Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Where cultivation excellence meets unfiltered insight—the Corner Office—hosted by Greg Dunaway. Powered by AROYA's revolutionary approach to data-driven growing, we bring you the brightest minds behind today's biggest breakthroughs.
Stay ahead in this rapidly evolving landscape, from cutting-edge solutions to market strategy.
Greg Dunaway (00:00)
We have a fantastic episode today. We are very lucky to have Jeremy Berke here, the founder and editor-in-chief of Cultivated. I'll put it really bluntly: if you're not reading Cultivated, you should be. Cultivated News is basically the best way to make sense of what's going on for operators, investors, and policymakers. Jeremy, welcome.
Jeremy (00:20)
Yeah, thanks for having me, Greg. I'm happy to be here and always a pleasure to chat with you.
Greg Dunaway (00:23)
Yeah, well, what a momentous day. So we're gonna jump right into it. So right now, you and I both have Twitter up. It's Friday, August seventh.
Jeremy (00:31)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (00:33)
you had a really interesting framing this morning, talking about how cannabis policy gets made. let me quote you haphazardly, in a rush, and bolted on to something else that it shouldn't be. you know, can you set the stage for me here? What you know, how are we in a place where we might have a government shutdown fight over THC gummies sold in a gas station?
Yeah.
Jeremy (00:55)
Sure, yeah. So I'll make this as pithy as possible because you know the the hemp and cannabis policy in the US is complex and there are nuances. so We can start back in 2018. there was what some call a loophole in the farm bill, and I use that carefully because you know a lot of people say it wasn't a loophole, it was intentional, but whatever it may be that the farm bill allowed THC derived from hemp
and hemp and cannabis are the same plant. Hemp just does not contain usable amounts of THC under 0.3. So the 2018 Farm Bill allowed hemp derived from THC products, sorry, hemp derived THC products to flourish around the US. So these basically they took that 0.3% THC. THCA is naturally occurring in the hemp plant, and they can make things like drinks, gummies, beverages, whatever it may be that have actual
intoxicating effects, so upwards of five, ten milligrams of THC. Over the last eight years, these products have shown up in in Target and in in gas stations, like all over the country, right? It took until November of last year for some of the original authors of the 2010 Farm Bill, including Senator Mitch McConnell, who I believe is still alive, I'm not sure, to realize the mistake they had made, right?
and so
What they did was they inserted language into the last during the government shutdown into the last funding bill that was set to keep the government open, basically shutting the loophole and lowering the threshold to 0.4 milligrams of THC, being the definition of hemp by dry weight, so not a concentration. and so that means that any product that that has hemp drive THC
If this language goes into effect, which it's set to go into effect in November, has to be under that 0.4 milligram threshold. Now, that does include a lot of non-intoxicating products as well, which we can get into later. So, you know, most CBD products that people are buying for sleep or pain relief or whatever it may be will actually sort of go above that threshold sometimes. And even the raw material will too, depending on when it's harvested. So again, this is all very complex. flash forward to today.
there is new language in the continuing resolution that will avoid a government shutdown ahead of the midterms, that basically extends the ban a month, and extending the ban a month theoretically will give lawmakers and policymakers time to negotiate a new bill. Now, you know, I'm a little bit skeptical because they've had nine months and and a new bill hasn't been developed, and so what is another four weeks gonna do? I'm not sure, but there are bills circulating around Congress to do so.
so look, like I I I don't know what the outcome of this is gonna be. a lot of Senate Republicans are now fighting, they want the ban instituted right away, and these are sort of you know the classic reefer madness arguments that you you expect of social conservatives. They they don't want THC products being sold around the country. some are a little bit educated enough about the policy to separate synthetic cannabis, things like Delta 8 this is the kind of gas station weed
that you hear referred to in the press from you know real naturally occurring THC products, right? And so, you know, we will see if that if that distinction remains. but look, Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail. they want the ban to come. However, you know when I say Republicans, I am not including President Donald Trump who wants to see the ban extended and he has his own reasons. He's been you know for Republican president, he's been relatively pro-cannabis.
Shepherding rescheduling and in other cannabis reform as well. And so, look, like this issue is now driving a wedge in the Republican Party. at the same time, you know, why I say it's haphazard is that we are dealing with all these very complex policy issues. there's many businesses built on this language, and there are many employees who rely on this language for the next paycheck, many consumers who rely on it.
to get their pain relief or to get the products they want to use on the weekend, etcetera and we're doing it haphazardly attached to a must pass funding funding bill ahead of the midterm. So instead of being proactive, you know, it is very reactive policy making.
Greg Dunaway (05:18)
And and here's an interesting wrinkle, right? You know, Senator Budd is basically no friend of Bud, and I'm gonna make that pun
and now it's over.
Jeremy (05:25)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (05:27)
and he basically about 40 minutes ago said he thinks he has the votes to pass his hemp products amendment stripping out of delay at the ban, and he is adamant about that. Can you walk us through what might happen if he's correct? If he if he if he is correct that he can split out this amendment, what are the consequences for the industry as a whole?
Yeah.
Jeremy (05:49)
Yeah, look, so so the ban, the original ban that was inserted last year would go into effect on November twelfth. And so look, like that is about, you know, three months where companies that have been built and developed and built and developed supply chains to sell hemp derived THC products, all the inventory will not be saleable after that date on November twelfth. So that's probably millions of dollars in inventory. that's consumers, especially in states where cannabis isn't legal.
like Texas, Idaho, etc., that will not have access to these THC products immediately on November 13th. so it it's hugely, hugely impactful for these hemp businesses. excuse me, specifically, it's also hugely impactful for the cannabis industry. in a different way, right? you know there there's a couple things going on here. it was earnings week for a lot of the big MSOs, the big publicly traded American cannabis companies.
and you heard a lot of the CEOs talk about how they saw an increase in cannabis sales when Ohio, which sort of front ran the federal ban, instituted its own ban on hemp derived products. So basically forcing consumers back into the state regulated channel. And so for them, like there is, you know, a small win here, right? Like their next quarterly sales will probably be boosted if that hemp derived consumer channel is gone. But at the same time, you know
in my view, and this is this is one person's view, right? I I I'm not saying it's correct. I'm just saying in my view that it's a bit of a Pyrrhic victory because you know, once consumers get used to buying THC products in Target, you know, when they go pick up lettuce or light bulbs or, you know, shirts, like whatever you go to Target for, that's a very, very hard muscle to unlearn. And so i it is very true that these hemp drive THC products, especially Lotose beverages and and gummies, etc., are very palatable to non
core cannabis consumers and are very good at normalizing the industry in their eyes. And so, you know, I I I think on the one hand, look, like I I see where the MSOs are coming from. They have to pay, you know, expensive licensing fees and dispensaries are difficult retail channels compared to any other sort of industry, right? They have to pay compliance costs and so there is an unfair playing field, but at the same time, like these products have really normalized cannabis
For Americans, especially in red states that don't have legal cannabis sales and might never have legal cannabis sales. And so I think the stakes for the cannabis industry are are frankly enormous for this. At the same time, you know, in the broad scheme of things, like funding the government is much more important than hemp and cannabis policy, right? And so it's odd that you know this is so impactful for all of us who think about this and talk about this every single day.
But in the grand scheme of things, you know, this is a small industry and, you know, a a a a relatively small consumer market compared to other things, and so like i i it befuddles me why we can't be proactive about policy making about this. Instead, we have to do it in such an emergency rushed fashion. But you know, that's that's US politics.
Greg Dunaway (09:00)
Yeah, i the idea of them just writing a bill to deal with this issue is apparently so foreign to them that we now get to the pants on fire and everybody's running around.
Jeremy (09:09)
Yeah, no, that that's exactly the point I was trying to make in my story, right? Is that like, you know, it's it's i it it's hard and it's complicated, but it it's not that hard and it's not that complicated, right?
Greg Dunaway (09:17)
Okay.
Jeremy (09:19)
Like like we can do this. If we could put a man on the moon in the sixties, we can write, you know, comprehensive cannabis regulation that makes sense for the market, for consumers, for public health, even for people that are opposed to legalization itself. but you know, it seems hard to do that. And I think look, like, you know, one thing that I've written about in my newsletter is that
This this whole hemp cannabis bifurcation is is purely created by policy, right? I it's not it's not because, you know, some consumers prefer hemp derived THC over other forms of THC. if you look at Canada, which just has blanket federal legalization, it's all just THC. Like that is what consumers want. So you know, i in my view, like drawing up comprehensive regulations about the molecule itself versus where the raw material comes from.
Would be the way to get.
Greg Dunaway (10:11)
Yeah, well, that's too much common sense, my friend.
Jeremy (10:14)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (10:16)
I have an I have kind of an interesting question for people who might not have your level of sophistication when it comes to politics, and we'll move on to some of the media stuff too. you know, this split in the GOP is crazy. You know, Trump has had an iron fist over Republicans
Jeremy (10:29)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (10:30)
on pretty much every issue, and then you've got weirdly a guy who used to criticize the hell out of him, Rand Paul, on his side. and I wanna ask you, how much of this do you believe
Jeremy (10:49)
yeah, look, like I I I you know It's a really good question and I I'm taking a beat to think about it because, you know, as a journalist I'm always wary of the idea that someone on the opposing side of an issue to yourself has bad intentions.
It's very, very easy to always fall into that trap and to be cynical of that. I think, you know, there are people with very good intentions who might just view the world differently than I do, or or have differing interpretations of the evidence, whether that's anecdotal or whether it's you know quantifiable, right? I I I'm willing to say that. And so look, I I like, you know, I do think that however much I disagree with many of the Republican social conservatives, like Senator Ted Budd, it's a terrible name.
for this. I agree with you there. you know, I do believe he he thinks he's saving the children. Like he he thinks he's doing the right thing and he is willing, you know, to go against President Trump who has had a stranglehold, as you pointed out, in the Republican Party. And he's willing to, you know, I I don't know if it's going to risk a shutdown or not. I don't want to say that, but he's actually willing to make that risk. So look, like I think, you know, it's fair to say that this is probably a principled stand on his part. That being said, it doesn't mean the principled stand is right.
Or correct, it just means that it's coming from his own principles. You know, for President Trump, you know, I think it's it's fair to say, one, that he is compelled as a senior citizen himself, as someone who, you know, golfs and talks to seniors in Florida, like he's compelled by the medical aspects of cannabis legalization. That's really why he pushed rescheduling. I think he he is sympathetic to those arguments, he sees it works, whether or not he uses himself, I'm not sure. At the same time,
You know, supporting cannabis reform is very good politics for him. And I think his appro is in unapproval, inapproval rating, touch the 60s, right? He's one of the least popular presidents in modern history, and meanwhile, you know, over around 60% of Americans support legalization. So look, like there's going to be contentious midterms. he's gonna be a lame duck after the midterms. this is really good politics for him to support THC in any.
Form. I don't think he's aware of the nuances that actually, you know, half the cannabis industry wants to see the ban go through. I don't know if that's filtering up to him in the same way. It it may be, it may not be. But you know, look, like I I I'm skeptical of everyone. I'm I try not to be cynical as a reporter because I think people do you know, take stands on principle. look
You know, that being said, I again it's opportunistic and also like there is a lot of reporting. I wanna be sort of careful how I say this because it's it's not my reporting, but you know, the chief of staff, Susie Wiles, who is very, very influential with Trump himself and in the White House, you know, her son in law runs a rather large hemp business, and so like anything, you know, in the world of Donald Trump, like, you know, I it it y you can't avoid that. whether that is true or not,
you know, the optics are extremely clear there as well for why he would be inserting himself into this fight.
Greg Dunaway (14:04)
Yeah, and and I I l I love that. And and this next question kind of plays into that. You know, we tackled a little bit of kind of the political dynamics. you and I both know that if the trajectory holds right now, in November, it likely that President Trump will be facing at a minimum
Jeremy (14:20)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (14:21)
one one half of our legislative body that's not gonna be helping him in any way, shape, or form. let's walk down the worst case scenario. You know, Senator Budd isn't is telling the truth. He can kill this, right? Let's let's assume that he's got it and he's gonna kill it. What does that look like even if the say the Senate and the takes this the Democrats take the Senate and the House can can operators in our industry count on any kind of relief or do you think it's way more complex than that?
Jeremy (14:50)
can operators count on relief? I am not an operator. I would not count on any help from the federal government. I mean I think, you know, I made this point earlier that look, like Colorado first legalized cannabis in twenty twelve. you know, we're fourteen years into this, like we're still having these debates. I would not count
On any sort of proactive relief. However, you know, if I put on my rose-colored glasses a little bit, cannabis policy is one of the few areas where Democrats can actually work with Donald Trump. And so, you know, if you know, if Michigan flips, and you know, the Democrats do take both the House and the Senate,
It's likely that that we will see a lot of cannabis bills come through Congress. And if one manages to pass, I mean, I think getting to sixty votes in the Senate is gonna be a lot harder than getting to fifty-one, but you know, we can have that discussion. but if they pass the filibuster threshold and get to sixty votes, like, you know, there is a chance that Donald Trump needs some sort of win, and that Democrats find that this is a way they can work with him, and cannabis is one of the issues that breaks through. I think that's a small chance, but I think
You know, there are very real scenarios where I see that occurring. You know, that being said, right, like you know, I get asked this question all the time. If I am an operator, I am not counting on anything from Congress or the federal government. I'm gonna stay in my own lane and work in state houses where where policy's a little bit more nimble and I'm gonna sell what I can sell and do what I can do and comply with what I'm supposed to comply with, and if the federal government moves, that's a nice to have, not a need to have.
Greg Dunaway (16:29)
I've got one more on this and I want to pivot to schedule three. look,
Jeremy (16:32)
Mm-hmm.
Greg Dunaway (16:33)
you hinted at it earlier. you know, Green Thumb, Keralif, you they've got earnings calls. You know, Varana already mentioned this. And then you also have
Jeremy (16:40)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (16:41)
written that the alcohol industry has a proven playbook for killing cannabis. So when you look at both the big cannabis sector and the big alcohol sector, and
Jeremy (16:50)
Mm-hmm.
Greg Dunaway (16:51)
God knows they both have donated so much money to, you know, on the cannabis side to President Trump, and of course the alcohol lobby has been donating millions and millions for years, you know.
what is your reporting or or what is your instinct on who's really behind some of these efforts to just gut the cannabis industry?
Jeremy (17:11)
Yeah. I I I I I can only speculate, right? I think it is two things. I think one is that, you know, the pharmaceutical
And alcohol lobby. Like we when we talk about big cannabis, in the grand scheme of things, these are like small market cap companies, right? Like they're dwarfed by companies like Johnson Johnson, you know, Anheuser Busch. Like these are mega, mega cap corporations who are very large, who have decades long relationships with policymakers and Congress and state houses, who can spend, you know, seven, eight figures on lobbying and it's sort of like, you know, a throwaway line item.
on on their ten Q. So look, like are they trying to strangle it and kill it? I'm not sure. but, you know, do they clearly see a threat to their business and and they're they're, you know, doing their fiduciary duty and acting on that threat? Like, yes. Absolutely that's happening. you know, the second thing I'll say is that you know, I think
And this is sort of a you know, a relatively ill formed political science argument, like someone else is gonna come with data and tell me why I'm wrong. But but you know, I do think that support for legalization has hit an asymptote, right? It's like the top of the curve in in America and you know, i it's not like more only less people are gonna support legalization from here on out. and you know, it doesn't mean it's not popular, it doesn't mean that it's not you know, the majority opinion. It just means that like where you had maybe six
Support in 2019, you might have 55, 56% now. and so that does give an opening for, you know, social conservatives to say, like, look at the evils of legalization. Now, you know, their arguments are wrong, and and I don't want to have that fight on the podcast, but like it does give them that opening to say that and to go to journalists who, you know, want to say why corporations are bad, why big companies are bad, to say, hey, look, like, we're creating this new addictive industry of big tobacco. you know, that's that's
That's talking point like straight out of a very socially conservative playbook, but I do think it's resonating a little bit and it's hurting support. and and and you know, the fact that Donald Trump is one of the few standard bearers
you know, for support for cannabis, even though he stopped short of legalization in the Republican Party, as he gets less popular, you know, the evangelicals are gonna start reasserting control a little bit and saying, like, we don't like cannabis, you know, we don't like all these sort of MAGA libertarian things that like the 2006 Republican Party would have sneered at, right? and so I think I think there's like a little bit of a window for that right now too. so I think that's a push and a pull factor. Now, you know, I think both of those ideas, like
You know, if you are Anheuser Busch, like
You're probably gonna lobby against cannabis until you lose, and then you're gonna figure out a distribution mechanism for, you know, Budweiser branded THC drinks, right? Like that's that's there's gonna be a snowball effect there. And second, I think like even though cannabis support is declining a little bit, I do think that you know, just like it's hit a top, the bottom is probably still above fifty percent. And so, like, with any public policy that has more than fifty percent support, like politics will follow, it just takes time.
Greg Dunaway (20:27)
Yeah, I completely, completely agree. And and now I want to pivot. You have done some excellent reporting. In fact, your team was in the room for the DEA rescheduling
Jeremy (20:34)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (20:35)
hearings in in Arlington. I'm gonna just kind of skip ahead to kind of some things that really stood out to me real quick. Number one, you pointed out that an FDA official admitted on cross that cannabis would have failed the standard fight part test, and so they kind of created a new test for it.
Jeremy (20:50)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (20:51)
you know, Judge Julius is gonna be r ruling soon, I believe is his name. you know, the hearing is over.
y your impr your impression, if I'm re if I'm quoting you correctly, was you know both sides think that the record favors them, but boy, it sure sounds like the the pro-legalization side got their their their asses handed to them in that courtroom.
Jeremy (21:10)
Yeah, I you know, it's i it it does. And and I think I think Greg, like one one important thing to note is that you know, the the the DEA rescheduling trial wasn't about whether cannabis is good or bad, right? It was specifically about whether that two part test was used was proper.
and was proper to make that determination for the DEA to reschedule. and so to to do that, all the pro side really has to prove was that cannabis does have accepted medical use, which is which is true. I mean, that is in medical literature and it's it's already prescribed in in medical-only states throughout the US. And two, that no one has died directly from cannabis consumption. So, you know, the the pro side went in the courtroom, they took their licks from smart approaches to marijuana, and all the folks who are opposed to cannabis.
Legalization who carefully built a record designed for a federal appeal process to say why cannabis is is is evil. At the same time, that is not the core argument that the judge was supposed to hear. The judge was supposed to hear a very, very narrow argument. And I highlighted the the Camus, the currently accepted medical use test, because you know, that that was a compelling line. That was one of the few compelling lines I thought from the anti-side was that
You know, they were basically asserting that the federal government, due to political pressure from Trump, etc., wanted to design a test that cannabis could specifically pass. like, you know, compelling argument, I I would argue, again, I'm not a lawyer, not in the courtroom, but I would argue it's not exactly true because the five-part test doesn't really know how to account for a botanical
like a botanical plant like cannabis with multiple active compounds that could be efficacious for different things. it knows how to select from one molecule to test that molecule in a double blind clinical trial and then you know figure out if it has a use case or not. And so you know forcing cannabis into the five part test is really like, you know, to use a terrible metaphor, jamming a square peg into a very round hole. And so cannabis was never gonna pass in the first place. Now you can criticize why they use this new test, but maybe you know in general the test
Just needed updating, and that is what you know the federal government under Biden, the HHS, did say in their report. They said there's no possible way that cannabis can pass this test, but it is being prescribed for medical use already, but it has a very you know good safety profile compared to other drugs, even like Advil. and so look, like maybe the test needs updating, they updated the test, and this is where they fell. you know, there there is until August 17th for statements from both sides, and so we're not going to get a ruling before August 17th.
seventeenth,
but it could come shortly after that. However, you know, it's my view that like, you know, the most likely outcome here is that, you know, the DEA does follow the trial and they do reschedule, but it's tied up in litigation. I think both sides are really preparing for a fight.
Greg Dunaway (24:07)
Let's talk about that. So i you know, a lot of our audience is those operators, those people who are involved in MSOs. Where do you think this goes from here? What what should we be expecting? And and you know, is there any world this gets wrapped up before the midterms or we looking well into twenty seven?
Jeremy (24:22)
I I would I would guess that we're looking into twenty seven, even twenty twenty eight. look, I think you know, it it takes a sympathetic federal judge to to hear the case if if rescheduling goes through. and those trials can take a very long time.
And so, you know, I I I don't know what the outcome would be. That that that could be a months to years timeline. but you know, I I I don't think like we should count the chickens before they hatch either. Like it it's certainly possible that an outcome of this trial is that medical cannabis is rescheduled.
But, you know, recreational cannabis stays on Schedule One. I don't think that's likely. I I just think it's it's a possibility. number two is that there is a possibility that it is rescheduled and it gets overturned in appeal and it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. Like that again is a years-long process. however, you know, if I had to sort of handicap the most likely outcome, I do think it's step one, you know, the judge reschedules fully.
And step two, there's a court fight. it goes on for longer than everyone wants, but ultimately, you know, cannabis does land in schedule three.
Greg Dunaway (25:26)
In in the world that cannabis does get this rescheduling green light, Jeremy, does that policy immediately go into effect for operators while the litig while the courts rule, or is there a hard stop with some kind of injunction? Do you have any feeling on that?
Jeremy (25:39)
I I I don't I don't know and and you know, you should ask a lawyer this. I d I do think it's if if it goes to an appeal, there is likely to be an injunction, like that would be the first step, and so, you know, it would stop implementing the rule. however, you know, federal agencies can kind of
Like th they're they're not getting a lot of guidance, you know, from the administration or from federal agencies, and they can make their own determinations, right? Like if if the IRS wants, it's theoretically possible, like even if there is an injunction on applying the Schedule III rule, like the IRS could come up with its own restrictions or regulations around the 280E tax, let's say, right? or state cannabis regulators or state houses themselves could say, you know, like we believe that like they could change their own drug scheduling.
in front of the federal government. Now, you know, there is a federal supremacy clause and that would be its own fight, right? But there's there's like all sorts of outcomes that could possibly happen here. So look, like that's a long-winded way of saying. Like I I I honestly don't know. and I don't know when it'll happen, but I do think if there is a fight, there will be an injunction. And so it'll be a slow walk to see when things come. At the same time, like, you know, it doesn't stop other agencies from
And other states from making their own determinations about what they want to do.
Greg Dunaway (26:53)
Last question for you, Jeremy. I know you're busy. You got a thousand media requests
today. my last question
Jeremy (26:56)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (26:58)
for you is one more schedule three. So we've watched the big MSOs kind of spin off their medical, the medical size of their business for the purposes of you know getting up uplifted to the Nasdaq or other financial
Jeremy (27:10)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (27:11)
goals. What, if anything, should we be reading into that? And and where does it where does it show us the future of of post-regulation cannabis might be?
Jeremy (27:21)
Yeah, you know, two things. One, I think a lot of these MSOs, they they really want to be on the big boards, right? They're they're much more liquid. It gives them a lot more legitimacy than trading over the counter or even on the Canadian Securities Exchange. Not that that's not a legitimate exchange, but just in terms of American investors. and and and two, I think, it it opens them up to institutional investors that really sort of
stabilized stock prices that will invest in a long-term growth story versus like a short-term day trading kind of thing that all these cannabis stocks are stuck in. So I think they're all sort of clamoring to get on the big boards. you know, the NASDAQ has been open to it, right? Truly even glasshouse, both separated in some form or fashion their medical assets from their recreational assets in order to appease the exchange regulators and say, like, okay, we can list
you or medical assets under schedule three, right? you know, I think you know, you mentioned earning calls, the earnings calls this week earlier, Greg, like, you know, all those questions were asked by all the bank analysts on the earnings calls, and all the CEOs said, you know, had differing opinions. Like some said, you know, we want to get on the boards as fast as we can or exploring every way. Others said, hey look, like splitting our medical and our recreational business doesn't exactly make sense right now. Because, you know, mo reading between the lines, like most of their business
is recreational. So they'd be listing like, you know, ten percent of the revenue on the exchange. Is that really the story they want to tell to investors? Is that really gonna get, you know, Goldman Sachs to do a roadshow for their stock and get, you know, Norway's pension fund, you know, to invest and hold and buy long term. Like, no, it's not. And so, you know, I think some companies want it to be first, truly for its part, you know, they they don't necessarily always break out in each ten Q you know,
medical revenue versus recreational revenue. Some do, some don't, but you know, you can sort of estimate that True Leave's medical business is a much larger chunk of its revenue than the other MSOs purely because of, you know, holding a near monopoly in Florida with an aging population that's a lucrative medical state, right? and so, you know, for True Leave it made sense. For Glasshouse it made sense. I think, you know, if you're Cura Leaf, maybe it doesn't make sense right now. Maybe you're waiting to see how things shake out.
Greg Dunaway (29:42)
Jeremy, my friend, I'm gonna say it one more time. first off, thank you. I know you're probably bouncing a bunch of interviews.
If you are not reading
Jeremy (29:48)
Yeah.
Greg Dunaway (29:48)
cultivated news, you should be. I'm glad that we can count on you to jump on this podcast when crazy things are happening. And and just as a quick update, the Senate did the important business of confirming Chris Anderson to be the ambassador to Cambodia. So, you know, they're well on their way to handling this mess. Anyway, Jeremy, thank you so much. We're getting there.
Jeremy (30:05)
Yeah, all right. I mean Cambodia cannabis, we're getting there. It's it's going through the alphabet, so
Greg Dunaway (30:11)
Awesome. Thanks again, Jeremy.
Jeremy (30:12)
Yeah, thanks Greg.