Hemp to the Future: U.S. and Canada Industrial Crops on the Rise

While enthusiasm around the legal cannabis business continues to build, the hemp industry may be poised for explosive growth as well.

For now, however, public equity investors have relatively few options for hemp compared to the availability of cannabis stocks on the OTC market, such as Canadian companies that trade in Canada and the U.S. and larger companies with some exposure to the booming legal cannabis investors.

More of an agricultural and industrial product, hemp fiber and seeds are used in a wide variety of products; in addition, the plant contains CBD, a cannabinoid that can be extracted. Its use gaining in popularity for its purported health benefits.

Hemp is a close relative of cannabis, but does not contain psychoactive properties that make you feel high. Despite that fact, federal law classifies it under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I drug.

Despite this, 38 states currently have pilot programs in place to grow hemp. Most were set up after Congress included a measure in the 2014 Farm Bill that laid out hemp guidelines for states to follow. Under those guidelines, 11 states produced 9,700 acres of hemp in 2016 and 19 states grew more than 25,000 acres in 2017. This year, production is expected to take another big jump.

The Brightfield Group, a Florida-based analytics provider, predicts the hemp industry will be a $1 billion market by 2020. Purchase their report here.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to federally legalize hemp.

McConnell’s Hemp Bill in the Senate

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has managed to fast-track his Hemp Farming Act of 2018 by including it in the Senate Farm Bill. The measure would de-schedule hemp and amend other federal measures to legalize its wider use as an agricultural product and qualify it for federal crop insurance.

“Younger farmers in my state are particularly interested in going in this direction,” McConnell stated. “We have a lot of people who are extremely enthusiastic about the possibilities. As we know, hemp is very diversified.”

Hemp Industries Association President Joy Beckerman is enthusiastic about McConnell’s measure. “We’re going to get this thing done and the plan is for it to go right to the floor for a vote,” Beckerman tells Freedom Leaf. “I have very little in common with McConnell other than hemp, but he’s definitely a hemp hero. He’s been driving legislation in the Senate since at least 2012.”

In 1994, Beckerman opened Heaven on Earth, a store filled with hemp products in Woodstock, NY. She predicted then that one day New York would be known as “the Hempire State.” Last year, New York issued a $10 million grant to research and process hemp. “People thought I was crazy, but I was ahead of the trend,” Beckerman humbly notes.

HIA’s JOY BECKERMAN: “I have very little in common with McConnell other than hemp, but he’s definitely a hemp hero.”

Blue Moon Hemp, a Florida-based CBD seller, buys hemp from a Kentucky farm and processes it into CBD oil in a lab in Boca Raton. “Right now, hemp has that Schedule I classification and you have the 2014 Farm Bill, which allowed pilot programs,” explains national sales director Matt Byrne. “They’re diametrically opposed to each other. It’s a unique legal situation. We’re kind of protected on one end where they are saying you can do this and the other is saying you can’t. And they’re coming from the same place. It’s pretty dumb. The Hemp Farming Act will clear a lot of that up. That would be a game changer.”

Ex-Massachusetts governor William Weld, who’s on the board of directors of the cannabis company, Acreage Holdings (along with former Senator John Boehner), thinks McConnell’s hemp bill has a good chance of reaching a vote this year. “The reasons for legalizing hemp are even more obvious than cannabis,” Weld said at the CWCBExpo in New York on May 31. “You’ve got Mitch McConnell behind it, so that’s a freight train.”

Hemp, Inc. CEO Bruce Perlowin

Investing in Hemp Stocks

On the investment side, Alan Brochstein, who tracks the cannabis sector with his website, 420 Investor, hasn’t seen many substantial choices for long-term investors in the hemp space. “Most of these stocks aren’t worth anyone’s time except for day-traders, with several not even filing with the SEC,” he says.

Brochstein offers two recommendations: CV Sciences (“It’s increased rather dramatically over the last couple of months”) and Alliance International, a tobacco company that purchased 40% of the North Carolina hemp company, Criticality, in December.

Among hemp penny stocks, Hemp, Inc. (HEMP) trades at less than $0.03 a share, with a market cap of $7.3 million. For the three months ending March 31, the company narrowed its net loss to $13 million from $15.9 million. Net loss from operations was $1.27 million, compared to a loss of $5.16 million a year ago. Sales rose to $96,498 from $27,456.

HEMP, INC.’s BRUCE PERLOWIN: “There’s massive demand for biomass to make CBD and other products. Hemp is trending in ways none of us anticipated.”

Hemp, Inc. founder Bruce Perlowin says his company could cultivate as much as 25,000 acres of hemp in Colorado and Arizona this year. Perlowin’s so bullish on hemp and CBD that he’s been investing in extraction and grinding equipment for his facility in Spring Hope, NC. The company has also developed its own hemp strains (NC-1 and NC-2), which are aimed at fitting into a recently funded federal research program.

Last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the federal Agricultural Research Service to spend $500,000 to maintain an industrial hemp seed bank. The committee voted to fund the program as part of a broader agriculture measure for fiscal 2019 to restore the nation’s stockpile of industrial hemp seeds after it was destroyed in the 1980s.

Perlowin, who was arrested and prosecuted for marijuana smuggling and other charges in the 1980s, continues to face legal problems. Now, his woes are related to shares in Hemp, Inc.

In 2016, the SEC filed a complaint against Perlowin for making fraudulent statements to registered broker deals in the sale of Hemp, Inc. stock, among other civil charges. He says the case remains ongoing, disputes any wrongdoing, doesn’t plan to settle the case with the SEC and would rather fight the charges in court.

Until the case is resolved, Perlowin remains focused on the power of hemp, which he believes can counter global warming because the plants absorb more CO2 than any other industrial crop. “The world needs hemp,” he exclaims. “There’s massive demand for biomass to make CBD and other products. Hemp is trending in ways none of us anticipated.”

CBD, Perlowin adds, has been gaining attention as a food additive, with giant food and drink manufacturers such as Pepsi and Nabisco taking a look at it as a healthy ingredient for their products.

Related Hemp Articles

Senate Leader McConnell Introduces Hemp Legalization Bill

Hemp-Friendly Patagonia Sues Feds Over Utah Land Grab

pRana Takes Lead in Hemp Clothing Revival

Hemp’s Long Road to Respectability

If you enjoyed this Freedom Leaf article, subscribe to the magazine today!

The post Hemp to the Future: U.S. and Canada Industrial Crops on the Rise appeared first on Freedom Leaf.

Source: https://www.freedomleaf.com/hemp-to-the-future/

The blog article Hemp to the Future: U.S. and Canada Industrial Crops on the Rise is republished from Giggles N Dimples

source https://gigglesndimples.com/2018/06/21/hemp-to-the-future-u-s-and-canada-industrial-crops-on-the-rise/

New Report By New York City Police Department On Marijuana Criminalization

The new Report by the New York City Police Department’s “Working Group” is more window dressing than an actual policy change. It appears to be an elaborate 20-page rationalization to continue the present enforcement protocol without any real progress on the policing front. As of today, the policy continues to leave it to the relatively unfettered discretion in the hands of each officer to decide whether to issue a summons or, subject to a variety of exceptions, affect a full-blown arrest for the public consumption of marijuana. The continuation of this policy certainly is better than the old days in that those issued a summons are not fingerprinted and face only a maximum $100 fine for a first offense. But, that is not the policy that the citizens of New York want or need.

Historically, the Report cites a 66% decrease in marijuana-related arrests since changes of enforcement priority and practice dating back to 2014. The Report makes clear through statistics and graphs that despite the significant drop in arrests, those arrests continue to dramatically impact people of color who comprised 86.9% of all marijuana arrests and disproportionately continue to suffer the negative collateral consequences of such an arrest. It further cites other jurisdictions like Colorado and other legalized states that still have endemic racial disparity in arrest rates despite the law enforcement policy changes. Such statistical anomalies must be addressed since New York City’s change in enforcement priority dating back to 2014 officially recognized that the burning of marijuana in public view had a negligible impact on the safety and quality of life NYC denizens.

But, the Report justifies the lack of any substantial policy change in 2018 on the fact that there is not a uniform consensus amongst the District Attorneys in each of the 5 boroughs of New York City regarding the prosecution of marijuana cases. The District Attorneys of Manhattan and Brooklyn have publicly announced that they will no longer prosecute low-level marijuana offenses, but similar pronouncements are lacking from the DAs in the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island.  As such, the lack of uniformity within the 5 boroughs leaves the NYPD without a single policy because of the differing law enforcement priorities in different neighborhoods. Therefore, NYPD apparently believes that it cannot improve upon its dated 2014 policy.

In reality, this rationalization is a cop-out.  NYPD officers have for years been given lots of discretion during civilian encounters involving public consumption and that has led to vastly reduced number of marijuana arrests.  The Police Department can and should revise and develop a more comprehensive set of internal guidelines to further guide and constrain the officer’s discretion to issue summonses which in turn cause a further decline in the number of marijuana arrests in New York City.  While the Report calls for limited exceptions to the policy to permit arrests where matters of public safety and quality of life issues are at stake (lack of identification, open warrants, history of violence, and being on probation or parole), all internal measures should be taken to ensure that police/civilian encounters are designed to achieve the desire and goal of both NYPD and New Yorkers to greatly reduce the arrests for the public burning of marijuana.

David C. Holland, Esq. is the Executive and Legal Director, Empire State NORML. You can follow Empire NORML on Facebook and Twitter, and visit their website at: https://esnorml.org/ 

Source: http://blog.norml.org/2018/06/20/new-report-by-new-york-city-police-department-on-marijuana-criminalization/

The blog article New Report By New York City Police Department On Marijuana Criminalization was first published on GigglesNDimples.com

source https://gigglesndimples.com/2018/06/21/new-report-by-new-york-city-police-department-on-marijuana-criminalization/

Summary of C-45, the Bill That Legalized Cannabis in Canada

Here’s the summary of Bill C-45, the legislation passed by Canada’s Parliament on June 19 that legalizes marijuana:

“This enactment enacts the Cannabis Act to provide legal access to cannabis and to control and regulate its production, distribution and sale.

“The objectives of the Act are to prevent young persons from accessing cannabis, to protect public health and public safety by establishing strict product safety and product quality requirements and to deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for those operating outside the legal framework. The Act is also intended to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system in relation to cannabis.”

The Act

“(a) establishes criminal prohibitions such as the unlawful sale or distribution of cannabis, including its sale or distribution to young persons, and the unlawful possession, production, importation and exportation of cannabis;

“(b) enables the Minister to authorize the possession, production, distribution, sale, importation and exportation of cannabis, as well as to suspend, amend or revoke those authorizations when warranted;

“(c) authorizes persons to possess, sell or distribute cannabis if they are authorized to sell cannabis under a provincial Act that contains certain legislative measures;

“(d) prohibits any promotion, packaging and labelling of cannabis that could be appealing to young persons or encourage its consumption, while allowing consumers to have access to information with which they can make informed decisions about the consumption of cannabis;

“(e) provides for inspection powers, the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties and the ability to commence proceedings for certain offenses by means of a ticket;

“(f) includes mechanisms to deal with seized cannabis and other property;

“(g) authorizes the Minister to make orders in relation to matters such as product recalls, the provision of information, the conduct of tests or studies and the taking of measures to prevent non-compliance with the Act;

“(h) permits the establishment of a cannabis tracking system for the purposes of the enforcement and administration of the Act;

“(i) authorizes the Minister to fix, by order, fees related to the administration of the Act; and

“(j) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting such matters as quality, testing, composition, packaging and labelling of cannabis, security clearances and the collection and disclosure of information in respect of cannabis as well as to make regulations exempting certain persons or classes of cannabis from the application of the Act.

“This enactment also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, increase the maximum penalties for certain offenses and to authorize the Minister to engage persons having technical or specialized knowledge to provide advice. It repeals item 1 of Schedule II and makes consequential amendments to that Act as the result of that repeal.

“In addition, it repeals Part XII.‍1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with instruments and literature for illicit drug use, and makes consequential amendments to that Act.

“It amends the Non-smokers’ Health Act to prohibit the smoking and vaping of cannabis in federally regulated places and conveyances.

“Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.”

Read the entire Act here.

Re: Home Cultivation

Under Criminal Activities/Possession, Section (e) reads:

“Unless authorized under this Act, it is prohibited for an individual to possess more than four cannabis plants that are not budding or flowering.”

In other words, Canadians can grow up to three plants at one time at a residence or other location.

Related Articles

Now That Canada Has Legalized Cannabis, Celebrate at ICBC Vancouver

Provinces Take Lead in Canada’s Legalization Ramp-Up

Recreational Cannabis Store Openings Delayed in Massachusetts

Freedom Leaf’s State-by-State Guide to U.S. Cannabis Legalization

If you enjoyed this Freedom Leaf article, subscribe to the magazine today!

The post Summary of C-45, the Bill That Legalized Cannabis in Canada appeared first on Freedom Leaf.

Source: https://www.freedomleaf.com/legalization-act-canada/

Summary of C-45, the Bill That Legalized Cannabis in Canada was initially published on gigglesndimples.com

source https://gigglesndimples.com/2018/06/20/summary-of-c-45-the-bill-that-legalized-cannabis-in-canada/

NORML Releases Comprehensive Report Summarizing Local Decriminalization Laws

Even though recreational marijuana remains criminalized in a majority of US states, more and more municipalities are moving ahead with local laws decriminalizing the possession of cannabis within city limits. For the first time, NORML has released a comprehensive breakdown of these citywide and countywide decriminalization policies.

Efforts to liberalize municipal marijuana possession penalties in states where cannabis remains criminalized have become increasingly popular in recent years. Since 2012, over 50 localities, such as Albuquerque, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and St. Louis in a dozen states — including Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas — have enacted municipal laws or resolutions either fully or partially decriminalizing minor cannabis possession offenses. Today, over 10.5 million Americans reside in these localities. (Please note: This total does not include cities or counties in states that have either legalized or decriminalized marijuana statewide).

Click here to see the full breakdown of localities that have decriminalized marijuana

NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri: “Local politicians see firsthand the punitive and disproportionately adverse effects that statewide marijuana criminalization has on their communities and upon their constituents. That is why they are exercising their local legislative powers to protect citizens in their community when state politicians are either unwilling or lack the political courage to do so.”

DECRIMINALIZATION EXPLAINED

Under full decriminalization, minor offenses are defined by statute as either non-criminal violations or infractions. Violators are not subject to arrest. Instead, they are cited and mandated to pay a small fine. Violators are not subject to a court appearance nor are they saddled with a criminal conviction or record.  Under partial decriminalization policies, minor marijuana offenses may remain classified as misdemeanor offenses. However, violators are issued a summons in lieu of a criminal arrest.

Beginning with Oregon in 1973, 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization. (Eight of these states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont — have since replaced their decriminalization statutes with statewide adult use legalization legislation.)

Today, nine states — Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island — have fully decriminalized activities specific to the private possession of small amounts of cannabis by adults. Four additional states — Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio — have partially decriminalized marijuana possession offenses. In these latter jurisdictions, cannabis remains classified as a misdemeanor under state law, but the offense does not carry the penalty of jail time. In New York, marijuana possession ‘in public view’ remains punishable as a criminal misdemeanor.

Click here to see the full breakdown of localities that have decriminalized marijuana

NORML Political Director Justin Strekal: “As public support in favor of marijuana law reform has grown, so too have local efforts by legislators and voters to address the issue at the municipal level. In many regions of the country, local lawmakers are moving to shield their local citizens from state prohibitions — one city at a time.”

Source: http://blog.norml.org/2018/06/20/norml-releases-comprehensive-report-summarizing-local-decriminalization-laws/

The post NORML Releases Comprehensive Report Summarizing Local Decriminalization Laws is republished from gigglesndimples.com

source https://gigglesndimples.com/2018/06/20/norml-releases-comprehensive-report-summarizing-local-decriminalization-laws/

Now That Canada Has Legalized Cannabis, Celebrate at ICBC Vancouver

With the passage of the Senate bill C-45 on June 19, Canada officially legalized marijuana.

Canada is the second country to make such a move. Uruguay legalized it in 2013.

“Our plan to legalize & regulate marijuana just passed the Senate,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted.

The margin in favor was an overwhelming 52 to 29, with two abstentions. The bill gives provinces eight to 12 weeks to begin selling marijuana commercially. Originally, the plan was to launch on July 1, but the legislation forced a delay.

ICBC Vancouver at Sheraton Wall Centre is scheduled for June 24-25.

It’s the perfect time to attend an event in Canada’s cannabis capitol, Vancouver, affectionately known as Vansterdam. The International Cannabis Business Conference (ICBC) there is scheduled for June 24-25. It’s not too late to register and book flights and hotel reservations at Sheraton Wall Centre.

“The ICBC is fortunate that our Vancouver event is occurring just five days after the first G7 nation on Earth legalized,” says Alex Rogers, ICBC founder and CEO.

Why Vancouver over Toronto as a choice of location? “Toronto is clearly the Canadian cannabis financial capital,” Rogers explains. “But Vancouver is the cannabis capital of Canada. Regardless of what happens in the future with cannabis and the public policies and regulations around it, British Columbia and Vancouver will always be a global leader in the cannabis industry.”

ICBC Vancouver kicks off with a VIP party on June 24. The next day, a full slate of speakers and panelists will engage the attendees. Monday night’s afterparty will feature Bay Area rapper Del the Funky Homosapien.

ALEX ROGERS: “The ICBC is fortunate that our Vancouver event is occurring just five days after the first G7 nation on Earth legalized.”

ICBC regular Henry Rollins will deliver the keynote speech on July 25 at 9 am. “I think that legalization of cannabis anywhere is a political decision,” Rollins tells Freedom Leaf. “It will change things in any country. It’s part of this changing century. Those who are selling legally are part of a changing culture.”

The panel discussions will focus on the following topics:

• Transitioning to Legal Use – Canada Moves Forward (9:30 am)
• Cannabis in the Capital Markets (10 am)
• Mergers and Acquisitions – Increasing Your Company’s Value Market Share and Risk (10:45 am)
• High Stakes – International Investments and Opportunities (11:15 am)
• German Market Update (11:50 am)
• Canopy Rivers Pitch Day – Micro Cannabis, Macro Impact (1 pm)
• Media & Marketing – Mainstreaming Cannabis and Building Consumer Trust (2 pm)
• Canadian Physicians’ Experiences with Medical Cannabis (2:30 pm)
• Cannabis Genetics – Potential Patents, Tailor-Made Strains and More Implications (3 pm)
• Cultivation Techniques (3:30 pm)
• Strategic Partnerships (4 pm)
• Brand Building with Prohbtd (4:30 pm, invite only)

“All eyes will be on Canada,” writes ICBC staffer Anthony Johnson, “but it’s clear that we’re ending cannabis prohibition step by step and, eventually, nation by nation. Canadians are leading the way.”

The next ICBC events will be held in Portland, OR (Sept. 27-28), San Francisco (Feb. 7-8, 2019) and Berlin (Mar. 31-Apr. 2, 2019).

Related Articles

Province-by-Province Guide to Canadian Cannabis Regulations

How Massachusetts Became a Leader in Regulating Marijuana

Vermont’s Legalization Lite: No Model for Other States

New Jersey’s Path to Legalization

If you enjoyed this Freedom Leaf article, subscribe to the magazine today!

The post Now That Canada Has Legalized Cannabis, Celebrate at ICBC Vancouver appeared first on Freedom Leaf.

Source: https://www.freedomleaf.com/canada-legalization-vancouver-icbc/

Now That Canada Has Legalized Cannabis, Celebrate at ICBC Vancouver was initially seen on The Giggles N Dimples Blog

source https://gigglesndimples.com/2018/06/20/now-that-canada-has-legalized-cannabis-celebrate-at-icbc-vancouver/

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 2

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this article are the author’s opinions based on his experience working in the laboratory industry. This is an opinion piece in a series of articles designed to highlight the potential problems that clients may run into with labs. 

---

In the previous article, I discussed the laboratory’s first line of defense (e.g. certification or accreditation) when a grower, processor or dispensary (user) questions a laboratory result. Now let us look behind this paperwork wall to the laboratory culture the user will encounter once their complaint is filtered past the first line of defense.

It is up to the client (processor, grower or dispensary) to determine the quality of the lab they use.In an ISO 17025 (2005 or 2017) and TNI accreditation, the laboratory must be organized into management, quality and technical areas. Each area can overlap as in the ISO 17025-2017 standard or be required to remain as separate sections in the laboratory as in the ISO 17025-2005 or TNI 2009 standards. ISO 17025 standards (e.g. 2005 and 2017) specifically require a separation of monetary benefits for laboratory results as it applies to the technical staff. This “conflict of interest” (CoI) is not always clearly defined in the laboratory’s day-to-day practices.

One example that I have experienced with this CoI separation violation goes back to my days as a laboratory troubleshooter in the 1990s. I was called into a laboratory that was failing to meet their Department of Defense (DoD) contract for volatile organic hydrocarbon analyses (VOAs) of soil samples by purge trap-gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy. I was required to “fix” the problem. What I determined was:

• The analytical chemists performing the VOAs analyses were high school graduates with no coursework in chemistry or biology.
• There was no training program in place for these analysts in instrument use, instrument troubleshooting and interpretation of the analytical results.
• The only training the analysts received was for simple instrument set-up and basic instrument computer software use. (e.g. Push this button and send results to clerks)
• Clerks with a high school degree and no analytical chemistry training in the business office generated the final reports and certified them as accurate and complete.

None of the staff was technically competent to perform any in-depth VOAs analytical work nor was the clerical staff competent to certify the results reported.

When I pointed out these discrepancies to the laboratory management, they declined to make any changes. The laboratory management had a direct monetary interest in completing all analyses at the lowest costs within the time limit set by DoD. If the laboratory did not complete the analyses as per the DoD contract, DoD would cancel the contract and not pay the laboratory.

The DoD, in a “Double Blind” test sample, later caught this laboratory.. A Double Blind test sample is used to check to see if the laboratory is performing the tests correctly. The laboratory does not know it is a test sample. So if the laboratory is cheating, they will be caught.This does not mean that all laboratories have staff or management issues

Once the laboratory was caught by DoD with the Double Blind, laboratory management claimed they were unaware of this behavior and management fired all analytical staff performing VOAs and clerical staff reporting the VOAs results to show DoD that it was a rogue group of individuals and not the laboratory management. The fired staff members were denied unemployment benefits as they were fired with cause. So, the moral to this story is if the analytical staff and specifically the clerical staff had wanted to hold the laboratory management accountable for this conflict of interest, they may have been fired, but without cause. The staff would have kept their reputation for honesty and collected unemployment benefits.

I have witnessed the “CoI above repeatedly over the last 30+ years both in laboratories where I have been employed and as a consultant. The key laboratory culture problems that lead to these CoI issues can be distilled into the following categories:

• Financial CoI: In the financial CoI, the laboratory management must turn out so many analytical test results per day to remain financially solvent. The philosophical change that comes over management is that the laboratory is not producing scientific results, but is instead just churning out tests. Therefore, the more tests the laboratory produces, the more money it makes. Any improvement in test output is to be looked upon favorably and anything that diminishes test output is bad. So, to put this in simple terms: “The laboratory will perform the analyses quickly and get the report sent to the user so the laboratory can be paid. Anything that slows this production down will not be tolerated!” To maximize the Return on Investment (RoI) for the laboratory, management will employ staff that outwardly mirrors this philosophy.
• I Need This Job CoI: This is the CoI area that poor quality lab technical staff and clerical staff most readily falls into. As outlined in the example above, both the analytical staff and clerical staff lacked the educational credentials, the technical training to be proficient in the use of the analytical instruments, ability to identify problems performing the analytical methods or complications in reporting analytical results. That means they were locked into the positions they held in this specific laboratory. This lack of marketable skills placed pressure on these staff members to comply with all directives from management. What happened to them in the end was regrettable, but predictable. Management can prey on this type of staff limitation.
• Lack of Interest or Care CoI: This form of CoI is the malaise that infects poor quality laboratories, but can reach a level in management, quality and technical areas as to produce a culture where everyone goes through the moves, but does not care about anything but receiving their paycheck. In my many years of laboratory troubleshooting this type of CoI is the most difficult to correct. Laboratories where I had to correct this problem required that I had to impress on the staff that their work mattered and that they were valued employees. I had to institute a rigorous training program, require staff quality milestones and enforce the quality of work results. During my years of laboratory troubleshooting, I only had to terminate three laboratory staff for poor work performance. Unfortunately after I left many of these laboratories, management drifted back to the problems listed above and the laboratory malaise returned. This proves that even though a laboratory staff can achieve quality performance, it can quickly dissolve with lax management.

So, what are the conclusions of this article?

• Laboratory culture can place profit over scientific correctness, accuracy and precision.
• Laboratory management sets the quality of staff that determines the analytical results and report quality the user receives.
• Laboratory quality can vary from acceptable performance to unacceptable performance over the lifetime of the laboratory depending on management.
• This does not mean that all laboratories have staff or management issues. It is up to the client (processor, grower or dispensary) to determine the quality of the lab they use.

The next article in this series will introduce the user to the specific Quality Control (QC) analyses that an acceptable laboratory should perform for the user’s sample. These QC analyses are not always performed by accredited laboratories as the specific state that regulates their cannabis program does not require them. The use of these QC samples is another example of how laboratory’s with poor quality systems construct another paper work wall.

The post Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 2 appeared first on Cannabis Industry Journal.

Source: https://www.cannabisindustryjournal.com/column/quality-plans-for-lab-services-managing-risks-as-a-grower-processor-or-dispensary-part-2/

Quality Plans for Lab Services: Managing Risks as a Grower, Processor or Dispensary, Part 2 was initially published to The Giggles N Dimples Blog

source https://gigglesndimples.com/2018/06/19/quality-plans-for-lab-services-managing-risks-as-a-grower-processor-or-dispensary-part-2/

Don’t Call it a Dispensary- Why Michigan Takes Marijuana Semantics Seriously

By Lauren Williams for Marijuana.com

“… It is critical that patients have clarity as to where they can obtain medicine,” said David Mangone, director of governmental affairs and counsel for the non-profit Americans for Safe Access. “It is too early to tell if this will adversely affect patient access. However, banning terms like prescription is good policy, because doctors can’t actually write prescriptions for medical cannabis under federal law, only provide recommendations.”

Source: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/don_t_call_it_a_dispensary_why_michigan_takes_marijuana_semantics_seriously

Don’t Call it a Dispensary- Why Michigan Takes Marijuana Semantics Seriously was initially published to GigglesNDimples.com

source https://gigglesndimples.com/2018/06/18/dont-call-it-a-dispensary-why-michigan-takes-marijuana-semantics-seriously/