Navigating the Perils: Running an Illegal Marijuana Delivery Service

In the ever-evolving landscape of cannabis legalization in the United States, the state of California, and particularly Los Angeles, stands as a unique case study. While the Golden State has led the charge in embracing recreational marijuana, there remains a thriving underground market for illegal cannabis sales. In this blog post, we delve into the difficulties faced by operators of illegal marijuana delivery services like “Wee-Delivery.com” in Los Angeles. From banking challenges to advertising hurdles, this illicit industry faces a complex web of issues.

The Wee-Delivery.com Dilemma

Wee-Delivery.com is one of many illegal marijuana delivery services operating in Los Angeles, offering a variety of products, including MOOON nicotine Vape Carts, premium pesticide-free flower, concentrates, and prerolls. Despite their popularity, these operators face a myriad of challenges that come with operating outside the bounds of state and federal regulations.

Banking Challenges

One of the most significant challenges for illegal marijuana delivery services is navigating the treacherous waters of banking. In California, where recreational cannabis is legal, legitimate dispensaries and businesses have the option to access traditional banking services. However, the same cannot be said for illegal operators.

Cash-Only Operations: Wee-Delivery.com, like many others, operates as a cash-only business. This reliance on physical currency poses numerous security risks, making these operations vulnerable to theft and putting employees in dangerous situations.

Lack of Financial Services: Traditional banks, bound by federal laws, refuse to provide financial services to illegal marijuana operations. This means that operators are unable to secure business loans, open merchant accounts, or even accept credit card payments, further limiting their growth and legitimacy.

Money Laundering Concerns: Operating an illegal cannabis delivery service also raises red flags for money laundering, potentially drawing the attention of law enforcement agencies. This constant threat hangs over the heads of operators like a sword of Damocles.

Advertising Challenges

The advertising landscape for illegal marijuana delivery services is a treacherous one. While legitimate cannabis businesses can leverage various marketing strategies, their illegal counterparts must stay in the shadows.

Limited Online Presence: Building an online presence is essential for any business in the digital age. However, illegal operators like Wee-Delivery.com must operate with extreme caution online to avoid detection. This often means forgoing legitimate websites and social media profiles.

Social Media Bans: Major social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have strict policies against promoting illegal activities, including the sale of marijuana. This limits the ability of illegal delivery services to reach their target audience and build a following.

Risk of Exposure: Any advertising efforts carry a significant risk of exposure. Law enforcement agencies and competitors are constantly on the lookout for illegal operations, and a single slip-up in advertising can lead to a swift crackdown.

Service Area Challenges

Despite the challenges, illegal marijuana delivery services like Wee-Delivery.com have managed to carve out a niche in Los Angeles. Their service areas, however, remain limited due to the constant threat of legal consequences.

Operating in the Shadows: To avoid detection, illegal operators must constantly shift their service areas. This prevents them from establishing a stable customer base and hinders their ability to provide consistent service.

Competition and Turf Wars: The underground cannabis market in Los Angeles is fiercely competitive. Operators often find themselves in turf wars with rival services, which can lead to dangerous confrontations and disruptions in business.

Customer Trust: Building trust in an illegal market can be challenging. Customers may be wary of the quality and safety of products, leading to a constant struggle to prove the reliability and quality of the offerings like MOOON nicotine Vape Carts, premium pesticide-free flower, concentrates, and prerolls.

Conclusion

Operating an illegal marijuana delivery service like Wee-Delivery.com in Los Angeles is fraught with challenges, from banking woes to advertising restrictions and the constant threat of legal consequences. However, the allure of profit and the ongoing demand for cannabis products continue to drive these underground businesses. As the cannabis landscape evolves, it remains to be seen whether operators like Wee-Delivery.com will choose to embrace legality or continue navigating the risky path of the illicit market.

Are Social Equity Cannabis Rules a Corporate Strategy to Monopolize the Marijuana Industry?

Are Social Equity Cannabis Rules a Corporate Strategy to Monopolize the Marijuana Industry?

[ad_1]

social equity false hopes

Why Social Equity Cannabis Legalization is a Corporate Strategy to Monopolize the Cannabis Market

 

I am always very weary when it comes to “Social Equity” and policies like “Affirmative Action”. Not because I don’t believe that we need to create systems that empower the individual to rise above their current situations – but because for the most part the “social equity” card has been utilized by corporations to dodge responsibility while “seeming” to be working for a greater good.

 

For example, the “Climate Change” argument detracts from the real culprits that are destroying our earth; MONSTER CORPORATION AND GLOBAL ARMIES.

 

That’s right, most of the pollution that massively affect the planet comes from the very corporations pushing green agendas. They fly in their private jets to far off lands to talk about how they can “save the world”.

 

That level of sadistic psychopathy can only be mastered by the ruling elite and what’s worse is that they believe that everybody will simply “go along with it”.

 

The scary thing is that at the very least there is some portion of the population who do blindly go along with these policies.

 

However, today we’re not here to talk about the flaws of Climate Change, but rather, we’re taking a closer look at another “hype term” – Social Equity.

 

Dafuq is Social Equity?

 

You may have heard the term “Social Equity” thrown around with cannabis legalization bills, workplace policy and so forth. So for the sake to end all doubts, let’s take a closer look at the definition of “Social Equity”.

 

According to Knowledge Bank,

 

Social Equity, at its simplest, can be understood as impartiality, fairness, and justice for all people.1 This means taking into account systemic inequalities to ensure that that everyone has access to the same opportunities and outcomes.

 

In other words, it’s a retroactive system that attempts to “level the playing field” in a number of ways whether through affirmative action, and creating “special rules” for the marginalized or restricting other people from engaging with a particular activity.

 

Now, before some of you go ballistic and break down the concept of “Social Equity”, it isn’t necessarily coming from a “bad place”.

 

After all, in an ethical and open society, we would want to ensure that everybody in a legal sense is treated equally.

 

THE PROBLEM with social equity comes in relation to one of its core motivations – that everyone has access to the same opportunities and outcomes.

 

While in an ideal world, this would be a nice scenario. Everyone has access to the same opportunities and outcomes. The problem is that no outcome, even if you get all the help from the government, is guaranteed.

 

In relation to “opportunities”, by definition every individual has their own advantages and disadvantages. For example, if Candidate A, B and C all work in the exact same position at their job but Candidate A is a single person in good health, Candidate B is a single mother barely making it each week, and Candidate C is a person with a physical disability – they all might have the same opportunities, but their outcomes will differ significantly.

 

This is because you can’t engineer the outcome. You can only provide the opportunity.

 

This is the core issue with social equity – trying to engineer an artificial outcome. And this is exactly why the whole social equity experiment in cannabis isn’t working out.

 

What’s more, it seems that the only real people benefiting from these “social equity licenses” are monster corporations who are supposed to not have access to these licenses.

 

What’s happening in Arizona?

 

In Arizona, they have such a scheme where people with prior marijuana convictions can get access to Equity licenses. Essentially, this is the state’s attempt to undo the damage of the drug war. While this is a nice gesture, the biggest problem for people who have a state or federal marijuana record is that – they typically don’t have any funds.

 

Since starting up a successful cannabis venture requires a lot of money. And so, big firms are searching for people who can essentially “partner” with them for access to the equity licenses, and in turn, everybody wins!

 

Well – at first!

 

Then, after a while, the firm can buy out the license and keep it under the name holder, add it to their portfolio, and essentially muscle out the affected communities!

 

And why wouldn’t you do that. The state has this entire scheme of licenses that can’t really be touched by the affected community due to their lack of financing. Even if they got financing as well, it’s very different to run a successful cannabis business than selling weed out of the trunk of your car.

 

Having a marijuana conviction doesn’t immediately make you an expert in selling marijuana in a legal environment. In fact, one would argue that having a marijuana conviction indicates that you were impoverished enough that risking your freedom for the promise of money was “worth it”.

 

These aren’t the type of people who necessarily can run a dispensary, check payroll, pay the lights, taxes, etc.

 

Therefore, it makes sense that corporations want to jump in, float the hefty bill of running the place, and then siphon off money from these equity licensing for years to come.

 

This is why a new civil lawsuit is being issued against the state of Arizona by an advocacy group who claim the state have failed to protect these minority communities from corporate overreach.

 

 

The new legal complaint argues that the social equity program has failed to meet the standards laid out in Prop 207, the ballot initiative voters passed last year that legalized marijuana and has allowed thousands of Arizonans to expunge prior marijuana charges. Through Prop 207, voters directed the state to create a program that promoted dispensary ownership by people who were disproportionately impacted by marijuana laws — which, in Arizona, often was poor, Black and Latino communities.

 

But since the draft rules for the social equity program were released, advocates warned that major cannabis investors might easily game the system. And now, Rodriguez says that’s what she’s seeing.

 

“What the voters were trying to do was enrich communities that were impacted by the drug war.” Jimmy Cool, the lead attorney on the case, told New Times. “From our clients’ perspective, all [the program] does is enrich 26 people.” – SOURCE

 

And that’s the truth with virtually all of these schemes.

 

Why Social Equity fails!

 

It’s easy for a millionaire to sit down, analyze the problems of the poor and say, “Do this and you’ll achieve that!” The problem with the millionaire is that he or she does not share the same values, needs, and desires as that as a poor person.

 

Therefore, “thinking” from the perspective of an affluent individual can never understand the nuances needed for the affected to truly succeed. The Social Equity licensing is a solution produced by the affluent to whitewash their “drug war” guilt.

 

It’s an invention by woke-corporatism to show they care, when in reality they profited off the war on drugs and will profit on the legalization of drugs too.

 

The main problem with Social Equity is;

 

  1. Limited licenses creates artificial value

  2. The costs associated with cannabis is still high

  3. You still need corporate to run a cannabis store

 

Since costs are so exuberant, it’s impossible for someone who spent years in jail to raise capital. Without access to banking loans, or even the experience of running a successful business – the only solution to these “equity license” holders are to partner with some money-hungry firm.

 

The solution is a 2-Tier Cannabis Industry

 

I have said this once, and I’ll say this again. The ONLY real solution is to create a distinction between corporate cannabis, and “mom and pop” operations.

 

The biggest problem with the lower strata of society is that the fees associated with the cannabis industry reflect the budgets of big corporations, while the rest of us are working on Farmer’s Market budgets.

 

Which is why we need to create a system that allows people of the lower income bracket  to be able to build a business without needing too much investment. We can also reduce the burden on these businesses by reducing the strictness on testing, etc.

 

My plan has always been;

 

$1000 for a yearly license for cannabis operations earning up to $1,000,000 in profits annually. Once the $1,000,000 thresh hold is met, then the corporate cannabis scheme can come into play.

 

This gives people the opportunity to be able to grow a business from the ground up. What this will also mean is that there would be no “Equity licenses”. Anybody would be able to get it for $1,000.

 

If you can’t get $1k together, you might not deserve a cannabis license.

This also gives these equity license holders the opportunity to grow a business from the ground up, hire local talent, and undo the damages of the drug war.

 

Yet, we must first separate the need to add in social equity into every bill, because before you know it – the corporations will gobble up all those licenses and then we’re all screwed.

 

Final Words

 

There’s a reason why Schumer hasn’t been able to pass any cannabis legislation. It’s because of these social equity laws. While it’s nice to think about those effected by the Drug War, unless you bring actual solutions that can be scaled by the affected demographic – you’re just making up millionaire solutions to the impoverished who can never attain the standards set by the elite.

 

Reduce legalization to what it is; a plant that needs to be cultivated, processed and sold, There needs to be no social equity written into the core of legalization.

 

Rather, each state could create investment clubs via taxation, however – understanding the nature of politics…unless we push back and remove their social equity language from the legalization efforts – the Arizona dilemma will only continue everywhere else in the US.

 

Make weed legal, make it cheap to get involved, and allow these small businesses a grace period to grow. And you’ll see the net benefit would far outweigh social equity laws.

 

MORE ON SOCIAL EQUITY IN CANNABIS, READ THIS…

MASSACHUSETTS SOCIAL EQUITY DELIVERY

MASSACHUSETTS SOCIAL EQUITY DELIVERY LICENSES GET 3 YEAR WINDOW

[ad_2]

Source link

Smoking vs. vaping weed: Are they really all that different?

Smoking vs. vaping weed: Are they really all that different?

[ad_1]

Electronic vaporization of cannabis was supposed to be the safer alternative to smoking. After all, users still get all the benefits of the cannabinoids and terpenes without inhaling combusted products like carbon monoxide, plant matter particulates, or the over 100 toxins that are released when flower is burned.

However, a few years ago, an outbreak lung illness, most of which were tied to the vaporization of illegal THC-containing oils, challenged this illusion of safety. Vitamin E acetate, a cheap thickening additive for diluting oils was deemed the culprit and quickly removed from products, yet its prevalence may persist in illicit oils and vape pens.

Even though the rates of these electronic vaporization associated lung illnesses (EVALIs) have been falling drastically since their peak in September 2019, safety concerns around cannabis vaporization are still present in peer reviewed scientific reports and in popular media sources. While much has been written about the pros and cons of vaping compared to smoking cannabis, it’s important to re-address the topic in the post-vitamin E acetate era to draw comparisons.

Why vape cannabis?

The increased popularity of vaping cannabis is believed to be tied to legal access. Yet vaping is rarely the sole mode of cannabis consumption: 13% who vape cannabis only vape. People often choose to vape cannabis over smoking flower because of its convenience, discretion, and efficiency; there are times when one just doesn’t want their space to smell like weed.

Vaping is also deemed to be the safer option since heating the liquid rarely surpasses 400°F, whereas combusting flower approaches 500°F, thereby reducing the amount of harmful gases and toxins that are inhaled.

Furthermore, for those seeking specific and repeatable effects, the cannabinoid (e.g., THC or CBD) and terpene composition of vape carts can be consistently reproduced.

Also, the oils can be optimized for a particular therapeutic need or recreational desire through the addition of cannabinoids and terpenes at levels that are impossible to achieve with traditional grow methods and the limitations of a strain’s genetics. Notably, the science behind what represents a therapeutically-optimized composition remains mostly theoretical.  

Is vaping safer than smoking?

There aren’t any studies within the last couple years that directly compare the safety of smoking and vaping cannabis in a controlled and randomized manner (a standard methodological model for drawing causative conclusions).

Nonetheless, the perception that vaping doesn’t harm the lungs is likely wrong. A 2020 study of 2,553 young adults found that cannabis vaping at any point was associated with increased risk for bronchitic symptoms, such as shortness of breath. This outcome persisted even after adjusting for nicotine vaping and smoking cannabis or tobacco.

Vaping at least 3 times in the last month doubled the risk for experiencing wheezing, which is a short whistle or rattle when one breathes due to a partially blocked airway. However, given the proximity to the vitamin E acetate era, it’s impossible to rule out impacts that possible previous exposure to vitamin E may have on the lungs.  

Studies of e-cigarettes have clearly demonstrated a link with adverse effects on the lungs and airway. But inflammation in the airway can be triggered by the vape liquid itself, even in the absence of nicotine, suggesting that some of these effects may carry over to vaporization of cannabinoids.

The anti-inflammatory properties of THC and CBD, especially in combination, may counter some of these inflammatory effects of vaporization, but irritation of the airway is commonly reported from vaporizing cannabis, suggesting that there will still be some inflammation.

Some additional health concerns may arise when consuming unregulated vape products. Although vitamin E acetate has largely disappeared from vape products, the same damaging gas that’s released from heating vitamin E acetate and led to the EVALI epidemic in 2019 can be produced by other compounds found in unregulated delta-8, CBN, and CBG vape products. Knowing what’s in your vape cart is essential for safe use.

Do vaping and smoking have different effects?

There’s a fair amount of variability in the outcomes of studies that compare smoking and vaping cannabis, highlighting the challenges in studying these routes of consumption in people. For instance, history and frequency of use, as well as natural puffing patterns, vary a lot across individuals and can impact how much of the cannabinoids make their way into the body and how long they remain.

In one study, when inhalation amount was tightly regulated, there were no clear differences in THC or other cannabinoids collected in blood between the two methods.

However, in one study of infrequent cannabis users (i.e., no use in the last 30 days), vaporization led to higher amounts of THC in the blood and more impairment across several cognitive, visual, subjective measures, when compared to smoking.

Similarly, a separate study investigated how smoking versus vaping impacted appetite- and metabolism-related hormones after eating a standard breakfast. While both smoking and vaping cannabis blunted insulin levels, smoking cannabis led to a stronger reduction in insulin 15 minutes after use.

This reduction in insulin may partially explain the low rates of type II diabetes among regular cannabis users, a disease that stems from excessive insulin release that eventually leads to insulin resistance.

Which is better? Smoking or vaping?

The EVALI scare in 2019 tainted the safety reputation of vape devices in the minds of the public, the media, and the research community. These reports of the harm caused by cannabis vaporization can contribute to “white hat bias”–when people misrepresent information, often unintentionally, to match societal expectation or one’s personal feelings toward an industry.

In this case, the historic illegality and ingrained societal beliefs about the harmful effects of cannabis may have led to the idea that vaping cannabis is just as harmful, if not worse than smoking flower.

Some may report their subjective experiences to be in line with these beliefs despite a dearth of evidence indicating increased harm from vaping. Yet even though most devices no longer contain the overtly harmful additives that contributed to hospitalizations and deaths during the EVALI outbreak, illicit and non-approved devices and vape oils continue to circulate.

Studies comparing the long-term safety and health effects between smoking versus vaping often capture a use period when these unregulated products were more readily available and make it difficult to draw conclusions regarding the long-term safety of vaping with current devices and oils.

Acutely, there are no clear differences in the effects produced by smoking versus vaping, or on cannabinoid concentrations in the body. But differences in puff patterns between smoking a bowl versus hitting a vape pen may lead to different impacts on the brain and body. In the end, as with most cannabis products, knowing what’s in them, the reputation of the source, and regulating intake are primary factors for safe and effective use.

Josh Kaplan's Bio Image

Josh Kaplan

Josh Kaplan, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Behavioral Neuroscience at Western Washington University. He is a passionate science writer, educator, and runs a laboratory that researches cannabis’ developmental and therapeutic effects.

View Josh Kaplan’s articles

[ad_2]

Source link

Honoring the Legacy of Michigan Advocate Zahra Abbas

[ad_1]

The cannabis community suffers great losses in the passing of its community members, but today it is with great regret that we report the passing of Michigan cannabis advocate and political activist, Zahra Abbas, who was 35 years old.

The Cannabis Caucus of the Michigan Democratic Party for which she held the position of Chair announced her passing on July 28. “Without Zahra the Cannabis Caucus would not be what it is today and the world is a lonelier place without her presence,” the Caucus wrote online. “Our deepest condolences to her family and friends. We know she touched many all across this great state and beyond.”

Abbas was a prominent figure advocating for cannabis as a patient herself, and sought to spread the word about cannabis and its medical benefits. “Zahra was dedicated to teaching the world about the health benefits of cannabis and helping lead the progressive movement action to remedy the catastrophic consequences of the war on drugs,” the post continued. “Zahra was frequently failed by our healthcare system and cannabis prohibition that would at times deny her the only medicine that could bring her seizures under control.”

Detroit’s Metro Times reported on Zahra’s passing, describing an interview they conducted with her in 2017. At the time, she suffered from daily seizures that were not solved through brain surgery or prescription medication—but cannabis was a game changer for her.

“As soon as I started it, within a few days my seizures stopped,” Abbas told Metro Times in 2017. “Before I started looking into it for epilepsy I was very much against marijuana because there was so much misinformation around it. It came to the choice between using that and having another brain surgery to control my seizures. … Turning to cannabis was kind of my last resort.”

She volunteered to gather signatures for the legalization ballot that appeared before voters in 2018, in hopes that others could utilize cannabis just as she did. “I’m doing this because I think more people should have access to cannabis because it helps all people,” she told Metro Times. “It should be everybody’s right to use it,” she added.

But her journey into the cannabis industry had only just begun. Her advocacy grew, and she later became Vice Chair and, later, Chair of the Cannabis Caucus, and also Vice president of the Detroit chapter of Motor City NORML. She had an instrumental role in commuting the sentence of Michael Thompson, a man convicted of a cannabis crime who had survived 60 years in prison.

Fellow advocate Jamie Lowell told Metro Times that at one point, Abbas had to quit cannabis in order to pass a drug test for a new job, but her seizures returned. “She soon had a major seizure and vowed to not quit again for anything,” Lowell said. “After resuming, she was again seizure-free. This was her powerful and amazing testimony.”

Speakers at a rally featuring Sen. Bernie Sanders, which was held in Pontiac, Michigan on July 29, took a moment to honor Abbas’s memory. Rep. Rashida Tlaib called Abbas “an incredible warrior.” “Her heart was full of love for community, and there wasn’t a cause that she did not take on … 100%,” Tlaib said. “She was one of our biggest advocates for health care and access to alternative approaches, including cannabis … and she never gave up the fight. She will be sorely missed. I know that she is with us today.”

Also present was Dr. Abdul El-Sayeda who previously ran for Michigan governor in 2018, whose spoke about Abbas’s selfless dedication to the cause. “She took her pain and she used it to bring people together, to fight for all of the things that she herself was denied, recognizing that it could have been anyone else,” El-Sayeda said. “She took that pain and decided to make the world that much better.”

“Zahra didn’t have very much time, but Zahra put all of herself into the time she had,” he added.

[ad_2]

Source link

Pin It on Pinterest

x  Powerful Protection for WordPress, from Shield Security
This Site Is Protected By
Shield Security