The California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (also referred to as GO-Biz) announced on June 1 that it would be granting $35.5 million worth of cannabis tax revenue to community efforts.

The funds come from the California Community Reinvestment Grant program, which will be directed to organizations that help with job placement, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, system navigation services, legal services to address barriers to reentry, and linkages to medical care.

“We’re proud to announce 78 grants totaling $35.5M in awards through the California Community Reinvestment Grants (CalCRG) program. These grants will help serve communities across CA that have been disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs,” the organization wrote on Twitter.

In a press release, GO-Biz shared the need to use cannabis tax funds for specific communities that are in need of aid. “Harsh federal and state drug policies enacted during that period led to the mass incarceration of people of color, decreased access to social services, loss of educational attainment due to diminished federal financial aid eligibility, prohibitions on the use of public housing and other public assistance, and the separation of families,” the release states.

Furthermore, GO-Biz Director and Senior Adviser to Gov. Gavin Newsom Dee Dee Myers shared a statement regarding the continued success of the program. “Now in its fourth year, the California Community Reinvestments Grants program continues to be an important tool for communities that still face systemic restrictions and barriers to opportunity and equity,” said Myers. “This latest round of awards will support the economic justice and well-being of communities across our state that have been disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs.”

A total of 78 organizations were chosen across California, located in the counties of Alameda, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and more.

Among the recipients receiving the highest amount of $900,000 includes JobTrain, GRID Alternatives Greater Los Angeles, Inc., Community Partners as a fiscal sponsor of Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership, and Recovery Café San Jose. Most others, such as the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Inland Valley Drug and Alcohol Recovery Services, Kitchens for Good, Inc., will be receiving $450,000.

In 2021, the program sent out 58 grants for a total of $29.1 million and in 2020, $30 million was earmarked for a variety of cities and counties.

Since California legalized adult-use cannabis in 2018, the state has collected $3.76 billion in total tax revenue, according to a press release posted on May 26 by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. This includes $1.91 billion from cannabis excise taxes, $467.75 million from cultivation taxes and $1.38 billion from sales taxes.

Recently, Gov. Newsom’s budget proposal set aside $150 million to reduce cannabis taxes. He said in a press statement that the temporary reduction will help aid small cannabis business owners, and also curb illegal sales. “This is [the] beginning of a process from my humble perspective, in terms of my thinking,” Newsom said. “This will be a multi-year process to get that black market, get it on the retreat—not the ascendancy—and to get the retail and responsible adult-use market on steady ground.”

Earlier this year, California announced that it would be granting nearly $100 million to local governments and jurisdictions that would help bolster their cannabis programs, and make them more efficient. The Department of Cannabis Control Director Nicole Elliot explained that this grant money would help communities with specific needs. “Significant funding is being directed to process improvements and environmental assessments, both of which will help the state and local governments achieve short- and long-term goals,” Elliot said. The most highest amount was awarded to the city of Los Angeles for $22,312,360, Humboldt County with $18,635,137, and Mendocino County with $17,586,406.62.

Fearmongering about cannabis reached new levels on cable news this past week.

Last Tuesday, in a segment on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox News, political commentator Laura Ingraham blamed “pot psychosis” due to widespread legalization for the rise in mass shooting incidents. The Fox News pundit doubled down on her pot psychosis theory the very next evening.

While most people disagree whether gun violence is a gun control issue or a mental health issue—Ingraham blames pot instead.

Ingraham welcomed Russell Kamer, M.D., medical director of Partners in Safety, a drug testing organization, to question why people aren’t “talking more about the pot psychosis-violent behavior connection.” You can watch a clip of the entire segment here.

“What we find in studies [is that] it’s very clear that the use of the high potency marijuana is strongly associated with the development of psychosis,” Dr. Kamer said.

“My colleagues in Colorado,” Kamer continued, “are sounding the alarm because that was one of the first states to legalize. It’s practically a daily occurrence that kids come into the emergency rooms in florid, cannabis-induced psychosis.”

Ingraham dug deeper into her theory.

“This is something that the medical community is well aware of. Yet, you get the sense that the billions of dollars on the line are more important than our kids,” Ingraham said. “And what’s happening especially to young men in the United States, who are frequent users of this high-potency THC that’s now in marijuana products sold legally in dispensaries across the United States. I mean, this at the very least needs a serious national conversation.”

The Daily Beast reports that Ingraham claimed that it was initially reported that the 18-year-old shooter who killed 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School in Texas “was a user” but that The New York Times “mysteriously” removed that tidbit from their reporting.

“Reefer Madness” began trending on Twitter the very same night following the episode. “The 1930s called; they want their reefer madness propaganda back,” one person tweeted. “I didn’t think anyone would honestly circle around to that bulls**** ever again….” another person tweeted. “But it is funny to watch someone try.”

British Columbia will decriminalize personal possession of small amounts of drugs for three years in an attempt to address the province’s crisis of overdose deaths. The Canadian federal government announced on Wednesday that it had approved a request from provincial officials to enact the plan, which will decriminalize possession of street drugs including heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

“Eliminating criminal penalties for those carrying small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use will reduce stigma and harm and provide another tool for British Columbia to end the overdose crisis,” federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Carolyn Bennett said in a statement quoted by Reuters.

In November, British Columbia officials requested an exemption from enforcing the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a period of three years. Under the plan, personal possession of up to a cumulative total of 2.5 grams of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA will not result in an arrest, citation, or confiscation of the drugs. The limited drug decriminalization plan, however, will not apply at airports, schools and to members of the Canadian military.

“This is not legalization,” Bennett told reporters at a news conference in Vancouver. “We have not taken this decision lightly.”

Under the plan, possession of larger quantities of the drugs and the sale or trafficking will remain illegal. The limited decriminalization test program will begin on January 31, 2023, and continue until January 31, 2026.

British Columbia Overdose Deaths Soaring

British Columbia, which has been especially hard hit by the nationwide opioid crisis, declared a public health crisis in 2016 due to the spike in overdose deaths. The number of deaths has continued to climb since then, with a record 2,236 fatal overdoses reported last year in the province. According to provincial officials, drug overdoses are the leading cause of death among people aged 19 to 39.

Public officials hope that the decriminalization test plan will help reduce the stigma surrounding drug use and addiction and make it easier for people with substance misuse disorders to seek treatment.

“Substance use is a public health issue, not a criminal one,” said British Columbia’s Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Sheila Malcolmson, adding that the exemption will help the officials address substance abuse issues in the province.

In the request to the federal government, British Columbia officials wrote that criminalizing drug use disproportionately impacts marginalized communities and fails to treat substance use disorders as a health issue. Federal drug policies, the province wrote, are failing their goals and making drug overdoses more likely.

“Criminalization and stigma lead many to hide their use from family and friends and to avoid seeking treatment, thereby creating situations where the risk of drug poisoning death is elevated,” provincial officials wrote in the request for the exemption.

The 2.5-gram limit set by the federal government is smaller than the maximum of 4.5 grams requested by British Columbia officials. In the request for the exemption submitted to Health Canada, the province wrote that limits that are too low have been ineffective and “diminish progress” on the goals of drug decriminalization.

“The evidence that we have across the country and [from] law enforcement … has been that 85 percent of the drugs that have been confiscated have been under 2 grams,” Bennett said to explain the lower limit, “and so we are moving with that.”

Public health advocates, local and provincial government officials and even some chiefs of police have asked Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to decriminalize possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use. In 2018, Canada legalized cannabis nationwide, a drug policy change that was supported by Trudeau.

Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart is among the public officials who have championed efforts to decriminalize drugs. Each Monday, he gets an email reporting the number of drug overdoses and resulting deaths in the city. One week, the death of one of his family members was included in the report’s grim statistics. On Monday, the mayor learned that the decriminalization plan for British Columbia had been approved.

“I can tell you I felt like crying, and I still feel like crying,” he told the Washington Post. “This is a big, big thing.”

“It marks a fundamental rethinking of drug policy that favors health care over handcuffs,” Stewart added.

Bennet said that British Columbia’s plan to decriminalize personal possession of small amounts of drugs will be monitored as it progresses. If it succeeds, it could be a model for drug policy change nationwide.

“This time-limited exemption is the first of its kind in Canada,” she said. “Real-time adjustments will be made upon receiving analysis of any data that indicates a need to change.”

A harmless cannabis joke is at the center of controversy after fans reacted to commentary on a recent Jeopardy! episode. The show is often the topic of bizarre controversies affecting its older viewership, seemingly invented out of nothing.

Jeopardy! host Mayim Bialik already faced a steep battle to be accepted by fans. For instance, Bialik was confronted on social media earlier for wearing the same outfit repeatedly on the show.

Following the 2020 death of beloved longtime host Alex Trebek, Bialik was selected to host the game show and co-host another version of the show with series champ Ken Jennings. Jennings won 74 consecutive episodes of the show—the longest streak the show has ever seen. Nearly every show host faced uphill odds trying to fill the shoes of Trebek.

Current contestant Bonnie Kistler, who is a novelist, chose the category “Ripped From The Headlines” for $400 on the May 24 episode of Jeopardy! broadcast as Season 38 Episode 182.

Contestants were confronted with the phrase, “Marijuana issues sent to this ‘committee’ generally composed of members of both houses of a legislature.”

Contestant Ryan Long, who is the current reigning champion of the show, guessed “What is a bipartisan committee?” but he guessed incorrectly. Long is a Rideshare driver by trade and won 12 episodes of the show in a row undefeated.

Jeopardy! co-host Bialik said the correct question was “What is a joint committee?”

Bialik added “Get it?” with a snicker, referring to the double meaning and drawing some guarded laughter from the crowd.

Even the slightest allusion to the “devil’s lettuce” is enough to stir controversy to the show’s fans, who are typically older in age. In 2011, Newsweek reported that the show’s median viewer was 65 years old—after the show spent years modernizing. Before then, the median viewer age was 70!

It’s not the first time the joke about “joint committees” has appeared. In 2015, Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg brought up a legislative item on cannabis reform and noted that it would take place in joint committees. Rosenberg said, “That’s really funny. I didn’t try to be funny. They are called joint committees.”

While the joke was well received by most viewers, some Twitter users weren’t having it—slamming the show as well as Bialik, who wasn’t being easily accepted anyways. One Twitter user wrote, “Oh, but won’t the #Jeopardy writers PLEASE think of the children watching, and their delicate ears that were just exposed to a cannabis reference?” referring to an oft-cited The Simpsons episode.

Fans already begged Bialik to be “considerate of the kids” regarding adult themes. One user responded, noting how alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis. “ignorant jokes like yours don’t help.”

The late former show host Alex Trebek could toss around a joke or two about cannabis as well.

When interviewed by Marlon Stowe for The Daily Beast, Trebek recalled one time he got wasted on hash edibles, by taking too many of them by accident. We all know how that can play out.

“It was by accident! I didn’t know what they were,” Trebek said. “I had just arrived in California and went to a friend’s house for dinner, and there were brownies. I love brownies—I’m a chocoholic—and I didn’t realize that they were hash brownies. And… whoa. That threw me for a loop. I took down about a half-dozen.”

Fans of the show are urged to give Bialik a chance as the new show host, along with Jennings and any other new hosts.

A new study published this month adds further evidence that levels of THC detected in the blood or breath of cannabis users is not a reliable indicator of impairment. Researchers also found that levels of THC in blood and breath did not provide reliable evidence of how recently a test subject had used cannabis.

In their introduction to the study, the researchers noted that “finding an objective measure of recent cannabis use that correlates with impairment has proven to be an elusive goal.” Some states have enacted laws that set per se legal limits on the amount of THC a driver may have in their blood, similar to the 0.08% blood alcohol concentration limit in effect nationwide.

Critics of per se limits on THC concentrations in blood or breath have argued that such limits have little bearing on the level of impairment or intoxication, which can vary widely from person to person despite similar levels of THC concentration.

“These findings provide further evidence that single measurements of specific delta-9-THC blood concentrations do not correlate with impairment, and that the use of per se legal limits for delta-9-THC is not scientifically justifiable at the present time,” wrote the authors of the study published by the journal Scientific Reports.

To conduct the study, the researchers recruited a group of test subjects, most of whom were daily cannabis users. The scientists then determined the THC levels in their blood and breath prior to and after inhaling cannabis.

Before inhaling cannabis, most subjects had residual THC levels of 5ng/ml or higher, which exceeds the per se legal limit in several states. The authors noted that THC at such levels was detected despite “the absence of any impairment.” After the test subjects inhaled the cannabis, the researchers noted an inverse relationship between THC blood levels and impairment of performance.

“Our findings are consistent with others who have shown that delta-9-THC can be detected in breath up to several days since last use,” they wrote. “Because the leading technologies for breath-based testing for recent cannabis use rely solely on the detection of delta-9-THC, this could potentially result in false positive test outcomes due to the presence of delta-9-THC in breath outside of the impairment window.”

New Study Backed by Previous Research

The results are consistent with the findings of a study published late last year in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Review. In that study, researchers affiliated with the University of Sydney analyzed all the available studies on driving performance and THC concentrations in blood and saliva.

“Higher blood THC concentrations were only weakly associated with increased impairment in occasional cannabis users while no significant relationship was detected in regular cannabis users,” wrote lead author Dr. Danielle McCartney of the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics. “This suggests that blood and oral fluid THC concentrations are relatively poor indicators of cannabis-THC-induced impairment.”

To conduct the study, the researchers reviewed data from 28 publications that studied the consumption of inhaled or ingested cannabis. They then analyzed the association between THC concentration and driving performance, using measures of driving-related skills such as reaction time and divided attention.

The researchers documented “weak” associations between THC levels and impairment among infrequent cannabis users. But they observed no significant association between blood or saliva THC levels and impairment among regular pot users, defined as those who used cannabis weekly or more often.

“Of course, this does not suggest there is no relationship between THC intoxication and driving impairment,” McCartney said. “It is showing us that using THC concentration in blood and saliva are inconsistent markers for such intoxication.”

The authors noted that the findings in the study call into question the validity of widespread random mobile testing for THC in saliva in Australia and the reliance on THC levels by law enforcement in the United States.

“Our results indicate that unimpaired individuals could mistakenly be identified as cannabis-intoxicated when THC limits are imposed by the law,” said McCartney. “Likewise, drivers who are impaired immediately following cannabis use may not register as such.”

Professor Iain McGregor, the academic director of the Lambert Initiative, a long-term research program studying the medical potential of cannabis, said that “THC concentrations in the body clearly have a very complex relationship with intoxication. The strong and direct relationship between blood-alcohol concentrations and impaired driving encourages people to think that such relationships apply to all drugs, but this is certainly not the case with cannabis.”

“A cannabis-inexperienced person can ingest a large oral dose of THC and be completely unfit to drive yet register extremely low blood and oral fluid THC concentrations,” McGregor added. “On the other hand, an experienced cannabis user might smoke a joint, show very high THC concentrations, but show little if any impairment. We clearly need more reliable ways of identifying cannabis-impairment on the roads and the workplace.”

It was all supposed to be so easy. The national strategy for the commercialization of the South African cannabis industry was published last year. This February, the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa said in his state of the nation address that development of the hemp and cannabis sector was a major priority for the country because of the economic engine it represents—including creating an estimated 130,000 new jobs.

According to Ramaphosa, “We are streamlining the regulatory processes so the hemp and cannabis sector can thrive like it is in other countries such as Lesotho,” he said. “Our people in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and elsewhere are ready to farm with this age-old commodity and bring it to market.”

Imagine if President Joe Biden said the same thing?

However, all is not clear sailing.

Politicians vs. the People

The Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill, the current pending legislation at issue, resulted from a 2018 Constitutional Court ruling, decriminalizing cannabis for private use and cultivation in “private spaces.”

The bill is intended to create the blueprint for the industry.

Instead, it has come under heavy criticism along the way and by a variety of interests.

This starts with existing entities like the cannabis clubs, which have essentially been left in limbo.

But the critics do not stop here. Most recently, they include Cosatu, the country’s largest union. They say that the bill is contradictory—and further raised doubts as to the government’s commitment to full reform. Namely, while the legislation delineates how cannabis can be produced for personal use and how it can be used for medical purposes, it is not clear how the commercialization of the industry will proceed. And even more importantly, who will be allowed to participate in it.

As Cosatu noted, this will send confusing signals to both producers and law enforcement agencies.

Beyond this, the Umzimvubu Farmers Support Network (or UFSN) which represents traditional farmers and cannabis growing communities in the Pondoland (a large segment of the south-eastern coast of the country which is bordered by Lesotho) is also being vocally critical of the legislation.

Their biggest concern? Apart from feeling ignored by decision-makers, they feel that the vague definitions in the bill are being disregarded by the government. According to them, “It remains abundantly clear that the Bill does not, even in the slightest, make provision for the centuries old custom of cannabis use and cultivation by the beneficiaries of the UFSN—the same farmers that our Honourable President Ramaphosa specifically mentioned in his most recent State of the Union Address.”

UFSN members have been frequently raided by the police in the last couple of years.

The USFN believes that the current legislation is “lip service” to the idea of cannabis reform that will benefit Indigenous farmers rather than foreign and corporate interests.

They have now been joined in their opposition to the current provisions in the bill by the Rastafarian community.

The Fight Over Formalization in South Africa

This is not a new issue, no matter the specifics at stake in South Africa. It is actually going on all over the world right now as the legalization movement begins to be formalized into regulations. Those who are crafting the legislation are not those who are most familiar with the dynamics of the legacy industry or connected to it in any tangible way. Nor do they appear to care about the associated issues that come with that.

For example, in California, legacy growers believe they are being left out of an industry which has evolved because of them.

In Canada, the discussion is now, perennially, how to limit patient home grow.

In Germany, the discussion about domestic cultivation was so fraught that patients, who initially won the right to grow their own, even if via special license from the government, lost the same as the Bundestag decided to only allow certified companies (and only from Canada) to participate in the cultivation tender in 2017.

The reality is that cannabis legalization may sound great, but increasingly, the road to legislating that legality is fraught with such clashes.

The questions around who may or may not legally cultivate and sell the plant start with a certification process that is capital intensive—and leaves out precisely the smaller cultivators who stand to benefit the most from full and final reform.

So far, these issues have not really been answered, yet, in any jurisdiction. This is also likely to be hard fought, and emotionally fraught territory just about everywhere. In this sense, the cannabis industry, so far at least, is not just like any other commodity, and it is likely to stay that way for some time to come.

Who ever heard of such fights over tomatoes?