CARLSBAD, Calif., April 28, 2021—PRESS RELEASE—Vessel Brand, a community-led company focused on uplifting the cannabis consumption experience, announced a new partnership with GAIACA Waste Revitalization in an effort to combat the ongoing waste issue facing the cannabis vape industry. Key retailers on each coast, including Chalice Farms in Oregon and Happy Valley in Massachusetts, will support the initiative.
Vessel Brand offers a high-end line of vape pen batteries and accessories made with quality materials and premium finishes. Helmed by CEO and founder James Choe, Vessel stands apart as a company that puts people and the planet first. Thoughtfully designed with the user experience top-of-mind, Vessel batteries power any oil in style with optimized airflow technology, low-temperature settings and extra-long battery life.
Leading the charge in industry sustainability, Vessel’s batteries last nearly 300 charge cycles, and optimized power settings ensure that users don’t burn through oil too quickly, meaning oils last longer and fewer cartridges and batteries end up in the trash.
By joining forces with GAIACA, a leader in providing compliant and environmentally focused solutions for cannabis waste, Vessel will make it easier for consumers to recycle batteries.
“At Vessel, we are committed to holistic wellness, whether that’s personal wellness, that of the community, or in this case the environment—we believe it is all interconnected and equally important,” Choe said.
Utilizing GAIACA collections services includes:
Monthly collection of vape pen batteries
Collection and pre-processing on dispensary premises
Secure deposit by consumers in a sleek, locked front-of-house collection box
Back-of-house collection box for dispensary consolidation
Universal waste is then processed through a multistep high-temperature, high-pressure process that separates the batteries into their component materials. Those materials are separated, collected and sold for reuse.
“Our mission is to help operators handle and revitalize their waste in an environmentally friendly manner within this highly regulated market, so they can get back to doing what they do best,” GAIACA co-founder and CEO Jonathan Lee said.
Together, Vessel and GAIACA are committed to addressing the environmental concerns as they pertain to the cannabis vape industry, and this recycling program is an integral step. Apply to become a retailer and join the recycle program here.
Precision Botanical Secures First CSQ Certification for CBD Manufacturing and Extraction
Precision Botanical has passed Cannabis Safety & Quality’s global auditing standard.
St. Louis, Mo.(April 27, 2021) ─ Following Curaleaf and One Plant receiving the certification in January through CSQ’s initial series of pilot audits, Precision Botanical is the first company to officially pass the stringent Cannabis Safety & Quality (CSQ) Global Standards beyond the pilot program with a score of 91 out of 100.
Based in Denver, Precision Botanical focuses on providing purity, accuracy, and transparency for all of its THC-free CBD products. Passing the Manufacturing and Extraction of Cannabis audit further demonstrates the Company's commitment to product safety and quality, as well as their commitment to continuous improvement. Precision Botanical’s certification was provided by ASI Food Safety, an approved CSQ Certification Body. This process does not happen overnight. Precision Botanical took the first step towards securing a certification in February when completing the off-site documentation evaluation. The on-site facility evaluation took place in March, and by April 9th, the certification was finalized.
“Sites who achieve the CSQ certification are proving to their customers that they are willing to go above and beyond to supply only the safest possible products on the market,” said Tyler Williams, founder and chief technical officer of CSQ. “Organizations like Precision Botanical are doing this industry a favor by self-policing and proactively searching for ways to instill consumer confidence. We’re happy to welcome them into our network of industry leaders putting compliance and quality first.”
The CSQ Standards were launched in 2020 to promote industry best practices and improve the overall safety and quality of cannabis and cannabis-infused products in the market. For Precision Botanical, thinking beyond basic cGMPs to produce a next-level product is what the general public deserves, as it’s a critical element to pushing the cannabis industry forward.
In addition to CSQ’s Standards, Precision Botanical is also the first CBD brand to be certified for purity by the Clean Label Project, a national nonprofit that uses data and science to reveal the true contents of America’s best-selling products.
“We received 91 points out of 100 using this higher standard than the less stringent GMP audit that many other CBD companies use. We test every ingredient for over 418 contaminants to ensure the highest possible purity levels, and that’s only the beginning of the process. It’s no question that quality has always been at the forefront of our initiatives, so we’re thrilled to have the opportunity to express that mission to our customers and industry stakeholders through CSQ’s stamp of approval,” said Sean Callan, chief operating officer of Precision Botanical.
How to Advocate for Cannabis Reform as a Business Professional
Use your democratic power to change your world and help your business.
America is one of the greatest democracies on Earth. Without a doubt, and despite any single federal administration’s efforts, we, the people, run this joint.
The legalization of cannabis in different states would never have been possible without people making their opinions heard. Yet even now, despite the latest Gallup Poll showing that two out of three Americans support legalization, no congress has implemented any lasting changes to federal cannabis laws. Reform advocates learned long ago that succeeding meant bypassing wishy-washy lawmakers, who were more worried about looking soft on drugs than on righting obvious wrongs, like mass incarceration and the stalemate on medical marijuana research.
That might be (finally) changing. The power of the people ended cannabis prohibition (for medical purposes, at least) in 33 states, and, as a result, lawmakers are finally catching up with the general population. It’s certainly a big topic of conversation among the presidential candidates, who, one-by-one, start to court our votes with statements about record expungement, equity and proposed changes to federal law. It’s not hard to imagine President Donald Trump speaking up for federal legalization at some point, if only to retain the significant voting power of cannabis advocates among his base of supporters.
Everything you learned in high school civics class is true: Voters, in many places, can write and pass their own laws using the initiative process.
I joined the effort to end cannabis prohibition in 1986 and have been a grateful participant in this historic effort for 33 years. I feel born to this kind of civic involvement; one of my earliest memories is joining hundreds of protesters at my grade school in 1972, supporting students at a local high school after they rioted in response to administration and police attacks on black students. I watched my mom force our middle school to add a girls’ sports program to their boys-only slate; I supported her as she fought and won a state case for equal pay, and helped her campaign for an officer position in the state nurse’s union. I learned to lobby early on, and was knocking on Capitol Hill doors as a teenager.
It’s been thrilling to apply longstanding principles of democracy to the cannabis reform issue, starting with the fact that “Reefer Madness” has always violated the law. Our government is expected to make laws based on the truth, and it is easily proven that cannabis has more than 2,800 years of documented human use as a food, fiber and medicine. (A recent study shows cannabis evolved 28 million years ago; it’s even been found in the Denisovan Cave in Siberia.) Cannabis advocates have always been on the path to victory.
How can we get engaged?
Everything you learned in high school civics class is true: Voters, in many places, can write and pass their own laws using the initiative process. This is how many modern cannabis laws were created, at both state and local levels. State legislatures only recently started passing their own reform laws, often to avoid the enormous cost of placing initiatives on the ballot.
We can support pro-marijuana candidates, or run for office ourselves, especially in places where the voices of reform are not being heard by those currently in power. Citizens can demand a recount if the vote count is close or if something about it seems wrong. If people think the government made a bad law, it can be repealed using the referendum process. Dispensary owners in San Jose petitioned for a referendum in 2011 and quashed a law that would have closed all dispensary businesses.
Advocates can work directly with regulators and elected officials to help craft state and local laws and regulations. We can join the regulatory boards responsible for creating industry rules, or attend meetings, testify and write in comments about proposed regulations. We are the experts, after all, and regulators generally do listen, want to know more, and welcome help creating workable rules. In fact, longtime cannabis reform advocate Ean Seeb became Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ special adviser on cannabis on May 17, proving that any of us could hold a similar position in the future.
Advocates can work directly with regulators and elected officials to help craft state and local laws and regulations.
Citizens and advocacy groups can help create police training curriculum, and then provide the essential community oversight to make sure it gets implemented; people can sue police departments and individual officers for refusing to follow legalization laws. That’s what finally forced the California Highway Patrol to follow medical marijuana laws; they could not afford to keep violating patient’s rights to medical marijuana. We can learn to talk to law enforcement in ways that matter, showing we are respectful and know our rights, and we can operate in protective and responsible ways that shield us from enforcement problems.
Citizens can be heard in courtrooms, where judges, prosecutors and juries listen and make key decisions based on what you say. We can appeal cases all the way to the Supreme Court, as did medical marijuana patient Angel Galvan-Raich and dispensary operator Jeff Jones in two separate cases. We can use our voices as jurors, making sure people are not unjustly jailed for marijuana. Jury nullification helped get cannabis author Ed Rosenthal’s cannabis-related federal felony conviction overturned on appeal.
And, we can educate others by spreading the word about how we’re ending cannabis prohibition through employing the basic tools of democracy to change laws and create regulations. During these past 30 years, it’s been an honor to use all of these tools, some more than once, and to see them work, sometimes in the face of the roughest opposition. People ultimately do control this democracy, and our power goes far beyond just the right to vote. It’s important that we exercise those rights as dispensary owners. By doing so, we can control our own futures, making sure that laws and regulations are fact-based and reasonable, and that their implementation is fair, all because our voices were heard.
South Dakota Supreme Court Justices Patricia J. DeVaney, from left, Janine M. Kern, Steven R. Jensen, Mark E. Salter and Scott P. Myren hear arguments about the constitutionality of voter-approved Amendment A, which would legalize adult-use cannabis in the state.
Keloland Media Group
Arguments on Amendment A Unfold in Front of South Dakota Supreme Court
The voter-approved measure in favor of adult-use cannabis legalization was previously ruled unconstitutional by Circuit Judge Christina Klinger.
Adult-use cannabis legalization remains uncertain in South Dakota, where the state’s Supreme Court heard arguments April 28 on the constitutionality of a voter-approved amendment from the November 2020 election.
The court’s hearing stems from a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Amendment A, which passed with a 54.2% majority. The ballot measure read: “An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana; and to require the legislature to pass laws regarding hemp as well as laws ensuring access to marijuana for medical use.”
The plaintiffs in that case argued that the measure violates the state’s one-subject rule and does not simply amend the state constitution but, rather, revises the constitution. Therefore, the revision would require a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of members from both chambers of the state legislature.
The defendants, who represent South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, the group behind Amendment A, argued the measure contains one subject—cannabis—to which all provisions are essentially related. In addition, they argued the state constitution’s definitions of “amendment” and “revision” are permissive, not obligatory.
Keloland | keloland.com
Attorney Brendan Johnson argues in front of the South Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday.
During the hearing in front of the five South Dakota Supreme Court justices on April 28, Brendan Johnson, an attorney in support of Amendment A, argued the state’s one-subject rule as it has been applied by the high court has historically serviced as a shield, not as a sword, he said.
“It is designed to shield the people from legislation, from crafty legislators, who before the legislation passes, they’ll insert … something that the people weren’t expecting,” Johnson said. “They would have no reason to expect that this could happen. That has been the purpose of this single-subject. Same when it comes to amendments.
“Is there something in the amendment that is so outlandish, so outside the bounds, that the people of South Dakota couldn’t possibly have known what it was that they were really voting for? That didn’t apply here in South Dakota. We had a vigorous debate—probably the most intensely scrutinized piece of legislation in my lifetime, in a generation, that the people ever voted on.”
Article XXIII of the South Dakota Constitution states: “No proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject. If more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each amendment shall be so prepared and distinguished that it can be voted upon separately.”
The plaintiffs argued that Amendment A has five subjects, as it appeared on the ballot: legalizing cannabis, regulating cannabis, taxing cannabis, requiring the South Dakota Legislature to pass laws regarding hemp and ensuring access to medical cannabis.
Keloland | keloland.com
Attorney Lisa Prostrollo argues in front of the South Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday.
In her opening remarks in front of the Supreme Court justices, Lisa Prostrollo, an attorney who argued in opposition of Amendment A, said the constitutionality of the voter-approved ballot measure is not a matter of legalizing cannabis.
“And it’s not about the multitude of other subjects that are packaged within Amendment A,” she said. “It’s about the rule of law, and it’s about enforcing the limitations that the people placed on their ballot initiative under the constitution. Those limitations are essential to preserving the integrity of our state’s founding documents. The circuit court recognized this when it struck down Amendment A, and we’re asking this court to do that same.”
Justice Janine M. Kern said she counted 15 subjects and 55 subsections in the new article that Amendment A purports adding to the South Dakota Constitution. She asked about what she called the “far-reaching implications” of the article in regard to the state’s department of revenue’s “exclusive power” to enforce certain lawful functions, such as appropriating tax revenue gained through the implementation of an adult-use cannabis program.
“I’d like you to address that concept,” she said to Johnson.
“Of course, the number of provisions has always been less important than what the provisions themselves do,” Johnson said. “When it comes to the exclusive power of the department of revenue, you’re going to hear a lot about that. So, the language here is extremely important.”
Regarding the authority that would be granted to the state’s department of revenue, the article that would be added to the constitution states, “The department shall have the exclusive power … to license and regulate the cultivation, manufacture, testing, transport, delivery, and sale of marijuana in the state and to administer and enforce this article.”
Johnson said that language involves a simple delegation of power.
“That is not revolutionary, in all due respect to opposing counsel,” he said. “What we see every year in this legislature is that they will delegate powers to a different agency. When we talk about the exclusive power of the department of revenue, it means that they’re not sharing it with the department of health, which they might do in the situation of medicinal marijuana.”
In a rebuttal, Prostrollo said that delegation of power as written in the article is not simple but is unique as it applies to South Dakota. Granting the department of revenue exclusive authority to enforce certain lawful functions would affect South Dakota Highway Patrol Col. Rick Miller and the rest of the highway patrol, she said.
The entire case being argued in front of the Supreme Court on April 28 stemmed from Miller and Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom, who filed a lawsuit Nov. 24 that challenged Amendment A, arguing it violates the state’s one-subject rule.
Under South Dakota’s current system of government, the highway patrol has been granted or delegated authority to enforce all laws on state highways—an authority that the state legislature delegated—but if Amendment A is enacted, suddenly that authority shifts to the department of revenue, Prostrollo said.
Justice Mark E. Salter questioned that perspective as it relates to the constitutionality of Amendment A.
“Isn’t that the nature of an amendment, that the people through their vote could do something different—tell the legislature we want a different rule?” he said. “The highway patrol’s cognizance over whatever it has cognizance over at this point surely isn’t constitutionally based.”
It is constitutionally based, Prostrollo said.
“It is?” Salter asked.
Amendment A should in fact be considered a revision, Prostrollo said.
“Under our current constitution, we have three branches of government that are afforded specific delegated powers,” she said. “Amendment A changes that. It elevates the department of revenue to effectively a fourth branch of government with exclusive power. That’s a fundamental change to the basic structure of our constitution and our system of government. That makes Amendment A unlike any other amendment that this state has ever seen, and it’s the reason this court should strike it down today.”
Another key component surrounding Amendment A discussed during the hearing included the opposition’s silence to challenging the ballot initiative before the election.
Johnson acknowledged that Amendment A is a lengthy amendment that was crafted through studying legislation from other states, including constitutional amendments, and streamlined some of those previously established legalization efforts, he said.
Keloland | keloland.com
South Dakota Supreme Court Justice Patricia J. DeVaney questions Brendan Johnson during a hearing on Amendment A, the state's voter-approved adult-use cannabis legalization initiative, on Wednesday.
Justice Patricia J. DeVaney asked if other states on which Amendment A was modeled also submitted their measures all as one amendment. Johnson said he’d have to double-check before providing a definitive answer.
“Colorado also has a single-subject rule, which is similar to South Dakota’s,” Johnson said. “So, that’s [part of] what we patterned it after.”
The first state to pass an adult-use cannabis legalization measure, Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 by approximately a 55% majority in the November 2012 election.
Amendment 64’s specific language on the 2012 ballot was as follows: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person 21 years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp?”
Johnson said the critical issue for South Dakota’s voter-approved Amendment A is: Was it done constitutionally and lawfully?
The answer is “yes,” Johnson said.
“Did we have the requisite number of signatures? Absolutely did,” he said. “Did we get them in time? Absolutely did. Did we violate the single-subject rule? We did not.”
The South Dakota Constitution does not restrict the scope or magnitude of the single subject of a legislative act, Johnson said.
“Fifty-five sections is a lot,” he said. “But is it part of a singular scheme, where we are taking cannabis, which has been illegal, and legalizing it? I would say that it is.”
If opponents of Amendment A had a constitutionality issue with how it appeared on the ballot, Chief Justice R. Jensen questioned why those opponents did not file litigation to challenge the voter initiative before the election.
“You’ve got this issue with, ‘We don’t think that this is properly in front of the voters, and we want to challenge it. The secretary of state shouldn’t put this on the ballot,’” Jensen said. “Is there a reason that couldn’t have been brought before the election, before the people voted on this, and the court could have decided the one-subject issue before the people voted?”
The initiative petition was received by South Dakota Secretary of State Steve Barnett on Aug. 15, 2019—more than a year before the election.
There was no straightforward procedure for bringing an action before the election, Prostrollo said.
“Thankfully, the legislature has now addressed that, so it won’t be a problem moving forward,” she said. “But there was a question at the time. And in fact, this court has stated that when a case is deciding whether a change in the constitution has been legally affected, that question is actually better addressed after the election.”
If attorneys representing opponents of any ballot amendment were to bring challenges to court before an election, and then voters struck down and defeated such an initiative at the polls, that would be a waste of judicial resources, Prostrollo said.
While it’s clear that voters can change the constitution when they want to, and when they follow the rules, the substantive legality of Amendment A is not an issue, Salter said from behind the bench. Rather, what’s at issue are the technical requirements posed by the constitution for presenting an amendment in the first place, and whether the correct procedure was utilized, he said.
Going back to the one-subject rule, Johnson said it’s OK for voters to have multiple reasons for supporting a ballot initiative—such as voting in favor of legalizing adult-use cannabis and ensuring access to medicinal cannabis—on the same ticket. What’s not OK is if the ballot initiative buried something that somehow voters would have been tricked or fooled into supporting, he said. That did not happen with Amendment A, he said.
“When we talk about the damage that could be done,” Johnson said, “if that for the first time in our state’s history we have a court that literally throws out 417,000 votes that were cast on a piece of legislation passed by the people, the harm that that could do, especially in a time that [many] people feel like elections are rigged anyhow, the standard should be exceptionally high.”
Canva
Adult-Use Cannabis Legalization Bill Advances in Louisiana
Three Republicans agreed to push the legislation forward for a broader debate in the full House.
The Louisiana House Criminal Justice Committee advanced House Bill 524, which would establish the regulatory framework for adult-use cannabis in the state.
Republican Rep. Richard Nelson sponsored the bill, which passed in a 7-5 vote after an "impassioned" debate on April 27, The Advocate reported. Two additional Republicans and several Democrats supported the legislation, while mainly district attorneys and sheriffs opposed it.
Nelson said he believes the state’s cannabis prohibition is a failed experiment and needs to end, according to The Advocate. He also argued that legalizing and then regulating and taxing adult-use cannabis could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for Louisiana—revenue that the state is currently missing out on.
But opponents of the legislation said that the potential revenue from legalizing and regulating cannabis would cause a host of other problems, like safety issues, KPEL reported.
The legislation still has a difficult journey before it becomes law. It must get approved by the Republican-dominated full House and Senate and Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, who said he opposes adult-use cannabis, The Advocate reported.
However, the committee’s recent vote on the legislation indicates that opinions on cannabis are starting to change in the Louisiana legislature, as more conservatives are beginning to show support for legalization.
Legislative Map
Cannabis Business Times’ interactive legislative map is another tool to help cultivators quickly navigate state cannabis laws and find news relevant to their markets. View More