When Growers Network first started this series on how Cannabis has influenced culture, it all seemed simple. We’d hit some of the major touchpoints of culture, call it a day.

Then we did our research. Hoo boy!

Author’s Note: Earlier periods of time have fewer records and will tend to have more legends and myths associated with them. In this article I will attempt to cite my sources, but hearsay can be tricky to determine.

We’ll start in colonial times, prior to the Revolutionary War. Cannabis was first introduced to the Americas in 1606 ^(source) and it was considered an important agricultural crop. In 1619 the Virginia Assembly even went so far as to mandate that every farmer would be required to grow hemp ^(source).

The early introduction of hemp to the North American colonies shouldn’t be surprising because both Queen Elizabeth and King Henry VIII mandated that farmers should grow hemp in England ^(source) only 50 years prior. Since England, was a seafaring nation, it should come as no surprise that hemp fiber was highly valued for its high tensile strength, making it an ideal material for sails and ropes. In fact, the word “canvas” is derived from the word “Cannabis” ^(source).

Throughout the 1700s, because of its value as a fiber, several colonies mandated that all farmers grow hemp ^(source). George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams would later advocate for hemp production on farms. Recently this has come full circle, because Mount Vernon is growing hemp again.

I want to address the giant pink green elephant in the room. There are many stories about how Thomas Jefferson or George Washington used to smoke Cannabis flowers, but is there any truth to this? The Monticello did an in-depth analysis of contemporaneous documents and found no evidence for such behavior. This correlates with our understanding of hemp at the time -- most Cannabis in the New World had very low THC levels, making smoking it unpleasant.

While people weren’t smoking Cannabis, it was being used for more than just fiber. Estimates from the time period suggest that 75-90% of all paper was hemp-derived. The first drafts of the Declaration of Independence would be written on hemp-derived paper, with the final version being printed on more-expensive parchment ^(source). There is also some evidence that early drafts of the US Constitution were written on hemp-derived paper, with the final draft being written on parchment ^(source). This makes sense, given that in the time period these two documents were written, hemp paper was more common and cheaper, while parchment was more expensive and more durable.

During this time period, there are also some early references to the intoxicating effects of Cannabis, and some suggestions that high-class gangs in London used Cannabis to get high ^(source). However, it wouldn’t be until the 19th century that the intoxicating effects of Cannabis would start to get noticed by most of Western society and the USA.

The period between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 was mostly marked by peace and growth. The Native Americans weren’t so fortunate, and conflicts with Native American tribes began to emerge prior to the War of 1812. When the War of 1812 came around, Cannabis’ significance emerged yet again.

Warships were needed during the War of 1812 in order to fight the British, and with the need for warships came the need for hemp fiber. The USS Constitution was constructed in 1797, but its most notable engagements were during the War of 1812. When it was built, it required nearly 122,000 pounds of hemp fiber for its construction ^(source). And that was just a single warship -- there were a handful of others in the US’ employ during that same time period.

As the 19th century rolled on, the use of hemp for fiber products began to wane. Alternative fiber crops such as jute and cotton became more common and easier to process and produce ^(source). Towards the end of the 19th century, many sailing ships stopped relying upon fiber-intensive wind sails and began to rely upon iron and steel engines. However, hemp and Cannabis began to find other uses. Hemp oil and hemp derivatives began to appear in the mid-19th century and found regular shelf space in apothecaries and pharmacies towards the end of the 19th century ^(source).

Another myth about one of the US presidents emerges during this time -- one in which Abraham Lincoln supposedly enjoyed smoking “sweet hemp on his porch”. However, contemporaneous evidence contains no proof of this legend ^(source). While it is possible Abraham Lincoln fueled some of his lamps with hemp seed oil, there is no definitive evidence.

The trend of using hemp derivatives as medicine continued well into the 20th century, and many pharmacies and apothecaries carried Cannabis tinctures and syrups, and many doctors prescribed Cannabis preparations to their patients ^(source).

Around this time, recreational use of Cannabis started to become noticeable. The word “marijuana” began to enter common parlance in the US, as Mexican immigrants who were known to smoke Cannabis flowers became more common in the Southern United States ^(source). Racial fears and tensions were stoked during the Great Depression, harming the public perception of Cannabis, as Mexicans and African Americans were most commonly associated with the recreational use of Cannabis. These minorities were blamed for a variety of problems, including “Reefer Madness.”

During this time period, Cannabis gained much notoriety and became the subject of numerous songs about its use. You can read about how Cannabis affected music here.

This would all come to a head with the Marihuana (sic) Tax Act of 1937, which effectively made Cannabis illegal in the United States. The act was passed despite the complaints of the American Medical Association and other physician’s organizations ^(source). The Marihuana Tax Act made non-medical and non-industrial uses of Cannabis illegal, completely banning recreational use of Cannabis. It also imposed significant taxes on physicians prescribing Cannabis products, and levied an annual tax on hemp farmers.

Despite the prohibition against recreational Cannabis, hemp was not illegal after the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. It would persist as a valuable agricultural commodity through World War 2, and the US government would even encourage hemp farming for the war effort ^(source). During WWII, the US Government temporarily lifted the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 to encourage hemp production, but would reinstate the act after the war.

Recreational Cannabis use would persist, but in secret. Musicians and artists were known to continue using recreational Cannabis, but records are spotty given its illegal status at the time.

1952 and 1956 were the years that would render all Cannabis, including industrial hemp and medical products, illegal in the United States. 1952 saw the introduction of Boggs Act of 1952 and 1956 saw the Narcotics Control Act of 1956. The Boggs Act set mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions, and the Narcotics Control Act determined that all Cannabis (including hemp) was an illegal drug.

Because of these laws, all Cannabis growth went underground (figuratively, not literally). Luckily, this time period coincided with the start of hydroponics and commercially viable artificial grow lighting. While outdoor guerrilla grows would continue due to their economic efficiency, the conditions were ripe for indoor Cannabis growing to be born.

Now… we arrive at Richard Nixon. Up to this point, there were politicians who used Cannabis prohibition to further their own ends, but none quite like Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon oversaw the implementation of the Controlled Substances Act which scheduled Cannabis (and all cannabinoids) as a schedule 1 narcotic. Nixon also started what is colloquially called the “War on Drugs” and reportedly used it to target minorities and groups who were likely to favor the Democrats.

Needless to say, this strong anti-drug fervor led to the creation of all sorts of anti-drug slogans, advertisements, Public Service Announcements, and more. Cannabis was dragged into the label of “narcotic” and often explicitly targeted. But this was just the beginning; Ronald Reagan would take it even further.

We briefly skip over the presidencies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter largely because nothing new happened with regards to Cannabis. The policies of the Controlled Substances Act and the War on Drugs continued, guerrilla grows continued, and generally not much changed. Jimmy Carter opposed the criminalization of Cannabis, but was unable to gain any traction in his efforts ^(source).

Ronald Reagan, however, took anti-Cannabis to a whole new level:

The Reagan administration regularly put out content and PSAs against drugs, and particularly Cannabis. Nancy Reagan, the First Lady, started the “Just Say No” campaign which was her primary initiative as the First Lady. During this time, the AIDS epidemic in the US was really kicking off, and Cannabis was partially blamed as a gateway drug to harsher drugs that could carry HIV. Even children’s programming contained anti-Cannabis messages:

We’re going to skip over George H.W. Bush’s presidency, although it is worth mentioning that under his presidency, companies that sold equipment to Cannabis producers were targeted, expanding the DEA’s power.

Now we get to the Clinton years, where we see the first signs of the ice melting. Famously, during his run for the presidency, Bill Clinton said that he smoked marijuana, but he “didn’t inhale.”

During Clinton’s presidency, California would legalize medical Cannabis with the Compassionate Care Act of 1996, the first act of its kind to attempt to decriminalize Cannabis in the US. While overall governmental policies regarding Cannabis showed few signs of movement, there was finally movement on the issue. Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and Maine would all legalize medical Cannabis during Clinton’s presidency.

We’re skipping over George W. Bush’s presidency, because government policies regarding Cannabis generally didn’t change. More states legalized medical Cannabis during his presidency, continuing what started under Clinton.

However, we start to see real movement on the issue under Barack Obama’s presidency. In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first two states to legalize recreational Cannabis, and Barack Obama put the Cole Memo into effect in 2013, preventing the Justice Department from enforcing prohibition in states where Cannabis had been legalized. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment would come in 2014, reinforcing the provisions of the Cole Memo. Neither of these policy changes have affected the legal status of Cannabis, but remain popular.

In 2016, Donald Trump was elected to the presidency, and appointed Jefferson Sessions III as his attorney general. While Donald Trump indicated indifference on the subject of Cannabis, AG Jeff Sessions was staunchly anti-Cannabis, saying “Good people don’t use marijuana.” He overturned the Cole Memo, but was kept at bay by the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment. He would later be fired by Donald Trump.

In 2018, the STATES Act was introduced by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and could potentially provide an avenue towards total legalization in the US. The STATES Act shows bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and Senate. Also worthy of note in 2018 was the passage of the US Farm Bill which included a provision descheduling hemp, meaning that industrial hemp is now legal throughout the US once again. The measure was spearheaded by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell.

And that’s where we’re at today. What will the future hold? If current trends continue, we’ll likely see the complete legalization of Cannabis at the federal level in the US during our lifetimes. Some optimists believe we will see it as early as 2020, and some of the more pessimistic expect 2024 or 2028. Regardless, the pendulum of society has shifted, and most see legalization as inevitable in the US.

So what do you think? What country should we cover next? Let us know in the survey below or on the forum.

What a monumental year for the cannabis industry. Public perception has rapidly shifted on a plant that was demonized and devalued. Now people of all ages, backgrounds and political affiliations are discovering the benefits of cannabis — from helping to reduce childhood epilepsy problems to increasing tax revenue in cash-strapped states.

Here’s an overview of some of the most significant cannabis news stories of the year and their impact on the industry. 2019 promises to be an even bigger year for this emerging market, and Boveda is excited to be a part of it.

After years of clinical trials and much anticipation, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially approved Epidiolex as an oral solution that can be used to treat two severe forms of childhood epilepsy. The UK-based company that created Epidiolex, GW Pharmaceuticals, produces the medicine from cannabidiol (CBD) and its derivatives. Patient trials show that the drug has incredible effectiveness in reducing seizures in persons ages two and up. This approval has led to an increased interest in medical cannabis, and R&D budgets are steadily increasing in regards to cannabis.

Cannabis legalization exploded around the world in 2018. Numerous countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and South America approved medical cannabis. The UK will become one of the largest medical markets. Although South Korea has been historically anti-cannabis, the country is now looking to approve medicinal cannabis. The Supreme Court of Mexico ruled that cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional there. Mexico’s incoming president was already signaling support for reform at the time, and this news will pave the way for nationwide legalization.

Of course, the biggest news this year is the adoption of adult-use cannabis sales in Canada. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on the subject. Canada officially approved legalization in the spring and on October 17, thousands of eager Canadians purchased Cannabis at brick-and-mortar dispensaries or online through provincial shops. Many retailers ran out of product.

Cannabis reform advanced in the United States, too. Five more states approved medical or adult-use. Vermont was the first state whose state legislature legalized cannabis, whereas most states relied on ballot initiatives to legalize cannabis. During the midterm elections, voters in Michigan said “yes” to recreational sales. Meanwhile, residents of Oklahoma, Missouri and Utah voted to approve medical cannabis. Unfortunately, North Dakota failed to pass legal adult use at the midterms. The opposition outspent proponents by an 8-to-1 margin.

Nicotine sales are down, particularly in states where cannabis is legal, so this shift only makes sense. The same goes for alcohol sales. A majority of cannabis consumers believe using cannabis is safer than drinking alcohol, according to a recent consumer survey conducted by New Frontier Data.

In 2018, a lot of major investments came from unlikely sources. Constellation Brands invested $4 billion in Canadian cannabis cultivator Canopy Growth. Constellation is the beverage behemoth behind Corona beer, Svedka vodka, and Robert Mondavi wines. Not long ago, AB InBev, makers of Budweiser, Labatt, and Rolling Rock, announced a $100 million partnership with Canopy rival Tilray. The duo intend to develop non-alcoholic, cannabis-infused drinks.

Additionally, Altria, one of the biggest tobacco companies in the world, forayed into a different cigarette product by investing $1.8 billion in The Cronos Group, another Canadian cannabis producer.

2018 closed with yet another victory for the cannabis industry. The massive U.S. Farm Bill included the Hemp Farming Act of 2018. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) championed the legislation that effectively legalizes industrial hemp production in the United States. The law deschedules hemp, defined as containing less than 0.3% THC.

Hemp is used to make a plethora of products, from textiles to plastics. Hemp also typically contains high amounts of cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive cannabinoid that is becoming popular as a treatment for a variety of illnesses and ailments. However, the FDA has asserted authority over CBD, stating that it is still illegal as a food additive and cannot be promoted as a medicine. Despite this, 2019 is expected to be a record-setting year for sales of CBD products nationwide.

In states that have approved medical and/or recreational marijuana, it’s not uncommon for state governments to ignore the voices of their constituents. People reliably vote for medical marijuana or adult-use marijuana, but when push comes to shove, government officials are slow to develop the marijuana programs that would put those laws into action, or implement laws hindering those programs.

Suddenly, “legal” medical or recreational marijuana becomes “legal,” but all of the restrictions end up limiting access and raising prices for the people who voted for legalization.

Florida residents had to deal with this problem last year after the vast majority of Florida voters cast their ballots in support of Amendment 2 in November 2016. Amendment 2 was intended to expand the state’s medical marijuana system significantly beyond the 1,800 residents who qualified for medical marijuana at the time.

The problem was that Florida lawmakers seemed set on blending Amendment 2 with existing marijuana laws rather than listening to voters and developing a new regulatory framework for medical marijuana. Advocates for Amendment 2 fought against this blended approach citing two primary issues:

First, the proposed blended law would limit the number of approved marijuana cultivators (who were also the only approved distributors and sellers) to the existing seven, stifling growth. Second, the law that residents voted in favor of would allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for debilitating medical conditions of the same kind specifically listed in the amendment if there was evidence that the use of marijuana outweighed the potential health risks. The blended rule proposed by lawmakers instead required that a medical board approves each condition first. These two approaches were not in alignment, and it was clear that state lawmakers weren’t listening to their constituents.

Florida wasn’t the first state that ran into delays and unexpected changes when they created and implemented marijuana laws. Massachusetts residents voted in favor of legal marijuana during the November 2016 election, but on December 29, 2016, the Massachusetts House and Senate passed a bill that delayed the opening of marijuana shops in the state by up to six months.

The Massachusetts bill was passed under somewhat dubious circumstances; it was voted on during informal sessions in both legislative chambers without a public hearing or a debate. Making matters worse, only a small number of lawmakers were actually present when the bill passed, because many of them were away for the holidays at the time. Ultimately, marijuana sales in Massachusetts didn’t begin until November 20, 2018. This sneaky behavior didn’t halt the will of the people, but slowed it down.

In Colorado, a different kind of volatility made it difficult for some marijuana retailers to stay in business. A law passed in 2016 required dispensaries and growers to have all of their marijuana products tested. This created a significant burden for some dispensaries and businesses because Colorado’s marijuana dispensaries must obtain state and local licenses to operate. Without both licenses, they cannot get their products tested. Multiple municipalities didn’t have local licensing systems in place in time to meet the new law’s July 1, 2016 deadline, forcing these businesses to shutter until they could get local licenses.

The Colorado example shows how even though residents voted a long time ago to legalize cannabis, the laws detailing industry practices cans cause the system to behave quite differently from how voters expected it would when they cast their ballots. In other words, there is a discrepancy between state and local rules that often goes against voters’ choices on state laws.

However, the problem is not isolated to states that already have marijuana programs. On November 6th of 2018, Wisconsin voters in 16 counties and two cities (accounting for nearly half of the state’s residents) were asked to weigh in on advisory referendums related to medical and adult-use marijuana, which appeared on their ballots. Wisconsin residents overwhelmingly approved those referendums by margins of two-to-one, three-to-one, and four-to-one.

These results shouldn’t be surprising to lawmakers because 2018 Marquette Law School poll of Wisconsin voters found that 61% of respondents believed marijuana should be federally legalized and regulated like alcohol. However, change is unlikely to come anytime soon in Wisconsin for two main reasons:

First, the referendums were non-binding, so the state government doesn’t need to do anything. Second, key Republican government leaders in Wisconsin, like Republican Wisconsin Senate President Roger Roth, have publicly stated that they oppose marijuana legalization of any kind, making progress incredibly difficult.

Variations in laws should be expected while marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, but state and local rules should always adhere to the voice of the people. In many cases, that is not happening. Democracies should listen to the will of their people, and many politicians are valuing their personal beliefs over what their constituents are asking for.

It seems to be a pattern now. A new state that has come online with fully legal adult-use cannabis is having issues surrounding its laboratory testing procedures. First it was Oregon, which had a serious shortage of laboratories, driving up the prices for cannabis. Now it seems it’s California’s time for laboratory woes.

So what’s going wrong?

Well, there’s a few different problems, I’ll enumerate them here:

1. Some labs seem to be falsifying their tests, passing an abnormally high percentage of samples. There is a general sense of a “pay-to-play” atmosphere with certain labs.
2. Statewide, there was a failure rate of nearly 20% for samples submitted for testing in the first two months. The problem has recently improved to a 14% failure rate, which is still high, but not as bad. This problem may not be the laboratories’ faults either.
3. There are only 57 certified testing facilities for the entire state. In a smaller state, that might be sufficient, but the California market is huge, and there is a lot of cannabis to be tested. This can lead to delays and potentially product loss.

What’s causing the problems?

Well, like any new market, there are speed bumps along the way. California was the first state in the USA to legalize medical cannabis in 1996, and thus served as a testing grounds of sorts. For a long time, regulations were relatively minimal and difficult to enforce. Additionally, the federal government continued to carry out raids and enforcement on a federal level until President Obama officially signaled the Justice Department would no longer pursue cannabis cases in states that had legalized cannabis with the Cole Memo.

With the passage of Proposition 64 that legalized adult-use cannabis in California, the laws concerning cannabis production and regulations changed to much stricter standards. For some long-time growers, the change might seem like a whiplash, despite a relatively long period before implementation of the standards. Some growers who had previously operated in a relatively gray space now found themselves having to change their methods to accommodate these stricter standards.

This would explain the high failure rate, which is probably not the fault of the laboratories themselves. Since the failure rate seems to be improving pretty rapidly (20% failure rate to 14% failure rate in a few months), people are starting to improve.

As for the test falsifications and “pay-to-play” environment for laboratories, this issue may stem from the same source. Prior to Proposition 64, testing laboratories were not required by law and had no standard operating procedure enumerated for themselves. Many laboratories offered their services because it made for good marketing for the cannabis producers. Producers could “back up” their claims from laboratory tests. This created a system that incentivized laboratories providing higher numbers to their clients than strictly controlled tests would actually show.

Some companies continued this trend into Proposition 64 implementation, but finally got caught. So while at first glance, it might appear that Proposition 64 is the source of these problems, it’s actually fixing a longstanding problem.

As for the limited number of licensed laboratories, the situation is changing pretty rapidly. During the course of my research for this article, I came upon other articles that referenced much lower numbers of laboratories. Here’s a rough timeline of licensed laboratories:

• July 15th, 2017: 31 licensed labs (start of official testing period)
• December 3rd, 2018: 47 licensed labs (+16 in 5 months)
• January 3rd, 2019 (time of writing): 57 licensed labs (+10 in one month)

In other words, California has almost doubled its number of licensed laboratories in 6 months. This is good news for cultivators and distributors, and it seems likely that this trend will continue.

The Takeaway

From an outsider’s perspective, it looks like California’s cannabis testing laboratories are actually facing speed bumps that one could have reasonably predicted, given the state’s history when it comes to cannabis. What seems to be happening are normal growing pains as California’s market matures, and it is likely that the problems we are seeing will gradually smooth out.

But you know what? I could be horribly wrong. If I am, I’ll follow up this article with another detailing how I was wrong. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the survey below or on the forum!

In a previous article, we discussed the STATES Act and how it might be a path towards federal Cannabis legalization in the United States. Today we want to follow up that article with a bit of news that some of you may or may not have heard. The bill was originally introduced in the US Senate in June, 2018, by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

Recently, Elizabeth Warren announced that she has formed an exploratory committee towards running for the US presidency.

For those not familiar with the presidential election process in the US, the formation of an exploratory committee is the first step towards a presidential bid. Essentially, an exploratory committee allows a potential candidate to “test the waters” and transition their financials in preparation for a bid.

Under the rules of an exploratory committee, a potential nominee can use an exploratory committee to raise money over $5000 without needing to disclose their financial backers. Once a potential nominee has transitioned to a full-fledged nominee (no longer exploratory), they are required to disclose all financial sources.

Now some of you might wonder: “If it’s exploratory, why is this big news?”

Great question. The answer is that most politicians would never bother making an exploratory committee if they weren’t serious about the prospect in the first place. It’s very likely that anybody who has begun this process has consulted with numerous political experts and consultants prior to this announcement, and believes they may have a chance at winning the popular vote. The exploratory committee is really to see if the candidate would have enough financial support to make their bid successful. If a candidate can raise a healthy amount of money in the exploratory committee phase, it is extremely likely they will formally announce that they are running for the office.

Growers Network is all about Cannabis. So why is Elizabeth Warren a big deal?

Elizabeth Warren, along with Cory Gardner, introduced the STATES Act to the Senate. The STATES Act would functionally provide a route towards Cannabis legalization in the United States. Because Elizabeth Warren was one of the people who introduced the bill, she has a vested interest in seeing it succeed. Many political organizations often grade politicians based on how many of their introduced bills pass, which encourages politicians to write bills they believe in and believe will pass.

Because of this, regardless of whether or not Elizabeth Warren makes it to the presidency, it is very likely she will make Cannabis legalization part of her campaign platform. This will bring the issue to the forefront of the political discussion, and may even help her in her election run. If she does make it to the presidency in 2020, then she can use political capital to push the issue even further. Presidents can exert very strong pressure on Congress.

Based on her announcement video, there are a few things we can clearly deduce being the basis of her platform:

• An emphasis on improving conditions for the poor and middle class.
• An emphasis on improving conditions for racial/ethnic minorities.
• She wants to improve the healthcare system.
• She wants to stop corruption.
• She wants to protect the environment.

There are also a few things implied in her video, even if not explicitly stated:

• She is for gun control.
• She is pro LGBTQ.
• She has a populist ideology and strongly supports the 1st amendment.
• She criticizes Fox News and certain politicians and pundits who are shown in her video.

Also, we already know a few things based on her behavior as a senator:

• As long as she’s been a politician, she has been a Democrat.
• She has voted for members of both parties, often emphasizing that she believes neither party should dominate.
• She was one of the driving forces behind the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a government agency with the goal of preventing anti-consumer practices by large corporations. She played a major role in the passage of Dodd-Frank, which established the CFPB.
• She has a history of progressive and populist politics, often targeting Wall Street financiers and bankers who played a role in the 2007-2008 economic crisis.
• She will likely run on her background as a law school professor who extensively studied topics such as bankruptcy, economics, and commercial law.

That’s about it for our update. While we will never tell you whom to vote for, we will point out politicians who go the extra mile when it comes to Cannabis. And this politician is worth keeping an eye on!