The 2016 Original Terpestival™ Terpene Tournament™ Winners Hopland, CA

DSC_0061
Beautiful Cannabis artwork on display from our vendor Cathy Lee Art of San Diego

by Dr. Michelle Sexton, Co-Founder and Medical Research Director

The Original Terpestival™ and Terpene Tournament™ has  again offered local craft cannabis producers and processors the opportunity to showcase their top genetics and compete for terpene characteristics of finished cannabis product. The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy (CASP) reached another milestone in this successful fund-raising event, held this year in Hopland CA on July 23rd.  CASP is a 501c3 tax-exempt organization that collects and disseminates information about cannabis policy and markets in the context of state-level experiments in democracy, affected by Legal Cannabis laws, rules, and regulations.

DSC_0045
Dr. Ethan Russo addresses the Terpestival™ crowd!
DSC_0191
“Terpenes and Growing” panel with Jim Fullmer from Demeter Association, Envirocann, Sunshine Johnson from Sunboldt Farms, and moderator Don Wirtschafter

Dr. Ethan Russo, an internationally recognized Cannabis historian, Board-certified neurologist, psychopharmacology researcher and Medical Director for Phytecs  was the keynote speaker. For the competition, SC Labs provided the quantitative analysis of terpenes and judges also sampled the entries. We are grateful to our many sponsors and vendors who came out for hot fun in the summer time at a unique facility, The  Solar Living Institute. We hosted three very educational panels on Processing and Terpenes, Growing and Terpenes, and Terpenes in Health and Ritual. The event was well-attended and we received incredible reviews for this one-of-a kind educational boutique event! Awards were presented on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative results.

One category of award was for the highest total amount of terpenes that were quantified (out of 35 commonly found in cannabis species). The aggregate results across all samples revealed some interesting data. The flower average terpene content was 1.4%  Because the event was away from harvest time, there may have been loss of terpene content over time, depending on storage conditions. Only rarely will flower have more than 4% total terpenes, which is pretty amazing given the potent aroma of the plant!

As you can see from Figure 1 the total terpene variability in concentrate  is notable, and is due to differences in extraction protocols and extraction efficiency for the terpenes.   Specifically in Figure 2 you can see that 2/3 of the solventless extracts (CO2 accepted) actually did not concentrate monoterpenes, and sometimes had less of the individual monoterpenes than the flower samples. Only beta-carophyllene is significantly being concentrated in most of the samples while cannabinoids are typically increased 4-fold or more.  The terpenes are an important chemical class that differentiate chemovars from each other. However, if they are being lost in the process, perhaps this raises the question of whether products should be sold under the same name as the original varietal that the concentrate was made from. Also, because the monoterpenes have been reported to have their own biological effects, with their loss it is to be expected that the overall effects would be quite different!

fig 1
Figure 1: Total Terpene Aggregate Results. Average for flower is 1.4% and for concentrates 9.7%


fig2
Figure 2: Total Terpenes in Low-end concentrates. This graph is the individual terpenes in the concentrates from Figure 1 that were less than 4% total. Beta-caryophyllene and limonene were the two terpenes that were significantly concentrated.

The winner for Highest Total Terpenes in an extract, as well as for most of the terpene categories was from Paradigm for their terpene extraction of “Indica Jello Terps”. Paradigm is the largest woman-owned extraction facility in California, owned by Karyn Wagner. Interestingly, based on the judges comments, these highly concentrated terpene products are not desirable for inhaling on their own. As Karyn agreed, they are a useful intermediate product that could be implemented for combining back with more viscous extracts in lieu of using propylene glycol, glycerine, polyethylene glycol or MCT oil (all of which may be harmful to human health when heated and inhaled), so that they are pourable for filling cartridges, or for use in tinctures. Paradigm also was awarded second and third place for Blue Dream Dreamer and AK47 Shotgun.

fig 3
Figure 3: All concentrates with winners. Notably absent from all of the concentrates is terpinolene, an unusual compound that provides interesting effects ranging from stimulating (mind) for some, to body relaxing and anti-psychotic for others. We opted give an award for highest linalool instead.
fig 4
Figure 4: Terpene content in flower. The spread for each terpene that we gave awards for, along with the winner and placers (in order) in each category.

Highest Total Terpenes for Flower was awarded to Dirt Ninja for their Grapefruit OG. Second place was Silly Strawberry by Sunboldt Grown, and third place went to Sage and Sour Kush from Ethereal Collective. Figure 4 shows the total terpene distribution across flower entries with the winners in each class alongside.

DSC_0319
An event volunteer rocking the t-shirt with her own design!

We gave judges’ awards based on their subjective feedback provided in a survey form. Rick Pfrommer selected the judges, and following part of our event theme (women-centric) , we had 50% of women judges and one gender neutral individual. They were aged 30-49 and 63% had a bachelors level degree. We asked them to rank each sample based on smell, taste, visual appearance, smoothness of smoke and overall effect. They scored these elements on a scale from 0-5 indicating whether the terpene dominated the smell and taste, was somewhat present, neutral, faintly present or none detected. We asked them to rate the overall effects such as physically stimulant, or relaxing with the answers of very, somewhat, neutral, very little or absent. They also scored entries for visual appeal and “smoothness”.

Most Stimulating:

Flower                                                                       Extract

ChemDog x SFV Ethereal Collective                      Oil Spill                     Humboldt Oil Cartel

Sherbert              Ethereal Collective                      Sour OG                     Talking Trees Farm

Grapefruit OG     Dirt Ninja Farms                        Purple Lotus CBD    Ethereal Collective

Most Sedating:

Flower                                                                       Extract

Sherbert             Ethereal Collective                       Sour OG:                  Talking Trees Farm

Butter OG          Ethereal Collective                       Girl Scout Cookie   Talking Trees Farm

Silly Strawberry Sunboldt Grown                          Blood Orange          Nexus Alchemy

Finally we awarded a “Best of Show” for flower and extract.                                        One grower, Ethereal Collective, swept the flower category with 1st, 2nd and 3rd placings for Chemdog x SFV, Butter OG and Sherbert. Best of show for an extract went to Nexus Alchemy for Blood Orange, 2nd place was for Oil Spill by Humboldt Oil Cartel, and 3rd was for Girl Scout Cookie by Talking Tree Farms.

DSC_0404
           Women Swept the Awards at the Terpene Tournament™!! From left, Dirt Ninja Farms, Karyn Wagner of Paradigm, Sunshine Johnson of Sunboldt Farms and Ethereal Collective.

It was notable this year that so many women won awards, and in fact swept the awards for terpenes and for the judge’s categories!   Some of the comments from the judges for the Ethereal Collective’s flower entries were: “Beautiful nuggets of intense flavorable terps”; “well-rounded”; “lushed well and cured well”; “amazing terps from the dry drag to the clean burn”; and “hats off to this farmer!”.

DSC_0343 (1)
 Dr. Dominic Corva with the trophies awarded to the winners.  Winners also received the laboratory analysis from SC Labs along with judges’ comments that they can use for marketing.  

One take-away message from the event is:   “don’t let your cannabis selection be defined just by the cannabinoid profile”.   The terpene profile needs to be used along with the cannabinoid profile for the end-user to be an educated connoisseur.  Our entrant took home the complete cannabinoid and terpene profile analysis from SCLabs along with judges’ comments that can be used for constructive feedback and product marketing.  There is a growing trend in the cannabis industry to make efforts at preserving the terpenes during extraction, as well as during curing of the cannabis flower.  We urge those who are producing these extracts to use laboratory analysis for process monitoring.  If you know the terpenes in the flower, then this can guide the extraction process. Quality has always been defined to the growers by the terpenes and the same should apply for extracts!

Our deepest gratitude goes out to all of those who worked so hard to organize the event, among them Allison Edrington, who did a spectacular job as the event coordinator, and Rick Pfrommer who rallied for the judging process- performing the tedious tasks of dividing up and delivering samples to the judges. We are grateful to all of the sponsors and vendors who took their time to participate and make the event a success! Thanks to all who entered their products and for those who attended the event. CASP appreciates you and says a big “thank you” for the ongoing support of our organization and the work that we do at CASP!  And a special thank you to Dr. Dominic Corva who had the vision and impetus to found the organization and carry on in spite of the challenges around raising financial support for the sometimes controversial work that we publish!

 

 

Terpestival Gratitude

 

Rick Pfrommer, Dominic Corva and Michelle Sexton lead the Terpene Tournament award ceremony at the 2nd annual Terpestival on July 23, 2016.
Rick Pfrommer, Dominic Corva and Michelle Sexton lead the Terpene Tournament award ceremony at the 2nd annual Terpestival on July 23, 2016.

by Dominic Corva, Terpestival™ Producer and Social Science Research Director

Two weeks ago we pulled off the second annual Terpestival™ and Terpene Tournament™ , in Hopland, California. This year’s unique, boutique event was located in California due to new legal restrictions on cannabis events in Washington State, and we succeeded with a very large amount of West Coast social capital. This social capital is comprised of  goodwill, volunteer labor, and even a little straight up donation. This post highlights the amazing support generated in support of our annual fundrasing event. Our gratitude will be presented in (somewhat) chronological order.

First, this would not have happened without the support and labor donated by Wonderland Nursery, directed and executed by Kevin Jodrey , his shop manager Dylan Livingearth and the rest of the team at the nursery. Their guaranteed  10 entries  that were either hustled from their vendors or donated off their shelves!  Wonderland donated 5 entries and delivered 9 others to supply almost half the entries.  Thank you Kevin and Wonderland for your undying support of the CASP Mission!

Rick Pfrommer coordinated the judging  and delivery to SC labs for  17 entries: 6 from Emerald Pharms vendors, 9 from his own networks, and  he accommodated 2 late entries hustled by Jane Stewart of SC Labs, our host testing donor. The late entrant drove his entries to Rick from Santa Cruz and Rick personally delivered those and the other 17 entries to the judges.  Rick executed this singlehandedly and our hats are off to him and his volunteer efforts!  Rick also played a key role introducing us to event sponsor Jessica Peters of Moxie Meds, in the Bay Area, and created the most gender-diverse judging panel that has ever judged a cannabis cup. Rick is an amazing friend that I met in Humboldt a few years back, and look forward to collaborating with in the future.DSC_0059

I should note that our entrants reflected our social network, which is especially rich with amazing women in the cannabis industry. We are very proud to have had such a strong female and gender-queer representation at the event!

Our event staff was cobbled together from our social networks as well. Dr. Tony Silvaggio, our CASP-affiliated Humboldt State environmental sociologist brought members from the lacrosse team he coaches and his awesome partner,Kandis Kelsey,  a dear friend of mine . They worked security, parking, and spent some time manning the gate.

Dr. Michelle Sexton’s partner, Dr. Darryl Bornhop, contributed considerably in every volunteer capacity we needed. This included working for more than an hour, with Michelle, in the taco truck to accommodate the lunch rush.

IMG_8802
Dr. Bornhop entertained guests at the “Aroma Bar” discussing the chemistry of terpenes, extraction techniques, and separation science.

CASP Board member Don E. Wirtschafter contributed not only his welcome and familiar presence to the event, but true to his Rainbow Family ethic, coordinated the  grounds sweep and clean-up after the event. Don and I were the last to leave. Donnie also pinch-hit for a moderator that couldn’t make it at the last minute!

Debby Goldsberry,  who unfortunately had to back out at the last minute for moderating to the Terpenes and Growing panel,  was instrumental. Magnolia Wellness served as strategic  drop-off point for entries in the Bay Area.  Debby was also  a judge for the competition. Debby is a great friend, a fellow veteran of the Cannabis Action Network from the late 1980s and early 1990s, and has provided me personally with mentorship and moral support these last four years.

DSC_0072Our event coordinator Alison Edrington was a rock for CASP during the entire 6 months of planning. She literally propped us up on occasions when the going got tough!  It was her direct collaboration with the host site owner and cannabis retailer, Emerald Pharms, that took us to the finish line.

Allison also brought my friends Dani Burkhart and Thomas Edrington (her husband) to Hopland for help with staffing the event. Thomas created what I believe to be an event innovation: he set “Pokemon Go” lures all over the event, which not only kept the staff happy in the hot sun but provided another invitation to passers-by to discover the event.

The Real Goods Solar Living Center donated the space for the event free of charge, with only a request for insurance. Emerald Pharms itself was a lure for the event: we had many folks who came by to purchase cannabis that stayed for the event. Manager Chelsea Lucich and her staff were terrific hosts, creating the vending spaces in a shady spot on the deck of the dispensary.

Martin Lee of course provided  inspiration for the location and was a key resource for for the Real Goods Solar Living Center and Emerald Pharms to be a key part of the fundraiser.

Dr. Ethan Russo once again provided his wealth of knowledge on terpenes and how they modulate cannabinoid bioactivity as the keynote for the day.  We had a packed tent and a rapt audience primed for education!  We are grateful for his participation in our second fundraiser and for the generous donation of his time and expertise!  DSC_0224

Cuauhtemoc Villa, whom I had the pleasure of moderating at the Golden Tarp event in Southern Humboldt last year, did an amazing job moderating our Terpenes in Health and Ritual panel at this year’s event. On his way out, he stopped by the gate to deliver a ceremonial organic tobacco gift in recognition of CASP’s efforts to produce and promote real education about cannabis.

Frenchy Cannoli was asked to assume a different role than he’s used to, that of panel moderator rather than panelist. His moderation was thus superbly informed and interested by emerging issues and questions around the subject of cannabis extraction.

We are also indebted to our generous sponsors,  first to SC Labs / EnviroCann  for providing the quantitative testing for the terpene content at no cost, but in exchange the Isoprene Laboratory Sponsor.  Alex Dixon and his crew were integral to the experience and contribution to the education.  We are  grateful to our Sesquiterpene Sponsors,  Terpinator  and Thinc Pure. Thank you to TD Cann, Moxie Meds and SoHum Seeds for their Monoterpene level sponsorship!   We are forward looking to our next year’s event and wait for the announcement of where it will be located!   Please contact us if you are interested in partnering for an event in your area, where you can highlight local expertise and locally grown product as well as educate the public on how to be cannabis connoisseurs!

Please read on to learn more about the awards and analytics!

 

 

Imagining Cannabis Communities

BenedictAnderson

by Dominic Corva, Social Science Research Director

Today’s post examines the meaning of “community” as it intersects with both “culture” and “cannabis.” Let’s start with anthropologist Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined communities” (the title of his 1983 publication). Anderson’s big contribution to social theory reconstructs the meaning of community as a signifier of common identity, especially as it applies to the emergence of national identities. Really he was taking part in a social theory turn that was about how social identities are constructed and performed, rather than biological or natural. A good example of this is the concept of “race,” which before the 20th century was a term applied to ethnic and national identities rather than common skin tones: the Irish race this, the Italian race that, and so forth. It was all about the process of defining Selves and Others, and usually had a territorial as well as biological connotation. A community is a group of people who are imagined to be like each other, and nations are “imagined communities” in the sense that all their differences get subsumed under a few common identity markers, one of which is having a place of origin or belonging in common.

But having a place of origin or belonging in common, and having that marker of identity mobilized, can often mean that a great deal of internal difference is being erased, often violently. Okies from Muskogee can only be Okies from Muskogee if they don’t smoke marijuana or take LSD, according to Merle Haggard, but Dr. Sunil Aggarwal has often contested that assertion. If it’s true, then he doesn’t get to belong to the place he grew up. Hence nationalism — and all other imagined community identities — are political: who gets the final word depends on power in social relations, not who’s technically right. The power to define community is the power to include or exclude.

So what’s the cannabis community, exactly. I experience a lot of positive and a lot of negative meanings associated with that post-ethnic identity marker, which can be and sometimes is framed in terms of nationalism. Some mourn the loss of community as cannabis becomes commercialized and inserted into the formal capitalist economy. Some celebrate the opening of cannabis community membership into the ecology of legally sanctioned communities subsumed under national, State, and local identities. What’s the Washington cannabis community like, and so forth.

The challenge for this post isn’t to define what “the cannabis community” is or might be, though I have a few strong feelings about it. The challenge for this post is to identify community formation as an ongoing and vital part of social survival. Communities are always being lost, broken, made, healed: they are created by performing common ground, and they have to be constantly re-created and renewed to gain political and economic purchase on the ecology of community formations in society that aren’t punished for existing.

I must admit I’m pretty ambivalent about “cannabis community” as a singular concept, sweeping up difference under the rug of community. I find that when it’s singularly deployed it tends to be either deployed as a brand, on the one hand, for getting people to buy things; and as a stigmatized group that isn’t allowed to participate in “modern” legal cannabis markets, events, or even spaces outside one’s own home on another end. I find it more useful as a term of aspiration or auto-critique, usually associated with efforts to be together on something or an acknowledgement that the failure to renew community and mobilize it in a productive fashion has created missed opportunities for the cannabis peace movement from which we should learn.

That’s not terribly specific, I know, but this is not a space for dictating how folks who’ve found cannabis therapeutic in their lives should shape their identities. I’m specifically anti-identity in many ways: I’m less interested in what we have in common than how we can peacefully coexist despite our differences, because we are interdependent at the very least in the spaces we share.  But the practice of calling a community together can help considerably in the search for peaceful coexistence.

The way we are organizing for peaceful coexistence involves the production of popular education events. Our Terpestival is a whole plant conference: the focus on Terpenes helps decenter approaches to centralize the meaning of cannabis, and therefore what cannabis communities can be. That problem of centralized meaning is not just a negative power function — “dangerous drug”, signifier of “Bad Actor,” and so forth — but a positive power function with negative effects. The focus on low cost THC production for prohibition markets has dramatically limited non-cannabis communities’ willingness to step away from stigma and let the plant be a plant.

That model, interestingly, is now being perpetuated in Washington’s legal system for public and private reasons. The State wants revenue, and it gets the most revenue when retailers copy the prohibition market’s tendencies toward highest THC and lowest prices. At the same time its onerous regulations make THC information on the label the most reliable information available to consumers (and budtenders) who aren’t allowed to smell the flowers or sample the product. Combine that with the McDonald’s fast-food high volume business model and it’s no wonder cannabis is becoming just another commodity here. And communities based on commodities have a name: industry. Not much room for cultural difference and community formation there, except as ways to brand, market and sell things.

Which is, I suppose, the proverbial American way. It’s the familiar same-old centralized national identity subsuming all of the differences that constitute our social ecologies under the generic flag of consumer identity. It works, for a lot of people in the cannabis industry — especially the new ones, intent on producing a tornado of creative destruction out of which they build their empires of exclusive wealth and individual glory. I’m just not into it.

But it’s not enough to be “just not into it.” If I want cannabis community — and I desire a cannabis community of decentralized differences that peacefully coexist — I have to create spaces where other people can understand what I desire and desire it with me. Also at the same time I have to navigate the social ecology of acceptable and tolerated communities who feel threatened by my cannabis-positive values. I have to understand what they are afraid of, and not get frustrated that their fears are irrelevant even if they aren’t based on evidence. And I have to find and work strategically with people who share my values and are able to act on them.

This last point is crucial. The re-criminalization of medical cannabis in Washington State has meant that for the last year at least, people who share my values — chiefly, that cannabis is a plant with many, many beneficial uses and the problems attributed to it are caused mostly by its prohibition and stigmatization — have been losing their jobs, losing their margins, and transitioning to a new system in which margins are vanishingly small and controlled by people who put profits over social peace. Washington’s model of legalization has certainly made cannabis communities everywhere more afraid of legalization, and that can’t be a good thing.

It’s not a good thing for a lot of reasons, but I’ll point out an especially Big One. Cannabis legalization is first and foremost about getting people out of jail and ending the drug war — both of which affect communities of color disproportionately. It’s not really about cannabis, it’s about the practice of prohibition — which was never about cannabis, but about social control. We need legalization to happen to end the drug war. It’s that simple. But we need models of legalization that care for the hundreds of thousands of people that see themselves part of a community that is under attack. There’s no reason why ending the drug war can’t also promote livelihood continuities and broader spaces of social peace. No reason at all.

But there are no cannabis peace stakeholders at the table, because cannabis communities have always been marginal to society. They aren’t at the table even to write initiatives anymore — that process is clearly being privatized. That marginality is cultural, not just “forced” upon cannabists: cannabis consumption, production and distribution under conditions of prohibition have been carried out largely by people who are culturally disobedient — the counterculture.

This is a fundamental tension that prevents cannabis communities from having a voice in how things are changing. What’s to come is going to depend on how people imagine their communities, and whether those people find a way to act together and actually perform those communities.

 

A few words about our co-fundraising partner: Project CBD

Martinanddominic
Martin Lee and Dominic Corva on a tour post 2015 Emerald Cup . Photo by Shango Los.

by Dominic Corva, Social Science Research Director

I first met Martin Lee about 6 years ago, after disembarking from a Seattle Hempfest stage where I delivered my five-minute “now that legalization is on the table, it’s time to talk about how” address. He was on his way up to give his 5 minute talk between music acts, and he stopped me on the stairs to tell me he appreciated my words. I was already familiar with his book “Acid Dreams,” and I knew him not only as a countercultural author but an online journalist and whole plant information organizer through his partnerships with Fred Gardner in O’Shaughnessy’s and Project CBD. What they were doing was familiar to me as grassroots nonprofit “nongovernmental organization (NGO)” work, which I had encountered and been helped by considerably in my research on drug policy in Latin America. There’s no question that their example influenced my decision to leave institutional academia to create CASP: in some ways their “ongoing history of cannabis” work is what I turned to, with a particularly geographical approach given my background.

So when Martin invited me to come hang out at their booth that day I was all over it — there was so much to talk about, especially the cultural history of cannabis reform and the politics of organizing around it. When Debby Goldsberry showed up to hang out a few minutes before catching her flight back to the Bay Area, I got to meet a key historical figure around those topics. She was a key part of the late 80s/early 90s Cannabis Action Network (CAN), itself funded by Zippie pot dealer Steve Deangelo, and the Zippies were a faction of the Yippies, who bridged the counterculture movement and the anti-war movements of the 1960s. In short, Martin opened up a world of amazing people to me starting then, and he’s never really stopped. Debby and fellow CAN pioneer Rick Pfrommer are two key parts of our upcoming Terpestival in Hopland.

Which is more or less the focus of this post. The origins of the July 23 co-fundraiser can be located in Santa Rosa, California, at the 2015 Emerald Cup. Dr. Sexton and I rented a cottage a few blocks away from the event, where we hosted Rob Clarke as the first stage of taking him on a bit of a tour following Tim Blake’s amazing event. The first stage of that tour was taking a group of people in our van to various CBD Guild locations — pretty much all of the ones that got raided last week, with Martin as the tour guide. I had been on a more private tour, with cannabis breeder DJ Short, the previous year, before MRSA compliance kicked the locations into active production. The photo that is at the head of this post gives you some idea what we were looking at, but we also got to see Absolute Extracts and Care by Design, as well as Emerald Pharms (the retail wing of Martin’s network) about an hour north, in Hopland.

This time, Dr. Sexton was with me and at some point Martin raised the possibility of doing a co-fundraiser. After reviewing potential difficulties doing the event in Washington after July 1 of this year, we began our co-fundraiser partnership.

Most of the key partners for this event are friends and allies our organization have in common. Debby’s Oakland access point, Magnolia Wellness, is an entry dropoff point and she will also be participating in our panels. Rick Pfrommer, who I met separately in my Sohum journeys, has assembled an amazing and experienced professional team of judges to cement the legitimacy of our unique competition. Tim Blake, the founder of the Emerald Cup who I’ve also met on my Sohum journeys, made Area 101’s Healing Harvest Farms an entry point and his staff is doing a lot of social media promotion as well as hustling entrees. Kevin Jodrey, who was an integral part of our first Terpestival (and the final stop for the Rob Clarke tour), made Wonderland Nursery an entry point and guaranteed 10 entries which allowed us to move forward when we had no entries at the first deadline, June 8. Emerald Pharms is of course the “host” of the event, located at the Real Goods Solar Living Center which is owned by a good friend of Martin. They are an entry point, promoter, and general organizational asset especially for the day of the event. And Martin and Michelle’s friends at SC Labs picked up the testing tab which makes the event possible at all.

We’ve had lots of challenges, and are still in the process of overcoming some of them, but last week’s Federal raids of the CBD Guild created a big one. After the media publicity around the raid surged and the joint task force found zero butane solvent extraction going on (which was what a disgruntled former employee falsely alleged), charges were dropped, and Dennis Hunter was released on his own recognizance just days after facing a $5 million bail. But the raids came on payday, and over $600,000 in cash was seized. As a result, we lost thousands of dollars in anticipated sponsorship.

Our network allies are stepping up, and in true countercultural fashion are most effective and productive at the last minute anyway. Last year to be honest we were in much worse shape leading up to the event, which turned out to be a sold-out, smashing success. Martin and Michelle are at the annual ICRS conference, along with our keynote speaker and fellow Project CBD collaborator Dr. Ethan Russo. You can be sure that they will bring back the latest whole plant science from the premier cannabinoid research conference in the world, and we are looking forward to the best part of the event, being able to be together and preform a great ritual of community.

The Second Annual Original Terpestival

Kevin Jodrey rocking his CASP T shirt and Reverend Jeff Cannabis on last year’s panel. Photo by Steve Hyde.

by Dominic Corva, Social Science Research Director

The second iteration of our Original Terpestival TM will take place in Hopland, California, on July 23, at the Real Goods Solar Living Center. We decided to locate in CA this year, with an option still open for holding another one in Washington, because our dear friend Martin Lee with Project CBD asked us to do a co-fundraiser in his backyard, so to speak, as he operates out of Healdsburg just south of Hopland; and because Washington formally outlawed cannabis events last year in a sneaky, last minute addition to the “Patient Protection Act.” But we are really excited to partner with Project CBD and mobilize our extensive California networks in support of our popular education event.

The event combines world-class scientific knowledge about whole-plant cannabis with Dr. Michelle Sexton’s uniquely designed competition. The “Terpene Tournament” uses terpene profile results from SC Labs, our major event sponsor, to place entries into individual categories based on terpene clusters like “high myrcene.” And then our panel of professional judges, assembled by Cannabis Action Network leader and Harborside ex-buyer Rick Pfrommer, decides the winners for each individual category. We will also compile and analyze the results of the competition and publish them like we did last year.

The competition creates an industry “pull” effect, by giving them better and more information upon which to develop, brand, and market products. I have to say that last year’s event, if it wasn’t the sole catalyst, succeeded wildly in this respect. Last year, this time, there were very few products out there with terpene profiles and associated marketing and branding. This year, at the time of this writing, terpenes have clearly joined THC and CBD at the top of ways to differentiate industry products.

The scientists and information providers who are part of our popular education panels constitute and industry “push” effect by providing real information upon which to base marketing — it’s a “push” because let’s face it, receiving useful information is not usually why industry sponsors or enters the competition. Once they have been “pulled” by the familiar marketing benefits of the competition, they are there to hear Dr. Ethan Russo, perhaps the pre-eminent terpene researcher on the planet, deliver a keynote after our amazing panelists address topics such as “Terpenes and Wellness.”

It’s a win-win for industry, because public interest and private interest are aligned perfectly: the public needs to know what they are consuming and what consumption means for health, and industry badly needs ways to diversify its products to compete in an increasingly saturated marketplace. THC and low prices should not be the only business model out there — that’s the prohibition business model, and to get beyond prohibition culture we need to get beyond THC and into the whole plant.

We are incredibly grateful to our network allies without whom this event could not happen. Wonderland Nursery in Redway, Southern Humboldt, is one of our closest allies. Kevin Jodrey came to our event last year on his own dime to support us, and this year is playing a key role providing advice, collecting entries and mobilizing networks. Healing Harvest Farms at Area 101 in northern Mendocino is also providing human resources and entry collection. True Humboldt in Eureka, Magnolia Wellness in Oakland and Emerald Pharms in Hopland itself are also serving as entry points, providing advice, and mobilizing their networks. And of course SC Labs in Santa Cruz is not only donating the testing but serving as an entry collection point.

At this time we are struggling a bit with sponsors and hustling last minute entries. In Washington State, Thincpure has delivered already on their Sesquiterpene sponsorship. We received a terrible blow with the Federal raids on the CBD Guild last week. Although charges were dropped and Dennis Hunter was released, the raid came on payday and over $600,000 was seized, so we have lost some major sponsors and are working very hard to overcome that.

So this post is both an announcement and invitation to the event, and a call for interest in sponsorship, entries, and vending. Please contact me at my gmail address, corvad@gmail.com , or any of your local entry collection points described above. Our event last year proved tremendously influential and rewarding for industry, and we plead this year not only for solidarity but for industry to recognize that participation is good for their bottom line, good for the public, and co-fundraiser for two very strapped nonprofits.

All relevant information can be found in the following documents. Entrees require 1 oz flower and 4 g concentrate, solventless or Co2 only.

Handbill entry form

TerpestivalDrop-offInstructions2016

CompetitionTerpestival2016

Terpestival2016SponsorshipSheet

Caution: Approaching Legislative Vehicles

State Medical Cannabis tax revenues July 2013- November 2014. Source: Washington Department of Revenue
State Medical Cannabis tax revenues July 2013- November 2014. Source: Washington Department of Revenue

by Dominic Corva, Social Science Research Director

NOTE: this excerpt is from a work in progress, as indicated by the first paragraph. We will adjust our analysis going forward, without a doubt.

This post addresses a section of the retail chapter that is a recently discovered blind spot, and for which we have just begun to re-envision, through focused archival research and a few phone calls out. Until recently, Dr. Corva has understood SB 5052, the Rivers vehicle that ended “parallel” cannabis systems as of July 1, 2016, as coming a bit out of the blue due to Senate capture by Republicans in November 2015. In fact neither parts of that narrative are true, although they aren’t completely false either. This post provides a starting point for revising that history, that will be developed completely in the book.

First, let’s start with why it matters. The approximately biannual (because in Washington, bills have a two year life-cycle) tradition of Senator Kohl-Welles’ amendments to RCW 69.51.A since the 00s produced amendments in 2007 and 2010, but generally those amendments were aimed at increasing and/or improving patient access. For example, the 2010 amendment that liberalized authority to write authorizations may have had a great deal to do with the explosion of retail access points, in two ways. First, authorized patients were necessary for medical access points to function in compliance with State law, and now there could be a lot more of them. And second, for collective gardeners (some of whom were vertically integrated into retail spots), there was a surge of demand through less underground “off the street” outlets. Patients could be authorized to grow their own, but that didn’t mean they had the skill, time, or inclination to do so.

Senator Kohl-Welles’ 2011 bill, SB 5073, was a comprehensive reform of the Medical Cannabis legislation in that it sought to improve through regulating the increased and improved patient access to which her previous efforts contributed. There were a LOT of other factors, and it’s impossible to say what percentage each contributed, but here are a few: the election of “choom gang” veteran Obama to the presidency; the financial crisis that had most of our country trying to figure out how to pay mortgages and bills; the Ogden Memo and its successor Federal memos of which the Cole Memo is only the most recent and clearly spelled out; the bankruptcy of State and local budgets including for law enforcement against a plant; the widespread availability of information on how to grow cannabis on the internet; the completion of years-long prosecutions in favor of Medical Marijuana defendants that set a more liberalized precedent; and so forth. If not perfect, it was a hell of a storm for evolving social and policy conditions. And our subjects, along with many others, certainly found those conditions amenable to choosing Medical Cannabis livelihoods.

Certainly, the choices made by more and more people to practice civil disobedience against a racist, unjust and genocidal Federal prohibition meant more and more storefronts becoming visible in the landscape. They not only served a burgeoning number of authorized patients: they channelled cannabis markets off the streets and into a space of visibility that itself may have served to discipline violence associated with street corner dealing and turf warfare. They served to employ an army of unemployable people in the middle of the greatest financial crisis of our lifetime. In the book, we go into more detail about the social benefits of visible access points and the commercialization of domestic sinsemilla. But the point of this paragraph is to highlight the social conditions that, indisputably, made cannabis markets much more visible to policymakers and the public.

But prohibition culture did not recede as rapidly as the post-prohibition economy. Some lawmakers chose the old fashioned response to “seeing cannabis like a prohibition State” (see anthropologist James Scott on “seeing like a State“). Cannabis could be tolerated as long as it remained in the social closet, but the emergence of retail access points in the urban landscape began to promote a politics of “moral panic” that joined with other political currents (I 502 being one of them) to demand something be done. Senator Kohl-Welles SB 5073 caught the State legislature at a moment when the politics of regulation were just beginning to sort themselves out, when those politics could only be framed in terms of reforming the current system rather than attempting to re-create it via not just “recreational” law (I 502, one year later) but the subsumption of Medical into a Recreational legal framework (5052, four years later).

What seems clear is that SB 5073 represented a reformist turn for Senator Kohl-Welles, for which the legislature was ready (but not the Governor); that the Medical Cannabis community had started to go its own way via Representative Appleton in a “improve patient access” vehicle that went nowhere but siphoned energy from the previously unified Kohl-Welles Medical Cannabis front; and that power in the State legislature shifted away from Democrats (and therefore towards Republican lobbyist-recently-turned Senator Ann Rivers. Legislative focus shifted definitively away from “increasing patient access” towards “regulating patient access,” ostensibly in order to “improve patient access” via quality control.

At this point it is obligatory to state that the objective of improving patient access via quality control was always necessary and could have been a focus of legislative energy starting in 1998. It’s not the basic meaning of the discourse that became a point of major social conflict, it’s how the discourse was mobilized in a way that could not improve patient access because it was busy tearing up the access system that had evolved organically over 15 years, through Senator Ann Rivers.

In 2013, Rivers successfully killed Kohl-Welles’ efforts to resurrect SB 5073 and introduced her own vehicle, SB 5887, that definitively shifted how Medical Cannabis would be handled in the legislature right through to 5052’s radical re-writing of what it meant, legally, in Washington State. SB 5887 was introduced late in the 2013 session and re-introduced for the biennial 2014 session, when most of the legislative work that ultimately proved futile was done. It died when revenue sharing disagreements in the context of the ongoing State budget crisis proved irreconcilable. The end of the two-year legislative cycle meant that legislative reform efforts would begin again in 2015 with a clean slate.

Senator Rivers’ majority party advantage established through the “Majority Caucus Coalition” formed with two renegade Democrats 2012 was cemented by the November 2014 elections, when Republicans gained an outright majority. Any cannabis legislative vehicle would have to go through her, and thus the 2015 session began with a radical one: SB 5052. It was economically radical because it sought to re-create cannabis markets in Washington State, rather than align the old with the new via regulation; it was politically radical because it accepted no input or amendment from the political representatives and stakeholders that had been increasing and improving patient access since 1998; and it was culturally radical in that it relied on a campaign of “moral panic” to characterize the Medical Cannabis policy experiment in Washington State a total failure because Medical Cannabis people were “Bad Actors” creating a “Wild West,” “unruly,” and “out of control” environment. Collective gardens were unredeemably greedy, patients were 90% fakers and gamers of the system, and so forth. The only verifiable fact associated with this discourse was that yes, the State could finally begin to see Cannabis culture out of the closet and, over more than 20 years, totally invested in Medical Cannabis in all its definitions, and these just weren’t the people it wanted to regulate. Well, maybe some of them — but just a few.

 

Continuity, Discontinuity, and Contingency between Legal and Medical

Active_Pending_Medical Seattle Map 07162014
July 2014 map by Steve Hyde, of then-pending Legal retailers and advertised Seattle Medical access points

by Dominic Corva, Social Science Research Director

Legal Cannabis Phase I, for our interview subjects, overlapped with another State legal regime, Initiative 75, which was codified as RCW 69.51.A in 1998. Washington State medical cannabis laws were first passed by citizen initiative in 1998 and amended legislatively multiple times until 2011. The 2011 amendment, SB 5073, was a legislative bill requiring the State to regulate and tax commercial medical cannabis. It was the culmination of over a decade of then-Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles collaboration with Washington State medical cannabis patients and stakeholders. Those efforts continued for four years, until SB 5052 swallowed them up by folding medical cannabis regulation into the I 502 framework in 2015. First, let’s clarify this timeline, and then let’s discuss how this is relevant to our study of Legal Cannabis Phase I.

The timeline goes something like this.

  1. Medical Phase I: 1998- April, 2011. Key legal framework: affirmative defense for possession; evolving criteria for authorizations; and evolving plant counts.
  1. Medical Phase II: April 29, 2011 — July 1, 2016. Key legal framework change: commercialization tolerated in policy, especially in Seattle and King County, via a noncommercial clause, “collective gardens.”
  1. Legal Phase I: I 502 (December 2012/13 — April 28, 2015/July 1, 2016). Key legal framework: an explicitly non-medical system regulated by the WSLCB.
  1. Legal Phase II: July 1, 2016- .  Key legal framework: a single integrated medical and non-medical system regulated by the WSLCB, plus other reforms to the 502 law. 

      5. Overlap: April 28, 2015-July 1, 2016. Medical Phase II and Legal Phase I co-exist.

This timeline could easily be broken up further. For instance, the 2008 liberalization of authorization authority had a significant impact on the availability of authorized consumers for access points. And the 2011 legislative vehicle was the first of Senator Kohl-Welles’ reform efforts that sought to regulate patient access, rather than improve patient access. Between 2008 and 2011, something or some things happened to centralize legal reform efforts away from “more cannabis and more patients” to “discipline unruly State cannabis markets.” This is the subject of another book or chapter, however.

Instead, we want to understand the dynamics of Medical policy and markets as continuous and parallel to the dynamics of Legal policy and markets. And to do that, we have to unpack the evolution of both processes in relation to and separate from each other. We want to use Medical Phase I to break up and analyze Legal Phase I as the upstart — or start-up — framework with messy and unanticipated dynamics, not a homogenous legal time in which one thing logically followed another until it was time for Legal Phase II in Washington State.

In fact, the reason they evolved separately had less to do with the passage of I 502 than the way the WSLCB chose to implement it. And the way they chose to implement it was to create a completely different system rather than to use State Medical markets as a foundation. This is probably the defining characteristic of the “Washington model,” since no other state has chosen to do it that way.

The WSLCB took about 10 months to go from figuring out what cannabis was at the most basic level to implementing a “starting from scratch” model. For the first six months or so, that process was dominated by public and private meetings across the state so the Board could learn from existing cannabis market stakeholders a few things about the commodity they were charged with regulating. Starting in about April 2013, that process overlapped with a more academic exercise, in which BOTEC was contracted to estimate the size of the cannabis market, its potential environmental impacts, and so forth.

By the fall of 2013, the WSLCB had decided on a course of action that may or may not have been understood by the bureaucracy itself as a model for starting from scratch. There would be a one month window for applications, some time to process producer and processor applications, and then a lottery for retail applications, then some time to process those, and then by June 2014 Legal Phase I would open for business. This is a well-known timeline, but we emphasize two things about it that are poorly understood.

First, the applicant pool was much larger and different from what the WSLCB expected. Instead of a few hundred experienced applicants, they received a few thousand applications, many of whom were “gaming the system” by forging real estate claims and creating rings of applicants from friends, family, or straight up business associates to maximize their odds in the retail lottery or gain control of more canopy than they could otherwise.

And second, applicants to the 502 system were applying to a system that was legally forbidden from making any medical or therapeutic claims about cannabis. Although some of our interview subjects anticipated that this would change, it was a great disincentive to existing Medical Cannabis stakeholders against joining the I 502 system. This applies especially to retail access points, whose products and customer base revolved centrally around making those claims. But it also applies to producers and processors, since medical markets themselves continued to evolve away from simply growing high THC sinsemilla flower, towards CBD-rich cultivars, extracts, and edibles of much greater potency and diversity than would appeal to “recreational” consumers in the new system.

The takeaway for this post is that while the WSLCB may or may not have intended to “start from scratch” with I 502 stakeholders that were overwhelmingly new to cannabis, that’s how it worked out. This is most clear for the retail side of things, in which the lottery system could have by chance favored existing Medical Cannabis access points, but the odds were pretty slim given the amount of applicants and the way they gamed the system.

This is how it shook out for our interviewees. One of them “won” a lottery position outright, but was derailed repeatedly over real estate and business partnership issues. One of them acquired a Shoreline lottery position very early, and once a few of the winning lottery positions failed to take advantage, had their Seattle number come up. They have a Sodo location now. Two others drew extremely low lottery numbers whose numbers never came up. And one did not apply at all, figuring that the two systems would remain separate given that the 502 system was not allowed to be medical in any way. We will address who these are, and how this process shook out, in the book.

A Brief Review of CASP and introduction to CASP 4.0

by Dr. Dominic Corva, Social Science Research Director

This post reviews the evolution of our nonprofit think tank since we earned our own 501(c)(3) Federal designation last July, after being fiscally sponsored by Americans for Safe Access Foundation (ASAF) between Fall 2013 and July 2015.

Since founding the organization in May 2013, we have gone through three major organizational structures, all part of bootstrapping an idea about a nonprofit service into an actual, functioning think tank with a focused identity. Since January 2016, we have been busy nailing down that sustainable identity, which you can read about in our new About page. The web site itself is a bit behind, but we will gradually catch up as bandwidth permits. The constant process throughout this time was Dr. Corva’s ethnography of cannabis agriculture especially as it relates to legalization in Washington state, where the Center is centered; and Dr. Sexton’s ongoing academic research and presentation to many national and global audiences especially the International Cannabinoid Research Society.

CASP 1.0 was the rough draft, the seed from which our possibilities could be assessed for further selection. Primarily, it was comprised of Dr. Michelle Sexton, myself, and Dr. Sunil Aggarwal as founding Board members, meeting a few times a month on Google Hangout and exchanging information about the field as we saw it opening up amongst us. Dr. Sexton had a particular vantage point as a state subcontractor on cannabis rule development before and during this period; Dr. Aggarwal was finishing his NYU residency and had a more East Coast and global perspective on developments. And Dr. Corva’s perspective was informed especially by his then three-year ethnographic project on policing cannabis agriculture in Humboldt County, California. For this period, our main focus was on learning the new landscape, especially in Washington State.

CASP 2.0 overlapped with 1.0 to a degree, as it emerged from our fiscal sponsorship agreement with ASAF in Fall 2013. During this period, a melange of volunteer energy pulled CASP in many different directions, depending on what the volunteers wanted to do. This was a period in which, absent resources, we discovered and engaged community development interests to sharpen our understanding of the embryonic field. This period concluded in late spring 2014, when Dr. Aggarwal accepted his NIH fellowship and officially took leave of the organization with our best wishes. At that time we took stock of our network and composed a Board to help develop the organization. Dr. Sexton remained on the Board, but for this period served a similar role to other Board members, as a real economy portal into the State’s accredited lab industry. The other Board members for this time period were Naz Victoria, I 502 producer/processor and drug war POW; Don E. Wirtschafter, lawyer, I 502 prospective applicant, museum founder, general cannabis history participant OG; Aaron Varney, Dockside Co-op (medical and I 502 retail); Joy Beckerman, Hemp Goddess, Woman of Weed, and general cannabis history participant OG; and Rachel Kurtz, I 502 business lawyer and Washington State cannabis organizer and drug policy activist OG. Locally, during this time period Dr. Corva was especially engaged in the Health Before Happy Hour legislative campaign (spring 2014); from which he developed a steady working relationship with the Coalition for Cannabis Standards and Ethics (CCSE, a nonprofit industry self-regulation group); the Washington Cannabis Commission Project (Oct 2014-present); and continues to serve a think tank function with the Cannabis Alliance, a recent integration of CCSE with three other industry standards group. There were lots of talks delivered and meetings held along the way.

In California, Dr. Corva was invited to serve as a cannabis agriculture and policy expert and observer for California Cannabis Voice Humboldt’s explosive and often controversial ordinance development campaign, which was ultimately successful as a County Supervisor-finished process. This meant not just regular visits but formal accompaniment for two CA State official tours of cannabis farms: the first Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom in the spring of 2015, and not long after the CA Board of Equalization (or half of it — Fiona Ma and George Runner).

California Board of Equalization crew, featuring Fiona Ma, at the end of the Light Dep tunnel on the Tour.
California Board of Equalization crew, featuring Fiona Ma, at the end of a Light Dep tunnel on the Tour.
4.14upload 641
Ma and Runner visit Wonderland Nursery

At the same time, I served on the informal board of the Humboldt and Mendocino Marijuana Advocacy Project (HUMMAP), a coalition of heritage farmers drawn mostly from the ranks of the back-to-the-land movement that pioneered the domestication of sinsemilla cannabis agriculture — and were the first subjects of its policing — in the United States.

CBD-rich breeding pioneer Lawrence Ringo, may he rest in peace, was a HUMMAP member.
CBD-rich breeding pioneer Lawrence Ringo, may he rest in peace, was a HUMMAP member.
Larsoninterview
Christopher Larson, Lawrence Ringo’s partner in Lost Coast Botanicals, was also a HUMMAP member.

These old timers were some of the first people I met and interviewed in Humboldt County; and they also served as CCVH’s main foil during the ordinance push. Their general opposition to the ordinance process was grounded in the feeling that it was insufficiently attentive to the needs of truly small Humboldt back-to-the-land heritage farmers. I saw this as an opportunity to develop and bridge community dialogue, but left he Board of HUMMAP when the decision to litigate the ordinance was made, as I could not be party to formal legal proceedings that pit some of my friends against others. I did try to mediate by providing clear information to both sides up to that time.

terpestival4
Kevin Jodrey and Reverend Jeff Cannabis talk terpenes and the market at the Terpestival.
Terpestival2
Ganjapreneur content producer and Vashon Island community organizer Shango Los in the audience at the 2015 Original Terpestival.

CASP 3.0 began in July, 2013. This was the month we put on our first popular education fundraiser, the Original Terpestival, which changed our outlook on what was possible both for the focused mission of our think tank and for our annual budget. The event featured Dr. Ethan Russo, the world’s foremost cannabinoid and terpene scholar as well as Vashon Island resident, as its keynote lecturer. The science of terpenes is a significant resource of industry development, both medical and recreational, and the terpene-focused Cup was the first of its kind. The overwhelming show of support from industry for learning real science was incredible, and we raised over $7,000 due to sponsorships and the donation of testing by the Wercshop.

This pulled us out of a serious budgetary hole, almost; and proved the concept of popular education could be practiced through events that combined public and private interest in an uncontroversial fashion. Board members Joy Beckerman, Aaron Varney, and Michelle Sexton were especially key to the event’s success, with special credit to Joy. By then Rachel had moved to Oregon; Don had concluded his I 502 efforts; and Naz was spending most of his time concluding his business interests in his home state of Pennsylvania until the I 502 market matured enough to be worth getting into as a processor.

During all iterations, Dr. Corva continued his work in California and Washington, without much concern for documenting and promoting what he was doing. Until we have resources to do this, Google will have to suffice. These included a paid trip to Berlin for a cannabis legalization conference keynoted by the mayor of the city; Seattle Town Hall appearances; Seattle Hempfest panel moderation, participation, and organization, and many others. I was particularly active as a public intellectual and scholar around issues pertaining to the political economy of cannabis agriculture and policing. Dr. Sexton was also extremely active as a public intellectual and scholar, especially around the subject and practice of cannabis as herbal medicine.

CASP 3.0 provided two major developments. First, Dr. Sexton’s permanent relocation to San Diego and full time commitment to full-time research (rather than running an industry lab) opened up considerable possibilities and focus for organizational restructure. This move has been especially facilitated by her work consulting for other States as they develop new medical and legal regulations.

michelleinhumbolt
Dr. Sexton in Humboldt with Heritage Women Growers after the 2015 Emerald Cup
ICRS pic
Dr. Sexton with her fellow contributors to the American Herbal Pharmacopeia, taken at the 2015 ICRS conference in Italy.
Dr. Sexton presenting at the 2015 Emerald Cup in Santa Rosa, CA.
Dr. Sexton presenting at the 2015 Emerald Cup in Santa Rosa, CA.

Second, Dr. Corva was enlisted at the last minute to teach two courses at the University of Washington in Fall 2015, which actually substitute-paid his salary for the year. This completed our return from budget impossibility, and fulfilled CASP’s mission to provide public sector education. It was a one-off thing, great for the organization financially but difficult to reconcile with continued organizational development. For Winter 2016, Dr. Corva was engaged even before the Fall appointment to teach “Cannabis, Law and Social Change” for the University of Washington’s Evening Degree Program. This was much more in-line with CASP organizational development, and was a sequel to a similar course developed in graduate school with Dr. Aggarwal in 2008. That 2008 class received an award from the College of Social Sciences, and we were delighted to get a second crack in an even more relevant and rich state context. Unfortunately, the University has decided to close down the Evening Degree Program in favor of online classes, and so it is unlikely to happen again unless championed as a regular day class by a tenured faculty member in a Social Science Department. And that is also quite unlikely, for many reasons. The availability of salary from that class for the first quarter of the year opened things up, however, to the engagement of two interns for a four month project. We are halfway through a book about Phase I of Washington legalization (I 502-5052).

CASP 4.0 has a razor-sharp, minimal-financial-overhead focus. Our goal is to finally be able to produce journal articles, chapters, and books based upon our experience in a field that, in practice, stretches from Washington to San Diego, California, where Dr. Sexton is setting up shop as CASP South. For this period, Dr. Sexton and Dr. Corva will serve as co-Research Directors (he’s Social Science, she’s Medicine) and share Executive Director responsibilities as they are needed. This organization will not go out of our way seeking large donors, because we don’t need them and don’t need Big Money Agendas driving our research agendas. See our new About section for more!

We are also pleased to have Dr. Aggarwal and his partner, Dr. Tapoja Chaudhuri, informally back in the circle as they have moved back to Seattle and are exploring research development opportunities. This period will see us further develop our Board, given that it has already been geographically and otherwise dispersed. Dr. Corva is looking for more community-oriented local portals to the real economy, now that Aaron Varney is the only full-time local Board member; and Dr. Sexton will be developing Board members that can support her needs as a medical cannabis researcher in California.

One final note: we have recently signed our event planner and are now producing the second Original Terpestival, a collaboration with Project CBD, in Hopland, California.

Martin Lee of Project CBD is third to the right; co-collaborator Jerry Whiting of LeBlanc CNE second to the right; and medical cannabis documentarian Michael Scott is fourth to the right. This picture was taken after Martin's guest lecture to Dr. Corva's Cannabis, Law and Social Change class Winter 2016.
Martin Lee of Project CBD is third to the right; co-collaborator Jerry Whiting of LeBlanc CNE second to the right; and medical cannabis documentarian Michael Scott is fourth to the right. This picture was taken after Martin’s guest lecture to Dr. Corva’s Cannabis, Law and Social Change class Winter 2016.

This is both a great opportunity to collaborate with a trailblazing cannabis knowledge nonprofit, and the outcome of Washington State’s criminalization of cannabis events at the end of the 2015 legislative session (this takes effect July 1, 2016, but was in law for our first iteration).

In the meantime, you can look forward to more consistent updates on this web site now that Dr. Corva’s teaching responsibilities are on indefinite hiatus. Also, don’t forget to follow our Facebook page, which has served pretty well as a micro-blog and newsfeed this whole time — we have over 2,000 likes now.

This should bring the public up to speed on our organizational fine-tuning. We are excited about this phase, which clearly defines what we do and how we do it, because the field has developed well enough for us to understand how to provide unique and focused content while maintaining our general mission of public and policymaker education.

Call for Help from WA Medical Cannabis Access Points

Estimating the medical cannabis market for the WSLCB:

Left to right: CASP Board member Don E. Wirtschafter, esq; Don Skakie; Reverend Jeff Church; NORML President Kevin Oliver; Medical Cannabis Producer Shawn DeNae; and Dr. Corva. Panel from 2014 Seattle Hempfest Hemposium.

Photo by Steve Hyde

by Dr. Dominic Corva, Executive Director

CASP requests assistance from all Washington State Medical Cannabis Access Points! We have been contracted by BOTEC to help develop and administer an anonymous, 10-question survey to this part of the medical cannabis industry. The surveys will be aggregated and run through a BOTEC-developed econometric model to estimate the size of Washington’s medical marijuana retail market. The results will be presented to the Washington State Liquor Control Board, who will then use the results to make big decisions about the new 502 retail window and the issuance of medical “endorsements.”

In addition to being anonymous, a further step has been taken to insulate the information providers from identification. We have received a letter from the WSLCB stating that they will not have access to the raw data. It is available here: BOTEC – Letter on behalf of LCB – FINAL.

In the interest of transparency, I am fully aware that our information network is being used in exchange for money. I have two observations about that: our network tends toward the collaborative side, and it’s tough to ask people for money just because. The value of our community’s interest in knowledge-based policy makes this a public service, not just a policymaker service.

This contract breaks new ground for CASP, and we are humbled to be invited to steward the production of useful knowledge. The better informed policy is, the better the policy is. We make no grand claims about this knowledge: it will have to be refined and undoubtedly will be used for many purposes.  We only claim that it will be better for your participation.

If you are an access point owner in Washington State, please contact Dr. Corva at dominic@caspcenter.org to receive the survey and answer any questions.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We hope to hear from you soon! We have a small window of time to do this, as the LCB will need processed results in just a few weeks.

 

Brazil: To Be or CBD? Not the Question.

Executive Director’s Note: CASP is proud to share authentic journalism from our friend Ras Stephen Charles Flohr, reporting from where he lives in Sao Paulo, Brasil, on the way new CBD-specific politics intersect with inequality. It is part of an ongoing interest CASP has in educating the public about the realities of Cannabidial as it relates on the one hand to the whole plant, and therefore herbal medicine; and as it relates to the politics and economics of global cannabis prohibition — Dominic Corva, September 2015

004

Photo by Stephen Charles Flohr

By Stephen Charles Flohr

July 5, 2015 – Sao Paulo, Brasil

Football, Carnival, beach life and lots of beautiful women. Sounds like fun, right? Yet in the country where cachaca (national spirit)  is the bloodstream fueling all of its major cultural and economic norms of engagement, burning a spliff is a surprisingly tense and taboo affair.  One would think that with all of the natural beauty abounding that Brazil would have a more sensitive, relaxed and tolerant attitude regarding the herb.  But this is not the case.  Ganja is viewed and treated as a social ill which perpetuates the nation’s greatest plague, drug trafficking, and is inextricably linked to the violence which devastates primarily the poor, yet undoubtedly shapes and haunts the lives of every citizen. These are the front lines of the “drug war” and they’re ugly.  And so the weed is ugly, most often in the form of a pressed and condensed brick, desiccated and sometimes moldy, more often than not from Paraguay. The aftertaste has a distinctively chemical hue.  And if you want some, you must head to the spot in a local favela (ghetto/slum) and deal with armed youth whose livelihood is the drug game, and be prepared to deal with the militarized and notoriously heavy-handed police force who are always in hot pursuit of potential slingers.  Even speaking about cannabis is a risky enterprise.  Brazil has a history of arresting entertainers on the charge of “drug apologetics”, a crime punishable by 1-3 years in prison if convicted. The most recent incident took place during a show in June where “Cert”, vocalist for the band ConeCrew, known for their progressive cannabical posture, was arrested by police on stage as he performed.  And if you are thinking about wearing a cap or shirt brandishing the leaf, be forewarned.  Police routinely arrest youth for displaying images of marijuana (maconha) under the same auspices of drug apologetics.

However, with the undeniable global, medicinal and economic potential of the herb, especially in light of recent medicinal and legislative milestones forged in the U.S.A., it is proving too difficult and costly for Brazil to remain so tragically aloof from science and common sense.  Users of marijuana and patients in particular are demanding a change in federal policy which currently criminalizes even the most minor possession and often results in the prosecution of mere users/growers as if they were traffickers. But the tide is turning, and with neighboring Uruguay on “all systems blow”, the stage is being set for a radical cultural shift that could be at least part of the solution to  Brazil’s pandemic violence and abject poverty, not to mention a bolstering influence on  its’ precarious health care plight.  

CBD Legislation and Access

Earlier in 2015, the Brazilian federal regulatory organ responsible for the importation/exportation of internationally sanctioned drugs, ANVISA, reclassified the isolated cannabinoid CBD, a  medicinal derivative found in the cannabis plant, and liberated its importation in strictly specified cases of chronic epilepsy.  The decision came after a long push from several families who pursued successful treatment of their children’s deadly epileptic conditions using CBD oil. A documentary entitled “Illegal” by journalist Tarso Araújo, takes a deep look into the challenges these families confronted  and brought national attention to the issue and the possibility of “medicinal cannabis”.  But cannabis still remains illegal under federal law and it is still therefore illegal to grow it and thereby impossible to produce a legal CBD extraction domestically.  And so critics are lauding this supposed “advancement” in cannabis policy as bittersweet.  They argue that the CBD Import-Only legislation, while an absolute victory for families and children in immediate need of medicine, is also a major victory for foreign markets, mainly in the USA, who are all too eager at sinking their claws into the emerging market that it proliferates.  

And so who is really getting access to treatment with CBD?  As the ANVISA ruling currently stipulates, only patients with life-threatening epileptic conditions are permitted access to CBD and that only under stringent medical and bureaucratic exigencies.  And the cost?  A monthly supply for a patient at a dosage of one gram of CBD oil per day is a whopping $4,800 reais (about $1,600 USD).  To give you an idea of just how expensive that is, know that the minimum wage in Brazil is $788 reais (about $260 USD).  For this reason, it is obvious that the remedy is not accessible to a large percentage of eligible patients. Add the fact that the efficacy of CBD-only treatments is questionable when factoring in the unique specificities of different illnesses and when compared to whole plant applications, and the margin of those benefiting from this legislation becomes even slimmer. But that hasn’t stopped  HempMeds , subsidiary of Medical Marijuana Inc,  from cashing in on the situation and  using their success in Brazil as a platform to build support and infrastructure in American states where medicinal marijuana is in its fledgling state.  When it comes to hemp-based products in Brazil, HempMeds is basically the only show in town.  Its quasi-monopolic vicegrip on the CBD niche market coupled with its’s dubious corporate history has raised eyebrows and tempers amongst patients and activists alike.  Basing her argument on the findings of Israeli researcher Ruth Galilly which present compelling evidence for the superior efficiacy of whole-plant remedies, Susan Witte of the Multidisciplinary Association for the Study of Medicinal Marijuana laments, “It doesn’t make sense, therefore, to grant cannabidiol monopoly status to corporations that intend on selling these remedies at the highest possible profit, if that means offering a product which is less effective than the compound’s original source in nature”.  On the other end of the spectrum, Dr. José Alexandre Crippa, a stuanch advocate of CBD-only intervention therapies, currently holds several patents for a synthetic isolated form of CBD and plans on working in tandem with the pharmaceutical industry in making it available to the public as a domestically viable and more affordable option. As if CBD-only reform didn’t already completely miss the mark, I can’t help but cringe at the spectre of a  national “synthetic CBD-only” debate.

Fighting Back

In Brazil, there exists a politically strong and religiously motivated bloc of elites who assume a “ProLife = AntiCannabis” agenda and view the stoner (maconheiro) as one of the greatest threats to not only the peace and stability of society as a whole but also to the integrity of the family.  They most often have no qualms with current alcohol legislation yet wage their intolerant crusades against a plant based on their adherence to a myth of religious and racial superiority.  And so the masses aren’t holding their breath waiting for a political miracle to take place, especially those patients who are already finding it difficult to breathe. They’ve decided, instead, to take matters into their own hands.  Affirming their human rights and deciding that  medical necessity trumps the obligation to abide by unjust laws, patients of all types and their caretakers have taken to growing their own cannabis and preparing their own medicinal extractions.  

Joao is a 47 year old engineer from Sao Paulo. He suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes and is both patient activist and participant in the city’s  annual “Marijuana March. “We’re tired of supporting drug terrorism and risking ourselves for shit product time and time again”, he says.  “We’re not all epileptic and rich.  We have MS, Diabetes, Parkinson’s, Cancer, AIDS and God knows what else. We all have a right to treatment too.  Cannabis grows freely and if you take care of it, it can take care of you. Simple.”  This sentiment has proved to be the fertile soil from which a number of underground patient-caretaker initiatives have spread across several of Brazil’s major cities, especially Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.  Joao comments about how a friend of his who has MS benefits from the network of stealth CBD providers. “It just shows up in his mailbox. He has no idea who makes it but he is grateful that they do. And he doesn’t pay a thing.”

“There is absolutely no commercial gain in this type of practice, its an issue of solidarity, its about helping people” affirms a young member of one of these clandestine groups in a report by the Brazilian news source Globo.  “Which is a greater crime, trafficking for love or letting someone die from 20-30 convulsions a day?”, he adds. The report brings to light several cases of financially strapped families in Rio who are desperate to provide CBD-oil to their gravely ill children and therefore seek out artisanal extractions performed in the homes of a brave bunch of outlaw pharmacists.  

Criminal Attorney Paulo Freitas confirms the severity of the legal risks involved:

“Anyone who plants ‘ganja’ is subject to the criminal laws of drug trafficking; it is an activity considered equal to that of trafficking. Yet beyond that you also run the risk of committing a more serious offense, namely that of fabricating and providing, even if the intent and practice of distribution is free of charge, a medicinal product without registration at ANVISA, punishable by a 10 year minimum sentence in prison which is double the minimum for trafficking.”

But love must sometimes flout the law. “Illegal, in my opinion, is the way that things are, to deny me the right to give a better condition of life for my daughter. This is what I think is illegal”, confirms Fabio, father of Clarian, who was born with Dravet Syndrome.  Fabio sought out homemade CBD- extraction for his daughter as the only feasible option as he and his family faced an $8,000 reais  (nearly $3000 USD) monthly expense in the procurement of enough medicine through existing legal channels.

Pushing the Envelope

It is evident from the developments in Brazil that people are willing to seek and provide wellness and healing at great personal risk.   Ignoring the fact that CBD has its origin in the cannabis plant and declaring the former as legal and the latter as not points to a deeper, hypocritical confusion.  Its like saying the red coloring of a strawberry is good but the berry itself is bad.  Astute activists remain adamant in their pursuit of whole plant liberation. Whole plant remedies with various CBD:THC proportions hold promising potential for a gamut of maladies.  But for any meaningful research to be conducted, domestic cultivation of the plant is a necessity.

It is frustrating that this so-called ‘baby step’ was wrought in almost complete dismissal of logic and panders supremely to a foreign profiteer.  This is a service and medical necessity which Brazil could easily carry out on its own on a much larger and efficient scale without having to resort to importation. The law also confirms the fact that Science, or at least the fraction of it which the government deems fit for public awareness, is an exclusive privilege afforded to the economic elite. But Brazil doesn’t seem to have a problem with conspicuous capitalism and I can think of few places which exhibit such a glaring disparity between the haves and the have-nots. And so even if you do happen to help people see cannabis as a medicine and not a plague, you will then have the challenge of its commercialization.  “Ok, so cannabis is good now how do we make the most money off of it.”  Health is a commodity and until ‘the haves’ devise a scheme to control its sale and maintain an underclass consumer base, the senate isn’t going to budge on real cannabis talk. And yet the grassroots continue to bloom in the shadows of obscurity, healing the sick and waking the sleepers, risking it all because, well, we are all worth it!