Eric Rosen

Our Take on Iowa's Cannabis Beverage Regulations: The state of Iowa has set a benchmark at 4mg of THC per can for cannabis-infused drinks. While I personally believe there's room for more flexibility, the decision reflects the current political climate. If you're not satisfied with this policy, remember, you have the power to vote for change. On another note, our Hawk drinks have been flying off the shelves, thanks to our efficient manufacturing process. This got me thinking about pricing. What should customers expect to pay for these products? We're of the opinion that the market should strive for more affordable options to meet the needs of a broader consumer base. Let's keep pushing for a balance between quality, accessibility, and affordability in the cannabis industry.

29

5 Comments

Over the last two years, Minnesota’s THC market has transformed the way people socialize, particularly for those seeking an alternative to alcohol. With hemp-derived THC beverages becoming more widely available and mainstream, the state has earned its title as the "weed-drink capital" of the country. This shift toward cannabis beverages is not only reshaping social norms but also presenting a unique challenge as the cannabis market is poised for further evolution. #hemp #beverage #hempbeverages https://lnkd.in/gdhMJrFc

63

1 Comment

I also support Gillian Schauer, PhD, MPH and the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) on this one. Shouldn’t a researcher, such as Jane Appleyard Allen, and an institute, such as RTI International, support the collective perspective from all “external stakeholders” in-order for our regulators to build a better intellectual model of the future (arguably the present)? I won’t even bother to defend CANNRA by pointing out that Shanita Penny has been a long time and fervent supporter of the cannabis industry, and that her committee is completely capable of separating the interests of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation (CPEAR) from their corporate partners. I think these voices should be in the room when it comes to CANNRA’s External Stakeholder Conference for a number of reasons: 1) There are state-legal systems that permit distribution and sale of cannabis/hemp products through convenience stores and the same channels that alcohol and tobacco are sold. 2) The industry needs larger mainstream partners to amplify the voice of cannabis and accelerate legalization. We cannot continue on at the historic pace of reform. 3) Current regulations have been overly cumbersome, and we can count on these larger partners to fight for broader access and reduced taxation while upholding the need for product quality and consumer safety. 4) It was made very clear by the organizers, and it felt refreshingly upheld at the conference, that there was no influence from corporate sponsorship. 5) We’re all adults and can stand to have different voices in the room. Sorry, this post is probably longer than it needed to be, but this letter and resulting Marijuana Moment article was a bit triggering. Thanks, Amber E. Senter, for bringing it to my attention. What are your thoughts?

9

1 Comment

What are your thoughts? Is sleepy joy after your vote or big pharma money? I sat in a very interesting meeting this morning; it was all based around the rescheduling of cannabis; There is no denying the fact that we have a great distribution model in place for schedule III drugs; before all the high 5's and the dancing in the streets takes place, we might want to be cautious as to the positioning; with one clean swoop and making cannabis legal on a federal level, couldn't the cultivation and dispensing fall inline with all the other schedule III drugs; we already dispense #ketamine, #testosterone and low dose #codeine so why not #cannabis ? The pharmacy network is positioned perfectly; government could be giving you exactly what you've been screaming for; easy access to the plant, more distribution and a national footprint.. all while eliminating all the cultivators, dispensaries and state laws. It's illegal to make and or dispense schedule III drugs without the proper licenses and with the federal rescheduling the states technically would no longer have jurisdiction.. I think it's a long shot but scary to think that billions of dollars would be left unattended and or controlled by the elites that long for control in every aspect of our lives; Nothing make cannabis more special than any other schedule III drug; look what they just did to the growing peptide market.

18

5 Comments