#cannabisinvesting – “No state is exactly the same, and some are radically different. Some states, like Florida, force vertical integration, and most allow companies to focus on being a producer or a retailer. Some states limit the types of cannabis that is available. Some states cap how many stores one company can own or how much cannabis it can grow. The end result is that the opportunities in each state can be very different.
Given how different the rules are in each state, it is imperative that investors understand the dynamics of the environment in which the companies they might invest operate.”
#californiacannabis – “”One of the challenges we face in regulating an industry that is not federally recognized, is the lack of standardized, and validated methods for testing,” said Nicole Elliott, director of the department, on Friday. “Individual, licensed laboratories use different methods which may produce inconsistent results and inaccurate data on cannabis cannabinoid content.”
The department’s rulemaking was prompted by passage of Senate Bill 544, which requires California to establish standardized test methods by Jan. 1.”
#californiacannabis – “Ultimately, the City Council voted 5-2 to direct staff to come back with resolutions to place two measures on the November general election ballot. The measures will ask voters if the city should allow and regulate retail and nonretail cannabis businesses and, if allowed, impose local excise taxes of up to 6% for cannabis retailers and up to 1% for nonretailers.”
#californiacannabis – “According to his plea agreement, in 2019, Ament served as president and CEO of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. During that time, Ament and a political consultant who was a partner at a national public relations firm, devised a scheme to divert proceeds intended for the Chamber through the PR firm and into Ament’s personal bank account.
Ament and the political consultant schemed to defraud a cannabis company that had retained the political consultant to lobby for favorable cannabis-related legislation in Anaheim. The cannabis company paid $225,000 to the Chamber with the understanding that it would have access to a task force that crafted such legislation, but at least $41,000 of that money was paid directly to Ament without those payments being disclosed to the client.”