Search Results for: cannabidiol

Curt’s Cannabis Corner: What is Nanoemulsion Technology? Part 1

Welcome to the second installment in the new series of educational articles from technical writer Curt Robbins at Higher Learning LV and MJNews Network. This collection is intended for cannabis and hemp industry professionals who wish to gain a better understanding of the nuanced biochemistry of this specialand newly legalherb. 

For the next two weeks, Curt will teach readers about the hot new manufacturing process for cannabis- and hemp-infused products called nanoemulsion

What is nanoemulsion? How can it help patients and consumers while offering additional marketing opportunities for entrepreneurs? How does it compare to traditional formulation technologies? Read on to learn!

The following is an excerpt from the Higher Learning LV instructor-led course Cannabis Core Concepts


CURT’S

CANNABIS

CORNER 

What is Nanoemulsion Technology?

Part 1

By Curt Robbins

Those who work in the cannabis industry know that there’s plenty of hype regarding a relatively new molecular infusion technology called nanoemulsion (sometimes labeled miniemulsion, ultrafine emulsion, or submicron emulsion). 

Operating at the extreme microscopic size level that scientists call nanoscale, nanoemulsion offers a slew of advantages over traditional formulation technologies such as non-emulsified oils, macroemulsions, and microemulsions involving liposomes. Unfortunately, nanoemulsion tech has also resulted in significant marketing hyperbole and marketplace confusion.    

For engineering nerds, an interesting fact of nanoemulsion tech is that various underlying methods can be employed to create a nanoparticle emulsion liquid. All of these approaches, including ultrasonic generators, rotor devices, and high pressure homogenizers, are intended to result in a lifestyle beverage or liquid medicine that efficiently delivers wellness molecules, including cannabinoids and terpeneswithout degradation or other loss of potency during their path from processing and packaging to consumption and onset of effects. 

Another major reason companies are excited about nanoemulsions: Speed of onset. This molecular encapsulation approach results in significantly faster onset of bioavailability. In some cases, nanoencapsulation reduces the onset wait period from two or more hours (a traditional infused product) to about fifteen minutes (a roughly 800 percent improvement). 

It should be noted that nanoemulsion technology does not magically make hydrophobic fat-soluble molecules like cannabinoids and terpenes water soluble (as the marketing materials of some companies would lead one to believe). Rather, it is a method by which these fat-loving, water-fearing chemical compounds can be efficiently stored and transported on the way to their biophysical destinations (in the case of cannabis and hemp, microscopic CB1 and CB2 cellular receptors within the brain, central nervous system, and tissues of the immune system).  

Overview

Nanoemulsion technology is quickly gaining popularity with wellness professionals, consumers, and emerging hemp and cannabis brands. This approach to the consumption of some types of molecules that display poor water solubilityincluding the cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids produced by cannabisis complex in detail, yet easily grasped in general theory. 

Many cannabis and hemp companies, especially those offering products intended to enhance health and wellness, are flocking to nanoemulsion tech for two primary reasons: Improved stability and faster onset of bioavailability (with the bonuses of significantly greater potency and more accurate dosing). The potential downside of nanoemulsions? Production cost (especially at smaller volumes).

Improved stability is important for heavily regulated industries like hemp and cannabis that involve supply chains featuring detailed distribution cycles and sometimes lengthy storage periods. Faster onset is critical for patient populations where conditions such as pain, nausea, social anxiety, or seizures demand the fastest possible onset of efficacy.

Nanoemulsion involves use of an agitative force (such as ultrasonic sound waves) to break up a solution containing two liquified substances (often an oil and an aqueous [water] element) that, under normal circumstances and in traditional preparations, would not form a homogeneous mixture. 

The compound of medicinal or therapeutic focus, such as a cannabinoid like cannabidiol (CBD) or delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is infused into an oil. Despite their differences, cannabinoids, flavonoids, and terpenes share one trait: They are fat soluble but not water soluble. Because of this important biochemical characteristic, these molecules must be infused into a lipid (fat) or oil for practical consumption by humans.

This marriage of oil and water, with the oil acting as a carrier for medicinal wellness compounds such as cannabinoids like CBD and THC, is accomplished with the assistance of a third element called an emulsifying agent (a common example of which is lecithin). This relatively technical concoction produces what scientists and product formulators dub a “single phase” mixture that is comprised of extremely small particles that fall within the nanoscale range (described below).

Understanding Nanoscale

Nanoscale (and the entire model for scientific measurement) is based upon the metric system, not the English scheme of inches and feet. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter (a meter being 3.3 feet). The root term nano is derived from ancient Greek, where it means “dwarf.” 

A micron, or micrometer, is the unit of measure directly above nano and is 1,000 nanometers (nm). To better gain a sense of the size of nanoscale, consider that a human hair is about 75 microns (75 μm), or 75,000 nanometers, in diameter. A sheet of standard notebook paper is just slightly thicker, at about 100,000 nanometers. 

According to the U.S. federal government’s National Nanotechnology Initiative:

  • A strand of human DNA  is 2.5 nanometers in diameter
  • An inch contains 25,400,000 nanometers
  • A gold atom is about one third of a nanometer in diameter

Infused beverages or tinctures containing broad-spectrum (involving molecular filtering) and full-spectrum (lacking filtering) nanoemulsions of hemp or individual cannabinoids (such as CBD or cannabigerol [CBG]) are defined as chemically and physically stable liquid-in-liquid dispersions featuring relatively minuscule droplet sizes of approximately 100 nm. 

Some strict sources define particle (droplet) sizes that exceed 100 nm to be outside of the nanoscale. However, technically speaking, 50-999 nm serves as an acceptable industry standard for nanoencapsulation particle size. A February 2021 market analysis defined nanoemulsions as “oil-in-water emulsions with mean size ranging from 50 to 1000 nm” that feature an average droplet size of “between 100 and 500 nm.”

Bioavailability & Delivery Dynamics

Nanoemulsions manifest as liquid solutions packaged as tinctures, infused beverages, eye drops, topicals (creams, lotions, balms, etc.), or transdermal patches. They are designed to circumvent the relatively lengthy process of digestion that is performed by the stomach and liverwith the overall goal of improving bioavailability compared to conventional “edibles.” 

Nanoencapsulated liquids also avoid the potential harms caused by inhalation of smoke and vapor. While research has revealed cannabis vapor to be considerably safer than the combustion involved in smoking the herb, chronic consumption via either method of inhalation may lead to lung damage and conditions such as bronchitis. Nanoencapsulated edibles and sublingual tinctures, while slower in onset than inhalation (the fastest consumption avenue at only 2.5 minutes), offer an improved safety profile that, in many use cases, justifies the slower onset.    

Methods of creating nanoemulsions include sonication (the application of ultrasonic sound) and high-pressure homogenization. Nanoemulsions produce significantly greater overall bioavailability (described in detail below), including faster onset and enhanced potency. This is true not only when nanoemulsions are eaten, but also when they are consumed sublingually (as with tinctures) or via transdermal patches. This fact gives this particular emulsion technology an unusually broad application range within the cannabis industry. 

A 2015 research study entitled “Nanoemulsion: An Advanced Mode of Drug Delivery System” reported that nanoemulsions “are manufactured for improving the delivery of active pharmaceutical ingredients” and that the process involves a “thermodynamically stable isotropic system in which two immiscible liquids are mixed to form a single phase by means of an emulsifying agent.” 

The improved stability of nanoencapsulated formulations makes them of significant interest to wellness professionals because they can increase the precision of dosing. This is of importance for many conditions, including those whose treatment involves compounds that feature biphasic response curves or other peculiarities that can be exploited by a lack of dosing accuracy. 

Tune in next week for What is Nanoemulsion Technology?: Part 2 when we’ll dig into the hard research evidence behind the value of nanoemulsion tech for both companies and consumers and learn more about bioavailability. Don’t miss it! 

Curt’s Cannabis Corner: What Is Delta-8 THC?

 

UPDATE: “Understanding Legal Status”

Editor’s Note:  Welcome to the first installment in the new series of educational articles from technical writer Curt Robbins at Higher Learning LV and MJNews Network. This collection is intended for cannabis and hemp industry professionals who wish to gain a better understanding of the nuanced biochemistry of this specialand newly legalherb.  

For the next two weeks, Curt teaches readers about the hot new phytomolecule delta-8 THC that is causing such a stir among consumers, entrepreneurs, and medical professionals.


CURT’S CANNABIS CORNER

What is Delta-8 THC?

By Curt Robbins

For years, the producers, processors, distributors, marketers, regulators, and consumers of cannabis have focused primarily on only two molecules produced by the plant: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Both are sold by thousands of companies in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.

 

As a wave of medical and adult use marijuana legalization reaches beyond North America to the far corners of the globe, companies are beginning to promote and exploit additional wellness molecules produced by cannabis and hemp. Creative entrepreneurs and product formulators are seeing the advantages, both financially and legally, of leveraging molecular options beyond CBD and THC. 

The Big Picture

The cannabis/hemp plant species produces three primary families of wellness molecules that, together, number in the hundreds. There are approximately 146 cannabinoids, 20 flavonoids, and 200 terpenesthe majority of which have demonstrated significant medicinal efficacy, as revealed by thousands of peer-reviewed research studies since the late 18th century. 

Before delving into the details of delta-8 THC, it is important to properly frame the topic.   

Understanding Molecular Analogs 

Most cannabis consumers are ignorant of the fact that the chemical compounds produced by cannabis are members of small groups called analogs (sometimes cited as isomers in research literature). In fact, the CBD family features seven distinct analogs, as does the cannabinoid cannabigerol (CBG).    

 

THC is no exception. The analog with which most consumers are familiar is the infamous delta-9 variant (technically called the neutral analog), which produces sometimes significant psychoactivity. There’s also the acidic precursor THCA, which conveys no psychoactivity but significant wellness benefits and is popular as a juiced edible.

Yet another THC analog is the varin version, THCV, which conveys greater psychoactivity than delta-9, but only at more potent doses. An Italian research study published in December 2019 discovered additional THC and CBD analogs, THCP and CBDP, respectively (the researchers dubbed them the phorols). Delta-8 THC is yet another member of this collection of molecular analogs.

While molecular analogs sometimes share many of the same effects when consumed by humans (such as decreased systemic inflammation or an alleviation of depression or pain), such homogeneity cannot be assumed. For example, while delta-8 and delta-9 THC both stimulate appetite, THCV decreases it! Another frequently confusing feature of cannabinoids is a characteristic called the biphasic response curve. This mechanism involves a molecule producing one effect at a low dose and a differentand sometimes polar oppositeeffect at a stronger dose. 

A good example of the mechanism of biphasic response curves is delta-9 THC. At low doses, this molecule is known for helping consumers manage stress and decrease anxiety (“Netflix and chill, dude”). At more potent doses, however, the same molecule can cause increases in anxiety and paranoia and even result in panic attacks. 

In the end, the differences between cannabinoid analogs are good because they provide additional options to patients and lifestyle consumers. Crohn’s disease and cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy experience sometimes extreme nausea and lack of appetite, which can lead to malnutrition and worsen their health. Wellness molecules that function as effective appetite stimulants are of obvious value to such consumer populations. 

Understanding Hemp vs. Cannabis

To properly understand the characteristics of delta-8 THC relative to the myriad molecules produced by the cannabis plant, one must first gain insight into the legal and technical differences between hemp and cannabis. Hemp is considered any sample of the plant that tests below 0.3 percent (one-third of one percent) delta-9 THC in weight by volume (research has indicated that psychotropic effects do not manifest in most adult consumers until samples feature at least one percent delta-9 THC). 

Hemp and cannabis have been illegal in the United States since August 1937, when the Marihuana Tax Act was passed by Congress. In December 2018, Congress reversed course after 81 years of prohibition by enacting the Farm Bill, which legalized samples of the plant containing below the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC standard employed in North America. Europe features a stricter 0.2 percent delta-9 THC limit, although this may change to 0.3 percent, in alignment with global market leaders such as the U.S. and Canada, in the near future.    

Delta-9 THC is currently considered a Schedule I drug which, by definition, implies that it provides zero medicinal benefit while displaying a strong propensity for abuse. Delta-8 THC, however, is legally categorized as a component of hemp, meaning that it falls under different regulatory oversight and can be sold in dozens of U.S. states. Legally, delta-8 and delta-9 THC are in different universes. From a regulatory perspective, delta-8 THC is managed more similarly to CBD. 

This important legal distinction means that companies can formulate and market products containing delta-8 THC and sell them in most states. Delta-9 THC products, on the contrary, can be produced and sold in only 15 U.S. states, with no interstate commerce or merchant banking permitted under the current scheme of federal prohibition. 

Understanding Legal Status

Hemp and cannabis have been illegal in the United States since August 1937, when the Marihuana Tax Act was passed by Congress. In December 2018, Congress reversed course after 81 years of prohibition by enacting the Farm Bill, which legalized samples of the plant containing below the 0.3 percent THC standard employed in North America, which it defines as “hemp.” Europe features a stricter 0.2 percent THC limit, although this may change to 0.3 percent, in alignment with global market leaders such as the U.S. and Canada, in the near future.    

Both delta-9 and delta-8 THC are currently considered Schedule I drugs by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. This means that all regulatory oversight and legal restrictions placed on delta-9 THC also apply to delta-8. Some of the companies producing delta-8 products are doing so legally under the laws of their home state, but, just as with delta-9 products, in defiance of federal oversight. 

It must be emphasized that such companies remain legal only if they restrict sales of their product to within the borders of their home state. Any interstate commerce activity falls under the strict purview of federal authorities, including the DEA, and Schedule I status.   

Confusion regarding these relatively new laws surrounds many interpretations of the legal status of delta-8 THC and emerging products. Some parties believe that delta-8 derived from hemp (samples of the cannabis plant genome that feature <0.3 percent delta-9 THC) are a legal loophole that allow them to narrowly skirt any laws of prohibition at the state or federal level. 

“You have a drug that essentially gets you high, but is fully legal. The whole thing is comical,” said Lukas Gilkey, CEO of Hometown Hero CBD in Austin, Texas, during an interview with the New York Times

However, many legal authorities paint a different picture. “Dealing in any way with delta-8 THC is not without significant legal risk,” said Alex Buscher, a Colorado lawyer who specializes in cannabis law, during an interview for the New York Times article cited above.

Some companies have invested in production and multi-state marketing of delta-8 products. Unfortunately, they are doing so under the false belief that their formulations are categorized as hemp under the Farm Bill and, thus, legal.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Delta-8 and delta-9 THC fall under the identical categorization and carry the same enforcement mechanisms and penalties.     

Understanding Delta-8 THC

Regardless of the legal status of delta-8 THC, let’s compare and contrast the medicinal efficacy of both compounds. Despite its reputation for helping consumers unwind from a stressful day, delta-9 THC has a nasty reputation for causing the opposite when consumed in strong doses: Elevated anxiety, paranoia, and sometimes panic attacks. Disorientation, confusion, and other forms of distress resulting from too much delta-9 have been documented by hospital emergency rooms and psychologists for decades. 

Delta-8 THC has been reported, through both formal research and anecdotal testimony, to deliver roughly two-thirds of the psychoactivity of the delta-9 isomer, but without the paranoia. This provides an option for those who avoid delta-9 THC or cannabis overall due to a previous negative experience with the herb. 

That said, it should be noted that the potential for consumers, especially novices, to experience increased anxiety or paranoia when consuming any psychotropic substance, especially in potent doses, always exists. Doctors and wellness professionals should experiment over time and “start low and go slow” with the dosing of delta-8. Many consumers have reported positive experiences when consuming delta-8 THC, especially in comparison to delta-9. 

One distinct difference between these two analogs is their relative volumes in plant samples. Most modern cultivars and chemovars (“strains”) of cannabis have been bred to increase delta-9 THC levels (which typically range from 10 to 30 percent), not CBD or delta-8. As such, delta-8 THC is found in small quantities in natural plant samples (typically well under one percent, similar to CBG). Delta-8 is sometimes extracted and concentrated by complex processing equipment requiring specially trained technicians. More often, however, it is synthesized from molecules that feature similar molecular structures, such as CBD and delta-9 THC. 

Some doctors, including Dr. Benjamin Caplan (a clinical practitioner in Boston who recommends legal cannabis to his patients), are finding superior results with their patients when they mix the correct doses of delta-8 and delta-9. Some wellness professionals are employing such a formulation instead of the more traditional delta-9 and CBD mix. 

“While the combination of delta-8 and delta-9 often yields a less euphoric experience, it can be a very pleasant alternative to blends of delta-9 THC and CBD,” Caplan told me during an exclusive interview.

In addition to appetite stimulation, delta-8 THC delivers anxiety reduction, can help treat pain, has shown antioxidant efficacy, and is a powerful tool in the treatment of nausea. Caplan described delta-8 THC as a “fan favorite” among his patients. 

Delta-9 Tolerance Break Tool?

Some companies and caregivers have begun exploring the use of delta-8 THC as a tool to help daily users, especially heavy cannabis consumers, to lower their tolerance to delta-9 THC. Even slight improvements in the relative potency of delta-9 based on reduced tolerance can equal significant monetary savings for such large volume consumers. 

“It’s not uncommon for those who use delta-9 THC to find that efficacy wanes after a long period of consistent use,” said Dena Putnam, President and co-founder of Leafwize Naturals in Orange County, California. Leafwize Naturals sells a variety of vape cart products featuring the dominant ingredient of delta-8 THC.  

Putnam explained how the delta-8 isomer of THC “may offer a way to circumvent the body’s tolerance of delta-9 while delivering similar benefitsall while taking a break from delta-9 in an effort to bring back the full effectiveness” she explained during an exclusive interview. 

Putnam said that delta-9 THC tolerance breaks “can be scary for those who depend on it for daily pain relief and mood management,” but explained that it is “sometimes necessary to reset the effectiveness of the medicine.” She explained how “delta-8 may offer a way to take a delta-9 break while providing a level of medicinal relief that is similar to delta-9.”

When queried about the success of this approach, Putnam explained how she and her staff noted two positive outcomes from their experiment: Delta-8 efficacy that mirrored that of delta-9 and the overall goal of achieving a lowered tolerance for delta-9 THC. Both target outcomes were achieved, somewhat of a unicorn in the world of science-based health and wellness.      

“We found that, after a period of switching from delta-9 THC to delta-8, that delta-8 helped in a manner similar to delta-9,” said Putnam. “More important, when the user resumed consumption of delta-9, the effects were greater, as if they had taken a conventional tolerance break,” she added.

It’s a Wrap

Delta-8 THC, only one of several THC analogs that includes THCA, THCV, and THCP, offers a number of advantages over its sibling delta-9. From the perspective of medicinal efficacy, delta-8 provides 60-70 percent of the psychotropic (psychoactive) effects of delta-9 THC while, typically, delivering little or none of the paranoia and anxiety that may result from delta-9.

Medical practitioners and business entrepreneurs are beginning to recognize the advantages of a world in which phytocannabinoids beyond CBD and delta-9 THC are readily available in thousands of products from hundreds of companies. If businesses like Southern California’s Leafwize Naturals have anything to say about it, that world will be here sooner rather than later.   

Jazz Pharmaceuticals To Acquire GW Pharmaceuticals, Creating An Innovative, High-Growth, Global Biopharma Leader

UNITED KINGDOM: Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc and GW Pharmaceuticals announced the companies have entered into a definitive agreement for Jazz to acquire GW for $220.00 per American Depositary Share (ADS), in the form of $200.00 in cash and $20.00 in Jazz ordinary shares, for a total consideration of $7.2 billion, or $6.7 billion net of GW cash. The transaction, which has been unanimously approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies, is expected to close in the second quarter of 2021.

Upon close of the transaction, the combined company will be a leader in neuroscience with a global commercial and operational footprint well positioned to maximize the value of its diversified portfolio.

GW is a global leader in discovering, developing, manufacturing and commercializing novel, regulatory approved therapeutics from its proprietary cannabinoid product platform to address a broad range of diseases. The company’s lead product, Epidiolex® (cannabidiol) oral solution, is approved in patients one-year and older for the treatment of seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS), Dravet Syndrome and Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC), all of which are rare diseases characterized by severe early-onset epilepsy. Epidiolex was the first plant-derived cannabinoid medicine ever approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This product has also been approved, under the tradename Epidyolex®, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in patients two years of age and older for the adjunctive treatment of seizures associated with LGS and Dravet syndrome in conjunction with clobazam and is under EMA review for the treatment of seizures associated with TSC. In addition to the approved indications for Epidiolex, there are considerable opportunities to pursue other indications within the epilepsy field, including other treatment-resistant epilepsies where significant unmet needs of patients exist.

Beyond Epidiolex, GW has a scientific platform and deep innovative pipeline of cannabinoid product candidates, as well as highly specialized manufacturing expertise, developed over two decades of pioneering and building leadership in cannabinoid science. This pipeline includes nabiximols, for which the company is in Phase 3 trials to seek FDA approval for treatment of spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury, as well as earlier-stage cannabinoid product candidates for autism and schizophrenia.

“Jazz is proud of our leadership position in sleep medicines and rapidly growing oncology business. We are excited to add GW’s industry-leading cannabinoid platform, innovative pipeline and products, which will strengthen and broaden our neuroscience portfolio, further diversify our revenue and drive sustainable, long-term value creation opportunities,” said Bruce Cozadd, chairman and CEO of Jazz Pharmaceuticals. “We are joining two teams that share a passion for, and track record of, developing differentiated therapies that advance science and transform the lives of patients. This will help facilitate a successful integration and bring added capabilities to Jazz. Given the strength of our balance sheet and the meaningful financial drivers of the transaction, we are confident in the value we can deliver to both companies’ shareholders and patients. We look forward to welcoming the GW team to Jazz to build an even stronger company.”

“Over the last two decades, GW has built an unparalleled global leadership position in cannabinoid science, including the successful launch of Epidiolex, a breakthrough product within the field of epilepsy, and a diverse and robust neuroscience pipeline. We believe that Jazz is an ideal growth partner that is committed to supporting our commercial efforts, as well as ongoing clinical and research programs,” said Justin Gover, CEO of GW Pharmaceuticals. “We have a shared vision of developing and commercializing innovative medicines that address significant unmet needs in neuroscience and an approach of putting patients first. Together, we will have an opportunity to reach and impact more patients through a broader portfolio of neuroscience-focused therapies than ever before.”

WSLCB Interpretive Statement On Cannabinoid Additives

WASHINGTON:  Consistent with RCW 34.05.230, WSLCB has published an interpretive statement to clarify WAC 314-55-109 concerning cannabinoid additives.

One of the key findings of the 2019 Hillard Heintz report was that WSLCB licensees expressed concerns about inconsistent interpretation of law and regulation applying to their businesses.

Interpretive statements do not have the force and effect of law. They are explanatory documents intended to convey the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board’s interpretation of law and regulation as it exists at the time the statement is issued. Current interpretive statements are advisory only.

WLSCB Interpretive Statement #IS21-01 was filed with the Washington State Code Reviser on January 26, 2021 as WSR 21-04-030. The interpretive statement is intended to clarify and confirm current rule, WAC 314-55-109, concerning cannabinoid additives – requirements, restrictions, and quality assurance testing, including the ways that cannabidiol (CBD) product obtained from a source not licensed under chapter 314-55 WAC may be sold in licensed retail locations.

Additional information can be found on the WSLCB Interpretive Statements webpage.

Over Half Of Cannabis Users With Parkinson’s Disease Report Clinical Benefits

A survey in Germany found over 8% of patients with Parkinson’s disease are using cannabis products and more than half experienced beneficial clinical effects, reports the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease

NETHERLANDS:  With medicinal cannabis now legalized in many parts of the world, there is growing interest in its use to alleviate symptoms of many illnesses including Parkinson’s disease (PD). According to results of a survey of PD patients in Germany in the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, over 8% of patients with PD reported using cannabis products and more than half of those users (54%) reported a beneficial clinical effect.

Cannabis products containing THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive compound of cannabis) can be prescribed in Germany when previous therapies are unsuccessful or not tolerated, and where cannabis can be expected with not a very unlikely chance to relieve disabling symptoms. CBD (pure cannabidiol, derived directly from the hemp plant, a cousin of the marijuana plant) is available without a prescription from pharmacies and on the internet.

“Medical cannabis was legally approved in Germany in 2017 when approval was given for therapy-resistant symptoms in severely affected patients independent of diagnosis and without clinical evidence-based data,” explained lead investigator Prof. Dr. med. Carsten Buhmann, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. “PD patients fulfilling these criteria are entitled to be prescribed medical cannabis, but there are few data about which type of cannabinoid and which route of administration might be promising for which PD patient and which symptoms. We also lack information about the extent to which the PD community is informed about medicinal cannabis and whether they have tried cannabis and, if so, with what result.”

Investigators aimed to assess patient perceptions of medicinal cannabis as well as evaluate the experiences of patients already using cannabis products. They performed a nationwide, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey among members of the German Parkinson Association (Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V.), which is the largest consortium of PD patients in German-speaking countries with nearly 21,000 members. Questionnaires were sent out in April 2019 with the association’s membership journal and were also distributed in the investigators’ clinic.

Over 1,300 questionnaires were analyzed; results showed that interest in the PD community in medical cannabis was high, but knowledge about different types of products was limited. Fifty-one percent of respondents were aware of the legality of medicinal cannabis, and 28% were aware of the various routes of administration (inhaling versus oral administration), but only 9% were aware of the difference between THC and CBD.

More than 8% of patients were already using cannabinoids and more than half of these users (54%) reported that it had a beneficial clinical effect. The overall tolerability was good. Over 40% of users reported that it helped manage pain and muscle cramps, and more than 20% of users reported a reduction of stiffness (akinesia), freezing, tremor, depression, anxiety, and restless legs. Patients reported that inhaled cannabis products containing THC were more efficient in treating stiffness than oral products containing CBD but were slightly less well tolerated.

Patients using cannabis tended to be younger, living in large cities, and more aware of the legal and clinical aspects of medicinal cannabis. Sixty-five percent of non-users were interested in using medicinal cannabis, but lack of knowledge and fear of side effects were reported as main reasons for not trying it.

“Our data confirm that PD patients have a high interest in treatment with medicinal cannabis but lacked knowledge about how to take it and especially the differences between the two main cannabinoids, THC and CBD,” noted Prof. Dr. med. Buhmann. “Physicians should consider these aspects when advising their patients about treatment with medicinal cannabis. The data reported here may help physicians decide which patients could benefit, which symptoms could be addressed, and which type of cannabinoid and route of administration might be suitable.”

“Cannabis intake might be related to a placebo effect because of high patient expectations and conditioning, but even that can be considered as a therapeutic effect. It has to be stressed, though, that our findings are based on subjective patient reports and that clinically appropriate studies are urgently needed,” he concluded.

Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, Director, Radboudumc Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and Co-Editor-in Chief of the Journal of Parkinson’s Disease, added: “These findings are interesting in that they confirm a widespread interest among patients in the use of cannabis as a potential treatment for people living with PD. It is important to emphasize that more research is needed before cannabis can be prescribed as a treatment, and that guidelines currently recommend against the use of cannabis, even as self-medication, because the efficacy is not well established, and because there are safety concerns (adverse effects include among others sedation and hallucinations). As such, the present paper mainly serves to emphasize the need for carefully controlled clinical trials to further establish both the efficacy and safety of cannabis treatment.”

Virginia Governor Northam Announces Industrial Hemp Company to Locate In Rockingham County

Governor Northam Announces Industrial Hemp Company to Locate in Rockingham County

VIRGINIA:  Governor Ralph Northam today announced that Shenandoah Valley Hemp, LLC dba Pure Shenandoah will invest nearly $3.3 million to establish an industrial hemp fiber processing and cannabidiol (CBD) oil extraction facility in the historic Casey Jones building in the Town of Elkton. The company will create 24 new jobs and has committed to purchasing 100 percent of its industrial hemp from Virginia growers, resulting in nearly $5 million in payments to Virginia farmers over the next three years. Pure Shenandoah will become the first participant in the Virginia’s Finest trademark program to source the hemp used in its products exclusively from the Commonwealth.

“Virginia’s industrial hemp industry continues to experience tremendous growth, creating a wealth of opportunity across our Commonwealth,” said Governor Northam. “Projects like this one are an important part of diversifying our economy and developing new markets for industrial hemp. Our administration remains committed to supporting growers and processors as we work to ensure this crop has a sustainable future in Virginia.”

Pure Shenandoah operates as a vertically integrated “seed to sale” company providing customers with safe and consistent hemp products of the highest quality. This includes strict regulatory control of crops, the application of certified good manufacturing practices, and complete traceability of each product back to the seed and farm from which it came.

“Pure Shenandoah is a great example of the many ways we are able to help innovative, agriculture-based companies grow and thrive in the Commonwealth,” said Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Bettina Ring. “I am pleased to see continued job creation and investment in Virginia’s industrial hemp industry and excited for the new market opportunities the industry is creating for our farmers.”

“Industrial hemp is gaining momentum across the country, and we are excited for Virginia to be a player in this up-and-coming industry,” said Secretary of Commerce and Trade Brian Ball. “Pure Shenandoah will provide quality jobs and enable the Commonwealth’s hemp growers to source extraction and processing within Virginia, further benefiting our economy and agricultural ecosystem.”

As part of its strategic marketing efforts, Pure Shenandoah is a participating member of the Virginia’s Finest® program. Created more than 30 years ago with more than 500 participating companies, this program helps consumers know they are purchasing top-quality Virginia-produced specialty food products whenever they see the classic blue and red VA check mark logo.

“We are honored to receive these funds and to work with such influential state programs that are helping push the industrial hemp industry forward in the Commonwealth,” said Pure Shenandoah CEO Tanner Johnson. “With this support, we will continue to educate and provide safe and effective products to consumers. We are excited to do our part and help expand the future of industrial hemp and all of its potential.”

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) worked with Rockingham County and the Rockingham County Economic Development Authority to secure this project for the Commonwealth. Governor Northam approved a $50,000 grant from the Governor’s Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development (AFID) Fund for the project, which Rockingham County will match with local funds. Funding and services to support the company’s job creation will be provided through VEDP’s Virginia Jobs Investment Program.

“Rockingham County is pleased with the announcement of 24 new jobs and the investment of $3.3 million in eastern Rockingham County,” said Chairman of the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors Bill Kyger. “This is a new and exciting industry that offers a great opportunity to diversify the agriculture base of the county for the future.”

“We should never forget or take for granted Virginia’s tremendous agricultural heritage and its economic viability that continues to push Virginia forward,” said Senator Emmett Hanger. “I am pleased the AFID funds will further promote industrial hemp and that Pure Shenandoah is committed to exclusively sourcing Virginia agriculture products for this project. Of course, there is no better county to partner with on this funding than the number one agricultural county in the Commonwealth, Rockingham County. We are proud of our deep agricultural roots here in Virginia and this economic announcement adds yet another facet to our diverse agriculture operations.”

FDA Warns Companies Illegally Selling CBD Products

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued five warning letters to companies for selling products containing cannabidiol (CBD) in ways that violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). All five warning letters address the illegal marketing of unapproved CBD products claiming to treat medical conditions. The warning letters include CBD products that are especially concerning from a public health perspective due to the route of administration, including nasal, ophthalmic and inhalation. In addition, they address violations relating to the addition of CBD to food, and the impermissible marketing of CBD products as dietary supplements. Two of the letters also address CBD products illegally marketed for pets, including a product for use in the eye.

“The FDA’s first priority is to protect the health and safety of Americans. Many questions remain regarding the science, safety, effectiveness and quality of products containing CBD,” said FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy Abernethy, M.D., Ph.D. “We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety. Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products — prioritizing those that pose the greatest risk of harm to the public.”

The warning letters were issued to:

The FDA has previously sent warning letters to other companies illegally selling unapproved CBD products that claimed to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat or cure various diseases, in violation of the FD&C Act. In some cases, there were further violations because CBD was added to food, and some of the products were impermissibly marketed as “dietary supplements.”

The products that are the subject of the letters issued today have not gone through the FDA drug approval process and therefore are considered unapproved new drugs. It is not known whether they are effective for the uses claimed in labeling, what an appropriate dose might be, how they could interact with FDA-approved drugs or other products or whether they have dangerous side effects or other safety concerns. In addition, the manufacturing process of these unapproved CBD-containing drug products has not been subject to FDA review as part of the human or animal drug approval processes, so it is not known what the manufacturing conditions of, or contaminant levels in these products may be.

Under the FD&C Act, any product intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent a disease, and any product (other than a food) that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or animals, is a drug. New human and animal drugs must be approved by the FDA or conform to a “monograph” for a particular drug category, as established by FDA’s Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drug Review, before they can be legally marketed as drugs. CBD was not an ingredient considered under the OTC Drug Review.

The FDA has not approved any CBD products other than one prescription drug for the treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS) in human patients. CBD has not been approved as a food additive and does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary supplement.

The FDA has requested responses from the companies within 15 working days stating how they will address these issues, or providing their reasoning and supporting information as to why they think the products are not in violation of the law. Failure to adequately address the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

FTC Announces Crackdown On Deceptively Marketed CBD Products

Companies made unsupported claims that their oils, balms, gummies, coffee, and other goods could treat serious diseases such as cancer and diabetes

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: The Federal Trade Commission today announced the first law enforcement crackdown on deceptive claims in the growing market for cannabidiol (CBD) products. The FTC is taking action against six sellers of CBD-containing products for allegedly making a wide range of scientifically unsupported claims about their ability to treat serious health conditions, including cancer, heart disease, hypertension, Alzheimer’s disease, and others.

The FTC is requiring each of the companies, and individuals behind them, to stop making such unsupported health claims immediately, and several will pay monetary judgments to the agency. The orders settling the FTC’s complaints also bar the respondents from similar deceptive advertising in the future, and require that they have scientific evidence to support any health claims they make for CBD and other products.

“The six settlements announced today send a clear message to the burgeoning CBD industry: Don’t make spurious health claims that are unsupported by medical science,” said Andrew Smith, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Otherwise, don’t be surprised if you hear from the FTC.”

The crackdown, Operation CBDeceit, is part of the Commission’s ongoing effort to protect consumers from false, deceptive, and misleading health claims made in advertisements on websites and through social media companies such as Twitter.

Each case the FTC is announcing today is described below:

Bionatrol Health, LLC

According to the FTC’s complaint against Utah-based companies Bionatrol Health, LLC and Isle Revive, LLC, and two former managers and owners, since at least December 2019 the respondents sold a CBD oil to consumers on two websites. Among other things, the respondents allegedly claimed without substantiation that their CBD product is safe for all users, treats pain better than prescription medications like OxyContin, and prevents and treats age-related cognitive decline and chronic pain. The respondents also claimed, without scientific evidence, that CBD oil is “medically proven” to improve a variety of conditions, according to the FTC’s complaint. In addition, the FTC alleges the respondents deceived consumers who ordered one bottle of their CBD oil by changing the order to five bottles without consumers’ consent.

The proposed administrative order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits the respondents from making certain prevention, treatment, or safety claims about dietary supplements, foods, and drugs without human clinical testing to substantiate the claims. It also requires competent and reliable scientific evidence for other health-related product claims, and prohibits the respondents from misrepresenting the cost of any good or service and from charging consumers without their express, informed consent. Finally, it requires the corporate respondents and individual respondent Marcello Torre to pay $20,000 to the FTC and to notify consumers of the Commission’s order.

Epichouse LLC (First Class Herbalist CBD)

According to the FTC’s complaint against Utah corporation Epichouse, LLC, which operated under several names, including First Class Herbalist, and the company’s founder and owner, John Le, since at least September 2019 the respondents sold several CBD products on their website, including oils, a pain-relief cream, coffee, and gummies.

Among other alleged unsupported claims, Epichouse and Le promoted CBD as safe for all users, able to treat pain better than prescription medications such as OxyContin, and able to prevent a wide range of serious conditions, including cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. In their advertising, they also falsely claimed that CBD is scientifically proven to improve many serious health conditions—including chronic pain and hypertension—and provide neurological benefit—such as preventing age-related cognitive decline—according to the FTC’s complaint.

The proposed administrative order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits the respondents from making certain prevention, treatment, or safety claims about dietary supplements, foods, and drugs, unless they have the human clinical testing to substantiate the claims. It requires them to have competent and reliable scientific evidence when making any other health-related product claims. Finally, the order requires the respondents to pay $30,000 to the FTC and notify consumers of the Commission’s order.

CBD Meds, Inc.

According to the FTC’s complaint against CBD Meds, Inc.; G2 Hemp, Inc.; and Lawrence Moses, a/k/a Lawrence D. Moses, Jr., individually and as an officer of the corporate entities, the two companies advertised CBD oil on their website and on YouTube. In their ads, the FTC contends, the Winchester, California-based firms made a number of false or unsubstantiated claims, including that CBD effectively treats, prevents, or mitigates serious diseases and conditions like artery blockage, cancer, glaucoma, autism, and schizophrenia, among many others. The respondents also falsely represented that some of the efficacy claims were scientifically proven or that the U.S. government has confirmed the health benefits of CBD.

The proposed administrative order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits the respondents from making certain prevention, treatment, or safety claims about dietary supplements, foods, and drugs, unless they have the human clinical testing to substantiate the claims. More broadly, it requires them to have competent and reliable scientific evidence when making any other health-related product claims. Finally, the order requires the respondents to notify consumers of the Commission’s order.

HempmeCBD

According to the FTC’s complaint against EasyButter, LLC, also d/b/a HempmeCBD, and its owner and officer Michael Solomon, since at least January 2018, the respondents have sold CBD products on their website, including CBD-infused shea butter, gummies, lozenges, honey sticks, vape pens, and oils. The complaint alleges that HempmeCBD claimed its CBD products could treat or cure serious ailments like cancer-related symptoms, substance abuse, and AIDS. The complaint alleges HempmeCBD lacked the scientific substantiation for such health claims and falsely claimed to have studies showing CBD is effective at treating autism.

The proposed administrative order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits the respondents from making certain prevention, treatment, or safety claims about dietary supplements, foods, and drugs, unless they have the human clinical testing to substantiate the claims. It also requires them to have competent and reliable scientific evidence when making any other health-related product claims. Finally, it requires the respondents to pay the FTC $36,254 and to notify consumers of the Commission’s order.

Reef Industries, Inc.

According to the FTC’s complaint against California-based Reef Industries, Inc.; Cannatera, Inc.; AndHemp, Ltd., and the companies’ three principals, the respondents have sold a variety of CBD products directly to consumers on their website and Twitter accounts since at least January 2019 and misrepresented the health benefits of CBD. The FTC alleges that the respondents made unsubstantiated claims that CBD can prevent, cure, mitigate, or treat diseases and serious health conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, autoimmune disease, and irritable bowel syndrome. The complaint also alleges the respondents falsely claimed that studies or scientific research prove that CBD is effective at treating, curing, or mitigating these diseases and conditions.

The proposed administrative order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits the respondents from making certain prevention, treatment, or safety claims about dietary supplements, foods, and drugs, unless they have the human clinical testing to substantiate the claims. More broadly, it requires them to have competent and reliable scientific evidence when making any other health-related product claims. Finally, it requires them to pay the FTC $85,000 and notify consumers of the Commission’s order.

Steves Distributing, LLC

According to the FTC’s complaint against Steves Distributing, LLC, d/b/a Steve’s Goods; and the company’s CEO Steven Taylor Schultheis, since beginning operations in 2018, the respondents have sold a variety of products containing both CBD and cannabigerol (CBG), which, like CBD, is a non-psychoactive compound derived from hemp. The company advertises its CBD and CBG products, including tinctures, gummies, capsules, topical balms, suppositories, bath balms, and coffee, on its website and through social media companies like Twitter.

The FTC alleges that the respondents claimed, without adequate substantiation, that their CBD and CBG products are effective alternatives to prescription medications and treat a wide range of diseases and serious health conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and diabetes. The complaint also alleges the respondents falsely claimed that their CBD and CBG products have antibacterial properties, prevent or reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and other diseases, and that certain of these claims were supported by scientific evidence.

The proposed administrative order settling the FTC’s charges prohibits the respondents from making certain prevention, treatment, or safety claims about dietary supplements, foods, and drugs, unless they have the human clinical testing to substantiate the claims. More broadly, it requires them to have competent and reliable scientific evidence when making any other health-related product claims. Finally, it requires the respondents to pay the FTC $75,000 and notify consumers of the Commission’s order.

The Commission votes approving each of the six administrative complaints and proposed consent orders were 5-0, with Commissioner Rohit Chopra and Commissioner Christine S. Wilson issuing separate, concurring statements. A complete list of respondents can be found in the complaint for each respective case.

The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $43,280.

UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs Votes On Recommendations For Cannabis And Cannabis-Related Substances

AUSTRIA:  December 2, 2020 – Today, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) took a number of decisions on the international control of cannabis and cannabis-related substances.

Cannabis and cannabis-related substances have for many years been included in the schedules of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol (Schedule I and IV: cannabis and cannabis resin; Schedule I: extracts and tinctures of cannabis), as well as in the Schedules of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 (Schedule I: tetrahydrocannabinol (six isomers of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol); Schedule II: dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol)). The inclusion in a specific schedule determines the control measures that States parties are required to apply to the respective substances.

In January 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) made a series of recommendations to change the scope of control of cannabis and cannabis-related substances. After intensive considerations (more information below), the Commission took action today on these recommendations.

WHO recommendation to delete cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention, but to maintain it in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention: The Commission decided by 27 votes to 25 and with one abstention to follow this recommendation. Cannabis and cannabis resin will accordingly be deleted from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention. They remain in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention and thus remain subject to all levels of control of the 1961 Convention.

WHO recommendation to move dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and tetrahydrocannabinol (six isomers of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), which are psychoactive components of cannabis, from the respective schedules of the 1971 Convention to Schedule I of the 1961 Convention, which already includes cannabis and cannabis resin: The Commission rejected by 23 votes to 28 with 2 abstentionsthe recommendation to add dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) to Schedule I of the 1961 Convention. Due to the conditionalities included in the WHO recommendations, the Commission therefore did not vote on the recommendation relating to the deletion of dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) from the 1971 Convention. It also did not vote on the recommendation to move tetrahydrocannabinol (six isomers of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) from the 1971 Convention to the 1961 Convention.

WHO recommendation to delete extracts and tinctures of cannabis from Schedule I of the 1961 Convention: The Commission decided by 24 votes to 27 and with 2 abstentions not to adopt this recommendation.

WHO recommendation to add a footnote to Schedule I of the 1961 Convention to read “Preparations containing predominantly cannabidiol and not more than 0.2 per cent of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol are not under international control”: The Commission decided by 6 to 43 votes and with 4 abstentions not to add such a footnote.

Lastly, WHO recommendation to add certain preparations of dronabinol to Schedule III of the 1961 Convention: As the Commission had predetermined in a procedural decision, adopted at the beginning of the meeting, this recommendation was deemed rejected, due to the rejection of the recommendation to add dronabinol and its stereoisomers (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) to Schedule I of the 1961 Convention.

California Bureau Of Cannabis Control Announces Public University Research Grant Funding Recipients

CALIFORNIA: The Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau) announced that it has awarded $29,950,494 in public university research grant funding to universities across California.

“The research conducted through these public university grants will provide critical information for evaluating our legal cannabis system and its impacts,” Bureau of Cannabis Control Chief Lori Ajax said. “This research will be a valuable tool to inform future cannabis policy in California.”

Research proposals had to fall within one of the several specified categories, including public health, criminal justice and public safety, economic, environmental impacts, and the cannabis industry. A detailed description of the list of research subjects for grant funding can be found in Revenue and Taxation Code section 34019.

In total, the Bureau received more than 100 applications for grant funds up to $2 million for any specific proposal. After a thorough review process, the nearly $30 million was awarded to the following public universities:

Public University Awarded Funding Research Proposal
UC San Francisco  

$2,000,000.00

Comprehensive Analysis of Developmental Cannabis Exposure on Brain, Immune, and Sensory Systems
 

UC Santa Barbara

 

$1,999,191.00

Surface Water Emissions from Cannabis Cultivation Sites: Quantity, Quality, Toxicity, and Relationships to Farmers’ Practices
CSU

Dominguez Hills

 

$1,866,311.00

 

Cannabis Industry in South Bay Los Angeles

UC

Berkeley

$1,827,596.00 Local Regulation of Cannabis in California
UC Los Angeles  

$1,429,001.00

Impact of Cannabis Potency on The Properties, Composition, and Toxicity of Inhaled and Second-Hand Smoke
UC San Francisco $1,384,466.00 Effects of Chronic Cannabis Use on Endothelial Function
 

UC Irvine

 

$1,351,556.00

Exploring Cannabis Policies and Practices That Influence Adolescent Use: Evolution of Local Cannabis Law, Products, Sales, and Marketing
 

UC San Diego

 

$1,321,833.00

The Public Health Impact of Cannabis Legalization in California: A Comprehensive Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis by Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Regions
UC Los Angeles  

$1,082,815.00

Assessing the Feasibility and Consequences of Implementing a Cannabis Potency Tax in California
UC San Francisco  

$1,067,483.00

The LEAF Study: Lung Effects and Function Associated with Cannabis Use
UC Los Angeles  

$1,048,857.00

Study of Employment Conditions and Equity in California’s Cannabis Industry
 

UC San Francisco

 

$1,038,782.00

Public Health Impacts of State Policies Mandating Point-of- Sale Warning Signs Regarding Cannabis Use During Pregnancy
UC Davis $1,034,730.00 Understanding the Impact of Cannabis Use in Early Psychosis
UC San Diego  

$987,738.00

Evaluating the Impacts of Packaging and Labeling on Cannabis Edible Use among Youth
UC San Francisco $952,540.00 California Cannabis Poisonings Under Proposition 64
 

UC Los Angeles

 

$896,794.00

Assessing the Impact of Proposition 64 on Cannabis Use, Maladaptive Cannabis Use, Cannabis Use Disorder Treatment, and Public Health
UC San Diego  

$887,101.00

The Role of Cannabidiol in Anandamide-Related Improvement in Alexithymia and Health Outcomes
UC Los Angeles  

$781,707.00

A Demographic Analysis of the California Licensed Cannabis Industry and Consumer Market
UC Los Angeles  

$758,517.00

The Impact of Cannabis Marketing on California’s Youth: Neuro-Behavioral Studies for Informing Policy
 

 

UC Davis

 

 

$726,816.00

Cannabis Industry: Assessment of the Location, Structure, Function, and Demographics of Licensed Cannabis, Focusing on Geographical Price Differences, and Differential Impacts of Local Prop-64 Related Regulations on the Competitiveness of Licensed Businesses
UC

Berkeley

 

$658,306.00

Transformation of Unregulated Cannabis Cultivation Under Proposition 64
 

 

UC Davis

 

 

$655,564.00

Economic Impacts: Market Prices for Licensed and Unlicensed Cannabis and the Effects of the Current and Alternate Cannabis Tax Structures and Tax Rates on the Private and Public Sectors in California, Including Government Administrative Costs and Revenues
 

 

UC Davis

 

 

$562,240.00

Environmental Impacts of Cannabis Cultivation in California As Affected by the Farm Economics of Licensed and Unlicensed Cannabis Production, Including Effects of Testing Regulations and Compliance with the Criminal Prohibition of Unlicensed Cannabis
 

UC

Berkeley

 

 

$489,762.00

Assessing Environmental Impacts of Cannabis-Related Noise and Light Disturbance to Inform Management of California Wildlife
UC

Berkeley

 

$465,902.00

Examining Tribal Sovereignty Over Cannabis Permitting on Native Ancestral Lands
CSU

Humboldt

$464,997.00 Cannabis Business Entrepreneurs and Jobs
UC Los Angeles  

$414,183.00

Understanding the Impact of Cannabis Marketing on Cannabis Use Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youth
UC

Berkeley

 

$328,916.00

Cultivation Bans, Local Control, and the Effects and Efficacy of Proposition 64
UC

Berkeley

 

$319,091.00

Cannabis and Wildfire: Current Conditions, Future Threats, and Solutions for Farmers
UC

Berkeley

 

$314,417.00

Cannabis Water-Use Impacts to Streamflow and Temperature in Salmon-Bearing Streams
UC

Berkeley

$270,269.00 The Effect of Local Cannabis Regulation on Property Prices
UC San Diego  

$235,039.00

Evaluating Risks and Benefits of Cannabis Use by Older Adults: A Pilot Study
CSU

Humboldt

 

$183,015.00

The Economic Impact of Cannabis Legalization in Rural Northern California
 

UC Davis

 

$144,949.00

California Cannabis Workers: Perceptions, Beliefs, and Knowledge of Occupational Health and Industry Hazards