DOCSLIB.ORG

P55737 Growgeneration Corp. 10K+A 2021 V1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
P55737 Growgeneration Corp. 10K+A 2021 V1 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ☒ ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the Fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _________ to __________ Commission File Number 333-207889 GROWGENERATION CORP. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Colorado 46-5008129 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Incorporation or Organization) Identification No.) 930 W 7th Ave, Suite A Denver, Colorado 80204 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) (800) 935-8420 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading symbol Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share GRWG The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Title of class Not Applicable Not Applicable (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report) Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☒ Emerging Growth Company ☒ If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒ State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of June 30, 2020: $236,600,250. As of March 26, the Company had 58,459,742 shares of its common stock issued and outstanding, par value $0.001 per share. Document Incorporated by Reference Portions of a definitive proxy relating to the registrant’s 2021 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K, are incorporated into Part III of this Form 10-K. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I Item 1. Business 1 Item 1A. Risk Factors 9 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 13 Item 2. Properties 13 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 13 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 13 PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 14 Item 6. Selected Financial Data 15 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 16 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 28 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data F-1 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 29 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 29 Item 9B. Other Information 30 PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 31 Item 11. Executive Compensation 33 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 33 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 33 Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 33 PART IV Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 34 Signatures 38 i PART I Forward-Looking Information This Annual Report of GrowGeneration Corp. on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, particularly those identified with the words, “anticipates,” “believes,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” “objectives,” and similar expressions. These statements reflect management’s best judgment based on factors known at the time of such statements. The reader may find discussions containing such forward-looking statements in the material set forth under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Plan of Operations,” generally, and specifically therein under the captions “Liquidity and Capital Resources” as well as elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Actual events or results may differ materially from those discussed herein. The forward-looking statements specified in the following information have been compiled by our management on the basis of assumptions made by management and considered by management to be reasonable. Our future operating results, however, are impossible to predict and no representation, guaranty, or warranty is to be inferred from those forward-looking statements. The assumptions used for purposes of the forward-looking statements specified in the following information represent estimates of future events and are subject to uncertainty as to possible changes in economic, legislative, industry, and other circumstances. As a result, the identification and interpretation of data and other information and their use in developing and selecting assumptions from and among reasonable alternatives require the exercise of judgment. To the extent that the assumed events do not occur, the outcome may vary substantially from anticipated or projected results, and, accordingly, no opinion is expressed on the achievability of those forward-looking statements. No assurance can be given that any of the assumptions relating to the forward-looking statements specified in the following information are accurate, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms “we”, “our”, “ours” “us” and “GrowGeneration”, refer to GrowGeneration Corp. and its subsidiaries, including GrowGeneration Pueblo Corp, GrowGeneration California Corp., Grow Generation Nevada Corp., GrowGeneration Washington Corp., GrowGeneration Rhode Island Corp., GrowGeneration Michigan Corp, GrowGeneration Oklahoma Corp, GrowGeneration New England Corp, GrowGeneration Canada Corp, GrowGeneration HG Corp, GrowGeneration Hemp Corp, GGen Distribution Corp., GrowGeneration Management Corp., GrowGeneration Florida Corp., and Charcoir, Inc. on a combined basis. ITEM 1. BUSINESS Background GrowGeneration Corp. (together with all of its wholly owned subsidiaries, collectively “GrowGeneration” or the “Company”) was incorporated in Colorado in 2014 and is the largest chain of hydroponic garden centers in North America and is a leading marketer and distributor of nutrients, growing media, advanced indoor and greenhouse lighting, environmental control systems and accessories for hydroponic gardening. Currently, the Company owns and operates a chain of fifty two (52) retail hydroponic/gardening stores across 12 states, with eighteen (18) in the state of California, six (6) in the state of Michigan, eight (8) located in the state of Colorado, five (5) in the State of Oklahoma, five (5) in Maine, two (2) in the state of Nevada, two (2) in the state of Washington, two (2) in the state of Oregon, one (1) in the state of Rhode Island, one (1) in the state of Florida, one (1) in the state of Arizona, one (1) in the state of Massachusetts, one (1) in the state of Arizona, an online e-commerce store, GrowGeneration.com and a commercial e- commerce platform, Agron.io. We recently announced the signing of two leases in Los Angeles and Rancho Dominguez, CA, which are our 53rd and 54th locations. Proprietary brands owned by the Company include Canopy Crop Management Corp, CharCoir Inc, and the Company introduced several private-label brands across multiple product categories from LED lighting to nutrients and additives and other products for indoor cultivation. Our plan is to continue to acquire, open and operate hydroponic/gardening stores and related businesses throughout North America. 1 Markets GrowGeneration sell thousands of products, including nutrients, growing media, advanced indoor and greenhouse lighting, environmental control systems, vertical benching and accessories for hydroponic gardening, as well as other indoor and outdoor growing products, that are designed and intended for growing a wide range of plants. Hydroponics is a specialized method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions in a water solvent, as opposed to soil. This method is typically used for indoor cultivation to give growers the ability to better regulate and control nutrient delivery, light, air, water, humidity, pests, and temperature. Hydroponic growers benefit from these techniques by producing crops faster and with higher crop yields per acre as compared to traditional soil- based growers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michael H. Daub Attorney at Law 10249 Yellow Circle Drive Suite 102 Minnetonka, Mn 55343
    MICHAEL H. DAUB ATTORNEY AT LAW 10249 YELLOW CIRCLE DRIVE SUITE 102 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 TELEPHONE: (612) 333-1943 E-MAIL: [email protected] February 16, 2021 Representative Zack Stephenson 509 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 In Re: HF 600 Dear Representative Stephenson, I am a drug and substance use disorder policy expert. I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on HF 600 which proposes to regulate adult-use cannabis. There are aspects of HF 600 which I support and some that I oppose. Dr. Karen Randall, a Pueblo, Colorado emergency department physician who specializes in cannabis science and medicine states that “the legalization of marijuana has damaged, rather than helped,” her home state. She goes on to state that, “I think the public needs to know that we are not okay...the grand experiment is not going well. I don’t think the public is hearing about this as they should be.” She adds, “State government has not only ignored scientific findings about marijuana’s effects to push sales, but failed in the regulatory responsibility it promised would accompany legislation.” In support of her statements, she focused on high potency cannabis products, a marked increase in medical problems, misguided impressions of cannabis’ benefits, increased homelessness, and a growing population of chronic, cannabis dependent users. Minnesota sits at a crossroads. Cannabis legalization brings with it difficult legal and policy challenges. Although Minnesota partially decriminalized cannabis in 1976, the legalization movement never gained much momentum. In 2014, Minnesota legalized medical cannabis. Although the federal law criminalizing cannabis, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA”) remains in effect, the budding experiment to legalize cannabis has not withered on the vine.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Medical Cannabis Price Study
    Minnesota Department of Health Office of Medical Cannabis Report on Medical Cannabis Price Study Version 1.2 Submitted by: Bill Brown, Principal Yoko McCarthy, Manager BerryDunn 2211 Congress Street Portland, ME 04102 Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Office of Medical Cannabis (OMC) ................................................................................... 2 1.3 Registered Medical Cannabis Manufacturers.................................................................... 2 1.4 Products Offered in Minnesota and Definitions ................................................................. 3 2.0 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Results ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Cannabis in Minnesota
    Medical Cannabis in Minnesota Tom Arneson, MD, MPH | Research Manager MN Employers Workers Comp. Alliance: June 8, 2017 Office of Medical Cannabis • 2014: MN became 22 nd state with full medical cannabis program Recreational and Medical (8) Medical (21) Low THC/High CBD Products (15) 6/14/2017 2 Office of Medical Cannabis However: • State medical cannabis programs are illegal under current federal law 6/14/2017 mn.gov/medicalcannabis 3 Office of Medical Cannabis Minnesota's program is different from most others • No smokeable or plant form marijuana (only liquids and oils in capsule, tincture, or vaporized form. Topical preparations of oils starting in August, 2017) • Commitment to learning from experience with the program (reports and observational studies on effectiveness, side effects, etc.) 6/14/2017 mn.gov/medicalcannabis 4 Office of Medical Cannabis Brief History • Documentation of therapeutic use of cannabis for thousands of years in India and China • 1839: William O’Shaughnessy – Irish physician working in India studied medical uses of cannabis; introduced it to European medicine when he returned to London • 1894: Queen Victoria’s physician praises therapeutic value of cannabis in the first issue of Lancet . (Queen Victoria was treated with cannabis for dysmenorrhea) • Sir William Osler, one of the founders of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine wrote the famous first textbook of internal medicine in 1892. it included his assessment that cannabis was the best treatment for migraine headache. 6/14/2017 mn.gov/medicalcannabis 5 Office of Medical Cannabis History (continued) • Recreational use of cannabis started in the Southwest around 1900, introduced by Mexican workers crossing the border • American doctors wrote millions of prescriptions for cannabis each year in the 1920s • 1937: Marijuana Tax Act: small annual tax on all involved with commercial use of cannabis, including physicians.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition the History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options for Reform
    TRANSNATIONAL I N S T I T U T E THE RISE AND DECLINE OF CANNABIS PROHIBITION THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS IN THE UN DruG CONTROL SYSTEM AND OPTIONS FOR REFORM 3 The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition Authors Dave Bewley-Taylor Tom Blickman Martin Jelsma Copy editor David Aronson Design Guido Jelsma www.guidojelsma.nl Photo credits Hash Marihuana & Hemp Museum, Amsterdam/ Barcelona Floris Leeuwenberg Pien Metaal UNOG Library/League of Nations Archives UN Photo Printing Jubels, Amsterdam Contact Transnational Institute (TNI) De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK Amsterdam Netherlands Tel: +31-(0)20-6626608 Fax: +31-(0)20-6757176 [email protected] www.tni.org/drugs www.undrugcontrol.info www.druglawreform.info Global Drug Policy Observatory (GDPO) Research Institute for Arts and Humanities Rooms 201-202 James Callaghan Building Swansea University Financial contributions Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP Tel: +44-(0)1792-604293 This report has been produced with the financial www.swansea.ac.uk/gdpo assistance of the Hash Marihuana & Hemp Museum, twitter: @gdpo_swan Amsterdam/Barcelona, the Open Society Foundations and the Drug Prevention and Information Programme This is an Open Access publication distributed under (DPIP) of the European Union. the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which of TNI and GDPO and can under no circumstances be permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction regarded as reflecting the position of the donors. in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. TNI would appreciate receiving a copy of the text in which this document is used or cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis in Africa
    CANNABIS IN AFRICA An Overview November 2007 Cannabis in Africa The overview of the cannabis situation in Africa presented in this document was prepared by Denis Destrebecq in the context of "Data For Africa", the segment of UNODC's Trends Monitoring and Analysis Programme dedicated to Africa and funded by France and Sweden. UNODC reiterates its appreciation to the African Member States who responded to the UN Annual Report Questionnaire on drugs. This questionnaire, together with the data base on individual drug seizures, constitutes the core source of information on drugs for UNODC. The boundaries, names and designations used in all maps in this book do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. This publication has not been formally edited 1 Cannabis in Africa EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Cannabis in Africa This paper summarizes the latest information available on cannabis in Africa. Information comes from the 2006 and the 2007 editions of the United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC) World Drug Report. The World Drug Report 2006 contains an extended section on the global cannabis situation. The 2006 Report is still available at www.unodc.org or by request at [email protected] . The 2007 World Drug Report, which contains the most recent trends on cannabis in Africa, is available at the same address. The highest levels of cannabis production in the world take place on the African continent. Ten thousand five hundred metric tons or roughly 25 per cent of global production of cannabis herb is estimated to have taken place in Africa in 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Cannabis in Minnesota
    Medical Cannabis in Minnesota April 8, 2019 Jared R. Poe Sensible Minnesota History of Prohibition 1850 1930 The US The Federal Pharmacopeia Bureau of lists cannabis as Narcotics is a medicine formed and (removed in headed by Harry 1942) Anslinger 1937 1900-1910 The Marihuana States begin to regulate Tax Act of 1937 is cannabis under “poison” passed, placing a laws requiring labeling or tax on the sale of sometimes prescriptions. 1800’s cannabis. The UN Single 1961 Convention on Narcotic 1970 Drugs creates an international treaty that The Controlled Historyprohibits continued… production and Substances Act supply of different drugs. was passed, creating “schedules” for drugs. 1973 1938 Creation of the Drug “Pure Food, Drug & Enforcement Cosmetics Act” Administration. created FDA and labels cannabis a dangerous1800’s drug. Current Federal Law • Marijuana is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. • Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and have no medical use in the United States. • Other Schedule I drugs include mescaline, MDMA, GHB, ecstasy, bath salts, LSD, and heroin. • Doctors cannot prescribe from Schedule I • Methadone, cocaine, methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, and morphine are all Schedule II substances, which a doctor can prescribe. ● The manufacture, sale, and/or distribution of cannabis (medical, industrial, or otherwise) violates federal law. • 46 states, plus the District of Columbia have legalized *some form* of medical cannabis. • 33 of those states, plus the District of Columbia have legalized
    [Show full text]
  • A Baseline Review and Assessment of the Massachusetts Adult-Use Cannabis Industry: Market Data and Industry Participation
    A Baseline Review and Assessment of the Massachusetts Adult-Use Cannabis Industry: Market Data and Industry Participation February 2020 Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission: Steven J. Hoffman, Chairman Kay Doyle, Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan, Commissioner Britte McBride, Commissioner Shaleen Title, Commissioner Shawn Collins, Executive Director Prepared by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission Research and Information Technology Departments: Samantha M. Doonan, BA, Research Analyst David McKenna, PhD, Chief Technology Officer Julie K. Johnson, PhD, Director of Research Acknowledgements External Collaborators Alexandra F. Kritikos, MA, Brandeis University Cannabis Control Commission Communications Cedric Sinclair, Director of Communications Maryalice Gill, Press Secretary Kirsten Swenson, Communications Specialist Management Alisa Stack, Chief Operating Officer Erika Scibelli, Chief of Staff Legal Christine Baily, General Counsel Allie DeAngelis, Associate General Counsel Enforcement and Licensing Yaw Gyebi, Chief of Enforcement Paul Payer, Enforcement Counsel Kyle Potvin, Director of Licensing Patrick Beyea, Director of Investigations Derek Chamberlin, Licensing Analyst Anne DiMare, Licensing Specialist Government Affairs David Lakeman, Director of Government Affairs 2 Suggested bibliographic reference format: Doonan SM., McKenna, D., Johnson JK., (2020, February). A Baseline Review and Assessment of the Massachusetts Adult-Use Cannabis Industry— A Report to the Massachusetts Legislature. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Cannabis
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Cannabis in Minnesota
    MEDICAL CANNABIS IN MINNESOTA MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS MARCH 18, 2016 TOM ARNESON, MD, MPH MDH OFFICE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS 2014: Minnesota becomes 22nd state with a medical cannabis program Status as of July 27, 2015 However: • State medical cannabis programs are illegal under current federal law Minnesota’s program is different from most others • No smokeable or plant form marijuana (only liquids and oils in capsule, tincture, or vaporized form) • Commitment to learning from experience with the program (reports and observational studies on effectiveness, side effects, etc.) • Clinician certification role – clinician certifies patient has a qualifying medical condition, but does not certify an opinion on benefit/risk to patient. Qualifying medical conditions • Limited group of medical conditions that qualify (and process for deciding addition of more) • Cancer - with severe or chronic pain, or nausea, or cachexia • Glaucoma • HIV/AIDS • Tourette’s Syndrome • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis- • Seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy • Severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis • Crohn’s Disease • Terminal Illness with life-expectancy < 1 year - with severe or chronic pain, or N/V, or cachexia) Qualifying medical conditions (cont.) • Intractable Pain • On December 2, 2015, the Health Commissioner announced his decision to add intractable pain to the list of qualifying medical conditions • Intractable pain means pain whose cause cannot be removed and, according to generally accepted medical practice, the full range of pain management modalities appropriate for the patient has been attempted without adequate relief or with intolerable side effects • Unless changed by action of the 2016 legislature, intractable pain will become a qualifying medical condition August 1, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Alzheimer's Disease
    llfflll Minnesota 1111&11 Department ofHealth Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program Petition to Add a Qualifying Medical Condition Making your petition D Any person may petition the Minnesota Department ofHealth ("the department" or "MDH'') to add a qualifying medical condition to those listed in subdivision 14 ofMinnesota Statutes section 152.22. Petitions will be accepted only between June 1 and July 31, 2018. Petitions received outside of these dates will not be reviewed. Petitions must be sent by certified U.S. mail to: Minnesota Department ofHealth Office ofMedical Cannabis P.O. Box 64882 St. Paul, MN 55164-0882 D You must mail the original copy of the petition with an original signature. D Complete each section ofthis petition and attach all supporting documents. Clearly indicate which section of the petition an attachment is for. D Each petition is limited to one proposed qualifying medical condition. Ifyour petition includes more than one medical condition, it will be dismissed. D Ifyou are petitioning for the addition of a medical condition that was considered but not approved in a prior year's petition process, you must include new scientific evidence or research to support your petition or describe substantially different symptoms. Please refer to our website to see which medical conditions were reviewed in prior years (http://www.health.state.mn. us/topics/cannabis/rulemakin g/addcondi tions.h tml). D Ifthe petition is accepted for consideration, MDH will send the petition documents to the Medical Cannabis Review Panel ("Review Panel"). MDH staff will also provide information to the Review Panel about the proposed qualifying condition, its prevalence, and the effectiveness of current treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Minnesota Medical Cannabis Pricing Report
    Minnesota Medical Cannabis Pricing and Patient Experience Report Produced and published by Sensible Change Minnesota www.changemn.org Minnesota Medical Cannabis Pricing and Patient Experience Report Sensible Change Minnesota About Sensible Change Minnesota Sensible Change Minnesota grew out of our sister organization, Sensible Minnesota, to allow for more flexibility to advocate for sensible drug policy reforms unburdened by its 501(c)3 lobbying restrictions. Our team is responsible for many of the expansions of Minnesota’s medical cannabis program, including: • Intractable Pain, effective August 2016 • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), effective August 2017 • Autism Spectrum Disorder, effective August 2018 • Alzheimer’s Disease, effective August 2019 • Reducing the qualifications for a patient to have a caregiver in the program, effective August 2019 (HF766, Section 6) • Chronic Pain, effective August 2020 • Oral dissolvable products, effective August 2020 15,994 of Minnesota’s 18,249 registered patients (87.6%) qualify for the program because of a condition that Sensible Minnesota successfully petitioned MN’s Health Commissioner to add. Sensible Change Minnesota’s Board of Directors is comprised of grassroots activists, patients, caregivers, legal professionals, and union organizers. We amplify the voices of patients and consumers at the legislature. Questions on this report can be referred to Maren Schroeder, Policy Director, [email protected]. Page 2 of 18 Minnesota Medical Cannabis Pricing and Patient Experience Report Sensible Change Minnesota Key Findings ● 86 percent of surveyed registered medical cannabis patients reported price as the primary treatment barrier; 76 percent reported no access to raw cannabis plant material as a treatment barrier. ● Inhalation oil cartridges are, on average, 52 percent more expensive than raw cannabis plant material on a per mg of THC basis; capsules are 75 percent more expensive than raw cannabis plant material on a per mg of THC basis.
    [Show full text]
  • 'New Cannabis' in Canada
    From ‘Indian Hemp’ to the ‘New Cannabis’ in Canada: the Racial Contract and Cannabis Criminalization and Licensing in a British Settler State by Amanda Vance A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Political Science) The University of British Columbia (Vancouver) October 2018 © Amanda Vance, 2018 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: From ‘Indian Hemp’ to the ‘New Cannabis’ in Canada: The Racial Contract and Cannabis Criminalization and Licensing in a British Settler State submitted by Amanda Vance in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science Examining Committee: Bruce Baum Supervisor Paul Quirk Supervisory Committee Member Supervisory Committee Member University EXaminer University EXaminer Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Supervisory Committee Member Supervisory Committee Member ii Abstract As recreational cannabis drug legalization approaches in Canada with The Cannabis Act, the question of why marijuana cultivation, production, use and trade was criminalized in the first place looms large. Leading up to reform in Canada, observers in Canada and the United States argued racism was central to cannabis drug criminalization in North America. Using critical race theory including Charles Mills’ The Racial Contract, Edward Said’s Orientalism, and passages
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Wild Hemp: a Crucial Botanical Source in Early Cannabinoid Discovery Crist N
    Filer Journal of Cannabis Research (2020) 2:25 Journal of Cannabis https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-020-00031-3 Research REVIEW Open Access Minnesota wild hemp: a crucial botanical source in early cannabinoid discovery Crist N. Filer1,2 Abstract Renewed and sustained Cannabis chemistry exploration was initiated by Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Chemistry Department with cooperation from the Treasury Department Narcotics Laboratory in the early 1940’s. This partnership and time investment by both parties made practical sense. Adams was able to explore natural products chemistry and the Narcotics Laboratory began to clarify the chemistry mysteries of Cannabis. Minnesota wild hemp, often viewed as just a roadside weed, was employed as the critical botanical source. Based on its widespread cultivation during World War II, this was also a very pragmatic decision. Although the unique Illinois – Washington D. C. collaboration lasted only a few short years (1939–1942), the stunning results included the isolation and extensive characterization of cannabidiol, the structure elucidation and total synthesis of cannabinol as well as the identification of the tetrahydrocannabinol structure as an intoxicating pharmacophore. Furthermore, this research well prepared many junior chemists for prolific careers in both academia as well as industry, inspired the discoveries of later Cannabis investigators and also provided a successful model of a productive academic-government partnership. Keywords: Cannabinoid, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Minnesota wild hemp, Roger Adams, University of Illinois Background (Bridgeman and Abazia 2017).Itwouldtakeastrong Human cultivation of the genus Cannabis and exploit- and disciplined personality to navigate these changing ation of its useful materials easily dates back several thou- regulatory issues and advance Cannabis science.
    [Show full text]