Difference between revisions of "Template:Past, Present, and Future of Cannabis Laboratory Testing and Regulation in the United States/Future of cannabis regulation, testing, and market trends/Regulation, market, and research"

From CannaQAWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created as needed)
 
m (Cite fix)
Line 9: Line 9:
The obvious issue of expanding research and testing on cannabis and addressing its safety is acquiring the product within a legal framework and a reasonable time frame. As mentioned previously, the [[Drug Enforcement Administration|DEA]] has recognized the need for more federally approved growers than the NIDA center at the University of Mississippi (which came under fire in March 2017 for not testing its provided samples for mold and other contaminants in any standardized fashion<ref name="HellermanScientists17">{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governments-pot-farm-moldy-samples-no-guidelines/ |title=Scientists say the government’s only pot farm has moldy samples — and no federal testing standards |author=Hellerman, C. |work=PBS NewsHour |publisher=NewsHour Productions, LLC |date=08 March 2017 |accessdate=15 March 2017}}</ref>), and in 2016 they began accepting applications for additional entities looking to grow marijuana for researchers.<ref name="81FR53846">{{cite journal |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to |journal=Federal Register |title=Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States |volume=81 |issue=156 |date=12 August 2016 |pages=53846–8 |accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref> However, as of March 2020, no new growers have been federally approved. Additionally, complaints have been leveled at the University of Mississippi facility by researchers for not providing enough diversified samples that are more representative of what people are purchasing from dispensaries.<ref name="PiomelliCannabis18">{{cite journal |title=Cannabis and the Opioid Crisis |journal=Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research |author=Piomelli, D.; Weiss, S.; Boyd, G. et al. |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=108-16 |year=2018 |doi=10.1089/can.2018.29011.rtl |pmid=29789812 |pmc=PMC5931647}}</ref>  
The obvious issue of expanding research and testing on cannabis and addressing its safety is acquiring the product within a legal framework and a reasonable time frame. As mentioned previously, the [[Drug Enforcement Administration|DEA]] has recognized the need for more federally approved growers than the NIDA center at the University of Mississippi (which came under fire in March 2017 for not testing its provided samples for mold and other contaminants in any standardized fashion<ref name="HellermanScientists17">{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governments-pot-farm-moldy-samples-no-guidelines/ |title=Scientists say the government’s only pot farm has moldy samples — and no federal testing standards |author=Hellerman, C. |work=PBS NewsHour |publisher=NewsHour Productions, LLC |date=08 March 2017 |accessdate=15 March 2017}}</ref>), and in 2016 they began accepting applications for additional entities looking to grow marijuana for researchers.<ref name="81FR53846">{{cite journal |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to |journal=Federal Register |title=Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States |volume=81 |issue=156 |date=12 August 2016 |pages=53846–8 |accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref> However, as of March 2020, no new growers have been federally approved. Additionally, complaints have been leveled at the University of Mississippi facility by researchers for not providing enough diversified samples that are more representative of what people are purchasing from dispensaries.<ref name="PiomelliCannabis18">{{cite journal |title=Cannabis and the Opioid Crisis |journal=Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research |author=Piomelli, D.; Weiss, S.; Boyd, G. et al. |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=108-16 |year=2018 |doi=10.1089/can.2018.29011.rtl |pmid=29789812 |pmc=PMC5931647}}</ref>  


Assuming the Trump administration acts on campaign promises—and signs point to the administration at least being on spoken record of supporting medical marijuana and associated research<ref name="MPPTrumpMMJ">{{cite web |url=https://www.mpp.org/federal/trump-marijuana-policy/ |title=Trump on Marijuana Policy |publisher=Marijuana Policy Project |date=12 February 2017 |accessdate=03 March 2017}}</ref>—researchers may eventually have more options for acquiring research-quality cannabis in the future. This should in turn allow researchers a shot at more focused studies that provide efficacy and safety data related to the medical use of cannabis.<ref name="Romza-KutzTheSilver16" /> In fact, this has been a goal of Dr. Susan Weiss, Division Director of Extramural Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for some time. In July 2016 testimony to the U.S. Judiciary Committee<ref name="WeissTestimony16">{{cite web |url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504180135/https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |title=Testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D. on The State of the Science on the Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana and Cannabinoids before Judiciary Committee |author=Weiss, S.R.B. |work=ASL Testimony |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |date=13 July 2016 |archivedate=04 May 2017 |accessdate=08 January 2020}}</ref> and in an April 2017 research paper published in ''The International Journal of Drug Policy''<ref name="WeissBuilding17">{{cite journal |title=Building smart cannabis policy from the science up |journal=International Journal of Drug Policy |author=Weiss, S.R.B.; Howlett, K.D.; Baler, R.D. |volume=42 |pages=39–49 |year=2017 |doi=10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.01.007 |pmid=28189459 |pmc=PMC5404989 }}</ref>, Weiss cautiously recognized and promoted the need for further evidence-based cannabis research, emphasizing both the healthy and detrimental effects evident so far in the plant and its constituents. She said of recent federal actions towards this goal<ref name="WeissTestimony16" />:
Assuming the Trump administration acts on campaign promises—and signs point to the administration at least being on spoken record of supporting medical marijuana and associated research<ref name="MPPTrumpMMJ">{{cite web |url=https://www.mpp.org/federal/trump-marijuana-policy/ |title=Trump on Marijuana Policy |publisher=Marijuana Policy Project |date=12 February 2017 |accessdate=03 March 2017}}</ref>—researchers may eventually have more options for acquiring research-quality cannabis in the future. This should in turn allow researchers a shot at more focused studies that provide efficacy and safety data related to the medical use of cannabis.<ref name="Romza-KutzTheSilver16" /> In fact, this has been a goal of Dr. Susan Weiss, Division Director of Extramural Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for some time. In July 2016 testimony to the U.S. Judiciary Committee<ref name="WeissTestimony16">{{cite web |url=https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170504180135/https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html |title=Testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D. on The State of the Science on the Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana and Cannabinoids before Judiciary Committee |author=Weiss, S.R.B. |work=ASL Testimony |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |date=13 July 2016 |archivedate=04 May 2017 |accessdate=07 July 2021}}</ref> and in an April 2017 research paper published in ''The International Journal of Drug Policy''<ref name="WeissBuilding17">{{cite journal |title=Building smart cannabis policy from the science up |journal=International Journal of Drug Policy |author=Weiss, S.R.B.; Howlett, K.D.; Baler, R.D. |volume=42 |pages=39–49 |year=2017 |doi=10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.01.007 |pmid=28189459 |pmc=PMC5404989 }}</ref>, Weiss cautiously recognized and promoted the need for further evidence-based cannabis research, emphasizing both the healthy and detrimental effects evident so far in the plant and its constituents. She said of recent federal actions towards this goal<ref name="WeissTestimony16" />:


<blockquote>Multiple agencies ([[National Institutes of Health|NIH]], ONDCP, DEA, and FDA) are working together to find ways to streamline the process to facilitate research while meeting international and legislative obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the [[Controlled Substances Act]]. In addition to actions taken by the Department of Health and Humans Services to eliminate the Public Health Services (PHS) committee review for non-federally funded marijuana research, the DEA recently streamlined the administrative process for CBD research to allow researchers to obtain a waiver of the requirement for review of changes to an approved protocol in their DEA research registrations, and is attempting to address the marijuana diversity and product development concern by licensing additional manufacturers.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Multiple agencies ([[National Institutes of Health|NIH]], ONDCP, DEA, and FDA) are working together to find ways to streamline the process to facilitate research while meeting international and legislative obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the [[Controlled Substances Act]]. In addition to actions taken by the Department of Health and Humans Services to eliminate the Public Health Services (PHS) committee review for non-federally funded marijuana research, the DEA recently streamlined the administrative process for CBD research to allow researchers to obtain a waiver of the requirement for review of changes to an approved protocol in their DEA research registrations, and is attempting to address the marijuana diversity and product development concern by licensing additional manufacturers.</blockquote>

Revision as of 16:26, 9 July 2021

5. Future of cannabis regulation, testing, and market trends

5.1 Regulation, market, and research

Medical cannabis demo 2.JPG

On February 23, 2017, then White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer indicated for the first time that the Trump administration would indeed be ramping up enforcement in states that have legalized recreational marijuana use, stating "I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement," adding that "there’s a big difference between the medical use ... that’s very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice will be further looking into."[1] Five days later, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions continued to send pessimistic signals, stating he was "dubious about marijuana," and that "[w]e have a responsibility to use our best judgment ... and my view is we don’t need to be legalizing marijuana."[2] Several days later, seemingly in response to both Spicer's and Sessions' comments, 11 U.S. senators sent a letter to Sessions asking him to keep in mind Trump's campaign promises of letting states decide their own fate on legalization efforts.[3] Encouraging responses to these and other requests (e.g., rescheduling, expanded grow operations, expanded research) remain elusive, however, particularly due to an administration that seems to at best provide conflicting statements about the future of federal marijuana policy and at worst actively try to deceive the American people with misinformation and lies.[4][5][6]

Until effective and demonstrable policy change takes place in the U.S. federal government concerning marijuana, researchers, doctors, patients, laboratory personnel, and entrepreneurs will have to keep fighting uncertainty and a convoluted patchwork of state and federal regulations. More certain is mounting evidence that a growing majority of U.S. voters believe the federal government should not be enforcing its laws in such states: 64 percent agreed on this in 2012[7], rising to 71 percent in 2017.[8] Despite such support, it may largely be up to the states in the future to twist the arm of the federal government. Legal representatives at Thompson Coburn expressed this idea well in a blog post in November 2016[9]:

The cannabis industry may have to consider forcing the federal hand by providing credible data on the safety of cannabis as it was invited to do in the DEA decision, in addition to the continuing to support the groundswell of approval at the state level. At some point, in the near future, the state regulatory position and the federal position will have to be reconciled. The industry can and should prompt that reconciliation by a clear united message to federal lawmakers. Without that, it remains unlikely that agencies, such as the FDA, will change its position on cannabis. A lack of change will inhibit market growth and prevent the cannabis industry from reaching its potential.

The obvious issue of expanding research and testing on cannabis and addressing its safety is acquiring the product within a legal framework and a reasonable time frame. As mentioned previously, the DEA has recognized the need for more federally approved growers than the NIDA center at the University of Mississippi (which came under fire in March 2017 for not testing its provided samples for mold and other contaminants in any standardized fashion[10]), and in 2016 they began accepting applications for additional entities looking to grow marijuana for researchers.[11] However, as of March 2020, no new growers have been federally approved. Additionally, complaints have been leveled at the University of Mississippi facility by researchers for not providing enough diversified samples that are more representative of what people are purchasing from dispensaries.[12]

Assuming the Trump administration acts on campaign promises—and signs point to the administration at least being on spoken record of supporting medical marijuana and associated research[13]—researchers may eventually have more options for acquiring research-quality cannabis in the future. This should in turn allow researchers a shot at more focused studies that provide efficacy and safety data related to the medical use of cannabis.[9] In fact, this has been a goal of Dr. Susan Weiss, Division Director of Extramural Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for some time. In July 2016 testimony to the U.S. Judiciary Committee[14] and in an April 2017 research paper published in The International Journal of Drug Policy[15], Weiss cautiously recognized and promoted the need for further evidence-based cannabis research, emphasizing both the healthy and detrimental effects evident so far in the plant and its constituents. She said of recent federal actions towards this goal[14]:

Multiple agencies (NIH, ONDCP, DEA, and FDA) are working together to find ways to streamline the process to facilitate research while meeting international and legislative obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Controlled Substances Act. In addition to actions taken by the Department of Health and Humans Services to eliminate the Public Health Services (PHS) committee review for non-federally funded marijuana research, the DEA recently streamlined the administrative process for CBD research to allow researchers to obtain a waiver of the requirement for review of changes to an approved protocol in their DEA research registrations, and is attempting to address the marijuana diversity and product development concern by licensing additional manufacturers.

Another recent and significant body of research that may have future influence on cannabis research itself is a massive January 2017 cannabis literature review published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This 440-page report detailed the National Academies' findings after reviewing more than 10,700 abstracts related to cannabis. Among its final recommendations, the authors called for[16]:

  • public and private entities to fund and support a national cannabis research initiative that looks to fill key knowledge gaps;
  • government agencies to develop research methods and standards that may act as a guide towards higher-quality cannabis research;
  • government agencies, non-profit associations, and state and local health departments to fund and support efforts to improve federal, state, and local public health surveillance systems and efforts; and
  • government, non-government, and industry entities to work together towards developing a report on existing regulatory barriers to research and how to overcome them.

In January 2020, the topic of needing more legitimate cannabis sources for cannabis research was brought up yet again, this time in the context of an official hearing exclusively on cannabis by the House Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, titled "Cannabis Policies for the New Decade." The hearing provided an opportunity for legislators to discuss the "catch-22" of regulation and medical research: "Research is restricted because cannabis is currently considered a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substance Act, yet more research would better determine if marijuana should be rescheduled or descheduled."[17] Lawmakers and witnesses both agreed that another limiter was having the University of Mississippi as the sole DEA-approved supplier of research-quality cannabis.

While the growing discussion on research is encouraging, some researchers such as Mayo Clinic psychiatrist and researcher Michael Bostwick have historically been less convinced that the barriers will fall—claiming federal entities shift too much focus on the detrimental effects and not enough on the potential benefits—and aren't optimistic about the direction the Trump administration will take.[18] Despite this pessimism, predictions of substantial revenues in states where recreational marijuana is legalized or could be legalized persist.[19][20][21] The latest national estimates by market research and analytics company New Frontier Data put the U.S. marijuana industry at $24 billion by 2025[22], with 400,000 total jobs expected by 2021.[23] Yet entities such as the Denver-based Marijuana Policy Group and cannabis law firm Vicente Sederberg LLC preach caution when dealing with tax revenue estimates and economic projections in the U.S. cannabis market[22], pointing to CIBC World Markets' grossly inflated tax revenue estimate of $142 CAD ($106 USD) per resident in January 2016, an overshot of about 300 percent.[24] "This is a fast-paced, changing market with varying different dynamics that have more to do based on governmental and regulatory dynamics than they do on consumer dynamics," said Vicente Sederberg's director of economics and research Andrew Livingston.[22]

Indeed, current and future regulatory dynamics seem to be the biggest wildcards in making market-based predictions, with predicted tax and associated revenue estimates capable of both being significantly too high (by inadequately taking into account local and regional cultural and economic statuses) or too low (by not anticipating new states legalization efforts, research breakthroughs, or ties to other mainstream but related industries).[22][24] Additionally, too much regulation can put a stranglehold on a state's cannabis program development—as it has done in Minnesota[25]—causing related grow-ops and laboratories to take significant losses or even go out of business.

Finally, on a social level, the push by many to legalize marijuana and, by extension, push for beneficial changes in federal marijuana policy, has been driven even further by dramatic increase in use of and health consequences surrounding opioids in the United States.[12][26][27][28] What's not clear is how effective a replacement cannabis would be. Dr. Weiss again provides context, this time in the February 2018 workshop Cannabis and the opioid crisis: A multidisciplinary review[12]:

I think we need to be very circumspect in what we are expecting from cannabis with respect to the opioid epidemic. There is no doubt that there are many patients suffering from pain, and we do not have a lot of options to treat it, especially chronic pain. Moreover, the cannabinoid system has a lot of promise regarding analgesic potential and alternative medication approaches. Whether it is the plant, components of the plant, or other strategies to modify endocannabinoid function—these are all possibilities that we need to explore to both help abate the opioid crisis and treat patients with pain who continue to suffer.

From that same workshop, several additional insights were revealed[12]:

  • The National Academies' 2017 research recognizes "the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance [as something] that impedes the advancement of cannabis and cannabinoid research." Getting past that will require the federal government living up to its 2016 promise to expand approved grow-ops.
  • Getting marijuana rescheduled is further challenged by the fact that an entire plant and its constituents are scheduled. Difficulties arise because when we talk about rescheduling marijuana, the question has to be asked: "Are you talking about a plant that is mostly THC, that is mostly CBD (cannabidiol), that has unspecified different components in it?"
  • A major question remains concerning "whether cannabinoids and opioids interact at a pharmacological level." To further study this, not only do well organized studies need to be designed, but also, as previously mentioned, access to quality samples and a willingness to see the benefit in such research is still required.

As of February 2020, the Marijuana Data Collection Act is still making its way through the legal quagmire, stuck in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.[29] Citing many of the previously mentioned issues and more, the proposed bill asks for the National Academy of Sciences "to conduct and update biennially a study on the effects of State legalized marijuana programs," among other tasks. Specifically the research would look at revenue impacts, medicinal use and safety, correlation with opioid abuse, criminal justice impacts, and employment impacts.[30][31] Whether or not this bill passes, one may argue that its intent is inline with the sentiment of representatives at Thompson Coburn: "forcing the federal hand by providing credible data on the safety of cannabis."[9]

  1. ↑ Kumar, A.; Hotokainen, R. (23 February 2017). "Trump administration plans crackdown on recreational marijuana". McClatchy DC. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article134608704.html. Retrieved 02 March 2017. 
  2. ↑ Wheeler, L. (28 February 2017). "Sessions: 'We don't need to be legalizing marijuana'". The Hill. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/321525-sessions-we-dont-need-to-be-legalizing-marijuana. Retrieved 02 March 2017. 
  3. ↑ Hotokainen, R. (2 March 2017). "11 senators call on Trump team to allow sale of recreational marijuana". McClatchy DC. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article135996463.html. Retrieved 02 March 2017. 
  4. ↑ Holden, D. (29 August 2018). "Inside The Trump Administration’s Secret War On Weed". BuzzFeed News. BuzzFeed, Inc. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/trump-secret-committee-anti-marijuana?link_id=1&can_id=b87b7ccc1b21da88de179c339ca74652. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  5. ↑ Laslo, M. (30 August 2018). "Why Is the White House Contradicting Trump’s Pot Policy?". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, LLC. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-is-the-white-house-contradicting-trumps-pot-policy-717524/. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  6. ↑ Laslo, M. (5 October 2018). "Congress Is Getting Frustrated With the White House’s Pot Policy". Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, LLC. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/weed-pot-policy-white-house-congress-trump-733285/. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  7. ↑ Newport, F. (10 December 2012). "Americans Want Federal Gov't Out of State Marijuana Laws". Gallup, Inc. http://www.gallup.com/poll/159152/americans-federal-gov-state-marijuana-laws.aspx. Retrieved 02 March 2017. 
  8. ↑ "Republicans Out Of Step With U.S. Voters On Key Issues, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Voters Support Legalized Marijuana". Quinnipiac University. 23 February 2017. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2432. Retrieved 02 March 2017. 
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Romza-Kutz, D.; Roth V., F. (15 August 2016). "The silver lining in the DEA’s refusal to reclassify cannabis". Tracking Cannabis. Thompson Coburn LLP. http://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/tracking-cannabis/post/2016-08-15/the-silver-lining-in-the-dea-s-refusal-to-reclassify-cannabis. Retrieved 25 January 2017. 
  10. ↑ Hellerman, C. (8 March 2017). "Scientists say the government’s only pot farm has moldy samples — and no federal testing standards". PBS NewsHour. NewsHour Productions, LLC. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/scientists-say-governments-pot-farm-moldy-samples-no-guidelines/. Retrieved 15 March 2017. 
  11. ↑ "Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States". Federal Register 81 (156): 53846–8. 12 August 2016. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/12/2016-17955/applications-to-become-registered-under-the-controlled-substances-act-to-manufacture-marijuana-to. Retrieved 27 January 2017. 
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Piomelli, D.; Weiss, S.; Boyd, G. et al. (2018). "Cannabis and the Opioid Crisis". Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research 3 (1): 108-16. doi:10.1089/can.2018.29011.rtl. PMC PMC5931647. PMID 29789812. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5931647. 
  13. ↑ "Trump on Marijuana Policy". Marijuana Policy Project. 12 February 2017. https://www.mpp.org/federal/trump-marijuana-policy/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Weiss, S.R.B. (13 July 2016). "Testimony from Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D. on The State of the Science on the Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana and Cannabinoids before Judiciary Committee". ASL Testimony. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Archived from the original on 04 May 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20170504180135/https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2016-09/the-state-of-the-science-on-the-therapeutic-potential-of-marijuana-and-cannabinoids/index.html. Retrieved 07 July 2021. 
  15. ↑ Weiss, S.R.B.; Howlett, K.D.; Baler, R.D. (2017). "Building smart cannabis policy from the science up". International Journal of Drug Policy 42: 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.01.007. PMC PMC5404989. PMID 28189459. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5404989. 
  16. ↑ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (12 January 2017). "The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research". The National Academies Press. pp. 440. doi:10.17226/24625. http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  17. ↑ Smith, J. (15 January 2020). "US House panel calls for stepped-up marijuana research, which could prove critical to federal reform". Marijuana Business Daily. https://mjbizdaily.com/us-house-panel-calls-for-stepped-up-marijuana-research-which-could-prove-critical-to-federal-reform/. Retrieved 18 February 2020. 
  18. ↑ Grant, B. (23 January 2017). "Marijuana Research Still Stymied by Federal Laws". The Scientist. LabX Media Group. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/48122/title/Marijuana-Research-Still-Stymied-by-Federal-Laws/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  19. ↑ Morris, C. (21 October 2016). "The next big billion-dollar cannabis markets investors are rushing to". CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/21/the-next-big-billion-dollar-cannabis-markets-investors-are-rushing-to.html. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  20. ↑ Thomas, J.R. (7 February 2017). "Big pot of money waiting if CT legalizes marijuana, analysts say". The CT Mirror. The Connecticut News Project. http://ctmirror.org/2017/02/07/big-pot-of-money-waiting-if-ct-legalizes-marijuana-analysts-say/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  21. ↑ Houghton, S. (14 February 2017). "Town Manager: Marijuana Shops Could Boost Tax Revenue". The Mashpee Enterprise. Enterprise Newspapers. http://www.capenews.net/mashpee/news/town-manager-marijuana-shops-could-boost-tax-revenue/article_c27b9b71-fb63-52de-bc24-fda320f38a32.html. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 Wallace, A. (22 February 2017). "Report: America’s marijuana industry headed for $24 billion by 2025". The Cannabist. The Denver Post. http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/02/22/report-united-states-marijuana-sales-projections-2025/74059/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  23. ↑ dispensaries.com (15 February 2018). "Cannabis Industry Likely to Employ More Than 400,000 By 2021, Study Projects". GreenEntrepreneur. https://www.greenentrepreneur.com/article/309022. Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Wallace, A. (22 December 2016). "What legal states need to know about sketchy pot tax predictions". The Cannabist. The Denver Post. http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/12/22/marijuana-sales-pot-taxes-colorado-estimates-projections/69831/. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  25. ↑ Potter, K. (12 August 2016). "Big losses for Minn. medical marijuana providers". MPR News. Minnesota Public Radio. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/08/12/big-losses-for-minn-medical-marijuana-providers. Retrieved 03 March 2017. 
  26. ↑ Bradford, A.S.; Abraham, A.; Adams, G.B. (2018). "Opioid Death Rate Acceleration in Jurisdictions Legalizing Marijuana Use—Reply". JAMA Internal Medicine 178 (9): 1281–2. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3891. 
  27. ↑ Goldman, H. (13 July 2018). "New York Health Officials See Marijuana as an Alternative to Opioids". Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-13/n-y-health-officials-see-marijuana-as-an-alternative-to-opioids. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  28. ↑ Sukel, K. (1 May 2018). "Could Cannabis Legalization Help Ease the Opioid Crisis?". Pain Research Forum. International Association for the Study of Pain. https://www.painresearchforum.org/news/95694-could-cannabis-legalization-help-ease-opioid-crisis. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  29. ↑ "All Actions H.R.1587 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)". Congress.gov. U.S. Government. 8 April 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1587/all-actions?overview=closed&KWICView=false. Retrieved 25 February 2020. 
  30. ↑ Gabbard, T. (24 July 2018). "H.R.6495 - Marijuana Data Collection Act". Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6495/text. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
  31. ↑ Angell, T. (24 July 2018). "Federal Report On Marijuana Legalization Required Under New Bill". Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomangell/2018/07/24/federal-report-on-marijuana-legalization-required-under-new-bill/#41b953e73532. Retrieved 15 November 2018. 
Retrieved from "https://www.cannaqa.wiki/index.php?title=Template:Past,_Present,_and_Future_of_Cannabis_Laboratory_Testing_and_Regulation_in_the_United_States/Future_of_cannabis_regulation,_testing,_and_market_trends/Regulation,_market,_and_research&oldid=17008"