>> the national cannabis festival hosted a policy summit. a portion of the event is just under two hours. >> hi everyone. on amplifyingnel equity in the cannabis industry. we have three guests with us today one going to introduce quickly. a managing director of ventures, the ceo of entech activision, and the general manager of marley natural. she was named one of the most powerful women in cannabis by

fortune magazine and business insider. [applause] also, an mba and phd, a former cell biologist, the owner and general manager of the national holistic healing center and medical marijuana dispensary, the number one dispensary in washington, d.c.. she has forbidden kids, so she's got a lot happening -- four kids , so she's got a lot happening. delegate cheryl glenn could not be here. she sent us a letter. she is very sorry she can be here. she says as legal medical rises in maryland, on committing to making sure business leaders of color are represented.

maryland 2016, the medical cannabis commission issued 15 cultivation licenses. of the recipients, not a single one was a person of color. inething unfathomable to me a state with a population that is one third african-american. the legislative black caucus announced their plan to introduce emergency legislation to address the lack of diversity in the cannabis license distribution. in april 2017, a bill that promised additional medical marijuana growing licenses that were pushed out of the top 15 license winners, died in the final minutes of the general assembly. what happened that day was a well orchestrated plan to defeat the bill. people of color have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. the dawn of legal cannabis has created millionaires while

others have been persecuted for association with this plant. i joined with my colleagues in the legislative black caucus to say, no more. we spoke out, raised awareness, and demanded action. just a few weeks ago, the house and senate beached an agreement that would allow maryland to issue new licenses for growing and processing marijuana in ways that ensure racial diversity. i amte the roller coaster, proud maryland is taking a step to create a more diverse industry. we must remain vigilant. i'm delighted to know that while i cannot be with you, this conversation is being presented by such a capable group of professionals. thank you delegate glenn for all you are doing. [applause] ok, ladies. my first question. the cannabis industry is the fastest growing major industry in the united states, with a

capital short. according to forbes, the industry is expected to grow from $9.2 billion this year to $47.3 billion by 2027. as the managing director of hyper ventures, which provides funding for emerging businesses in the cannabis industry, tell us what qualities you're looking for in a business, and what women and minorities can do to break in. >> we focus on businesses that are more infrastructure we look at a lot of businesses that are scalable, which were those of you from this space no, it is hard to scale because we are confined by state lines and

municipality rules. we look at businesses that are able to achieve that. create more compliant structures for all businesses. some examples of that are, have a compliance firm that allows businesses licensed within other states to stay compliant within their own businesses. we are able to show various levels of government that we are able to do this. a lot of the claims we have already brought up, there is this disproportionate allocation of resources to various populations. and populations that have been traditionally associated with cannabis are shut out to a certain extent. there are a lot of groups forming now that are really focused on social equity. a great example of that is the

=ncubator out of oakland, which is focused on helping those who do not have resources, to give them the resources to move forward in that area for the organizations are women grow, they amazing resources that create who community for folks move different populations to the forefront of this industry, which they deserve. when you to focus on not shutting out those communities. >> as the chairwoman for women grow, it is our mission to help women to get into the industry, and two, also minorities. willi say that, i mean it be very strategic to put both women and minorities on the public platform for

awareness around this industry. we have women and minorities that have these unbelievable that can really add to the existing industry, but because they are ables, to have access to this industry full we try to equip them with the necessary tools we need to great in. the major barrier we face is finances because you have to have money to get into this industry. you guys saw the former speaker john boehner was added to the board of the cannabis company, was that encouraging, like becoming mainstream, or were you like, are you kidding me? back --s coming i'm so sorry, c-span. [applause] >> i feel like it was a mixed

bag. how did you guys feel about it? >> it is about economic empowerment. we see the disproportion of white men carry this industry. how lucrative this industry will be, now in the billions and in the future. so, the discouragement of keeping other people out of that is very important because this is a play on power and what his power to find -- and what is power defined by? money. i am out there every day, encouraging women and minorities to get their technology and is o get thatusinesses seen t type of empowerment. so, we cna change the narrative footing, we do

not have to implement diversity programs. >> on one side, it is great to see more people supporting the industry. likee other side, i would to see more faces and i would like to see supporting people different path. i would like to see more women and people of color on boards. feel very strongly about that, bringing those people forward, telling them their story, helping them get funding and telling those narratives. great to seet is that people are jumping on the bandwagon, but there are some of us who have already been here and we are trying to create that path. i think there has got to be a balance. >> i definitely have mixed feel ings. i mean, good on him, but thanks the bandwagon

-- in the industry, as a culture -- in the industry, there is a stoner stereotype and women often play the role of temptress within the branding materials. the chairwoman of women grow is two african-american women to own a dispensary business. i had to that check this. i also know the other woman randomly who is also the owner. we could definitely do better role.ifying the >> you know what is interesting, i talk to women about entering the space, but we are not supported financially to enter this base.

a lot of people are not ready to invest in the cannabis industry. circlef people have this of influence. even though we have the technology to do it, we have got to go beyond the call of duty. for example, when i thought about entering this industry and as lucrative as it might have been, but in 2012 as a minority woman, it was very well-known at that time that if somebody is going to get prosecuted, it would be somebody who looks like myself. when i think about that narratives, i respect that in my population. we are scared of prosecution. afraid of being targeted because we have been historically. thate have got to change narratives to have examples of women and also minorities that are entering this industry and doing phenomenal. so, we have certain cases. i think of jesse horden in

oregon, who has his own grow. the mbca, which i am part of on the board as well, has a 37 page legislation that is ideal for minority participation. so, first we have got to start by changing the narrative in asking women and minorities to engage with us. and we have got to get funded so we can bring these technologies to the forefront. and from there, thinking about myself, i had to go through a second mortgage justice of what my own business because they could not get somebody to believe in me. but first of all, i believed in myself. i am asking you all to do the same thing with the same type of passion. [laughter] rex tillerson: do you guys -- moderator: do you guys have examples of equity programs working now? and do you have advice for how others can be successful?

>> there are different initiatives going on in california. -- and itt developed was based on the need for it. they did not see it in legislation are happening across the country, but now we are angeles, ath in los part of that is looking at how do we move past from the records -- it is legal now for a lot of people. san francisco is doing something similar and seattle is doing something similar. amazing step never forward, however at the same time, these are really small. they deal with maybe hundreds or thousands of people and we need to hit millions. and i think as we see these models come to light we need to start replicating them and make them significantly larger. aother part of that too is lot of people who have previously been incarcerated and have these records, they do not have the resources to get their records expunged.

if i had a record i don't know what i would do to go out there and get it expunged. i think putting resources behind making that information more public, putting groups together who are willing to give their time in order to make this happen. it is costly. and we cannot always say that, there is no money, so we cannot do it. we've got to build that into our policies and legislation across the states to make that happen. it is just unfair that people who may have been caught for todayion decades ago, that would be legal and overwhelmingly those populations are black and brown men. the impact that has him communities will just keep compounding over the years if we do not do something about it. >> i am going to jump in there, weause in washington d.c. had a second round of dispensary applications that opened up and they allowed minority

participants. i think that is a great example of a way that we could start to create some equity in our program. because there is a difference between different applicants. because of our challenges, we do need different handicaps and a lot of people who are qualified are being discounted because we have prior criminal records, but they are the ones that actually established the industry, saw the need for it and now they are being excluded. i would just say that washington dc has been a great example of making sure that minority ownership is important. i have seen different legislation throughout, but i iink you could change -- think the change occurs with the regulatory board and legislation. they have got to support us and we have to be in those rooms to ensure that our voices are being heard and we can change the policies before they are actually put before us. rex tillerson: --

moderator: can you tell people about women grow? the have been a chairman of board since february, but i was a market leader prior to that. in three markets, maryland, d.c. and ohio. what i have seen within three different markets, one is established, one is emerging and not even started. in all three markets, the women in those groups, who are the caregivers of their households, their communities, have been able to really change the narrative about using medical marijuana in their communities. and i say that because we are the ones that run i household. when you empower these women to amazing.rings, this is i have seen businesses emerge. i have seen increase

significantly within the population. i smiled because in this group, it is so imperative for our children. for the women who have been fighting for autism and women who have been fighting for their children with epilepsy, cancer, etc., i appreciate what you are are savingse you lives. when i think about what has transpired through working with women grow, i know that we have been able to now change the narrative of what is going on in the united states and i am grateful for that. >> let me and to that, we are talking about children, but also about the aging population and veterans, it is impacting those communities and we cannot ignore that either. when we see everything happening with the opioid of the dimmick, this could impact that. and similar to how we deal with suffering from cancer and epilepsy.

that is a huge area we need to focus on as well. >> one thing that was interesting. a couple weeks ago i was talking to a group of the about this panel. about thisof people panel. i said expunging records of people who had been in prison for marijuana possession or use, peoplepunging -- letting out of prison, expunging the records to me is the same as when dna became -- dna technology became more sophisticated with crimes. technology came, science matured and we now know that person did not commit the crime. the same thing to me and i thought it was very interesting, how some people were so triggered that they have not thought about it in that way. that,t to piggyback on the handicap is there amongst those that were targeted. and how do you help them rebuild their lives after all of this

time? the time had taken away and that is what we are trying to create, this narrative. what do we do now, knowing that what has been done to our community. >> i had thoughts about current forirs one of my questions you guys because i do none of the answer is that, when attorney general jeff sessions have said the federal government will prosecute anybody in possession of or selling marijuana if human back, which said what it happened, was there a chilling effect within the industry. did you feel people recoil? >> there was this fear. it was january 4 and i remember it very clearly because i was getting messages left and right and the panic was sitting in. and read hisn

remarks, i felt great about it because he essentially was empowering attorney generals to say, make the rules for your states and to think about it, all of these people are in states where it is legal, it is business as usual. the frustrating element is the headline risk and the fear that it continues to put in the industry. are trying to operate compliantly and stay above door, pay taxes, which by the way, the government makes it very difficult to do. cash heavy business and not allowing businesses to a .ertain point there was a period of paranoia where all the businesses i worked with in my network were like, what is happening? anything worse happen. and then, people were like, this is usual and we will operate as we have been. we will do what we think is right and we will see what happens.

by then they rebounded monday. but it continues to remind us that we live in this very gray space in cannabis. in matter where you are. on any given day -- and i am sure you feel this way too. we take a lot of burden on ourselves. anybody in the space because it is like, your own credit is constantly being run. i laugh because it any given day, my bank account could be seized. not to sound cheesy, but we believe we are doing the right thing and we believe there is more to do in the space and hopefully, that is what will keep pushing us forward. >> i could not agree more. january 4, i remember the memo where it was rescinded and the say, thing i did was to out of all the people who have different processes in life, they will come after me.

i was so scared. i was like, what do i do with my four children now? this is not about them. this is about patient access to health care. there is a downside. but the other side of it was that would rot was also a positive. the result is awareness brought to the forefront. everybody was having conversations about medical marijuana, medical marijuana policies, the use of cannabis. mainstream america and it brought our issues to light. even though it was a scary feeling inside, it was also one was, i could never pay for that amount of advertising. it did us all well. >> i never would have thought of it that way. [laughter] you jeff sessions.

>> you did something right. [laughter] as women of color, what are some of the personnel hurdles these days? what, clarify for the audience that it is not just -- you guys make it sound easy, but what are some of the hurdles you had to overcome? >> ok, so -- i will take a deep red. -- i will take a deep breath. i have been publicly ostracized, called a drug dealer. i have worked at two universities. i am proud of who i am and am

roud of the many professionals. i hold many patents. there is validity to the space. and for somebody to say some thing derogatory like, you are a drug dealer and an unfit parent, is hurtful. i come back to my community and when i see my 2000 plus patients, and they tell me, you have changed my life. you have done everything you can to make the quality of my life you can say, it is ok, call me a drug dealer, but in front of these patients i see everyday, i have made a difference. i have made their life better.

[applause] , so it isno patents hard to compete there. people say, you're a drug dealer -- >> we got into this space early. it was still taboo. i joe, coming out of my mba program, and my taking this very expensive degree and lighting it on fire? the support i got from professors and even my own was something there and i was interested in the medical side of the business. i started to look at cannabis because i think a lot of people have stories like this, i had something personal. my grandfather had been suffering from cancer. you find all the different treatments and you come across

cannabis pretty quickly. and oney lived in ohio of the funniest texts from my ever gotten was, she texted me and my sister asking, you guys know where to get marijuana? my sister asked, do you know this is a test? it is a little bit old for us to beginning tested, but yes i do know where to get it. somebody suffering from cancer could actually consume it and benefit from it. people in my own family were starting to understand the benefits. i was frustrated that you could not just get access to something that was going to help someone. last couple months of his life he just wanted to be comfortable. we just wanted to make him comfortable and you could not get it. wouldcrazy that we withhold that from people who are suffering so severely and putting other medications on them for that my passion behind

it and really understanding the social justice side of it constantly pushes me through. and it has changed a lot now obviously. i am proud of being a minority woman in the space. i am sure you get this all the time, but people are like, how do i do this? how do i follow in your footsteps? it is amazing, there are people who want to continue to do this. be able to help others and be a voice and face for others, in order to move this population alone. moderator: what steps can be taken at the local level to move this forward? what can people do? >> i will start with getting involved first in your community. advocacy different groups.

there are different marijuana policy projects. there are so many ways. there are some anyways we can ensure -- or we can start with those groups that are currently advocating for us now. they are the ones that can empower us. we need to support their industries to make sure we are in power. we also the right to visit. -- we also need more activism. that is why i fall back to the mcba. on the website there are 27 pages of legislation where, if you are a minority, we want that implemented. power,it is having the

the money, to having our voices heard in the legislation process. that is still the challenge. we are deficient in those resources. >> i think it is really important that those who are legislation, the need to start looking like the broader population, and not just be confined to certain populations. to your point about making sure it is local, and making sure we are amplifying those candidates who are either from those communities or are very much understanding us. a lot of the legislation we have seen in the past, it is created by people who have no idea what those communities are going through and that is a big issue. andeed more people of color women involved because they understand those issues at a different level for that we need to do more to position those people within the state. that is where it starts. moderator: do you think cannabis

policy will play a big role in 2020? >> oh, yes. >> definitely. >> if it doesn't, it should. moderator: a call to action. >> when you said that, i know there are a lot of women that treat their children with cannabis and presently, i know asa is working on legislation with that, so the parents do not have to take their children off campus, administer medicine because they are in a drug-free zone and bring them back. these children facing different elements, they have a stigma on them already. these parents cannot 5:00 because

during the middle of their day, they have got to treat their children. the people brought into power during 2020 need to be those who recognize the needs of the community. including women and like you said, the older population. give elders we are taking care of, and our children. moderator: one last question before q&a. where do you guys see the industry in 10 years? >> i feel like the industry will be completely open. i think cannabis will be normalized to a very high degree. i think that is why i am pushing so hard for a minority and women dissipation now.

enter this route can have the opportunity to grow and learn from their mistakes, and be the leaders of the future. for that to happen, the seats have to be planted. >> i think it will look a lot like the other industries. it is a mixture of all these other industries. there is a health and wellness side to it as well. we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg on all of those elements now. thing that will keep growing. regardless of the fact whether or not we have federal legalization, the tide has turned. you cannot put it back in the bottle at this point. this is happening. i think we will see more and more states supporting it and learning from each other, and other countries.

in canada, it is federally legal and local recreational by the end of the year. we will learn from these different groups and 10 years from now -- for me, it is hard to imagine at this stage. but i know it will be so much better and more acceptable to the communities. moderator: thank you, guys. streeter hand and i will call on you. the question is, is the cost of participating, is it going up, down or staying the same? going up. and i say that because it is getting more competitive. more people are willing to enter the space because the narrative has changed. we have to have an application when we apply. you have to show proof of funds, and you have to have somewhere to locate, real estate.

the application, if you get it professionally done, can run between $50,000 and $150,000. real estate can run you between you have to keep paying rent on that location while you are waiting for the decisions to be made. then you think about proof of funds. based upon that, you are talking about, some people have a minimum of $2 million, but really the average is hitting about $50 million. there's a true barrier to entering the industry. not to say that it can't be done, but you have to find solutions to get around those barriers. >> on the financing side of it,

for businesses that are looking for funding, it is competitive. there are so many businesses operating within the same space. a couple years ago, you may have been able to have a great powerpoint and get funding, and it is not like that anymore. you have to show proof of concept or get into market just because there's so much out there. people are excited about the industry. that is not to say we should be deterred, just, there's more work that has to go into the foundation, and collaborating and creating partnerships with groups. that is how you get these incentives to go do something together. >> one other point is that there's a lot of ancillary businesses that don't touch the plant that have a low barrier to market.

is thoseencouraging individuals to really focus on what innovations they have to bring to the market place. you don't have the same hurdles we would have as plant touching individuals. plant, there'se a big misconception that you are making all this money, and the truth is we are making very little, but just holding until the market opens up. -- place i would focus hindsight is 2020 -- would be in those ancillary businesses that are doing phenomenal. >> next question. >> what are your thoughts on what happened in washington state when the markets were combined? thatat is interesting is -- these indulge me for a second

-- recreational and medical -- ok. >> you go ahead. >> the question was what we think about washington state. washington state used to have a recreational and medical market and they have merged into one cannabis market. >> so, for me, as a professional in this industry, i don't believe there is a difference in the two. i think all of them are a medical market. i think access is just recreational. we feel people can come in and get medicine. medicine is medicine, which is all medicinal. when people say recreational, they are coming in because they don't understand they are treating the underlying issue. so when you use a medicine or any substance, you are trying to address something. you may not be cognizant of what you are trying to address. that's why it's important to have consultants or people you

work with to guide you through the process in the medical market. so that you can have the proper strain or alignment for whatever ailment you have. that is the key. i feel like it is all medicinal. the medical program walks you through it to get overall wellness and health. whereas recreational, you are treating yourself, but you may not be equipped with the education to be able to do so. so, that is where i see a lot of people who say they had a bad experience, that is where it is coming from. because you are treating yourself, and you don't know how. you don't know the best methods for consumption. you don't understand the strength and the dosage. you just know that you want to feel better, and you think that this strain will do it for everything, and it doesn't. it is very much a medicine with a particular science behind it. [applause] host: next question. >> i'm wondering if there are

venture funds or accelerators operating in this space or doing things to prioritize women and minorities. >> a big focus of mine, looking at our portfolio and all the different businesses in the space, we try to get from a hiring perspective women and minorities into these businesses. we have board seats on the lot of them. we work with a lot of different capacities. you are not just an investor, you tend to be a partner in a lot of regards. being able to influence that side of the business. on the other side, you see more more this desire to coach different groups. i may see a venture plan that is maybe not something we would invest in, and i like to give feedback and say, here's how you can move this business along. or, i will have people pitch to me and help them with their pitch.

a big barrier is that a lot of people are first-time entrepreneurs or they haven't gone through the process. it is a really difficult process. it is something that we really like to do and we hope we see other funds doing as well. theses how you helped various populations moving forward. host: yes, ma'am? >> i have a question for both. based on what you just said, what are your tips you can give? i think, often times the challenges are seeking funding and the capital. what tips can you offer those? tahira: a big part of it is getting that feedback and seeking out that feedback. going to groups like women grow or other venture funds. not everyone will give you the time, but you have to keep pushing for that, trying to get that feedback.

people you know in the space, people you admire or think would be helpful, reach out to them. i think the number of people that i reached out to early on, one out of 10 would respond. and that is fine. can you do -- when you do get that feedback, it is important. because that is how you continue to improve. people have asked. if you are ready for it. i offer constructive criticism. that's how we all get better. we've all been in positions where we need backing to move forward. utilizing these groups is a great stepping stone. and also, be willing to put yourself out there and ask people for feedback, that help will be really important. >> what lessons have you learned? what would you do differently based on where your dispensary is now, as opposed to where you were when you first started? what would you do differently?

>> oh boy, that is so loaded. i say that because, -- my hesitation in answering that truthfully is i had no idea how many barriers that i had to overcome, whether they were financial, real estate. i paid real estate for two years, and my landlord said, you know what? i am taking your lease back. these are the realities of the industry, period. i had one cultivator who ran two strains, and i had six others in my market that refused to sell to me. so it has been unbelievable in terms of having tenacity to continue to do this. but when it is your passion, you have no choice. so what i say is that i would not have done anything

differently, because i had to learn those lessons. and in order for me to grow, to go where i will go in the future, those are the lessons where i will know what to do and what not to do in the future. so i embrace it. i know how i fell on my knees and just asked god to give me the strength to carry on. that is the real part of it. [applause] >> there are so many different terms and definitions. what is "minority?" i only ask that because, as a black lesbian woman, i also know some german-americans and jewish-americans, and just white people, caucasians. and they have fallen on hard

times, just like other people who would be a minority. don't get me wrong, because it is easier because they can walk into the room and -- just like all white woman can walk into her room and we are still black women. so what is your definition of "minority?" host: the question is, what does the term minority in this case mean? what does it refer to, and what does it encompass? tahira: for me, it is any population that has essentially been disproportionately impacted or does not have access to what a majority does. you know? it often does fall on race, unfortunately, but to your point, there are others who would not be on the surface minority populations, but would be very, very much impacted by this. anybody who has disproportionate access.

i am a south asian, my family is pakistani, and i would consider that to be a minority group within this as well, but in i.t., you don't think that way. [laughter] >> and there are actually, tell me if i am wrong, but in parts of california, it is actually done by income. low income is considered a form of minority protection, consideration. chanda: exactly. i agree completely with you. i think it is those that have not been granted access based upon their gender, race or social-economic level. host: we have time for one more question. where? ok. you said please. and i can see you. [laughter] >> my name is rose, i am a

veteran. i'm a single mom. i have twin girls who will be 11 years old in a few weeks. and my choice was either pills and being in bed, and not getting my kids to school on time, or not getting the job and reducing my income and having to pay out-of-pocket, and insurance -- because insurance does not pay for cannabis. i had to pay $300 to $400 a month for medical cannabis that i love. [indiscernible] they got me from being a lump to being fully active. but it takes a huge economic hit. and i am not the only one. there are a lot of women out there who are single parents. so what type of impact have you seen?

>> so, to repeat the question as well as i can, rose is from the veterans cannabis correlation. she is asking -- cannabis is not covered by insurance, but is the only thing that works for her, and how do you deal with that financial impact? chanda: as a dispensary owner, i encounter this all the time. i actually fight for my patients. i go to my cultivators and demand lower pricing based upon purchasing and passing the cost savings to the patient. it is a real issue, and, yes, you are a veteran woman, but i have seen minority populations with urban posttraumatic stress disorder. i have seen so many elements in the veterans population, period, that the patients, the cte, the suicidal rate, the opioid issue

i face every day, and having access to the medicine knowing that you cannot really pay for it, and you are taking it from somewhere else. that is one of the things that "women grow" is taking on as a challenge to address. we have a nonprofit that we can give subsidies to family that suffers for that reason alone. there is not another way for me to answer that because we know we don't have insurance -- >> my question was, what was the impact you are seeing in these families? chanda: most soccer moms are happy. [laughter] chanda: so, micro-dosing using a tincture, they might put it in a little water bottle and is just sip on it while their children are in soccer practice. i mean, the quality of life -- they are able to go into their

children's lives and engage with them. so i have seen more bonding, seeing relationships built. the same that i have seen with veterans, that they are now able to have meaningful relationships with other people, because now, all of their anxiety is taken away. it allows that one-on-one type of interaction again. it is so beautiful when you embrace the cannabis community, because we are just about love, and it is an amazing thing. i have seen tremendous effects with my women. i think most women that i see, believe it or not, their major symptom is anxiety. once with a cbd product that releases that, they can engage in life again, and it is like a renewal, a second chance. the flipside side of that is i get what we call -- i will make it simple -- our patients are

remorseful that they did not have access to this. that they wasted five years of their lives, and they feel it can they had this medicine, the course of their future would have been completely different. so i have to deal with one, administering the medicine, and, two, dealing with the repercussions, because they are upset now, because it did not have the access before. we try to keep it in perspective for them, but that remorse is really a genuine issue that we have to deal with. it is just a misfortune that we have to go through. but the success of the medicine has been so incredible that it is still overshadowing that remorse. >> thank you, guys. [applause] >> thank you.

[applause] >> sorry, i'm experiencing technical difficulties. i serve as the director of "d.c. vote" and we'd like statehood. [applause] i'm thrilled to be here as part of the national cannabis policy festival summit. i welcome you all to washington, d.c. washington, d.c.'s laws on marijuana represent the frontline in the fight for

equality for the residents of district of columbia. congress has blocked our medicinal marijuana laws, our regulateo tax and adult use of marijuana. congress even went so far as to stop us from counting our own votes. but as with all fights for justice and equality, we call on our allies to lift us up and empower our efforts. it is my privilege to introduce a longtime advocate for statehood and an ally of d.c. vote. betsy cavendish serves as a general council to our mayor, muriel bowser. previously, she has held leadership roles within organizations vital to moving the cause of justice forward. as a member of the board for the alliance of justice and the former president of the national appleseed network, a network of centers of the public interest. betsy is truly a leader in the fights for justice and equality across the united states and it is my privilege to introduce to you betsy cavendish.

[applause] d.c. vote,k you, bo, and all the organizers of today's policy summit. good morning. i'm glad to be with you today. welcome to washington, d.c. who doesn'tone here already know this great city of 700,000 will enjoy our neighborhoods, restaurants, parks, and divers cultural life. washington, d.c. is a great place. i would like to make three points in connection with today's event. everyone here bo, should be an advocate for d.c. statehood. how does statehood have anything to do with cannabis? people from all over the country face a complicated legal environment where marijuana is a controlled substance, illegal federally, but it may be legal under various state regimes under medical or recreational

use. but here in washington, because we do not have statehood, congress places extra controls on our budgets and laws. that is, cannabis is extra complicated legally here in the district of columbia. congress has forbidden washington dc from further relaxing penalties for marijuana following our decriminalization law and initiative 71, which legalized home growing and home use of marijuana. our overlords have forbidden us from considering a legal regime to regulate, tax and salop recreational marijuana safely and on our own terms. if washington, d.c. were a state, the constitution would make federal intrusion unique to the district unconstitutional. but some members of congress to puff of their conservative credentials, vote on such matters such as loosening our gun laws, increasing barriers to

women's access to abortion services, curtailing the methods we used to beat the hiv-aids epidemic, interfering with death with dignity laws, and they have succeeded in barring washington, d.c. from having a legal regime for recreational use of cannabis. so we are in a peculiar situation here legally. it is legal to grow a few marijuana plants at home in the district, and legal for adults to possess modest quantities of marijuana. you can have it, you can smoke it, you can grow it, but you cannot buy it. because washington, d.c. is some members of congress' favorite chew toy, we have a bigger black and gray market here than we would have if we were a state. please join us in calling for an end to this subordinate status for washington, d.c. we, the voters of washington, d.c., voted overwhelmingly for

statehood in 2016. the ball is in congress' court, and for this reason, i hope you support washington, d.c., in our quest for statehood. you care about autonomy, and we do too. let's have some numbers here. today is 4/20, and our special number in washington is 51, for the 51st state. can i hear anybody say "4/20 for 51" with me? my second point relates to my first point. if we had a legal sales regime for recreational marijuana, the district could better support cannabis user health and safety. no longer would a shady dealer cut marijuana with pcp or a fatal dose of fentanyl. advocates are fond of saying no one has died of cannabis, but that does not mean they have not died of using it when it is mingled with far dangerous

substances. many advocates tout the medical uses of marijuana, but any benefits can be offset if marijuana is grown with harmful pesticides or becomes moldy or if various fertilizers are ingested and inhaled. a tightly regulated regime would help users have confidence they are not inhaling cannabis with a side of mold or eating organic brownies tainted with fertilizers. my third point is that i hope proponents of legal cannabis will emphasize that when and where marijuana is legal to use, and the use should be responsible and fully informed about consequences, including legal consequences. buzzed driving is dangerous. applicants in well-paying jobs in fields such as being an electrician will be rejected if they have cannabinoids in their urine. know the laws in the jurisdictions where you partake. in washington, be aware that much of the land here is federal and there are handfuls of law

enforcement agents other than our mpd. so, thank you very much for inviting the mayor to speak. stay safe, and please support our quest for statehood. [applause] rep. perlmutter: hi, i'm ed perlmutter, a congressman from colorado. i want to welcome you to washington, and thank you for letting me participate in your national cannabis policy summit. i wish i could be there with you today, but i want to thank you for organizing and gathering here to help us in congress gets the laws, the federal laws, to align with state laws. so many states are allowing for businesses like yours to properly operate in their states, but the federal law is in conflict with that. particularly, we see that in the tax code and in banking laws.

and i served on the financial services committee which involves the banks, credit unions, and i am working on a law that says if you are a business that is legitimate in your state, you ought to be able to have normal financial services, credit cards, payroll accounts, checking accounts, those kinds of normal business type accounts. but because of the federal law not being in sync with state laws, we see a lot of conflicts. we are trying to straighten that out. your visit to washington, your policy summit will help us get the laws so that they make some sense. i want to thank you for being here today. good luck at your policy conference. and enjoy yourself while you are here in d.c. thank you very much. [applause] ms. rutter: good morning.

my name is michelle rutter. i'm with the national cannabis industry association. founded in 2010, the national cannabis industry association seeks to represent a responsible and legitimate cannabis industry. ncia is leading the unified and coordinated campaign to ensure this emerging business industry is treated fairly under federal law. our priorities include reforming federal law to allow for cannabis-related business to access traditional financial services, such as banking, and alleviating tax penalties, which you're about to hear about from our panelists today. in addition, ncia seeks to connect, educate, and advocate for more than 1500 member businesses across the country. today, i'm happy to welcome john fasman to moderate our panel. john is a washington correspondent for "the economist." he is also an author of two

novels, "the geographers library, which have been translated into more than a dozen languages, and "the on possessed city," which was a finalist for the new york public library's lines fiction award. please welcome john and our esteemed panelists to the stage. [applause] mr. fasman: good morning. my name is john fasman. i have to plug our paper before we start. we have supported drug legalization since 1988 when it was considered a fringe, irresponsible position. i'm very glad to see the world

is catching up. today's panel is about cannabis and tax fairness. this subject received good news lately. colorado senator cory gardner said that president trump promised to support congressional efforts to protect states that have legalized marijuana, and chuck schumer has announced he is proposing a bill to decriminalize cannabis at federal level. that puts him at odds with jeff sessions, one of america's last dedicated drug warriors, but we will talk about what this means for the industry. and i have a great panel to discuss this with me. we have michelle minton, from a libertarian think tank. we have john kagia, who focuses on the cannabis industry globally. we have john hudak, deputy director for the center of public management at the brookings institution.

we have neal levine, and we have grover norquist, the president of americans for tax reform. michelle, let's start with you. and let's start with a very basic question. most americans support legalization. why is it not yet legal? ms. minton: well, what it comes down to is incentive. when you are asked if you support drug legalization, over 50% will say yes when it comes to recreational. about 80% say when it comes to medical. few of them are willing to go to a representative saying i will not vote to you if you do not legalize marijuana. however, there are a small minority of people in the republican side who have a lot of money who will say i will not fund you if you support marijuana legalization.

so, it's easier for politicians to keep their heads down, but my numbers -- there are at least 50 people in the house who have already voted for some kind of marijuana legalization bill. there are another 25 or so who have voted in a way that makes them think some kind of bill they would be likely to vote for, and there are an unknown number of people who are quietly pro marijuana. in particular on the republican side, there are a lot of republicans who say they believe federalism,ights or but there those types of people like paul ryan who should support descheduling marijuana. taking it out of the controlled substances act. paul ryan has been pretty anti-marijuana legalization. however, he has started to soften a little bit. the chuck schumer bill has come up. it's likely he will go on with the tide. in the last year, we have seen so many bills that makes me think the pressure is starting

to shift, the incentives are starting to shift, but it is still easier for a politician to keep their head down on an issue until it becomes an election problem. mr. fasman: if you were betting, and the cory gardner bill, chuck schumer bill came to the house and senate floor, would they pass? i should ask, what are the chances they could go to the floor? and what are the chances of they would pass? ms. minton: schumer's bill, good chance. gardner's bill, less of a chance. of schumere leadership. leadership has for the most part taken a pretty anti-pro-marijuana position. you also have mitch mcconnell, who just introduced last week a hemp legalization bill, and pelosi said that she might eventually consider legalization of marijuana. her voting has been pretty good. she voted to make it legal for veterans, for rohrbacher farms, which stopped the department for going after the states where it

is legal. i think the schumer bill has a good chance, and the gardner bill has gotten a lot of support. i think it has slightly less of a chance because of his rank. but they both have a good shot. mr. fasman: marijuana is still illegal at the federal level. are you surprised we have not seen more federal marijuana prosecutions? i imagine a sort of an ambitious young d.a. in denver, seattle, who wants to impress jeff sessions. why have we not had someone go where it'shere legal? ms. minton: it is high-stakes for jeff sessions. up until last year, we had

rohrabacher handicapping them from going after legal marijuana. when they start going after it, if that happens, they open the door for the courts to considering this. it also puts more pressure on politicians to finally do something. if the states start legalizing it and the federal government and the department of justice do not interfere, voters, the 60% or 80% you say it wants to be legal are fairly content. if the justice department starts prosecuting mom-and-pop pot shops, people get angry and it moves up on their hierarchy of important issues when they go to vote. mr. fasman: if we were to see a crackdown on the business, you think there would be a push toward full legalization? ms. minton: and i think sessions understands that. he is playing on the idea that what he really wants to do is not so much throw people in jail, although he definitely wants to throw people in jail, but he always wants to do that, and take their money also, but what he wants is to take their

a chillingreate effect in the states. he wants to stop the progress and the other states by threatening to prosecute state legislatures that are often very hesitant to do anything when they don't know what the federal government is going to do. they think we will legalize it and we will have to deal with all these prosecutions. maybe we should hang back and wait until we have clarification from the federal government. so i think that's what he is trying to bully these states not moving forward into the a legalization effort. mr. fasman: last week you mentioned there was a sports betting case for the supreme court that could have ramifications for the cannabis business. what is the case and what are the ramifications? ms. minton: now it is murphy vs. ncaa, the case is new jersey wants to legalize cannabis. -- legalize a sports gambling. there is a federal law that's been around since 1992 that says if you didn't have a law then you can't do it now ever. new jersey says that is now unconstitutional. federal government cannot tell state legislatures what to do. they can tell us individuals, they can say, marijuana is illegal, and states should not be able to legalize it because of the supremacy clause. but that's not what the gambling law did.

it specifically is addressed at the state legislature. this is one of those things where should new jersey win, the federal government would not tell states what to do. it would bolster the case for a legalization of marijuana. it would not be a clincher, but it would definitely raise the profile of the idea of federalism. mr. fasman: 280e, to give the audience a brief explanation, what does it do and why is it there? the tax law, the law forbidding -- the law that bars marijuana businesses from claiming tax deductions? ms. minton: that is what you are going to have to ask the tax experts. mr. fasman: tell me where the sports betting case is now. is it before the supreme court? ms. minton: the court heard arguments in december. i was there. a surprising number of justices seemed sympathetic to new jersey and very aggressive toward the

the federal government because the solicitor general heard in front of the government and they did not seem to buy his argument. we are waiting. any day we could get a decision, any day up until june 25. mr. fasman: john, let's turn to you. we have a better picture of the landscape. tell us about cannabis consumption. what are the trend lines? what are the demand lines you are seeing? >> the three broadly speaking trends that are converging and why we're are we are seeing this momentum behind cannabis, support for legalization. nationally, 64% of americans now support adult use or recreational use, between 80 to 90% support medical depending on

whose polls you use. but broadly speaking, they say this is one of the fastest evolving social issues, moving more quickly than gay marriage. if you recall five or six years ago that gay marriage would be contentious and divisive issue, it sort of became mainstream and normalized. we see cannabis moving more quickly than that. the second is that not only a support for legalization growing, but the number of cannabis users and consumers is growing very quickly. currently, at least based on the government's most recent national survey and drug use, 22.4 million americans, one in 10 americans, consumes cannabis regularly. that is up six percent since 2009. regular cannabis consumers, your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends. and then third is, in the legal

markets, cannabis businesses is selling an extraordinarily large volume of cannabis. last year, we estimate national sales top $8 billion. 2018, we are forecasting sales will reach $12 billion. by 2020, that goes up to $17 billion. by 2025, in states that are just currently legal, you are looking at a $25 billion market. that doesn't include any new states being sold. that is just sales to medical patients and recreational consumers. it's a huge market, and it is a huge market that is not creating new cannabis consumers. it's just moving them into the legal market. i just looked at the statistics last night.

since 2011, interception of cannabis at our borders have fallen to 800,000 pounds as the legal markets have stood up domestically and americans have stopped and dramatically turned away from cannabis being imported. so you are seeing this recognition that when cannabis is legal, most consumers -- as long as the pricing is right --would prefer to get it through legal channels because you get better quality and more options. you get a good selection of portfolio products. and it feels like a regular, commercial activity. it feels like purchasing anything else you would in the consumer economy. and to your point about would happen if enforcement and fits were to enforce it, we suspect that if in communities people have access to equal cannabis -- cannabis, getting that

get strongerll having it in not the first place. once you have a chance to not feel like a criminal if you are a cannabis consumer -- and yet large portion of americans consuming it legally, by legalizing it, you take away the criminal element. most people are not going to want to go back to that black market, which is why the push back is an aggressive type of action and would be so strong. >> you mentioned the number growing. among whom is it growing faster? is a growing among suburban americans? >> good question. a couple of ways to think about it. historically men have consumed cannabis twice more than women -- historically you have seen much greater cannabis use among much younger age groups, under 35 consume cannabis twice the rate as those over 55.

but you're seeing greater rates of adoption amongst all the populations. one of the reasons is because of the product forms of cannabis that is available. if cannabis is legalized -- in the pre-legal markets, a majority of smokers who smoke and joints or pipes, they have investment in infrastructure to develop new products forms. the quality of edibles, you have products that take away the consumption element of smoking.

so, with increased r&d going into product forms, and the decriminalization, markets yet decriminalization of than legal markets, you have communities who say i do not have to smoke it, i can apply a lotion to treat my arthritis. being much more willing to entertain it, particularly as health care costs are skyrocketing and people are looking for alternatives. >> you mentioned the enormous amount of legal cannabis. can you generalize about what states are doing with the tax revenue? >> absolutely. so you have states like colorado, who spent the first $40 million of its tax revenue towards school construction. in total, it's spending over $60 million in education and general. and that's compelling when you think about the number of protests that have been held in places like west virginia, because there's not enough money to pay teachers and pay them raises. there's a lot of capital invested in health and health-related programs, from

drug abuse treatment programs, to general holistic health of our communities. and then a number of states are allocating a lot these revenues towards the general fund. towards the totality of their state budget to fill in some gaps. and the numbers are significant. since 2014, colorado has made nearly $750 million in cannabis taxes. last year, it made a quarter of a billion dollars alone. these are significant numbers for state budgets at a time when states are increasingly squeezed on the revenues. >> when we see these initiatives go forth at the state level, is it sold as a tax benefit policy and liberty issue? >> that's certainly been one of the important arguments. $40 million cause in colorado is

one of the ways to get them to buy into the bill. tax revenues has really been one of the ways in which this has been sold. but we think social justice is another critical part of it. the decriminalization and recognition of the social equity -- inequity in which cannabis prohibition has been enforced. when you are four times more likely to get arrested for cannabis uses when you are black -- even though cannabis consumption rates are almost identical between blacks and whites. addressing that inequity has been an important aspect of this debate. >> john, let's turn to you. this industry has grown despite significant tax efforts. you talked about 280e and what that has done. talk about the federal bank restrictions. >> 280e and the internal revenue code that in its most basic

terms says that if you are engaging in activity that is illegal in the context of drugs, you are not entitled to the type of business deductions that you would traditionally be eligible for. there's this irony in american policy that is, no matter what illegal activity you are engaging in, whether you are a cannabis business in colorado, you are the mafia, you are running a child prostitution ring, you are supposed to pay your federal taxes. it may be shocking that most child sex ring leaders do not pay federal taxes, but if they were willing to go to the irs with a bag of cash from a bunch of perverts, they would pay their taxes, but they would not get the types of deductions of it for instance, if they wanted to build an addition to the house they are running a child sex ring out of. the federal government would say no, you're not entitled to

deductions. i hope there is no one in this room who is thinking, those poor pedophiles. that's terrible tax policy. but for legal cannabis business, it's a serious issue, especially at the beginning, the inception of a business when you have tremendous capital needs. you also have tremendous tax burdens. the business is usually sinking money into thinking they will have the ability to deduct that come tax time. every other legal business in the united states has access to those benefits. cannabis businesses don't. people out there who are fearful of big marijuana, it is a lot easier for a large marijuana firm to absorb those costs then it is for a mom and pop for them to absorb-pop firm

them. section 280e decreases this dynamic where businesses are getting hurt constantly. patients aren't customers are constantly, why? because when you cannot do that, you are paying the price at the point-of-sale. and so it raises prices across the industry. not because of anything the industry wants to do, but because of what the industry can't do, and that has effects on the ability to displace the black market and has wide reaching effects across the industry and country. your question about banking restrictions, this gets tied in. the first panel of the they talk about how difficult it is to pay taxes when you are a cannabis business. state treasurer's do not like you coming in with a big bag of cash or a pallet of cash for some companies in order to pay your taxes. in part, when a business does not have access to banking because of a treasury and federal reserve, and other regulations, they have to become a cash only business.

the irony in all of this, and this is a real killer for me --is that this all exists because of fears about money laundering. because of anti-money laundering policies in the united states. there is no bigger facilitator of money laundering and tax cheating than the united states government, because of the regulation that comes out of fdic, treasuries, and a variety of places, including the federal reserve. [applause] >> if you are cash only, if you are forced to be cash only, it is much easier for you to skip on taxes, and much easier for you to launder money. while most of the industry is full of good actors who are well intentioned and want to be honest, genuine brokers and business owners, there are bad

people in this industry, too, and every day cannabis businesses do not have access to banking is another day those bad players in the industry are going to outwit and outsmart people in this industry and the government, and do a lot of terrible things with the money they can stash. [applause] >> how did this happen? tell us how public policy and marijuana has evolved. >> public policy in marijuana has evolved in dramatic and interesting ways. and as a self plug, if you would like to read about it, you can buy my book, available on amazon. [laughter] >> but it has been something -- i will not go through the whole arc of history, but you go through this period american history where the british crown required land owners to grow hemp at the time. cannabis was fairly common in the 1800's, and then suddenly, this may come as a shock, the federal government

racializehey could this policy. to disenfranchise and turn white americans against mexican americans coming across the border. boy, how times have changed, huh? [laughter] >> marijuana, which sounded exotic and dangerous, turned to another community, and in the was the jazz movement. it wasn't by accident that the jazz movement tended to exist in new orleans and chicago and harlem. and so this now became something the government could use to turn white americans against black americans. and then it was beatniks in the 1950's and hippies in the 1960's. and then when richard nixon became president it was the jews were using marijuana. he was on tape saying that. this became a product that was made illegal, first informally, then formally. not because of harms, not because of science, not because of our understandings of public health, but because of politics and racism and the ability to divide and the ability to get

votes. where we are at now is a position where states are saying no to this. legislators at the federal level are saying no to this because they understand the history and they understand the substance, and they are looking at the landscape and saying, alcohol kills more people than cannabis. nicotine kills a hell of a lot more people than cannabis. [applause] >> we as states, we as individuals can probably make better choices about this drug then a crazy man named harry and -- harry enslinger did at the bureau of narcotics the 1930's. >> talk more about him and tell us what he did. >> he cut his teeth in the era of prohibition, and he was ap or -- a peer of j edgar hoover. in fact, he ran the bureau of

narcotics for almost the same amount of time as j edgar hoover ran the fbi. and he was a teetotaler. he was in about our mission is to develop cannabis to be the product that he could sell -- you could say, to the american public is something that is a problem. you see him writing in newspapers and academic journals, testifying before congress about all the terrible things that cannabis does, and this should seem familiar to any cannabis users because you experienced the same problems. you've committed rapes and murders, you have gone psychotic. for the white women in the audience, you have done the terrible thing of having sex with a man of color, if you used cannabis. these are things this man literally said to congress, in newspapers. it scared white america and people about what it meant to the fabric of society.

he was a master manipulator who turned this nation against a drug that had been part of society since before the founding. >> thank you. neil, we haven't had a business view. you are out there in the trenches. how does 280 affect you? >> not to disagree with john, who i respect greatly, but local taxes can be passed on, but 280 cannot. when you pay a rate of 80% or more, mom and pops -- there is no way for them to make anything if they are paying taxes. maybe if you run a smart business and you are able to scale and pull single-digit percentages out of business, but not enough to properly skill and not enough to reinvest into your business. it's an industry killer. it's there on purpose -- the federal government is using it to keep the industry small and poor. going back to the history of how 280e began is actually an industrious regular in -- drug dealer out of minneapolis who was arrested.

he went for some standard is us for his cocaine, and methamphetamine business and he won in tax court. so congress passed 280 e, may traffic inys if you standardoutside takeess, you can't deductions.iness they never envisioned an industry like ours existing in the early 1980's when that passed. this law, 280e, has been targeted since california passed proposition 215. this is a bipartisan issue, the clinton administration -- and those originally their policy to use 280 e that the struggle the industry into the grave. and they slowed us down, but they haven't strangled us in the grave.

>> can use state-based credit unions, things like that? >> going back to what you are talking about earlier, we have some good news. we have been working closely with senator gardner on tax policy and banking. this was historic news that came out last friday. john was correct in saying now there is a town of work to do to get legislation to the house and senate and get a central position where we might be able to significantly change federal law. the new federalism fund is now joining forces with the american association with cannabis and hemp and we are going to bring significant forces to try to pass legislation and normalize this industry wants and for all.

[applause] >> pivot off that. tell us about the new federalism fund. reds we are a 501(c)(3) for. coming out of the federal election, we form because we saw potential opportunity with comprehensive text reform. we have a very bad tax issue and we felt as part of that issue, we took a shot, that was the best shot we had to fix this terrible tax law. obviously, from the news here seen in last week, we were able to make a tremendous amount of progress. we are poised on the brink of real federal change. we are to go.

--the this is actually up bipartisan issue. but social issue. conss the board, of massive of personal wealth. because of the conflict, because the federal government is executing policies and are not allowing states to be levered toys of democracies. you have nine states that opted out of prohibition entirely. you have medical marijuana laws on the books. is out of the tube. this is only going one way. the government should step back. it is going well.

we're generating tons of text revenue. in states in a laws, opioid deaths are declining. laws, opioidpassed deaths are declining. in the with the growth business at look like? reg's be monumental. -- it would be monumental. 280 is a massive confiscation of wealth from businesses and states. >> who are cannabis possible best friends on the hill? >> just recently a lot of people in the press. than that, where the most productive conversations? >> with at tencent productive conversations. we have had tons of productive conversations. >> i'm going to ask you the same thing i ask michelle.

of the gardner billowed the schumer bill came to the floor, would you expect it to be passed? >> we would work really hard to get a pass. >> thank you. grover? exit is important people look at at it. there are different -- >> it is important people look at it. it has been approached as an issue. meaning come instead of sitting on a waiting until your 218 ,ouse members and 60 senators think we would not of gotten close to the majorities in the house and senate and senate if there had not been successes in the states. the fear of the unknown, one of the things that helps -- i've look. criminal justice reforms in the fact that texas did it first -- other states, nobody lost an election in texas. that's pretty cool.

they just didn't and georgia and one place and kim of the primary was one guy who is for a conservative for voted for conservative justice reform got attacked by somebody who is more conservative because he was taking too much credit. not because he voted run. it -- you are really that important in this. issue aple think and safe politically, and also save if people were piling up cars and denver, people would say, wait and see what that is. but that is not happening. as a number of states do this, it becomes much easier for other states to do in and for the federal government to say, we recognize the concerns people thought theyhat we might be and your secret friends become not secret friends because they say, i was always on your side on the subject will stop the challenges and this is 280, that sayso

if you are selling marijuana in a state where it is legal, the federal government for federal taxes as you cannot take any ordinary business deductions for paying your staff, rent, trying marijuana, none of those things. helpedent tax cut has the industry. there used to be a 30% excise tax. 30% of every dollar of sales. tax.xcise pretty rough. add to that, you have to hire people, pay rent, things like this. a 21% excise tax now. pass-through's are down. so little less painful. in point of fact, if you care about federalism, if you care about the idea that we have 50 states and they should compete with each other to find the best

government, the lowest cost and people can change the government if they're not doing very good wheremoving, you can see millions of people move into and out of, federalism allows states to decide what works and what does not. the federal government through 280 interferes with federalism. they say, ok colorado you've got this but we had this massive punitive tax, and excise tax rather than a profit tax that makes it difficult. when you touch an audience about it, they may not have interest or care one way or another you can be hostile to marijuana but how would you feel if school choice faced at 35% excise tax because while your stay said where longtime to school choice, parental choice in education the teacher said no we don't like this and we will have a massive income tax on your scholarship.

you would infect cripple, damage the ability to have 50 states try things. you want 50 states to do different things in some work in some don't. nobody's life is a complete failure. some states are bad examples. on a given issue, look at that coming down to that. or come over here, this is working. greg 70 states than marijuana -- >> have any states done marijuana wrong so far? >> one of my least favorite is the matter where they said, marijuana wants to be regulated like liquor, wine, spirits, your. that's what you don't what. that is the one stupidest way to regulate. take it out of the commerce clause and tell states you can do anything stupid things you want. >> unpack that a little bit. -- and it opened

prohibition the last someone spirits, liquor, beer, wine we said ok, states can relate how it is produced and marketed. you are allowed to have three tiers where you have the store run it, the wholesaler, and these guys all managed liquor sales and this is why you can get there on sunday afternoon and they also have rules that nobody has to put up with any other product. the guys in nevada, the people around the wholesale distributor set, when we run marijuana just like we do spirits and run it for us. so we get to have a monopoly on the distribution. unfortunately, they put a few thousand bucks into the campaign and they were able to write the rules. that pass. it's unfortunate. in ohio, five guys at a bunch of land said, it's ok be if to buy it from our land.

that was left on cordon did not make it but you have to watch up for people trying to write in special interests into the constitution. like selling things on the post office instead of allowing a lot of different private sector competitors. you look at that and say, don't that way.d, move so i would stay away from " treatise the way we treat spirits and wine and beer." slightly better than prohibition but it is not really want to get stuck. >> who doesn't well? -- does it well? >> colorado. said interesting that guy were usually the third adapter. the first two guys, don't you then don't do that, now we know it is doing. i think colorado right now. >> maximum amount of

competition, least relation? >> in yes. they promised 15 end it went up to 25. that was unfortunate. in a majority trick. they said they would not want to do that, but yours have to keep an eye on the government. -- >> if you are not trafficking two ladies is not apply. other questions?

>> yes. there. [indiscernible] >> i'm dave bishop, a libertarian running for congress in maryland's district for. i'm curious about the implications of, say we were not something build the through. what are the results of simply just trying to get rid of 288 by itself of who are not -- 28080 -- 280 e. gardner negotiated with trump, you would end up

with it sidetracked. you take marijuana off the list. donald trump and cory gardner, he put a hold on every single appointments nomination of the justice department which got the attention of the opponent of marijuana andr took him out of the debate and we have an agreement that should make forward that solve those two problems. schumer's legislation goes further and solve some of the other challenges. >> one of the reasons why addressing this to 80 issue -- issue, the average

price per pound has fallen from about $2000 per pound to $1000 per pound in three years. it was one thing when your and thewere very high market first launched, the market first launched, that you could take on, you could bear that 80% tax and take a little out of the business. $1000 perou hit pound, a lot of folks are getting squeezed out. it is much less tenable to survive under that environment when a lot of companies have set their breakeven point at $1000 per pound. so your hitting a breakeven point and your having this federal tax. if this does not get addressed soon, you are going to see a lot of small and medium-sized operators struggle to make it through the next couple growing cycles.

benefitsk one of the of's chuck schumer's bill if you're a democrat is not its chance of passage. it's not going to pass. p sessions is not going to let it out of the house rules committee. but here is what it does do. signals to other democratic colleagues sent to other house democratic colleagues, i'm the strongest leader in this party right now. this is an ok and issue for you. the numbers.ok at this is a no-brainer. i'm paraphrasing but that is essentially what he did. chuck schumer is not looking at his bill passing this congress. he is looking at the next congress. or maybe the house is controlled by democrats. it will definitely be controlled

by different speaker. perhaps there's a new rules committee chair, etc. that can move the needle a little bit. that's part of the skin. in terms of 280, and my conversations come of that is an issue. go talk to an old white man about, look up the medical research. look me discuss how marijuana actually works. they don't know about that they do know about business, texas, the understanding interaction of the two. they get this more than a lot of other issues in the states. >> i bet you we will give it through this congress. >> i will take your money. >> other questions, rate there. wondering how much support the industry is getting from banks and lenders and

regulatory institutions that cannot necessarily supported legally yet. how much support are you expecting one that changes? >> i think you will see a lot with chambers of commerce for example because they recognize what they are, they are small businesses. you have lawyers who cannot in certain states work with cannabis businesses because they cannot give advice to clients engaging in illicit activities. once set goes away, you will see areas, especially those professional organizations have a quick turn toward supporting those organizations. the rest of the country will come along slower. sac potheads are not cheech and chong, they are nancy down the street or that coworker who shows up every day at 9:00 and leaves that 5:00. >> let's get your microphone.

you?w are what the states that have already federally, excuse me rick relationally passed prevent, how do we monopolies from happening across the united states in the states of already let that happen. >> the only monopolies we have are the ones the government created for us. at&t and to compete with a lot of other companies until they got a lot passed that said they were a natural monopoly. which they didn't have until the law passed. mail, you go to jail if you started that. not so in parcels. the more they allow limits like

occupational licensing, you don't want the government telling people they cannot go into a business or limited get or putting a high barrier with taxes being a very high barrier to entry. take those taxes down and get the regular regulator barrier to entry taken down. then there is because there's so much entry. people come in and start and stop. whenever you try to fix things , theving so many rules guys that are already in decide to try to use those rules as well to keep other competitors out into end up with monopolies or monopolies. >> grover hit on it with the a call industry. i've been hearing it from seven-10 years. this is has been kind of reclining. craft beer is raising. you saw a huge monopolies and

beer. there were more beer being created since prohibition but mostly by three companies. the reason was because each state decided to go with distributors and said, ok you produce beer and you sell it at retail. you cannot talk to each other. you have to go through a distributor. it give them an enormous amount of money because they controlled the entire industry and to allow that to make a lot of money and through politicians donations and keep the walls the way they are in keep their competitors locked into certain areas. that is not we want to see with marijuana happening. hopefully people will learn a lesson when they see surrounding states during better and change their laws. >> can you please join me in thanking this great panel? [applause]

announcer: here's a look at our live coverage for monday. the council on american islamic relations holds a news conference to release their civil rights report. later, the senate foreign relations committee meets. this evening, landmark cases continues with a look at tinker v. des moines independent schools which questioned the first amendment rights of students on school grounds. atc-span2, we look preparations for the 2020 census and the decision to include a question about u.s. citizenship. on tuesday, the u.s. senate returns to consider a judicial nomination.