On May 6, a joint statement was released stating that both Empyreal and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department in Southern California “understand that each [was] acting in good faith when the stops were conducted and have come to an understanding that will enable both sides to move forward amicably.”

Empyreal transport vans were stopped by Sheriff Shannon Dicus’ deputies in November, December, and January, and had seized a total of $1.1 million in legal cannabis sales. The U.S. Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program allows the sheriff’s department to retain up to 80% of money collected through civil forfeitures. Although the state of California prohibits law enforcement from seizing legal cannabis money, Dicus transferred the seized money to the FBI, claiming that it was evidence in an ongoing investigation. The federal government has since agreed to return 100% of the money seized, although the lawsuit against Dicus continued until recently.

According to The San Bernardino Sun, Dicus believed that the seizure that his department conducted were legitimate. On Nov. 16, the Empyreal vehicle, a Ford van, was driving six feet behind a semi-truck while pulling a trailer. “During the stop, the deputy made further observations, including hearing inconsistent statements made by the driver and company representatives, that led the deputy to believe the contents of the van were illicit proceeds of unlawful drug sales,” Dicus said of the incident. Based on those Deputy J. Franco obtained a search warrant to investigate, and seized $700,000 collected from four state-licensed cannabis businesses.

A similar incident occurred on Dec. 9 with the same Empyreal Ford van, which was changing lanes without signaling. There was also a document that instructed the driver how to respond to law enforcement if pulled over. “Specifically, the document instructed the driver to ‘never say the words cannabis or marijuana’ and ‘never say the names of the banks or clients we service.’” On that date, the van was transporting $350,000. An Empyreal van was pulled over a third time on Jan. 6, but was only carrying rolled coins that weren’t affiliated with the cannabis industry.

Empyreal launched a lawsuit on Jan. 14 with the U.S. District Court, demanding that Sheriff Shannon Dicus, as well as FBI Director Christopher Wray and Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Anne Milgram stop targeting Empyreal, claiming that the seizure of the company’s legitimate sales was “highway robbery.” At the time, Dicus’ believed that the lawsuit was “no more than a special-interest crusade and a blatant attempt to interfere with ongoing local criminal investigations.”

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department addressed this description on May 6, sharing that while the department will continue to work against “illegal marijuana grows and criminal enterprises,” Empyreal is not included in those efforts. “Both sides also acknowledge that Empyreal is part of the solution to help with financial transparency and that San Bernardino Deputies are not highway robbers as previously reported in the media,” the department wrote in a press release on May 6.

Empyreal hired Injustice for Justice, which is a nonprofit public interest law firm that specializes in defending cases for civil forfeiture victims to lead the lawsuit. According to a press statement from Senior Attorney Dan Alban, it’s a welcome win for the firm and Empyreal. “We are pleased to have helped Empyreal achieve a successful result and return to business operations in San Bernardino County,” said Alban. “We will continue to challenge the use of civil forfeiture nationwide at the state and federal level.”

Empyreal CEO Deirdra O’Gorman also released a statement, stating that he was pleased that his company and the sheriff’s department were able to come to an agreement on the matter. “Empyreal, our financial institution clients and their state-licensed cannabis customers operate within the law, which is why we chose to bring a legal challenge to the seizures in San Bernardino County,” said O’Gorman. “Now that the funds have been returned and after meeting with the Sheriff, we are confident that we can continue serving state-legal businesses without future disruptions.”

Grant funds will soon be available to researchers who are working to treat cannabis. 

A “Notice of Special Interest” (NOSI) (entitled “Basic Mechanisms of Cannabis and Cannabinoid Action in Cancer”) was posted on May 5 by NIH’s National Cancer Institute, with the intent “to promote research in understanding the mechanisms by which cannabis and cannabinoids affect cancer biology, cancer interception, cancer treatment and resistance, and management of cancer symptoms.”

In the notice, NIH explains that the reasoning behind this effort is due to the growing number of cancer patients seeking relief with medical cannabis, but that there are not enough studies to verify its effectiveness. “Cancer patients use cannabis and cannabinoids to manage symptoms of cancer and cancer treatment including anorexia, nausea, and pain,” the NOSI states. “Recent survey evidence suggests that a quarter of cancer patients have used cannabis for symptom management. Despite the increase in cannabis and cannabinoid use, research about their health effects, including potential harms and benefits, remain limited.” 

The notice summarizes what is currently known about cannabis cancer treatment by explaining that data regarding risk for cancer patients is not widely available. “Epidemiological studies of cannabis use and cancer risk have yielded limited and inconsistent results,” the notice explains. “While cannabis smoke generates many of the same carcinogens as tobacco, studies to date have not shown a link between cannabis smoking and lung cancer risk.” The notice uses the example of cannabis smoking being linked to testicular cancer as well.

It also briefly defines the activity of various cannabinoid receptors in the human body through animal models and cancer cell lines. “Cancer cell line experiments show that THC and CBD can mediate many anti-tumor effects, including inducing apoptosis and inhibiting cell proliferation, invasion, and angiogenesis,” the NOSI states. “These anti-tumor activities have led to early clinical testing of THC and CBD for glioblastoma and prostate cancers. While preclinical studies show differing effects of cannabinoids on cancer cells, deeper understanding is needed about how the tumor promoting and suppressive mechanisms of cannabinoid signaling influence cancer biological processes.”

Finally, the notice summarizes the current state of Food and Drug Administration-approved synthetic cannabinoids, dronabinol and nabilone, that are being used to treat chemotherapy. “Increasingly, cancer treatments involve targeted and immunological therapies, but little is known about whether and how cannabis and cannabinoids influence their efficacy.”

The NOSI concludes by inviting researchers whose focus on these topics (Cancer Risk, Cannabinoid Ligands and Receptors, Cancer Biology, Cancer Treatment and Symptom Management) can lead to a wide variety of research opportunities.

The NIH won’t consider any applications for studies that include clinical trials, “symptoms not related to cancer or cancer treatment,” or “projects that lack cancer models, specimens, or cells.” Instead the agency is looking for more specific methods of study in order for researchers to be considered. “Studies that integrate expertise from multiple disciplines, incorporate state-of-the-art, human-relevant models (e.g., organoid or patient-derived xenograft models) and utilize advanced technologies and methods are strongly encouraged.” Researchers can apply for a grant starting on June 5 and onward.

In December 2021, the NCI released a paper addressing the challenges that are holding back cannabis and cannabinoid research. “Conflicting federal and state cannabis regulations hinder research in several ways including the inability of researchers to access products that are legal in their state, a lack of standardization and quality control of cannabis and cannabis-derived products within and across states, and no national oversight of this standardization and quality control or the industry.”

Although government agencies have conducted limited studies in the past in relation to medical cannabis, many other study efforts have begun to explore cannabis consumption among cancer patients. The Virginia Commonwealth University of Massey Cancer Center published a study in August 2021 and found that cancer patients consume less cannabis than those of the general public. A study published in December 2020 found that one-third of Canadian cancer patients were reporting cannabis use as well.

It is not just German lawmakers who are suddenly deciding that cannabis reform should be top of the political agenda this year; in Argentina, an agreement between the ruling party and the opposition will now put at least medical cannabis reform on the docket.

The Chamber of Deputies (which has only met once so far this year) has now agreed to not only meet but to further discuss cannabis reform when they do. The bill on the table will include regulations to create a framework for the development of a medical cannabis and industrial hemp industry.

This is a development that has now been pending since July of last year when, after being proposed by the national government, it was subsequently blocked by the opposition over a lack of agreement on the particulars. 

This, of course, is far from an unusual situation—see the state of federal reform in the U.S. right now for exactly the same reason. 

The Post-COVID Political Cannabis Football

Argentina, in fact, is joining both the U.S. and Germany in prioritizing federal cannabis reform this year, no matter the delays and stutters along the way. Just this week, the German press began reporting that government leaders, including the Minister of Health, were changing their tune on the need to move forward on some kind of recreational cannabis reform by this summer.

Cannabis normalization has actually been cooking slowly in Argentina since 2009, when the Supreme Court decriminalized cannabis for personal use in private. In 2017, at approximately the same time Germany decided to mandate public health insurance coverage of medical cannabis, the Argentine Senate approved the medical use of cannabis oil. In 2020 home cultivation was also approved.

Countries are clearly watching each other right now on progressing the entire reform issue—no matter where they are in the process of cannabis acceptance. For this reason, the proximate announcements in national legislatures now coming from all over the world appear to be a global trend. Legalization, if not normalization, is also highly likely to show up in other countries now coming out of the pandemic where political leaders desperately need to find both development projects with credible prospects of creating jobs, tax revenue, and potentially also have positive environmental impact. 

Cannabis legalization is a popular reform everywhere. Supporting the same gives credibility to a political process that itself is challenged if not deadlocked in partisan fights in multiple countries. Consideration of this issue, as well as passage of legalization legislation, not only gives such leaders credibility but represents something that they might actually be able to accomplish.

The End of the Latin American Drug War

The recent indications by multiple countries in both Central and South America that they are going to cultivate the growth of this industry (or are considering it) is a sea change that cannot be underestimated. The South American hemisphere was the top target of the U.S. from the 1970s until well into this century for a hot war that was never labelled as such but took many casualties.

Indeed, Uruguay, the first country in the world to declare that it would allow recreational reform, was blackmailed by the U.S. banking system for years after 2013 to slow down its internal development of the industry.

These days, that conversation is clearly not taking place, although federal reform (of any sort, let alone of the recreational kind) again seems to be destined to stall in the U.S. Congress.

Argentina certainly seems to be positioning itself on this issue as developments occur in both the U.S. and Germany (for starters). That makes a great deal of sense. Both countries are ideal export markets for a product that Argentina is well developed to deliver as a high value export crop in both hemispheres.