The Michigan Cannabis Industry Association endorsed John James for governor this week. James opposed recreational legalization when Michigan voters passed it in 2018. He’s now the industry’s preferred candidate, because he’s promising to repeal a 24% wholesale tax that’s strangling licensed operators.
That endorsement tells you more about where cannabis actually is than any poll or ballot measure. The industry has stopped asking who likes marijuana and started asking who understands margins.
Look at the rest of today’s feed and the same pattern shows up everywhere. Congress wants to stop treating old weed use as an automatic federal employment problem. Researchers followed chronic back-pain patients for a decade and found opioid consumption fell roughly 90%. Iowa’s Democratic nominee for governor is pitching legalization as basic fiscal math, not criminal justice. North Carolina voters want medical, probably recreational, hemp THC kept legal, and an age floor at 21. Congress is trying to get cannabis businesses access to ordinary insurance. And the American Legion wants the VA to build psychedelic treatment infrastructure before the therapies get approved.
Cannabis doesn’t need another cultural breakthrough. It needs the boring plumbing every other industry takes for granted. Let me walk you through it.
Congress wants to stop old weed use from killing federal careers.
Millions of Americans live where cannabis is legal, and some of those same people still hit walls seeking a federal job or security clearance because they used it years ago. Reps. Jamie Raskin and Zach Nunn introduced the Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility Act, the CURE Act, on Thursday. It would bar past marijuana use from determining suitability for federal employment or clearance eligibility.
The retrospective piece is the more interesting half. Within a year of enactment, agencies would have to build processes for reviewing previous denials tied to marijuana use going back to January 1, 2008. That’s not just prospective reform, that’s institutional repair.
The national-security argument deserves real engagement, not dismissal. Clearance investigations exist to assess judgment, reliability, honesty, and vulnerability to coercion, and illegal drug activity can genuinely bear on all four. But historical cannabis use becomes a weaker proxy for those concerns every year that states legalize and federal policy shifts.
A 25-year-old engineer who legally used cannabis in Colorado four years ago isn’t a national-security threat. And punitive rules create their own problem: they teach applicants to conceal, which produces worse security information than honest disclosure would.
For anyone working in the DMV, the labor-market angle lands close to home. The region holds an enormous cleared workforce, recruiting technical talent is already brutal, and government competes directly with defense contractors, tech firms, banks, and consultancies for the same people. Artificially shrinking that candidate pool over old marijuana use raises labor costs and slows hiring. So the CURE Act may matter well beyond cannabis, reaching into the economics of federal contracting itself. And there’s a normalization point worth naming: we usually measure progress in legalization statistics, but cultural normalization is really when marijuana stops functioning as a permanent mark against someone’s professional credibility.
The bottom line: The question is whether past marijuana use should outweigh current qualifications. The biggest beneficiaries may not be consumers, they may be agencies and contractors that get access to a larger talent pool.
Ten years of data, and opioid use fell about 90%.
Medical cannabis research has no shortage of short studies. Ten-year data is rare. Researchers affiliated with Tel Aviv University, Rabin Medical Center, and Clalit Health Services followed chronic lower-back pain patients over a decade, initially enrolling 1,000 cannabis-naive patients through a specialized orthopedic pain clinic, tracking pain, disability, and medication use.
The headline number is striking. Measured in morphine milligram equivalents, opioid consumption dropped roughly 90% over the study period, with most of that happening fast in year one and holding steady through year ten. Pain intensity fell a reported 84%, and functional disability declined about 30%.
Context matters, and I’ll give it plainly. Long-term observational research isn’t a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Patients change over a decade, people drop out, other interventions happen, formulations and doses vary. Nobody should turn this into a claim that cannabis universally replaces opioids.
But duration is the whole point. The standard critique of cannabis research is that studies are too small or too short. Ten years of follow-up answers a different question: does the improvement persist? Here it did, stabilizing after year one and staying there.
That makes it unusually relevant to chronic-pain policy, since lower-back pain is one of the most common chronic complaints and a major on-ramp to long-term opioid therapy. The commercial angle is worth noting too, because medical cannabis has an identity crisis once adult-use arrives, why maintain a separate medical system when anyone over 21 can buy? Research like this is the answer. Medical cannabis stays defensible when it produces measurable outcomes: pain scores, functional improvement, reduced opioid use, sleep, quality of life. Those metrics move cannabis from retail toward healthcare. And for payers, opioid reduction could eventually matter financially, since chronic opioid therapy carries costs well beyond the prescription, monitoring, side effects, dependency, overdose risk, emergency care, lost productivity. Getting there requires far stronger evidence, standardized dosing, formulation studies, adverse-event tracking, and understanding which patients respond. The industry should welcome those requirements rather than resist them.
The bottom line: The most important number isn’t 90%. It’s ten years. Cannabis medicine needs long-duration evidence showing what happens after the novelty wears off, and this is an unusually long window.
Iowa’s Democratic nominee is selling legalization as a budget fix.
Iowa’s cannabis debate is turning into a budget debate. Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rob Sand says legalizing could help the state dodge a looming fiscal problem while generating revenue for education and public safety. At a Dallas County town hall Wednesday, responding to a voter who argued Iowa is losing marijuana revenue to surrounding states, Sand’s answer was simple: treat it like alcohol. He called legalization a “no-brainer.”
The interstate leakage argument keeps getting stronger in prohibition states, because consumers don’t stop buying just because their state won’t license stores. They buy illicitly, drive across borders, or source from legal neighbors.
Prohibition produces a strange result. The home state keeps the enforcement and social costs while neighboring states collect the commerce. The question stops being “does Iowa want marijuana” and becomes “where does Iowa want existing demand to happen?”
The alcohol comparison is politically useful because voters already understand that framework, legal adult access, age limits, taxation, licensed sellers, product rules, impaired-driving enforcement. Cannabis doesn’t have to be harmless for legalization to make sense, since alcohol certainly isn’t. The real question is whether prohibition manages risk better than controlled access. And Iowa’s late entry could actually be an advantage, because Colorado demonstrated rapid commercialization, California showed how taxes and local bans preserve illicit competition, Michigan showed what oversupply does to wholesale prices, Illinois showed what restricted licensing does to pricing. Iowa doesn’t have to invent any of this. The biggest mistake would be treating cannabis tax revenue as free money, since taxes set too high strengthen unlicensed sellers, fees set too high squeeze small business, scarcity inflates license values, and oversupply kills margins. Build a sustainable market first, and revenue follows.
The bottom line: The demand already exists. The real decision is whether Iowa wants it generating regulated businesses and tax revenue inside Iowa, which is why the fiscal argument may outperform the ideological one.
North Carolina voters just handed lawmakers a policy blueprint.
A new Elon University poll of 1,121 North Carolina adults found 75% support medical cannabis legalization against just 11% opposed, and 55% favor recreational legalization with 30% opposed. Partisan splits are wide, with medical drawing 89% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans, while recreational pulls 74% Democratic support and only 33% Republican. On hemp, 53% say intoxicating products like THC seltzers and gummies should stay legal versus 28% for prohibition. And 82% want hemp consumables restricted to 21 and up.
That last number may be the most useful in the whole poll.
This isn’t a confused electorate. Legalize it, regulate it, keep it away from kids. Voters aren’t picking between prohibition and a free-for-all, they’re describing a regulated adult market.
North Carolina currently sits in one of the strangest positions in American cannabis policy, with marijuana broadly prohibited outside tribal territory while intoxicating hemp products sit in ordinary retail. That’s regulatory inversion, where a dispensary-style product is illegal and a chemically similar hemp product is on a convenience-store shelf. Governor Josh Stein has argued repeatedly for comprehensive regulation, and his advisory council has warned the unregulated cannabinoid market creates consumer-protection problems. For legitimate businesses, regulation can actually create value, because age verification, testing, packaging standards, licensing, and traceability raise costs while making it harder for low-quality operators to compete purely on price. The hemp industry should be careful about framing every new rule as prohibition, since the political center is clearly “regulate, don’t eliminate.” The state’s medical politics remain frustrating, with the Senate repeatedly willing to advance legislation and the House acting as the bottleneck, though federal rescheduling has shifted the environment enough that the Senate president pro tempore recently suggested lawmakers will take medical more seriously.
The bottom line: North Carolina voters aren’t demanding deregulation, they’re demanding coherent regulation. Three quarters want medical, a majority wants adult-use, a majority wants hemp preserved, and eight in ten want a 21-plus rule. That’s a blueprint.
The insurance bill nobody’s talking about may matter more than banking.
Cannabis finance conversations always start with banking. They should probably start one step earlier, with insurance. Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Warren Davidson filed the bipartisan Clarifying Law Around Insurance of Marijuana Act, the CLAIM Act, this week, protecting insurers, brokers, and agents from federal penalties for serving state-legal marijuana businesses. Sens. Kevin Cramer and Ruben Gallego filed a Senate version earlier this year, making this the fourth consecutive Congress to take up cannabis insurance. The concept is simple: if a business operates legally under state law, federal regulators shouldn’t punish an insurer for covering it.
Sounds narrow. Commercially it’s enormous, and this is the piece I think gets most underrated.
Lenders don’t just ask whether a borrower can repay. They ask what happens if the building burns down, if inventory is destroyed, if someone is injured, if title gets disputed. Insurance sits underneath credit. Without it, a perfectly profitable business becomes unfinanceable.
Picture an $8 million cultivation facility that burns. If property coverage is thin because cannabis-specific risk limited availability, borrower and lender both eat catastrophic losses. The CLAIM Act would bar federal agencies from penalizing insurers, protect them from being pushed to terminate coverage over cannabis exposure, protect insurer employees, and order a GAO study of marketplace barriers including access for minority- and women-owned businesses. For anyone underwriting commercial credit, this is arguably as important as SAFE Banking, because banking access without insurance access is an incomplete financial system. A cannabis borrower needs depository services, payments, credit, insurance, payroll, treasury management, and merchant services, and the industry only becomes conventional when none of those require a workaround. Insurance also improves public safety, since a properly insured company can recover from disaster, workers get protection, landlords can require standard coverage, and risk gets transferred instead of parked on the balance sheet. Federal rescheduling makes the gap harder to defend, with qualifying state-licensed medical cannabis moving into Schedule III while financial-service providers still navigate rules built around Schedule I.
The bottom line: Banking can’t fully normalize without insurance. When cannabis businesses buy boring policies from boring insurers on boring commercial terms, normalization will be much further along than any legalization headline suggests.
The American Legion wants the VA to build psychedelic infrastructure before approval arrives.
One of the country’s largest veterans organizations has moved past asking government to research psychedelics. It wants government building the delivery system. The American Legion, representing more than 1.2 million members, adopted a resolution supporting the Veterans Health Administration Novel Therapeutics Preparedness Act, which would create a dedicated VA Office of Novel Therapeutics and establish at least one Center of Excellence in every VA regional district. The resolution cites promising evidence for psychedelic-assisted treatment of PTSD, anxiety, and depression, alongside the enormous unmet need among veterans including high suicide rates.
But the bill is really about implementation, and that’s what makes it notable. Psychedelic medicine may need far more infrastructure than conventional outpatient psychiatry: preparation, medical screening, long supervised sessions, interdisciplinary teams, dedicated rooms, post-treatment integration, peer support, emergency protocols, insurance coverage.
Imagine approving an effective therapy for treatment-resistant PTSD when almost no clinicians or facilities can administer it. The medicine exists. Access doesn’t. That’s the bottleneck this bill is trying to prevent.
Centers of Excellence would develop national treatment models, a veteran advisory committee would weigh in on access and safety, and the VA would coordinate with HHS, FDA, CMS, the Defense Department, and DEA on scheduling and coverage. For investors, this is where the psychedelic thesis gets interesting, because the molecule may not be the scarce asset, delivery capacity may be. A clinic that can safely treat hundreds of patients with trained clinicians, documented protocols, reimbursement, and measurable outcomes could be worth more than a company owning another compound. That’s familiar healthcare economics, closer to dialysis centers and infusion clinics than cannabis retail. And the VA could become one of the world’s most important psychedelic healthcare systems precisely because it already has the patients, clinicians, facilities, integrated records, and federal funding. The political weight matters too, since this isn’t a counterculture group asking to loosen drug laws, it’s a mainstream veterans institution asking government to prepare for medicine.
The bottom line: Approval without clinicians isn’t access. Approval without facilities isn’t access. Approval without reimbursement isn’t access. Psychedelics have a chance to build the system before demand overwhelms it, which is exactly what cannabis failed to do.
Patients are already moving past THC and CBD, and Reddit shows where.
The industry spent a decade teaching consumers two acronyms. Patients may already be moving beyond both. Data scientist and public-health researcher Sunehera Hasib analyzed nearly 18,000 posts and comments across major Reddit cannabis communities, looking at how people describe experiences with THC, CBD, CBG, CBN, and CBC.
The limitations are real and the author names them: self-reported, anonymous, unverified products, no standardized dosage, no placebo group. This is not clinical research. But it offers something trials usually don’t, a window into what patients experiment with when nobody designs the experiment for them. Among posts with a clear reported outcome, 84.6% described positive experiences. The minor cannabinoids showed particularly sharp patterns, with CBG inflammation posts running 40 out of 40 positive, CBG pain discussions at 97.1% positive (67 of 69), CBN sleep posts at 95.3% (122 of 128), and CBG anxiety posts at 90.1% (73 of 81).
Do not read those as efficacy rates. Reddit users aren’t randomly selected, people with strong experiences post more, labels may be inaccurate, and people stack cannabinoids constantly.
Science doesn’t always start in a lab. Sometimes observation tells researchers what deserves testing. If hundreds of people independently reach for CBN to sleep, that’s a hypothesis worth funding.
The commercial implication is the interesting part. The market is heavily commoditized around THC percentage, and CBD went the opposite direction into product proliferation with thin evidence and inflated claims. Minor cannabinoids offer a chance to do it in the right order: research first, define use cases, standardize formulations, then market. A product built around CBN and sleep should ideally have evidence on dose, duration, interaction with THC, next-day impairment, tolerance, and long-term use. If companies sprint from Reddit anecdotes to aggressive health claims, minor cannabinoids will simply repeat CBD’s credibility collapse. And for investors, cannabinoid diversification can create genuine intellectual property in specific ratios, delivery methods, formulations, and standardized extracts, which is real differentiation in a market where another high-THC flower brand has almost no moat.
The bottom line: Reddit can’t prove CBG treats pain or CBN improves sleep. It can tell researchers where patients are already looking. Smart companies treat these posts as a research roadmap, not medical evidence.
Michigan’s cannabis industry endorsed a Republican who voted against legalization.
The Michigan Cannabis Industry Association endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate John James, calling him the industry’s preferred choice because he’s promised to repeal or significantly reduce the state’s new wholesale marijuana tax. That tax is brutal: a 24% wholesale levy stacked on top of a 10% recreational excise tax and 6% sales tax. Advocates say the cumulative burden raises legal prices and makes licensed businesses less competitive against unregulated sellers.
Here’s what makes the endorsement remarkable. James opposed recreational legalization when Michigan voters approved it in 2018. Now a major cannabis trade association is backing him, and the reason is purely economic.
Mature industries stop voting ideologically. Oil companies don’t. Banks don’t. Manufacturers don’t. They evaluate tax rates, capital access, licensing, labor, and competitive conditions. Michigan cannabis just joined that club.
Michigan is an especially useful laboratory because rapid licensing and heavy production already drove wholesale prices down hard, which is great for consumers and brutal for operators. Businesses already dealing with margin compression have almost no capacity to absorb another major tax. And the illicit market breaks the normal playbook, because an ordinary consumer-product company can pass taxes through when competitors face the same burden, while a cannabis operator’s biggest competitor pays no cannabis tax, no sales tax, no licensing fee, no testing expense, and employs no compliance staff. Every additional legal-market cost widens that price gap until consumers respond. Which is why cannabis taxation should be designed around legal-market capture rather than theoretical revenue, since a lower rate on more legal transactions can beat a higher rate that pushes customers out of the system. For anyone underwriting these deals, Michigan is a textbook stress test: a borrower can have good management, strong sales, clean compliance, and real demand, and still watch debt-service coverage deteriorate because public policy changed the cost structure. Tax risk belongs in the credit memo, modeled alongside lower wholesale prices, margin compression, and reduced pricing power.
The bottom line: Cannabis going bipartisan may not happen because Republicans embrace marijuana. It happens because cannabis becomes a normal business constituency. Michigan’s industry isn’t asking which party legalized it. It’s asking which candidate keeps it alive.
Friday closing
Today’s insurance story may tell us more about normalization than another legalization vote, and the reason is that insurance is boring. That’s the point. A restaurant needs property coverage. A manufacturer needs casualty. Lenders and landlords require it. Nobody calls that financial innovation, it’s just infrastructure. Cannabis still has too many places where ordinary infrastructure becomes extraordinary the moment the word marijuana appears in the business plan, in banking, insurance, payments, taxes, employment, clearances, bankruptcy, interstate commerce, federal contracting.
The CURE Act captures the workforce version. America can’t normalize cannabis consumption across most of the country while permanently treating everyone who participated as professionally suspect. Clearances should absolutely examine judgment, and agencies should weigh genuinely relevant behavior, but a modern system has to distinguish real security risk from conduct that no longer carries the same legal or social meaning. Otherwise government just loses talent to the private sector. The back-pain study gives medical cannabis a different kind of infrastructure, which is evidence, because dispensary testimonials won’t mature this category. Outcomes will, and medical cannabis needs clinical results to stay meaningfully distinct from recreational once adult-use arrives. Iowa and North Carolina show what happens when public opinion outruns legislation, with voters no longer asking whether marijuana exists and instead asking why the system makes so little sense. Why is medical illegal while hemp gummies sit on the shelf? Why are consumers driving across state lines to spend money? Those are hard questions for prohibition to answer, and North Carolina’s polling is especially instructive because voters aren’t asking for a free-for-all, they’re asking for rules.
The American Legion offers the lesson cannabis should have learned a decade ago: build infrastructure before access overwhelms it. Don’t approve therapies without trained providers, don’t legalize products without testing capacity, don’t issue licenses without banking, don’t build a tax structure without considering illicit competition. Implementation is policy. And Michigan completes the picture, because a trade association backing a Republican who opposed legalization only looks surprising if you still think of cannabis as a movement rather than an industry. Cannabis spent decades asking America whether it would be allowed to exist, and the answer is increasingly yes. The harder question now is whether it can operate like a serious industry, insure its property, prove medical outcomes, manage taxes, protect consumers, satisfy federal regulators, and produce numbers investors can trust. Those aren’t movement questions. They’re business questions, and that’s progress. Cannabis becomes truly normalized when a commercial banker can open a credit memo, analyze the borrower, price the risk, confirm the insurance, close the loan, and nobody in the room thinks the industry itself is the unusual part.
That’s what this newsletter is for.
What’s the biggest regulatory challenge your operation is facing right now? Hit reply, I read every response and it shapes what I cover next week.
If this was useful, forward it to someone in the cannabis space or hit the restack button on Substack. It’s how this community grows.