DEA And FDA Highlight How Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol. DEA Comes Out Swinging in Cannabis Resche

Name: DEA And FDA Highlight How Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol. DEA Comes Out Swinging in Cannabis Resche
Uploaded: 2026-06-30T15:54:45.000Z
Duration: 3 h 4 min 19 s

Introduction to Hyatt 9 News Hour

Overview of the Show

The Hyatt 9 News Hour features discussions with cannabis industry experts on various topics, including politics, regulation, science, and wellness.

Host Jason Beck emphasizes community building and fighting stigma within the cannabis space.

Daily Schedule

The show airs live Monday through Friday at 9 a.m. Pacific Time and noon Eastern Time.

Celebrating National Outfit of the Day

Significance of OOTD Day

National Outfit of the Day (OOTD) Day encourages individuals to express their personal style by sharing outfits on social media.

Participants are motivated to showcase what makes them feel beautiful.

America's Largest Cannabis Greenhouse: Glasshouse Brands

Company Overview

Glasshouse Brands is located in Camarillo, California, and is recognized as America's largest cannabis cultivation facility.

In 2025, they produced 666,000 pounds of cannabis with revenues of $182 million; this was a decrease from $201 million in 2024 due to an immigration raid.

Future Projections

By the end of 2026, Glasshouse aims to cultivate one million pounds and generate up to $245 million in sales after listing on the New York Stock Exchange.

Insights from Graham Farrar

Personal Reflections

Co-founder Graham Farrar reflects on his past ambition to be a significant player in the drug trade and acknowledges his current success in cannabis cultivation.

Discussion on Glasshouse Going Public

Market Reactions

Panelists discuss concerns about Glasshouse's projected revenue amidst previous legal issues and market conditions.

Financial Viability Concerns

Questions arise regarding whether California's market can support such high sales figures given its current state.

Regulatory Considerations for Cannabis Companies

Licensing Challenges

Discussion highlights that only medical cannabis sales are permitted for companies going public on major exchanges like NYSE.

Speculation on Sales Figures

Panelists speculate if Glasshouse’s projections may be overly optimistic or based on inflated inventory values.

Discussion on Medical Cannabis Users in California

Estimating Medical Cannabis Usage

The conversation begins with a mention of over a million medical cannabis users in California, raising questions about the accuracy of this estimate.

A humorous exchange occurs regarding the amount each user would need to purchase annually, highlighting the absurdity of such high figures.

Separation of Adult Use and Medical Marijuana

It is noted that Glass House has separated their adult use and medical marijuana sales, preventing conflation of these numbers in financial reporting.

Questions arise about SEC regulations concerning revenue reporting for combined sales categories.

Tracking Systems and Oversight

Michael raises concerns about who monitors compliance with medical versus adult use purchases, especially in states lacking robust tracking systems.

The discussion emphasizes that dispensaries check IDs to verify patient status but questions how thorough this process is.

Sales Processing Regulations

Compliance Requirements

In California, it is illegal to process sales without a customer present, emphasizing strict compliance requirements for dispensaries.

A scenario is presented where an out-of-state medical cardholder visits a dispensary; they are entered into the system as a medical patient despite potential tracking issues.

Audit Procedures and Accountability

When state audits occur, they will review all types of sales (medical vs. adult), which could lead to complications if discrepancies are found.

Concerns are raised about businesses misclassifying customers as medical patients for tax benefits without proper documentation.

Potential Consequences of Misclassification

Investigative Processes

If a dispensary shows an unusually high percentage of medical patients compared to others in the area, it may trigger investigations by state or IRS authorities.

Auditors may request records and surveillance footage from dispensaries to ensure compliance with regulations regarding patient documentation.

Legal Implications

Failure to provide adequate documentation during audits can result in severe penalties for dispensaries, including reclassification of all sales as adult use.

Possible outcomes include revocation of licenses due to tampering or illicit activities related to misreporting sales data.

Tax Fraud Considerations

IRS Scrutiny on Sales Classification

There’s speculation that the IRS will actively investigate discrepancies between reported medical and recreational cannabis sales due to significant tax implications.

Dispensaries with higher percentages of medical patients than surrounding areas may face increased scrutiny from tax authorities.

Burden of Proof Dynamics

The burden lies on operators to prove their classification decisions during tax disputes; government entities can assert claims without needing immediate proof.

Understanding Tax Court Dynamics

The Burden of Proof in Tax Court

The tax court operates differently from regular courts, placing the burden of proof on the taxpayer once the government presents its case.

A legal determination by the tax court can significantly impact a taxpayer's ability to contest allegations made by the government.

Concerns About Employment Practices

Discussion arises around companies like Glass House allegedly employing undocumented immigrants, raising ethical and legal questions about their hiring practices.

The conversation highlights a lack of oversight, suggesting that many employers may unknowingly hire illegal workers.

Celebrating Corporate Milestones

Glass House's NYSE Listing

Excitement is expressed over Glass House's recent listing on the New York Stock Exchange, marking a significant achievement for the company.

Acknowledgment of the challenges faced in achieving such milestones emphasizes the effort required to succeed in competitive markets.

Political Implications of Cannabis Rescheduling

Allegations Against Trump Administration

Claims are made that cannabis rescheduling efforts by the Trump administration are politically motivated rather than based on scientific evidence.

The U.S. government finds itself defending a proposal to reclassify cannabis as Schedule III amidst historical opposition to its legalization.

Key Players and Testimonies

Kevin Sabet argues that political donations influence governmental decisions regarding cannabis classification, highlighting potential conflicts of interest.

Notable figures involved include Kim Rivers and Charlie Batchel, who have connections to Trump's administration and financial contributions.

Focus of DEA Hearings

Witnesses and Their Roles

The hearings primarily address policy matters with witnesses from both sides expected to present their cases regarding cannabis classification.

Dominic Cipriano from FDA will testify about medical uses for cannabis, while opponents like Bertha Madras advocate for maintaining its Schedule I status.

Legal Requirements for Reclassification

Federal law necessitates three findings for reclassification: accepted medical use, lower abuse potential than Schedule I & II drugs, and moderate risk profile concerning dependence.

Anticipation Around Hearing Outcomes

Insights from Participants

Participants express eagerness to discuss developments from day one of hearings; there’s an acknowledgment that only opponents were initially highlighted in media coverage.

Clarification is provided regarding who can testify at these hearings; proponents are allowed but must be called by the DEA rather than applying independently.

The Political Landscape of Cannabis Legislation

Activist Community and Testimonies

Activist community groups were barred from testifying in hearings, limiting discussions to those with formal medical credentials.

The focus on "real doctors" reflects a bias against grassroots advocacy for cannabis descheduling.

Historical Context of Cannabis Legality

Criticism is directed at the notion that cannabis is merely a political issue; historical context reveals deeper societal implications.

Cannabis was criminalized without substantial evidence or testimony supporting its classification as a dangerous substance, highlighting hypocrisy in current arguments.

Ongoing Advocacy and Health Perspectives

The speaker has been advocating against cannabis prohibition for 15 years, citing lack of scientific backing for its Schedule I status.

Emphasizes the need for compassionate care regarding drug use rather than punitive measures, advocating for informed decision-making among users.

Education and Public Health Initiatives

Florida's successful tobacco cessation programs serve as a model for educating the public about cannabis use and health risks.

Calls out inconsistencies in marketing regulations between tobacco and cannabis products aimed at youth.

Insights from Attorney Michael Minardi on Cannabis Rescheduling

Overview of Current Legal Landscape

Introduction of attorney Michael Minardi, who assists clients navigating Florida's complex cannabis laws.

Encouragement to vote for Minardi Law as best criminal defense attorney highlights community engagement in legal reform efforts.

DEA's Position on Cannabis Rescheduling

Discussion on the DEA's support for rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III under Biden-era proposals indicates shifting governmental attitudes.

James J. Swartz addresses concerns about limited participation from anti-rescheduling parties during critical hearings.

Key Findings and Burden of Proof

The hearing focuses on establishing "accepted medical use" (CAMU), which could lead to reclassification away from Schedule I status.

CAMU determination is crucial; if established, it would challenge existing classifications under the Controlled Substances Act.

Challenges Ahead in Rescheduling Efforts

Schwartz notes that anti-rescheduling parties question the adequacy of HHS’s two-part test used to determine CAMU due to its omission of key standards from previous tests.

Examination of Cannabis Testing and Regulatory Challenges

Overview of the Two-Part Test

The two-part test for cannabis has been problematic due to the complexity of its chemical composition, as discussed by David Evans, an attorney for the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association.

During cross-examination, Evans questioned why HHS and DEA are abandoning this five-part test but withdrew his question after objections from the DEA's legal team.

Cross-Examination Dynamics

Evans' one-hour cross-examination extended to two hours due to repeated objections from the DEA, which deemed many questions speculative or outside the hearing's scope.

Shapiro Nero was authorized by a letter from the FDA to testify on three specific topics only, limiting his scope during cross-examination.

FDA's Role in Cannabis Evaluation

The FDA conducted an eight-factor analysis leading to a Schedule III recommendation for cannabis based on scientific evaluations.

Dr. Shippenero, director at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research since 2018, provided insights into overseeing drug evaluations that included cannabis.

Scientific Findings on Cannabis

Shippenero highlighted his role in ensuring drug quality before human consumption and mentioned overseeing evaluations covering around 120 substances including cannabis.

The review concluded that cannabis has lower potential for abuse compared to substances classified under Schedules I and II based on an eight-factor analysis.

Methodology Behind CAMU Determination

Mann focused her questioning on whether healthcare professionals recommend cannabis under state regulations and if credible scientific evidence supports its therapeutic effects.

The evaluation utilized data from national surveys, literature reviews, state surveys, and approved uses of Marinol and Sindros to determine CAMU for at least three medical conditions.

Clinical Trials Supporting Therapeutic Benefits

A total of 39 clinical trials were identified focusing on cannabis as a treatment for pain; studies showed significant support particularly for neuropathic pain management.

Mann explored further into how national surveys assessed patterns among Americans using medical cannabis and their interactions with healthcare practitioners.

Safety Concerns Compared to Other Substances

Shippenero reported low instances of adverse events related to medical cannabis use; about 50% of patients returned for subsequent purchases in Minnesota.

Comparisons were made between cannabis-related substance abuse potential against various controlled substances like heroin and fentanyl highlighting its relative safety profile.

Overdose Risks Relative to Alcohol

Mann queried about overdose risks associated with marijuana versus alcohol; findings indicated fewer overdose deaths linked with marijuana usage historically known within research circles.

Conclusion: Support for Schedule III Classification

Based on comprehensive findings, Shippenero affirmed that data supports placing cannabis in Schedule III rather than remaining in Schedule I classification.

Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Discussion

The Role of Cannabis in Medicine

The speaker notes that a key figure in the cannabis space did not provide a name but had a significant impact on shaping the industry.

There is consensus among advocates that cannabis has medical benefits, often surpassing many pharmaceutical drugs, especially considering the issues surrounding opiates.

Concerns About Youth and Safety

A discussion arises about protecting children from potential harm related to cannabis use, drawing parallels with household products like bleach and dishwasher tabs.

The speaker highlights inconsistencies in childproof requirements for various household items compared to those for cannabis.

Regulatory Challenges Ahead

There is uncertainty regarding the timeline for decisions made by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), which could affect future regulations.

The DEA's lack of obligation to implement changes raises concerns about whether proposed regulations will be enacted effectively.

Implications of Schedule 3 Classification

While there is optimism about adult use being classified under Schedule 3, doubts remain about actual implementation post-decision.

Medical efficacy is acknowledged, but legal possession still requires registration as a medical provider despite Schedule 3 classification.

Enforcement and Legal Ramifications

Without federal legalization, enforcement actions may continue at local levels against illicit market participants even if cannabis is classified as Schedule 3.

Potential fines rather than arrests are anticipated for violations related to cannabis possession under new regulations.

Future of Cannabis Legislation

There's hope that moving cannabis to Schedule 3 could reduce mandatory minimum sentences for possession offenses.

The DEA primarily focuses on larger operations rather than individual possession cases; local law enforcement may have more authority under new classifications.

Discussion on Marijuana Legislation and DEA's Stance

Current Legal Status of Marijuana

The conversation begins with a distinction between states where marijuana is illegal versus those where it is legal, indicating a shift in societal norms.

Emphasis on the decriminalization of marijuana, suggesting that possession does not lead to arrest regardless of its classification as a Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 substance.

Concerns are raised about potential law enforcement actions despite decriminalization, hinting at inconsistencies in application across different jurisdictions.

Implications of Federal Classification

Speculation on the DEA's future actions regarding marijuana classification, particularly whether it should remain a Schedule 1 drug.

Predictions that federal legislation may not progress this session but could be influenced by upcoming political events like the midterms.

The possibility of adult-use cannabis being classified under Schedule 3 is discussed, contingent upon outcomes from ongoing hearings.

Political Context and Public Perception

Acknowledgment of potential political maneuvers leading up to elections, including possible surprises related to hemp relief and cannabis legalization.

A light-hearted remark about THC prevalence reflects broader cultural attitudes towards cannabis use.

Advocacy for Medical Cannabis

Advocacy for medical THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid), highlighting its importance amidst discussions about waste and corruption in government spending.

Infrastructure and Leadership Critique

Criticism directed at current leadership regarding infrastructure issues in Los Angeles; promises made to improve public spaces if elected mayor.

Introduction to Todd Dankin

Background Information

Introduction of Todd Dankin as an experienced storyteller and director with extensive involvement in cannabis discussions through various media platforms.

Nevada's Drug Crisis Statistics

Highlighting Nevada's rising overdose rates amid national declines; specific statistics reveal concerning trends in opioid-related deaths within the state.

Reevaluation of Cannabis by Federal Authorities

DEA's Changing Position on Cannabis

The DEA argues that cannabis is safer than alcohol and opioids during federal hearings, marking a significant shift from its historical stance against marijuana.

Comparison with Other Substances

Presentation of data showing high mortality rates associated with alcohol and opioids compared to rare instances of cannabis-related deaths.

Withdrawal Symptoms Analysis

Comparison between withdrawal symptoms from cannabis versus alcohol; highlights the relative safety profile of cannabis based on FDA testimony.

Future Implications Following Hearings

Anticipated Outcomes from Hearings

Discussion around potential changes resulting from the hearings, including tax relief for businesses involved in the cannabis industry and adjustments to federal documentation processes.

Reactions to Government’s Shift

Debate over whether the government's change represents a reversal or evolution in policy regarding marijuana legalization.

Insights on Marijuana's FDA Approval Challenges

Government Testimony and FDA Standards

The government's witness acknowledged under oath that marijuana would not meet the FDA's five-part test for accepted medical use.

Concerns were raised about the FDA's single compound approval method, which complicates marijuana's potential approval due to its multi-compound nature.

An FDA representative highlighted that substances like alcohol and opioids pose greater risks than cannabis, yet cannabis struggles for acceptance.

Reproducibility Issues in Cannabis Research

The inability to reproduce a cannabis plant in a lab is cited as a significant barrier to its approval, despite THC being legal as a Schedule 3 substance.

Criticism was directed at the argument regarding reproducibility, suggesting it lacks substantial grounding given existing legal THC products.

Perspectives on Advocacy and Witness Credibility

There was debate over whether advocates should testify; some argued it could lead to biased perceptions during cross-examination.

A neutral witness was deemed more credible than activist doctors who might be perceived as biased due to their advocacy work.

Cross-examination Dynamics

Concerns were raised about how activist doctors could be portrayed negatively during cross-examinations, potentially undermining their credibility.

The discussion emphasized that judges may interpret testimonies differently based on perceived biases or educational backgrounds of witnesses.

Legal Framework and Future Implications

The conversation shifted towards the importance of distinguishing between different tests (five-prong vs. three-prong), with implications for future scheduling decisions regarding cannabis.

Historical rulings have recognized cannabis’s medical value, suggesting potential shifts in its legal status are possible despite current challenges.

Signature Controversy in Idaho's Medical Cannabis Initiative

Incident Overview

A contractor for a medical cannabis ballot initiative attempted to deliver approximately 4,000 signatures after the local election office closed in South Central Idaho.

The Minnacota County Clerk's Office initially did not accept the signatures due to timing, leading to a decision by Clerk Tanya Page not to count them.

Legal Challenges

A lawsuit was filed seeking judicial intervention to require the county to count the submitted signatures.

Despite challenges, organizers remain hopeful about qualifying for November ballots based on their collected signatures.

Direct Democracy in Idaho

In Idaho, ballot initiatives allow voters rather than legislators to decide on new laws; two groups are pursuing initiatives this November: one for medical cannabis and another against strict abortion bans.

Qualification Requirements

To qualify for the ballot, initiatives must gather valid signatures from 6% of registered voters statewide and from 6% of voters in at least 18 legislative districts.

Since 2013, few initiatives have met these requirements as the legislature has sought to raise thresholds significantly.

Signature Collection Efforts

The Medical Cannabis Initiative reportedly gathered over 150,000 signatures but has not confirmed meeting district-specific requirements necessary for qualification.

The Secretary of State indicated that while some initiatives may meet state thresholds, others like the medical cannabis initiative still face legal hurdles.

Upcoming Decisions and Verification Process

Timeline for Ballot Initiatives

In two weeks, it will be determined which initiatives will appear on November ballots as counties finalize signature verifications.

Abortion Initiative Insights

Organizers behind an abortion ban initiative reported a quieter final submission day compared to cannabis advocates; they had confidence in their qualification status.

Signature Verification Challenges

Medical cannabis organizers employed five firms for signature verification but faced uncertainty regarding compliance with legislative district requirements.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

Initial Legal Actions

An attorney representing the PAC behind the medical marijuana initiative requested reconsideration from Clerk Page regarding her decision on signature acceptance.

Court Findings

Security footage revealed that representatives arrived after business hours; thus, a judge ruled that submitted signatures were late and could not be counted.

Judge’s Ruling Details

Judge W. Reed Cotton outlined events leading up to the ruling where an employee informed contractors that submissions would be considered late despite accepting them briefly.

Implications of Submission Timing

Recommendations from Officials

The Idaho Secretary of State urged early submission of signatures due to potential administrative burdens during primary elections overlapping with verification periods.

Organizer Responses

Watson stated that their strategy was aligned with perceived appropriate practices despite being encouraged by officials to submit earlier.

Medical Cannabis Initiative in Idaho: Challenges and Developments

Signature Submission and Verification Issues

Ada County Clerk Trent Triple reported that medical cannabis organizers submitted nearly 6,000 pages of signatures on the due date, indicating a significant effort to meet requirements.

Concerns arose regarding the validity of some signatures due to residency verification issues; Deputy Secretary of State Matthew Reibner emphasized that non-resident signature gatherers would invalidate their collected signatures.

Only six states require signature gatherers to be residents, highlighting Idaho's strict regulations added in 1999, which complicate the initiative process.

The Secretary of State's office requested county clerks to review circulator information following complaints about the initiative's legitimacy.

The Natural Medicine Alliance was given a deadline to prove residency for petition gatherers, showcasing the bureaucratic hurdles faced by cannabis advocates.

Public Reaction and Criticism

Discussion among commentators reflected skepticism about the initiative’s chances due to procedural missteps; they criticized organizers for not submitting signatures earlier than the deadline.

Commentators expressed frustration over poor planning by those involved in gathering signatures, suggesting it reflects poorly on the cannabis industry as a whole.

A quote from a commentator highlighted that "poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part," emphasizing accountability in advocacy efforts.

Potential Changes in Cannabis Banking Legislation

House Speaker Mike Johnson's Position

House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated he would not block a vote on cannabis banking legislation if there is sufficient Republican support, marking a shift from previous stances against such measures.

Despite his personal opposition to cannabis banking legislation, Johnson’s willingness to allow a vote could signal potential progress for advocates seeking legislative change.

Legislative Background and Support

The Safe Banking Act aims to protect banks serving legal cannabis businesses from federal penalties; this is crucial as many operators currently face cash-only operations due to federal prohibition.

Previous versions of the Safe Banking Act have passed multiple times but never became law under Republican leadership; this context underscores ongoing challenges for reform advocates.

Future Implications and Call to Action

While no vote has been scheduled yet, Johnson’s comments suggest that grassroots advocacy may influence Republican support for advancing cannabis banking legislation.

Commentators encouraged viewers to contact their representatives urging support for the bill, emphasizing civic engagement as vital for legislative success.

Safe Banking Progress in the Senate

Overview of Legislative Challenges

The majority of efforts regarding safe banking have been concentrated in the Senate, where significant blockages have historically occurred.

With Mike Johnson's election as Speaker, new obstacles emerged from the House side, complicating progress on safe banking legislation.

Positive Developments

The evolution of Mike Johnson's stance is viewed positively for advancing industry interests and overcoming legislative hurdles.

There is optimism about surpassing the necessary 51 votes in the Senate with support from key figures like Bernie Moreno.

Republican Support Dynamics

Clarification is sought regarding what constitutes a "majority" of Republican support according to Speaker Johnson.

Aiming for at least 60% Republican backing could significantly influence legislative outcomes.

Voting Requirements and Expectations

Understanding specific vote counts needed (e.g., 216 or 218 votes in the House) is crucial for gauging potential success.

It’s anticipated that most Democrats will support safe banking, with only a few dissenters expected.

Industry Implications and Future Outlook

The urgency for safe banking legislation is underscored by companies like Trulieve and Glasshouse being publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

This year has seen notable advancements in cannabis legislation, marking it as one of the most productive periods recently.

Conclusion and Acknowledgments

Show Wrap-Up

Thanks are extended to listeners who join daily discussions about developments in the cannabis industry.

Special recognition goes to Catalyst Cannabis for their support and contributions to maintaining show operations.

Gratitude is expressed towards correspondents and partners who facilitate daily broadcasts, emphasizing community engagement within the cannabis sector.