fbpx

Ep.337: Jim Borghesani

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.337: Jim Borghesani

Ep.337: Jim Borghesani

Jim Borghesani returns as a follow-up to running the ballot initiative that passed in Massachusetts in 2016. He does review the days and weeks leading up to the vote and share what it was that in fact worked to capture the win. He mentions media endorsements of course didn’t hurt, but it was gathering the physician community together to share their support of medical cannabis that most likely had the biggest impact. Jim also notes that the opposition used the some old arguments which may have backfired in a state like Massachusetts. Of course, those same arguments worked to great affect in the state of Arizona on the same day- so go figure. Jim also gives an update on the state’s legislature’s actions before the vote and after and what to expect moving forward.

Transcript:

Speaker 1: Jim Borghesani returns as a followup to running the ballot initiative that passed in Massachusetts in 2016. He does review the days and weeks leading up to the vote and share what in fact it was that worked to capture the wind. He mentions media endorsements, of course, didn't hurt, but it was gathering the physician community together to share their support of medical cannabis that most likely had the biggest impact. Jim also notes that the opposition used the same old arguments which may have backfired in a state like Massachusetts. Of course, those same arguments worked to great effect in the state of Arizona on the same day. So go figure. And finally, Jim updates us on the state's legislature. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends in the word economy. Jim Barzani enough time for coffee, but not much else. All right, so Jim Borg is Ani. Uh, it's, I guess it's easier to pronounce than you would think if you were looking at the name on a piece of paper or something. Right?

Speaker 2: Luckily for me,

Speaker 1: yeah, it, it just, it seems like there might be some extra letters there, but you know, we'll leave that alone. I guess, right,

Speaker 2: I guess. Yeah,

Speaker 1: yeah. All right, so thanks for kind of checking back in with us. I last spoke to you before the vote and of course we know, you know, what happened and so I kinda wanted to get a sense from, from your perspective, you, you know, you, you ran the ballot initiative and it was successful. I guess just going back in time a little bit, um, to, to catch us up to now and then we'll talk about now and maybe even what you think about the future. How, how did it come to be that you actually had the votes? How confident were you going into an election day?

Speaker 2: Fairly confident that we have seen some overnight polling and some tracking polls that showed, um, things breaking our way. Uh, there was a fairly small undecided voters near the end of the campaign, which is just what you want. Um, and the, and the daily polls were telling us that the adapt the undecideds war breaking out away. Um, so there, there were some other things that happened. We got some, a few endorsements in the final weeks that helped for overall, I just think that we put together a good argument that Massachusetts voters used to when they went into the voting booth.

Speaker 1: Just quickly on those endorsements, who, who do you think kind of helped push it over the line? Understanding that what you're saying is that you might've been able to do it without these endorsements?

Speaker 2: Yeah. You know? Yeah. It's, it's, you know, political consultants go back and forth and whether endorsements help it all. We got a couple of people got a bunch of newspaper endorsements and the Boston Globe, which is the largest, the paper of record, the Massachusetts, they endorsed us. Several other newspapers endorsed. We've got the Senate presidents a two window us and that was fairly big. Yep. Then we had 100 doctors who did a press conference where we had, um, we're all 100 doctors, weren't there roughly at 100 doctors, medical doctors, um, sign a letter and sign endorsements, pledges. Um, and you know, that got quite a bit of publicity because a lot of people thought, well, if doctors are saying that this is not anything that's overly harmful, then you know, what are we so worried about? So, um, all of those things played a hand in it.

Speaker 1: Yeah, no, that all sounds great. I think I knew about the newspaper endorsements. I don't remember the, the doctor press conference. Forgive me for being a New Yorker about your Massachusetts News, if that makes sense. Right?

Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. Got that.

Speaker 1: As far as well,

Speaker 2: talk to the scene as, you know, some opinion leaders, people generally trust Dr. so that was good for us.

Speaker 1: Yeah, no, as far as doctors, I mean that is essentially, I was doing a little bit of self-loathing here for, for our program in New York. The, one of the main issues is that we do not have the physician community and we've introduced the fact that nurses can now um, you know, kind of give them a recommendation. How did you work through and understanding, it might not have been Jim and only jim doing this, but, but how did you set that up and how did you get that going? That sounds like a great idea for other states is my point.

Speaker 2: I would advise. It took a long time. It took us months to build up that list of doctors and I should point out the Dr Organization in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Medical Society, they officially opposed, but you know, their opposition was so shallow. It was, uh, so, um, the, the, the, the fact checking there was so sparse. It was all just the stereotypical things for hear all the time. Um, that it almost backfired on them. Contrast that to the California Medical Association. They actually looked at this and they came to the conclusion that prohibition was as much more harmful than, than candidates ever could be held at the societal danger of prohibition. The, the unequal enforcement, the ruined lives because of arrests and convictions. Um, so they took a real look at it. Riff and mass medical society just took this curse and look at it and came out with boiler plate stuff. We did, did. We put together a bunch of people and we just kept chasing doctors, you know, references. It took us about probably four months to, um, that's one of the things you do on a campaign and you just work on one project for a long time until you get a critical mass. We reached 100 doctors and we thought that was pretty, um, uh, you know, that was somewhat of a milestone for us.

Speaker 1: Jim Borghesani returns as a followup to running the ballot initiative that passed in Massachusetts in 2016. He does review the days and weeks leading up to the vote and share what in fact it was that worked to capture the wind. He mentions media endorsements, of course, didn't hurt, but it was gathering the physician community together to share their support of medical cannabis that most likely had the biggest impact. Jim also notes that the opposition used the same old arguments which may have backfired in a state like Massachusetts. Of course, those same arguments worked to great effect in the state of Arizona on the same day. So go figure. And finally, Jim updates us on the state's legislature. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the handle can economy. That's two ends in the word economy. Jim Barzani enough time for coffee, but not much else. All right, so Jim Borg is Ani. Uh, it's, I guess it's easier to pronounce than you would think if you were looking at the name on a piece of paper or something. Right?

Speaker 2: Luckily for me,

Speaker 1: yeah, it, it just, it seems like there might be some extra letters there, but you know, we'll leave that alone. I guess, right,

Speaker 2: I guess. Yeah,

Speaker 1: yeah. All right, so thanks for kind of checking back in with us. I last spoke to you before the vote and of course we know, you know, what happened and so I kinda wanted to get a sense from, from your perspective, you, you know, you, you ran the ballot initiative and it was successful. I guess just going back in time a little bit, um, to, to catch us up to now and then we'll talk about now and maybe even what you think about the future. How, how did it come to be that you actually had the votes? How confident were you going into an election day?

Speaker 2: Fairly confident that we have seen some overnight polling and some tracking polls that showed, um, things breaking our way. Uh, there was a fairly small undecided voters near the end of the campaign, which is just what you want. Um, and the, and the daily polls were telling us that the adapt the undecideds war breaking out away. Um, so there, there were some other things that happened. We got some, a few endorsements in the final weeks that helped for overall, I just think that we put together a good argument that Massachusetts voters used to when they went into the voting booth.

Speaker 1: Just quickly on those endorsements, who, who do you think kind of helped push it over the line? Understanding that what you're saying is that you might've been able to do it without these endorsements?

Speaker 2: Yeah. You know? Yeah. It's, it's, you know, political consultants go back and forth and whether endorsements help it all. We got a couple of people got a bunch of newspaper endorsements and the Boston Globe, which is the largest, the paper of record, the Massachusetts, they endorsed us. Several other newspapers endorsed. We've got the Senate presidents a two window us and that was fairly big. Yep. Then we had 100 doctors who did a press conference where we had, um, we're all 100 doctors, weren't there roughly at 100 doctors, medical doctors, um, sign a letter and sign endorsements, pledges. Um, and you know, that got quite a bit of publicity because a lot of people thought, well, if doctors are saying that this is not anything that's overly harmful, then you know, what are we so worried about? So, um, all of those things played a hand in it.

Speaker 1: Yeah, no, that all sounds great. I think I knew about the newspaper endorsements. I don't remember the, the doctor press conference. Forgive me for being a New Yorker about your Massachusetts News, if that makes sense. Right?

Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. Got that.

Speaker 1: As far as well,

Speaker 2: talk to the scene as, you know, some opinion leaders, people generally trust Dr. so that was good for us.

Speaker 1: Yeah, no, as far as doctors, I mean that is essentially, I was doing a little bit of self-loathing here for, for our program in New York. The, one of the main issues is that we do not have the physician community and we've introduced the fact that nurses can now um, you know, kind of give them a recommendation. How did you work through and understanding, it might not have been Jim and only jim doing this, but, but how did you set that up and how did you get that going? That sounds like a great idea for other states is my point.

Speaker 2: I would advise. It took a long time. It took us months to build up that list of doctors and I should point out the Dr Organization in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Medical Society, they officially opposed, but you know, their opposition was so shallow. It was, uh, so, um, the, the, the, the fact checking there was so sparse. It was all just the stereotypical things for hear all the time. Um, that it almost backfired on them. Contrast that to the California Medical Association. They actually looked at this and they came to the conclusion that prohibition was as much more harmful than, than candidates ever could be held at the societal danger of prohibition. The, the unequal enforcement, the ruined lives because of arrests and convictions. Um, so they took a real look at it. Riff and mass medical society just took this curse and look at it and came out with boiler plate stuff. We did, did. We put together a bunch of people and we just kept chasing doctors, you know, references. It took us about probably four months to, um, that's one of the things you do on a campaign and you just work on one project for a long time until you get a critical mass. We reached 100 doctors and we thought that was pretty, um, uh, you know, that was somewhat of a milestone for us.

Speaker 1: Somewhat of a magic number, 100 of whatever. And it's critical mass type of thing.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Critical mass. And then we have a nice press conference right in front of the statehouse. Some very articulate doctors, not men. These weren't either way, not cannabis doctors, not people that prescribe cannabis or work in cannabis clinic. And some of them were just regular dodgers, you know, who had looked at this from a, not only a substance viewpoint, not from a policy viewpoint. So it was, it was very good. It was a very good indication of, of, you know, the way voters could think about this

Speaker 1: and understanding your approach and I, I do want to, you know, kind of unpack this a little bit more if you, if you don't mind understanding that, uh, you, you gave them information to uh, you know, look through. I understand that you went door to door kind of thing. Almost one by one until we got 100. What information though, did you share with these, as you say, non cannabis doctor, so you know, ordinary, average run of the mill doctors. What kind of information did you guys share with them to kind of a turn their minds maybe a little bit

Speaker 2: statistics coming out of Colorado that use was not increasing, you know, traffic, uh, Dui arrests were not increasing all the things that proposition is and legalization opponents would say we're saying we're starting to happen. Weren't happening. We were getting, we were getting those stats in as a campaign was moving on and there was three straight federal studies that showed that youth use was not increasing, not only in Colorado but in none of the states that have legalized medical marijuana use or decriminalized marijuana. So you know, we had a lot of good data sets to look and see the doctors, you know, this is what something will look at from a policy viewpoint. Look at this rather than keeping something in the hands of illegal dealers who may be selling a dangerous product. You know, your hippocratic oath says, do no harm, you know, to do no harm. You should take, you know, the, the consumers out of dangerous situations where they might be dangerous products. This is what doctors should be doing and advocating for the public health is, it's better than person

Speaker 1: whether or not they've been educated on the endocannabinoid system at a medical school, you know? Yeah. Okay, fair enough. So, so that's the doctors and the. And that was a election day. Thank you for kind of just going back in time. And it was 13 months ago. So in the ensuing 13 months, because we're about to get a regulations, uh, almost any day now, you know, over these past 13 months what's been going on as far as industry, as far as policy, as far as, you know, the major players I know that we had to kind of, um, you know, get through this governor in this mayor being against it, you know, where are they and, and where's the rest of the kind of the community.

Speaker 2: Well, the first thing that happened was, uh, the legislature delayed everything by six months. We've got a fairly tight timeline, but the same time timeline that every other state, you know, moved up that timeline. But we based our timeline from the vote towards legalization on basically was 15 months. The legislature decided to extend that by six months. So that's why we have stores, uh, becoming a operational in July of 2018 rather than January 2018. Um, so then we had to go through a whole legislative process. Uh, the legislature decided they were going to do take what the voters passed and alternate. Um, and we were, I was very upset about that. To me, that's sort of like pumping and then asked me to the ball back, you know, the legislature was not courageous enough to do this on their own right. But we asked them and they said, no, we're not gonna do anything, you know, it's not something that we're going to touch.

Speaker 2: And then vote is passive. And suddenly became, oh my God, we have to fix this. So it was very annoying and fix the house. Came out with a bill that was terrible. It was just, um, it was based on the Casino Law in Massachusetts. It was, it was onerous. It would, it would have flown up huge barriers to anybody entering the business. We're trying to answer the industry. Um, luckily we had a very strong lobbying effort and we blocked the house bill. We ended up with a compromise bill that we could live with. I would've rather have seen the measure as passed by voters, but, uh, ultimately, you know, they didn't damage it too much.

Speaker 1: What were the key changes that were made? If you say they didn't it too much?

Speaker 2: Well, uh, one of the key changes was that the towns that towns could more easily band, uh, um, candidates, facilities, they didn't have to go to a vote of the voters of that town. Another was a ballot vote, which is the way we had it. They made it so that it could just go to town meeting where I see far fewer voters show up. You have town meeting forms of government in New York, I'm sure it's basically a northeast type of arrangement, but we show in Massachusetts and um, the problem with town meeting is that very small percentage of town voters go. They usually skew older and more conservative

Speaker 1: precisely

Speaker 2: demographic. So that was probably one of the key changes. The other key channels that they increased the tax rate quite a bit. We had it set at a total of 12 percent,

Speaker 1: which is real, but invited fairness, Jim, that is real low. That was going to be the lowest thing that we'd ever seen.

Speaker 2: That was. Well,

Speaker 1: yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 2: And the only one was lower. His main thing was 10. We were 12

Speaker 1: mean was 10, right? Yeah,

Speaker 2: yeah. The legislative. Put it up all into 23 percent, which is again, lower themselves states, but you know, higher than some other states. Um, so that was the other change. Um, and you know, there were a few other minor changes, but the two big ones were the town approval and the tax rate.

Speaker 1: Yeah. And I mean, I feel like tax rate, I, I hear what you're saying. We would have liked it that way, but we'll take it this way. As far as the town, you know, a town choice. I, you know, like, uh, I am a new convert to state's rights as we all are in this industry. And um, I like the idea of towns choosing whether or not they'd like to do this, but as you say, I'd like it to be at the voter level, not, you know, just three, three or four folks just saying, Nah, you know, we don't feel like it.

Speaker 2: Correct. Yeah. Uh, we've seen, uh, there've been cases where towns that voted for questions for another word said yes on question four. Jordan is one of these special elections. Uh, they decided they didn't want cannabis facilities in that town and you know, you're getting instead of it 80 percent right now you're getting a 14 percent and it's not an adequate representation of the boats on the town, but some people just don't come out for special town, special elections, they just don't,

Speaker 1: you know, let's hope that that's going to happen a little bit more than it than it used to, you know? Yes. All right. So, okay. A few changes, uh, some of them kind of a more annoying or frustrating, I guess is a better word. And others, uh, which, which brings us to today. And um, you know, my friend Shaleen title, uh, your commissioner, right, of cannabis and her team are working on the regulations as we speak, right?

Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly right. Celine is one of five commissioners on the cannabis control condition and they right now are working on their regulations. They had um, uh, uh, regulations session last week, blasted every day. Um, and they, they pounded through all of the different types of regulations regarding the application process, security, a growing, um, um, requirements. Um, I'm also sorts of other things, um, delivery, should there be social use clubs, you know, onsite consumption facilities, um, they went through all that. They're going to have another meeting this week to hammer out the regulations even further and then they're going to have public hearings so that the public can comment on the regulations, which is part of the law. They have to have a public hearing before they adopt any regulations. I'm going full steam ahead. We're very pleased with the method of operation, how well pleased with how they're doing. It's very collaborative. It's very open, it's very transparent. We did have some concerns, um, four of the five commissioners voted no on question four and we had concerns about that, but, um, their opposition to question four has not, in my estimation, influenced their regulation a responsibility. So we're happy about that.

Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's kind of what happened in Colorado as well. Once the boat was in, you know, kind of governor governor Hickenlooper who was against it said, okay, let's get a task force together. Let's do this. Um, you know, what's interesting is I spoke to charlene and she said, you know what we've got, I, you know, I said, are you watching what Laura is doing, you know, Lori, a Jackson, California, you said, of course, but Lori's got a 12 month jump on us. So it is so impressive with, with, uh, you know, how, how quickly things are going now, how, you know, how comfortable are you seeing what's happening in California and understanding that it's going to be similar obviously with a different scope and scale and Massachusetts.

Speaker 2: Um, I, from what I've seen that the California regulations, I think it makes me even happier that Massachusetts is doing what they're doing. I think, um, I don't, I know celine has been following them closely and I must say the Massachusetts commissioners and their staff have really looked at the regulations and the other for, you know, legal states, Washington, Coloradow, , m, and they've gotten the best practices from those states. They are looking at California and Nevada to see know what they're coming up with. So I'm very, I'm very confident that when we get going on this at the Massachusetts system is going to be very good for everybody trying to enter the industry. It's going to be, I think, a favorable to small difference to local entrepreneurs and it's not to block in the larger groups who want to come in. So I think we're going to have a very good system.

Speaker 1: What, what makes you say that? What, what measures or what, uh, things that folks are saying, well, why, why do you hone in on those? Uh, kind of key, uh, specificities.

Speaker 2: A couple things. They, uh, the cannabis control commission has indicated that they want to have a sliding fee schedule so that like a small roller, say somebody that's wants to grow on a thousand square feet, uh, is going to have a smaller application fee or less expensive application fee. Then a grower that has 100,000 square foot house, you know, so small farmer that wants to come in and collaborative, if you will. Some of the small girl, they are going to be able to come in and not have to pay the same amount that a large girl looks for their application process. Um, we're going to have mixed use facilities. Um, so say a yoga studio that wants to combine yoga class with some form of cannabis therapy, there'll be up to that, you know, um, and, you know, so it doesn't have to be somebody who's 100 percent in the cannabis business. It doesn't have to be just a retailer or a kitchen with. All they do is cannabis can be a mixed use license, which I think is a great, great class of licenses.

Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I think that, uh, when you know, uh, you and I were young, Jim, uh, and we talked about legalization as though it would never happen. That is what we conceived of. It didn't conceive of this kind of closed, uh, industry. We conceived over that, Yo, here's the yoga studio and this is what we do with cannabis at the Yoga Studio and here's, maybe you know, a restaurant and here's that. And here's this. As opposed to what we, you know, what has come about over the past, uh, five, 10 years here.

Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yup. And I think that you have a lot of, you know, very inventive business people who are saying, you know, I don't want to be exclusively a cannabis business, but how can I incorporate cannabis into my business and it give consumers, you know, just another option, uh, liked the yoga, maybe a meditation studio, maybe some sort of physical therapy office that might use, um, you know, cannabinoid extract for a would have symptoms they may be trying to address. So I think that Canada's control commission, there's been an thanks to Shalina Shalina. It's behind the cheese. She's just an excellent person to have on that board because she's very knowledgeable about the industry, but she's not a pushover for the industry. So she's wearing like, she's really a very, very, I think, well positioned to bring some wisdom to this board.

Speaker 1: Indeed. Indeed. More, more an activist and an advocate in terms of, in terms of that night. I totally agree. Um, you know, when I, when I said I need to interview, she said, like I said, you know, Lori, Scott got a year on me, so we'll, we'll get to, we'll get to her soon enough. But as far as prescribed timelines, you know, what, what are you looking at as far as when we're expecting what we're expecting?

Speaker 2: Well, the regulations will be finalized in March. There'll be sent to the secretary of state who has to, uh, basically, you know, I think, uh, you know, affirm them like any other business. The Secretary of state looks at regulations and gives them his blessing or her blessing and this case him doesn't, can't change that much. So that's the formal process. And then the application process starts in April, so they're going to be start, um, uh, you know, accepting applications in April, um, and they're gonna start working on those applications. And then, you know, a legal sales begin, uh, on July first 2018, uh, whether or not we'll have any stores opening that day remains to be seen, but that technically as a first day of legal sales in Massachusetts

Speaker 1: and understanding those timelines as far as these kinds of emergency regulations in California, are we doing something like that in, in Massachusetts or are these just kind of March and then July?

Speaker 2: Um, well, yes there are. There is a, um, there is a provision that if there are, if there is no legal adult use sales establishment in Massachusetts on July first and medical dispatchers can start selling for the adult use market. Whether or not that little tick in, I think we'll, we're made to be seen. We are, you know, protests consumers because there's no reason why consumers on July first shouldn't be able to go somewhere and be able to, you know, officially by, you know, tested safe, regulated cannabis.

Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. And Jim, I think you and I just made my July fourth weekend plan, so I'll see you that weekend. There's no what you're saying, there's, there's almost no question about it. Is that sound about right?

Speaker 2: Um, yes, I imagine they are going to be, you know, legal sales somewhere in Massachusetts and then as the weeks go on, there's going to be more and more

Speaker 1: in all seriousness though, you know, we talk about this in New York all the time. We're kind of waiting for Massachusetts to come online and they're even talking about it in New Jersey. I'm sure you know, in the legislature for a maybe even later this year as well. But, you know, of course they won't have operating stores. How much does it affect you in Massachusetts to know that New Yorkers are going to be coming up there and how much of an effect do you think that will have on us? I mean, I know that I'm asking you to speak about another state, but what are your thoughts?

Speaker 2: No, I think that we're seeing that already in New York. We're seeing it in Rhode Island. Uh, the legislation, Rhode Island is likely to legalize this year. They've already talked about that. They don't want to lose sales over the border and New Hampshire and Vermont are saying the same thing. I think you're going to see legalization in Vermont this year, um, a form of legalization because they just like New York. I go on to be having consumers go over the border and spending the body enough to choose it.

Speaker 1: I mean, as far as just bringing it back to New York because I love to talk about New York with a guy from Massachusetts just if for no other reason to get under your skin. Right. You know what I mean? Um, and, and uh, just for the record, I am a mets fan so it's not as bad as it could be. Um, uh, as far as I know that we've got an adult use bill in the legislature, but that's about it. We don't really, we're not really working on anything down here unless, I don't know. Do you know of more than that?

Speaker 2: No, I don't know more than I thought there was. I thought there was some movement in New York to um, move something forward, but it may be the bill that you just mentioned, but I do know that I think, you know, as more states, I think there is a momentum here. Not only is Massachusetts legalizing, the candidate is going to leave.

Speaker 1: Yeah. Like be July first because that's Canada today, but in July of 2018 certainly.

Speaker 2: Yeah. Right. That's right. Um, so you know, you're getting, you know, your neighbor to the east, your neighbor to the north and potentially your neighbor also. Vermont's a maybe legalizing. So I think there's going to be a lot of pressure on needed to take a look at this. I know, I know New York, the medical cannabis role, I was pretty slow in New York if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker 1: Sure. I mean it hasn't even rolled out, is it, you know, we don't have any patients. My buddy who's got a medical card, we had to go ahead and get reciprocity up in Maine, you know, that our program is not in good shape. And hence my initial questions about the doctors because we never did that.

Speaker 2: Alright, thank, you know at some point somebody is going to have to put together and organized campaign in New York, except Dave is a big state to do a campaign. Massachusetts is, you know, a lot more manageable. But um, you know, Lord knows people in New York know how to campaign for, you know, what they need. So, um, we'll see what happens. But I think a lot of this, you know, that momentum is going to build and um, who's going to want to miss out on the enormous tax money that you can generate from this.

Speaker 1: Well, that's the whole thing. Yeah, that's exactly the whole thing. But you know, as, as a, you know, Ethan Nadelmann has said for some reason, you know, Andrew Cuomo has a weird thing about cannabis. It's, it's a personal thing. It has nothing to do with politics. It doesn't really have to do with policy. So, um, you know, that that's kind of where we are. But uh, like you said, uh, the, the momentum is headed in the right direction. We only got a, you know, at the federal level. One guy that took to worry about with attorney general sessions doing his a song and dance, but you know, uh, we'll, we'll deal with it as it comes. I'm less than. I appreciate your time, Jim. It did. Did we miss anything? Is there anything else to cover as far as Massachusetts at this moment in time?

Speaker 2: No, I think you brought me through pretty much everything that you're listening to us needs to know. I think that's um, I think you have a good idea of what's happening in Massachusetts now, so we're just gonna have to sit back and hope the cannabis control commission gets its work done on time and gets the funding that it needs. But right now it looks like they're going to get that

Speaker 1: right and you know, as far as getting her work done on time Shaleen, we'll certainly do that. As far as she's, you know, she's certainly raised some money as well. So I, you and I are are bullish on that. I guess as a final question, you might remember I always ask on the soundtrack of your life, one track, one song that's got to be on there, what might you, uh, give us, uh, as a song that would be on the soundtrack of your life?

Speaker 2: Um, tomorrow never knows by the Beatles.

Speaker 1: Oh, look at you. I was sure it was going to be like an aerosmith song, but, uh, but fair enough. Tomorrow never knows from the Beatles. Beautiful. I'm thinking about right now and there you have Jim Borg, Assani, you know, as a New Yorker with Massachusetts coming online in the summer, as well as all of these other states around us with all of their activity. I wonder what happens here. Appreciate you allowing me to, uh, be selfish. Stay tuned.

Read the full transcript:

Become a member to access to webinars, quarterly reports, contributor columns, shows, excerpts, and complete podcast transcripts

Become a Member

Already a member? Login here.

Subscribe now to get every episode.

Cannabis Economy is a real-time history of legal cannabis. We chronicle how personal and industry histories have combined to provide our current reality.