non-medical purposes. Voters in the state approved a measure legalizing recreational marijuana on Tuesday, defying Republican legislative leaders who had failed to pass the proposed law.
“Marijuana is no longer a controversial issue,” said Tom Haren, spokesman for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. “Ohioans demonstrated this by passing State Issue 2 in a landslide. Ohioans are being extremely clear on the future they want for our state: adult-use marijuana legal and regulated.”
The new law will allow adults 21 and over to buy and possess up to 2.5 ounces of cannabis and to grow plants at home. A 10 percent tax will be imposed on purchases, to be spent on administrative costs, addiction treatment, municipalities with dispensaries and social equity and jobs programs supporting the industry itself.
The election’s outcome represents a blow to GOP lawmakers, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and business and manufacturing organizations concerned about its impact on workplace and traffic safety, according to the AP.
But as a citizen-initiated statute, the law is subject to change. Republicans who remain opposed to it in the Legislature are free to make tweaks to the law — or even repeal it, though the political stakes are higher now that the voters have approved it.
LeafLink, a large wholesale cannabis marketplace, commended Ohio residents on approving Issue 2 and urged lawmakers to promptly enact the law as passed.
“This vote presents a tremendous opportunity for the state where legal adult-use sales are projected to exceed $1 billion annually,” Policy Director Rodney Holcombe said in a statement. “This move puts Ohio in league with 23 other states that have taken this significant stride forward. We have witnessed firsthand the positive impact of legalized cannabis, including job creation, tax revenue for vital government services and unique business opportunities for entrepreneurs.”
Organigram Holdings Inc. has extended its relationship with British American Tobacco. The move boosts the Canadian cannabis producer’s financial strength and positioning it to expand globally.
Organigram said in a statement that BAT is investing a further $90.5 million in the business, building on an initial $160 million injection back in 2021.
Organigram said the investment will allow it to extend its footprint beyond Canada, and also strengthen its financial position for long-term, sustainable growth, according to media reports.
“This investment bolsters an already strong balance sheet and solidifies our position as a leading cannabis company,” said Beena Goldenberg, chief executive of Organigram.
The firm said the deal enables it to invest in growing the topline of its core business, while optimizing operations to deliver on cost-saving efficiencies, thus accelerating earnings growth.
Organigram will use the majority of the investment to create a strategic investment pool, named Jupiter.
Jupiter will target investments in emerging cannabis opportunities that will enable Organigram to apply its industry-leading capabilities to new markets, it said.
