Now If you can just do something about this capitalist system we have here that would be really great:grinning:
3 Likes
I found this very interesting myself so I thought I would share it here.
U.S. cannabis companies by market cap (as of July 2023):
- Curaleaf
- Innovative Industrial
- Green Thumb Industries
- Verano Holdings
- Trulieve Cannabis
- Cresco Labs
The 12 Largest Cannabis Companies in 2024 by Market Value | Stash Learn.
This firm seems to owns stock in several of the largest cannabis companies. 
- Curaleaf …Albert D Mason Inc
- Innovative Industrial…Albert D Mason Inc
- Green Thumb Industries…Albert D Mason Inc
- Verano Holdings…Albert D Mason Inc
- Trulieve Cannabis…Albert D Mason Inc
- Cresco Labs…Albert D Mason Inc
Curaleaf Holdings Inc Shares Held by Institutions … Albert D Mason holds 82K shares
Verano Holdings Corp. 10,935
https://www.holdingschannel.com/all/stocks-held-by-albert-d-mason-inc/
1 Like
Dunno what happened here but the OG system would not allow me to post the last post.
It kept deleting my links ect…WTF???
I found a way around it… 
1 Like
Curaleaf is huge in Florida. They make bank down there,no legal growing down there. I am sure they would love to have that florida cannabis model through out the country
1 Like
It’s about control. When does the government relinquish control after getting it? The Patriot Act comes to mind.
1 Like
That could backfire.
1 Like
Sidenote, it’s not those Rothschilds. It’s a little hard to tell on the Hilton one but it was founded by a guy named Garvey.
All three are hedge fund management firms (Rothschilds, Hilton, and Albert D Mason).
1 Like
I wonder how Schedule 3 will affect things like CBD?
I think CBD will be prescription only, I have said this in the past and it was met with a ton of skepticism to say the least.
Here is 1 example.
9. Can THC or CBD products be sold as dietary supplements?
A. No. Based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that THC and CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(3)(B)]. Under that provision, if a substance (such as THC or CBD) is an active ingredient in a drug product that has been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 355], or has been authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public, then products containing that substance are excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement. FDA considers a substance to be “authorized for investigation as a new drug” if it is the subject of an Investigational New Drug application (IND) that has gone into effect. Under FDA’s regulations (21 CFR 312.2), unless a clinical investigation meets the limited criteria in that regulation, an IND is required for all clinical investigations of products that are subject to section 505 of the FD&C Act.
There is an exception to section 201(ff)(3)(B) if the substance was “marketed as” a dietary supplement or as a conventional food before the drug was approved or before the new drug investigations were authorized, as applicable. However, based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that this is not the case for THC or CBD.
FDA is not aware of any evidence that would call into question its current conclusions that THC and CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act. Interested parties may present the agency with any evidence that they think has bearing on this issue. Our continuing review of information that has been submitted thus far has not caused us to change our conclusions.
When a substance is excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act, the exclusion applies unless FDA, in the agency’s discretion, has issued a regulation, after notice and comment, finding that the article would be lawful under the FD&C Act. To date, no such regulation has been issued for any substance.
Ingredients that are derived from parts of the cannabis plant that do not contain THC or CBD might fall outside the scope of this exclusion, and therefore might be able to be marketed as dietary supplements. However, all products marketed as dietary supplements must comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing dietary supplement products. For example, manufacturers and distributors who wish to market dietary supplements that contain “new dietary ingredients” (i.e., dietary ingredients that were not marketed in the United States in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994) generally must notify FDA about these ingredients (see section 413(d) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 350b(d)]). Generally, the notification must include information demonstrating that a dietary supplement containing the new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe under the conditions of use recommended or suggested in the labeling. A dietary supplement is adulterated if it contains a new dietary ingredient for which there is inadequate information to provide reasonable assurance that the ingredient does not present a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury (see section 402(f)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 342(f)(1)(B)]).
Numerous other legal requirements apply to dietary supplement products, including requirements relating to Current Good Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs) and labeling. Information about these requirements, and about FDA requirements across all product areas, can be found on FDA’s website.
I wonder how Schedule 3 will affect current state medical programs?
Could the FDA require clinical trials before allowing state medical cannabis programs to continue?
6. What is FDA’s reaction to states that are allowing cannabis to be sold for medical uses without the FDA’s approval?
A. The FDA is aware that several states have either passed laws that remove state restrictions on the medical use of cannabis and its derivatives or are considering doing so. It is important to conduct medical research into the safety and effectiveness of cannabis products through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. We welcome the opportunity to talk with states who are considering support for medical research of cannabis and its derivatives, so that we can provide information on Federal and scientific standards.
7. Has the agency received any adverse event reports associated with cannabis use for medical conditions?
A. The agency has received reports of adverse events in patients using cannabis or cannabis-derived products to treat medical conditions. The FDA reviews such reports and will continue to monitor adverse event reports for any safety signals, with a focus on serious adverse effects. Consumers and healthcare providers can report adverse events associated with cannabis or cannabis-derived products via the FDA’s MedWatch reporting system, either online or by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088. For more information, please see the FDA’s webpage on MedWatch.
Information from adverse event reports regarding cannabis use is extremely limited; the FDA primarily receives adverse event reports for approved products. General information on the potential adverse effects of using cannabis and its constituents can come from clinical trials that have been published, as well as from spontaneously reported adverse events sent to the FDA. Additional information about the safety and effectiveness of cannabis and its constituents is needed. Clinical trials of cannabis conducted under an IND application could collect this important information as a part of the drug development process.
1 Like
Well said brother man!
It deserves repeating.
2 Likes
I can’t see anything good coming from schedule 3, well other than patients in illegal states getting access to prescription THC drugs. The FDA will only authorize pharmacutical drugs like GW Pharmacuticals has. I would imagine they’re going to want to cut down on the flowers and edibles on the legal states as well. Probably won’t be raids at first, but a whole lot of seize and desist letters going out. You’re definitely doing time if you manufacture a schedule 3 drug. I know steroids are just a slap on the wrist for using, so it’ll be a little better for people who are only smoking, definitely be a lessened sentence for manufacturing as well, but you’re getting in pretty big trouble making steroids too.
All we can do is hope they don’t reschedule, only thing acceptable is descheduling. Although it is a step in the right direction, they cut out the dispensaries, we grow and sell tons on the black market and they end up getting screwed again cause nobody wants big pharma cannabinoid drugs anyway. I can live with it either way, be nice to not have to compete with dispensaries too many people go to them just cause it’s easier than finding a dealer that’s on top of their game with premo product and low prices.
5 Likes
if it isn’t schedule 1 any longer they can actually use it in things like studies, medicaid can pay for prescriptions for it, and it can be transported across state lines if you have a prescription. for those three things alone i would support it. it is illegal for me to grow now without a license and that license will not go away if it changes to schedule 3. that is a fact and will do it for me and millions of others. it may not be perfect but it’s not our choice anyway. money runs the show, when has it ever been different?
3 Likes
I believe it will also allow people with cdl’s to use cannabis if they have a script… which is huge for me
2 Likes
While schedule 3 may help some indiviuals, it is not the best choice for everyone.
It may help some and harm some in the process.
My point is…
What is wrong with doing legalization the right way.
Accepting the first deal they offer is not the way to go.
Legaization could be soo much better than it is right now if we held out for what is right and best for all involved.
Such as making sure home growing rights are secured for all not just some.
Why accept an inferior deal?
Some say we should because it is better than what we had.
I disagree, why accept lies as truth?
This is why cannabis was made illegal in the first place.
If you let them lie to you and you accept it as truth they will keep on lying to you.
Schedule 3 is just a more acceptable lie.
Cannabis is not a schedule 3 drug, not even close, it is really a joke if you ask me.
Just more lies…
Again why accept lies as truth?
If you allow folks to walk all over you and push you around they will continue to do so, why not, you have let them do it to you.
What ever happened to doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do? 
4 Likes
Thanks to @Calyxander for the link.
35 Years Ago, a Judge Said Marijuana Did Not Belong in Schedule I. HHS Finally Agrees.
Why now after all these years?
Could it be the money? 
You can see here that it was well known that cannabis had medical value since 1985.
But they continued to lie so as not to upset their agenda.
They continue to lie to us today.
Based mainly on doctors’ practices and opinions, along with patients’ experiences, Young concluded that marijuana did have a “currently accepted medical use” as a treatment for the nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had implicitly recognized that fact in 1985 when it approved Marinol—a synthetic version of THC, marijuana’s main active ingredient—as an anti-emetic.
So the Govt. in 1985 approved Marinol but insisted cannabis has no medical uses.
How can it be both ways?
It either has medical benefits or it does not.
They say no, but approve a cannabis drug for medical use.
Is that not an outright lie?
Why do we accept such things?
Young’s 1988 ruling came after 16 years of litigation that demonstrated how determined the DEA was to maintain the total prohibition of marijuana, no matter what the relevant evidence showed.
Even if that might be true, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1974, “the point is not obvious or clear-cut, but requires a reflective consideration and analysis.” The appeals court said the BNDD’s position “should have been reflected in an action denying the petition on the merits.” As the D.C. Circuit saw it, the agency’s shortcut was inconsistent with “the kind of interchange and refinement of views that is the life-blood of a sound administrative process.”
Can you see the lies that have been perpetuated for way too long?
Now that we know they have lied to us, whay do we contiue to accept these new lies?
On remand, Young noted, the DEA held a three-day hearing, after which an administrative law judge “found in NORML’s favor on several issues.” But the agency’s acting administrator “entered a final order denying NORML’s petition ‘in all respects.’”
You see here, a judge sided with the truth but the DEA still denied the truth in favor of lies without just cause.
“The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence in this record establishes that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States for nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy treatments in some cancer patients,” Young wrote. “To conclude otherwise, on this record, would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
But they continued to us lie anyway.
As for marijuana’s safety under medical supervision, Young noted that “marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” After reviewing the relevant research, he found that “there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.” By contrast, it was well-established that both over-the-counter and FDA-approved prescription drugs could kill people when consumed in large doses. For aspirin, Young noted, the ratio of the lethal dose to the effective dose was about 20 to 1, while the ratio for many prescription drugs, such as Valium, was 10 to 1 or even lower. With marijuana, he said, that ratio “is impossible to quantify because it is so high.”
“one must reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision.” And again, “to conclude otherwise, on this record, would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.”
“In an appropriate case,” 9th Circuit Judge Paul Watford, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote, the DEA “may well be obliged to initiate a reclassification proceeding for marijuana, given the strength of petitioners’ arguments that the agency has misinterpreted the controlling statute by concluding that marijuana ‘has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.’”
They have an approved drug but still say it has no medical use…WTF is that shit???
Why do we accept lies as truth?
And although the practical effects of moving marijuana to Schedule III would be relatively modest, leaving federal prohibition essentially untouched, it would be nice to see the DEA admit, for once, that it was wrong.
We know they are lying to us.
Why accept the lies?
Now they want us to accept these new lies.
Is it not time to end the lies?
I say it is.
A govt. that lies can not be trusted.
Why?
Cause they lie whenever it suits their needs.
We know this…why do we allow it to continue?
4 Likes
Then we have the Govt. patent.
Patent No. 6,630,507: Why the U.S. government holds a patent on cannabis plant compounds
It’s about technology transfer, not legalization
This shows that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that there is ‘no accepted medical use’ for cannabis according to federal law,” Mendez said. “And yet here you have the very same government owning a patent for, ostensibly, a medical use for marijuana.”
That one arm of the federal government is poised to make money from cannabis-derived compounds, and another has approved synthetic cannabinoid drugs such as Marinol and Syndros, tells a story different from the one told by the DEA, which lumped together the hundreds of chemical compounds of cannabis as a Schedule I substance,
“The interesting thing here is basically the government being two-faced,” Wesner said.
2 Likes
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone with the power to do anything about it is already corrupted by the simple process of getting to that level of power… and they have the guns. And the nukes. And the autonomous robotic soldiers in the form of Black-Mirror-esque dogs.
Oddly, it’s the one sitting comfortably in a position of power, who’ll never be exposed to the robot dogs, who says we don’t need to be afraid of them. 
Dunno about you, but I’m gonna sit here and smoke another bowl rather than trying to start a bloody revolution that would just get me killed. As far as convincing another 350 million people that the lies are in fact lies and it needs to be changed… I welcome you to try. You might be the first one to break the infinite loop. You’re certainly a passionate public speaker, if the forum is any example.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone with the power to do anything about it is already corrupted by the simple process of getting to that level of power…
5 Likes
As usual, you make some very good points, I totally get where you are coming from. 
I have been yelling this stuff from my rooftop since 2013.
It really seems to fall on deaf ears but I will continue until my breath runs out on me. 
I am not really trying to start a revolution, but I am trying to get folks to wake up and see the truth.
Most seem to refuse the truth even when they are shown the light.
I guess having integrity and standing up for what is right is just a thing of the past.
Folks today will walk right past a woman getting raped saying things like, that does not concern me.
I guess I am just a bit different than most folks today. 
2 Likes
you say this like there’s a choice or that we are accepting anything. they do what they want and we don’t really get the choice to accept it or not.
i guess you are the man. glad to know it. congratulations.
2 Likes