Cat Packer on Regulating Cannabis in Los Angeles

use any type of drouth. Hello Psychoactive listeners. So today we're gonna do a deep dive into the issues of legally regulating marijuana in California and specifically in Los Angeles, and all of the challenges that are involved in that. I mean from dealing with state laws and regulators to federal stuff, to coalitions, to all the really challenging issues around equity and trying to diversify participation in the industry.

My guest today is Kat Packer, and I just get a kick out of this because I first met Cat back in sixteen when she came to work for ME and Drug Policy Alliance working on the campaign Measure sixty four in California to legalize marijuana, which we ultimately won and then lo and Behold. A few months later, she gets appointed by I think the Mayor and City Council of Los Angeles to become the first head of Los

Angeles Department of Marijuana Regulation. So, Cat, I love it that you're in this position, and you've now been for many years. But thanks so much for joining me on Psychoactive. Absolutely, thank you, Ethan. It's glad to be here with you today. Yeah, so listen, I know it's been a hell of a

ride running this office here. But why don't we first get into how you got into this marijuana issue, how you landed up in this position, your journey and some understanding as it goes back to living in Ohio, going to get a law degree in a master's degree in public policy at Ohio State University. But just tell us that journey of yours. In two thousand and fifty and I was in my last year of law school at Ohio State and I was taking a marijuana law and

policy course that's taught by Doug Berman. And it was really through this marijuana law and policy course that I took and some other classes that I was taking, taking Advanced Social Justice, I was taking the race and policy courses, and all at the same time, while I'm learning about the history of cannabis policy reform in the US and some of the cannabis reforms that had started to take place around the country. After I graduated from Ohio State in twenty fifteen, I went to try and explore how

I could get involved in cannabis policy reform. And my first entry into this space was working for the Responsible Ohio campaign right out of law school in Ohio. And for that campaign, I served as their assistant director of internal Communications, but I did a little bit of everything

for the campaign. But what that experience taught me was one how quickly these conversations were going to be happening without all of the appropriate stakeholders at the table, and really how money it was going to move this conversation. That's what I saw in my experience with that campaign.

But my passion for cannabis policy reform was really ignited by Michelle Alexander's The New Gym Crow, which I had an opportunity to read while I was in law school and taking the Marijuana Law and Paulice the course and in the New Gym Crow, there was a quote that really struck me and stuck with me as I pursued

my interest in cannabis policy reform. The quote is nothing has contributed more to the systematic mass incarceration of people of color in the United States then the War on drugs, and that was such a profound statement to me at

the time. And while I was taking this Marijuana lawan Policy course, I had an opportunity to explore some of a c l use work as well, and eventually learned that marijuana arrests accounted for half of all drug arrests in the United States, and that most marijuana arrests were for possession and black and brown folks were disproportionately likely

to be arrested for marijuana. And the culmination of, you know, learning all of this information, particularly while taking this marijuana long policy course, led me to write a capstone paper for the Marijuana Law in Policy course titled Marijuana Policy

UH is Race Policy. After law school, after working on the Responsible Ohio campaign, as they began to look around the country for opportunities to continue to participate UH in cannabis policy reform, I learned of a one day strategy session that the Drug Policy Alliance was hosting in New York ahead of the United Nations gathering to talk about

drug policy. And the title of this one day strategy session was very similar to the title of the Capstone paper that I wrote for this Marijuana long Policy of course, which was something like marijuana uh policy or drug policy is race policy. And that's essentially what led my interest in this work and then eventually working within for the Drug Policy Alliance. So before we move into your coming to DP A Drug Policy Alliance, I remember when that Ohio initiative came up in and it was a real

challenge for me. I mean, the first thing was, I see this initiative emerging in Ohio and it seems to be back by ten rich guys, and I'm trying to look around, you do I need to talk to and there's this guy, Doug Berman. I guess you're who happened to be your law professor there? And I called Doug and the first thing he tells me, which was kind of neat, was that he had actually been a student of mine at Princeton back in the late eighties and

early nineties. So we had this funny little connection there, and he begins to explain me what's going on, and then they get a call from the guy running the camp pain and what's clear is that he's already raised the money from I think ten major investors, each committing to put in two million dollars apiece into this initiative. And they have a lot of good stuff in mind about democratizing lots of licenses and putting in equity things

and all this. But the major flaw in the initiative was that they had also written into it a provision that said that only the ten investors, or technically speaking, the properties they owned, could engage in marijuana production in the state of Ohio in perpetuity. So basically and it constitutionally mandated Ala Gopoli, which was just kind of venal. And I said to the guy, the campaign manager, it's hard to see how we can ever get behind this.

He goes, Listen, I'm going forward no matter what. So we agreed, we Drug Policy Alliance, that we would help him draft the thing to make it as good as possible in all other areas, just in case at one, but that we could never endorse it because of that particular provision. Now, as we both know and our listeners may not know. I mean, this is the first major ballot initiative that was basically funded entirely by people wanting

to make money. I mean, until that time, and really even through virtually all my fundraising for ballot initiaives, both medical and otherwise, had come from philanthropists and very little from people are hoping to make money in the industry. But here was an opposite example of jumping to the utter, the opposite extreme. And I remember, and this is going to sort of set up the question for you. Here talking with the head of the Ohio State A c. L U and us to commiserating, like what are we

gonna do here? Our major objective is ending the harms of prohibition. If this initiative passes, it will cut by maybe ten thousand a year the number of people being arrested for low level marijuana offenses who are disproportionately people of color. But the system they want to set up is fundamentally basically fucked up. And so in the end we didn't take a position. We laid out the pros and cons. But for you, it was already interested in racial justice. It was obviously going to present some of

these benefits. How did you come to grips with this initiative campaign that you were going to work with that had this highly offensive, kind of greedy provision in it, even it was doing a lot of good on the other side. Yeah, Ethan, and I just want to say that I think that there were even outside of that provision, there were many flaws with with the campaign itself and

with provisions that were included in the campaign. I think a lot of things that we've learned in hindsight now being able to see the full extent of what some later reforms have looked like. But to be frank, when the organizers of that campaign first came and presented to Doug Berman's class, I took issue with their organizers and spent a lot of time pushing back on their framework.

I remember leaving that class very agitated because it was very obvious to me that they weren't having conversations about the impacts that cannabis policy and enforcement prohibition had had on black and brown communities, or it seemed like there was only going to be an effort to talk about

it and not actually do anything about it. And it was only after several conversations with Berman, and really just telling myself that this was an opportunity for me to learn as much as I could while I had an opportunity to participate on this campaign and then use all of the things that I learned in my next iteration

of the work. And so that's how I approached my participation in the campaign, that I was there for a learning experience, that I knew that there were going to be positions and ideals and people that I would have conflict with, but that I could still use that as an opportunity to learn and then put those lessons to use and the next iteration of whatever I was going to do in cannabis policy reform. So you didn't need

to be in a position of publicly defending the initiative. Really, no, all of my work was internal, and so not only did did I get an opportunity to see how the campaign operated, how it was organized, but really the value system of that campaign and working very closely with that campaign's leadership. And while I think they're all fine people, I don't think that the initiative itself was prepared to

to accommodate all communities. So then you become aware of drug policy Alliance, and I guess you come to New York to one of our events. And I knew that I wanted to get deeply involved in cannabis policy reform. And I remember telling myself, as a young person who had just graduated from law school, I need to get

some more cannabis on my resume. And I knew that I probably wouldn't be able to do that as extensively as I wanted to in Ohio, and so I began to look kind of nationwide to see who was doing some of the work that I was most interested in. And as I was in pursue of that interest, I found online that the Drug Policy Alliance was having this one day strategy session called uh something like drug Policy

is Race Policy. And what stood out to me so much about even just the title of that program was that it mirrored the title of the kind of capstone project that I had did from my marijuana lan policy course, where I was looking intentionally at the impact that cannabis prohibition and its enforcement had on the black community and black families. And so I said, this is where I

want to be. And I caught a megabus from Ohio to New York, and when it opened, I had an opportunity to meet Asha I was with the Drug Policy Alliance. Actually got a chance to listen to you speak there.

But I also had an opportunity to meet Lynn Lyman, who at the time was the state director for the California Office for the Drug Policy Alliance, and she and I it off pretty quickly, and she was informing me that she was in the process of managing a campaign in California and support of California's Proposition sixty four Adult

Use of Marijuana Act. And it couldn't have been two and a half months later, after going to New York at the attending the Drug Policy Alliance conference that I had interviewed to serve as the campaign coordinator for Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform. Within weeks of that interview, I was in Los Angeles. So when you were working on the campaign in that I guess late summer and fall.

I guess that's when you and I first met. What was it like for you jumping into this California world and here was an initiative which was not being driven by the money. We were still relying overwhelmingly on philanthropists, and our model was we would not raise money from people in the industry until after we had finished drafting the initiative. We didn't want to be tainted in that way. We would talk with all stakeholders, but we wanted this

to be as good public policy as possible. But what was your role in the campaign at that point and what was it like for you? So I served as the campaign coordinator, and my primary responsibility was to coordinate different elements of the campaign, whether that be messaging, two different allies and campaign partners, to out on the groundwork around California, but primarily in Los Angeles organizing, and I have to tell you that I was proud of that work.

I'm still proud of that work and the reform that was packaged in the form of Proposition six to four, because at the time it was the most progressive, most

criminal justice centered cannabis legalization effort in the country. My primary responsibility was to organize with different stakeholders and allies of the campaign to get across messaging, to do different fundraising, but also spent a lot of time on the ground organizing in and around the city of Los Angeles, and did a lot of engagement, primarily with underserved communities in black and brown communities to try and strategize not only around how we could pass this initiative, but how we

could get this initiative to work in our community's favor as it went through uh the implementation stage. And so after the initiative passed in I stayed on with the Drug Policy Alliance as their policy coordinator in the California Office, and at the time my efforts really centered around strategizing and organizing the implementation of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

So let me just interject here for our listeners. So just here where California marijuana legalization initiative in two thousand sixteen was really a monumental undertaking, and Drug Policy Alliance essentially took the lead on that. Now me it was kind of a kind of coming full circle or coming to a culmination and sort of my career of organizing

advocacy from the medical marijuana issue of California. Then the first medical Mariline that should have back in nineties six were able to turn a kind of ambitious local activist effort in the Bay Area into a really successful statewide victory back in really the first time that the nascent drug policy reform movement showed that we could play bowl in the major leagues of American politics, and it was

a wild ride thereafter. And there are all sorts of things involving in legislation to try to implement the Medical Marilan initiative and aborted efforts in that regard. One of our first challenges was making sure that only one of those succeeded, and that that one that succeeded was the one that we thought best reflected public policy, and that presumably dp A was taking a lead on. And we were ultimately successful at making sure that our initiative was

the only one in the ballot. But we were also not unitary actors when it came to drafting that initiative. We had partners involved in this. Sean Parker, the fellow who had made a lot of money on Facebook and elsewhere, was a major financial supporter, not for for profit reasons, for really good policy reasons, and there were other key players, and there were unions and environmental groups and county law enforcement exactly all sorts of interest that had to be

taken into account. So there was a lot of internison conflict leading up to the finalization of our initiative and making sure was the only one in the ballot. There were a lot of allies who were put out at feeling a little sidelined or not getting their preferred provisions

into the initiative. So the job that Kat took on was really a crucially important one when I when I served as campaign coordinator and then policy coordinator thereafter, I was boots on the ground for the campaign and had an opportunity to meet many different community based organizations and just had an opportunity engage with so many different stakeholders that you mentioned before. A lot of my day to day organizing, particularly as we focused around implementation, was focused

on local control. So many different statewide legalization efforts and most have some level of local control, whether they're allocating authority to local jurisdiction cities and counties to decide often whether or not to even allow for commercial cannabis activity. And then beyond that, when jurisdictions do decide to allow for commercial cannabis activity, the type of regulatory program or controls around time, place, and manner of where these businesses

and how these businesses can conduct themselves. And so after the initiative passed in California, many local jurisdictions were put in a position where because adult use sales were to begin on January one, as soon as the initiative passed, there was so much work to be done at both the state and local level to make decisions whether or not folks were going to participate in this life and

sing and regulatory effort. And more importantly, as I was doing advocacy in the City of Los Angeles and and really trying to hold the city accountable to what I felt it were principles and values that we have to lead with when we're talking about cannabis policy reform. I was tapped by the mayor to take on the challenge of advising the city and administering its commercial cannabis program in August. I have to tell you now, Ethan, that I said yes, but I had no idea what I

was getting myself into. I can imagine that the challenges describing it's not just California, but basically every state where municipalities or counties have a large role to play right both in determining whether or not there will be outlets, dispensaries, and how they be regulating all of that. So that's a generic challenge around the country. Yes, it's a challenge that every single state goes through as they go along

their process. I think there are lots of different circumstances and factors that made the challenge that is the City of Los Angeles particularly unique one. The city of Los Angeles and California in general, had this long history of aborted efforts to really address this systematically, and what that meant was that there was a proliferation of cannabis operations in the City of Los Angeles prior to legalization, and a very gray framework, will say, in terms of what

was considered legal and what was considered illegal. There's also super high demand to participate in the cannabis industry, and the city of Los Angeles has a population of four million, which is just as large as half of the the states in our country. So we are dealing with a massive effort, and city of Los Angeles is often regarded as the world's largest cannabis market. M We can also

provide some context here if you think about it. California was the first state to legalize medical marijuana back in

nineties six. Its initiative was far more open ended and far few regulatory provisions than any of the other medical merilin initiatives that succeeded it, both the ones that we had Drug Policy Alliance drafted with local allies of area states as well as that other organizations did, and then that essentially did no statewide regulation of medical marijuana until until basically the year before we did the California Broader adult use legalization initiative. So it essentially had a semi

almost statewide unregulated market for twenty years. It had a

booming black market, a booming gray market. And only in fifteen does Governor Jerry Brown, who had always been sort of hostile to marijuana reform, does he push forward a final statewide medical marijuana regulatory system a year before initiative, and he does it in a way that creates all of these sort of burdens on us when we're drafting the full legalization initiative to incorporate some of the bullshit that he had insisted be in the medical marijuana regulation one.

When you're having all sorts of statewide agencies have a hand on this really creating a really messy, difficult system. So when comes along an initiative gets one, you're dealing not just with this new medical marijuana system that kind of had some carryovers into the legalization initiative, and that tied our hands. But meanwhile, California was far and away the biggest producer, not just market because it's the biggest state, but producing for basically a huge part of the rest

of the country illegally as well. Right, And so you have a huge black market, a huge gray market. Some cities are regulating their medical mariwana fairly responsibly, like maybe San Francisco or Oakland or West Holly would in southern California, but a huge amount of unregulated stuff, incredibly dynamic, booming, illicit market industry, which is unlike the situation in most of the rest United States, certainly in New York doesn't

have that. New Jersey doesn't have anything resembling the magnitude. And within all of that, Los Angeles was required as sort of the wild West of the wild West, the place where hundreds of unregulated, barely regulated medical marijuana di sturencers had popped up and where the city could seemed to get it together, and where they were competing local ballot initiatives to figure out how to do this thing right.

And into this steps you cat packer in the summer of seventeen trying to get a hand on all of this. I just can't imagine what it must have been like to step into that. I mean, you're still in your mid twenties, You're coming out of being an organizer and an advocated drug policy alliance, and all of a sudden, you're have tasked with a job of setting up a brand new office and regulating an industry that was really regulated.

Tell me about some of the shocks or the realizations they hate you in late eighteen is you tried to get a handle on what what was you needed to do? So even first, what I want to do is use this as an opportunity to point in some language. I've been making an intentional effort since I've started in this role, and since I kind of learned about this problematic language, to not use the term black market. I think moving forward, folks are using terms like unregulated market or unlicensed market.

But myself and other folks have made an intentional effort not to use this term black market because there are lots of words in our vocabulary. We're talking about something that's black or brown, and there's a negative connotation like black market, black male, all of these negative connotations that I think we internalize and normalize over time. And so I've been asking folks not to use the term black market. But if they mean unlicensed, and we can say unlicensed.

If we mean unregulated, we could say unregulated. What people in California like to call it is the legacy market. Well, I noticed, can't remember. At d p A we made that part of our communications policy to avoid the use of the phrase black market as much as possible. I was using the phrase illicit market. Is that also one that's regarded as sort of not so good? I think

that there's a spectrum. I don't necessarily have an issue with that language, but anytime I hear the word black market and I have an opportunity to provide an alternative, but that doesn't have a negative, negative racial connotations. Particularly in this drug policy reform space, I think we just have to be open to considering changing our vocabulary. So, but meanwhile, here you are having to deal with this,

let's shall we say legacy markets. What does it look like when you begin to get a lay of the land. Sitting there not as an advocate for d p A, but now charged by the city of Los Angeles with getting a handle on all of this and trying to set up a legal regulatory system. When I was appointed by the by mayor air Car City and in augusten, we were less than five months away from when adult use sales were going to begin in the State of

California and in the City of Los Angeles. And because of the framework that the State of California created in order to operate on January one, on the first day that those sales were going to begin, businesses need to have both a state license and a local license. It was my department, my agency that was supposed to be responsible for issuing these licenses. At the time, I was the only staffer. We did not even have a licensing

or regulatory framework. As you had mentioned, there was still a lot of reconciliation that was happening between the medical provisions through the adult use provisions, and the State of California really spent the summer in fall winter of working through these emergency regulations and local jurisdictions. Laws have to of course be consistent with the state laws and the state regulations, and so I remember at the time only

having two other staff members. When we got the last iteration of the California Emergency Regulations, and then we essentially had to wait for that to happen in December seventeen for us to finalize our licensing and regulatory framework. So it wasn't until and I still now only have about three staff at the time, so it wasn't until December of that we had the actual laws and policies regulations

that my department was going to be responsible for. There were dozens of pages that were passed overnight that had requirements and restrictions that we were to administer related to where these businesses could locate, who could own businesses, the types of operations that we're going to be allowed, and we're almost given this impossible task of trying to implement this program overnight with little to no resources, and that led for a kind of a chaotic and tumultuous start

to our program. And what I've learned over time is that every several months there would be comprehensive changes not to those particular laws and regulations, and so the challenge as a local regulator has been trying to continue to administer our municipal code, which of course involves many different agencies. Fire Department departments, building and safety, issue, building permits, etcetera.

Coordinating with all of these local agencies state agencies that are participating in this permitting process, all the while trying to advise our fifteen council members who are elected and the mayor secure budget and program resources to expand. And that was just the beginning. And meanwhile you're dealing with the city council members, the mayor's office, all these other varied regulatory agencies in l A that has some roll. And at the same time you're dealing with the folks

in the statewide regulatory shop where regulations keep changing. So it's a kind of multidimensional challenge in every evolving universe that you have to keep bouncing around and leaping forward to try to set stuff up. Well, if we fast forward now, it's been over four years that you've been in the office, and it's you know, really a testament to you to stay in a position as demanding as

that for so long. But how have things evolved in terms of what's going on in the ground, in terms of the respective roles of the state regulatory agency and the city council, In terms of the political support you get within the city of Los Angeles. How would you describe that evolution over the last four years. At times it feels like there are a thousand things happening at once.

As an organizer who stepped into this regulatory role, I kind of lived my life on the legislative cycle in different reforms that we try to pass year to gear. But we've made a lot of progress over the course of the last four and a half years. But that progress has still been challenged by what I'd say is a lack of adequate resources. We're all similarly struggling people who are actively in these government positions, regulators, local state regulators,

trying to manage these programs. Many of us well intended or are trying our best to manage these efforts with very few resources and also not necessarily having the benefit of all of the information that is being gathered within each of our programs. I think that there's a real need for a strategic coordination amongst all of the different, diverse stakeholders that are involved in this process. But I

think that's what's needed moving forward. Right now, I have a team of thirty staff hoping to be able to bring on twenty one additional positions in the next fiscal year. We've been making a real intentional effort to expand business development programming aimed at communities that have been most impacted

by the War on drugs in cannabis prohibition. And while there have been against successes in those efforts, I think that those even though successes, have come slowly and the pace, I think has come at a real cost to to our our efforts overall. So let's get into that, because I remember when we drafted Prop. Sixty four, we were very proud of some of the racial and social equity

provisions we guide in there. It made sense that those communities and individuals that have been most harmed by the war marijuana and the War on drugs should get a sort of special dispensation or special effort to allow them possibilities. Now, when you look back over the laws that have passed since that time in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, I think what we did in California seems less impressive

in retrospect. It's also true that what one could do in terms of equity issues was probably much more substantial. When a legalization law passes through a state legislature where you have my powerful minority legislative coalitions wishing this, then one can do in a ballot initiative where you have a broader population, generally mostly white, who's at best mildly sympathetic and oftentimes indifferent too, are hostile to this. But a lot of what I've seen is this continuing challenges

over as I think you just said it. On the one hand, trying to get the best possible system set up so that you can get the licenses out effectively regulated, get out as many as possible, start, do a good job, promote public safety and public health, maximized tax revenue. But on the other hand, a very conscientious effort to try to build in these equity provisions and to give a foot up to people who lack the capital or the training, or or I have other handicaps in terms of getting

into this industry. And so what I wonder is, as you look at it now, do you see models? I mean, are when you look around and obviously you network with other municipal marijuana director you're running the biggest city, second biggest city in a merry at the first biggest in California, do you see places that offer some models about how to do this? Better. Do you look at the New York law and say, Wow, I wish we had some

of that stuff here. Yeah, I think there's a lot of me looking around and wishing that we had stuff here. But I also recognized that I'd like to say that California set the floor, and other jurisdictions that have come after us have had the benefit of being able to, you know, learn from our mistakes, but also learn from some of our successes. Uh As as I talked to other regulators, I think that there are there are obviously models that exist, but whether or not they're models that

should be replicated, I think remains to be seen. And I think part of the challenge is that we're not having the benefit ethan of being able to learn from all of the models because things are moving so quickly. I am regularly in communication with jurisdictions that are getting ready to or thinking about launching their programs, and we have our long conversations. But there's only so much that can be gathered and shared in this piece mill way, and it kind of gets replicated over and over again.

But we really need efforts dedicated at think tanking all of these different pieces and gathering information from all regulators to figure out what specific strategies and inputs are going to produce different outcomes, because within each of our jurisdictions there are, you know, factors and circumstances that make our case study unique. And so I don't know that we're going to be able to establish something that that people

can copy and pace. But my frustration thus far is that I think that there's, in an effort to respond to criticisms of doing nothing in terms of equity, many jurisdictions can just take a copy and pace model without really thinking through how do we establish strategies that reduce barriers to injury? How do we systematically identify by an

address disparities that exist across the board. And that's the work that needs to be done in order for the City of Los Angeles to have the type of outcomes that we want to have, the State of New York to have the outcomes that they want to have. I think that in many ways where we're not working as hard as we need to, and in some areas we're obviously working more harder than we need to because we're not collaborating and strategizing and trying to push for joint

efforts at the federal level. Who's the way there. When you say we're not collaborating, I want to say all of the different stakeholders that are involved in this process. It's it's regulators, law enforcement, it's industry, it's it's public health officials. I mean, I think you and I have had the benefit of being able to be at the center of this network. That's part of why we call it a movement as because we all collectively have to

be trying to move in the same direction. But it just seems like in the in the grand scheme of day to day management of some of these different program elements, it's difficult to coordinate and collaborate in the ways that we need to because we've got our hands full with the one thousand policy decisions that need to be made

at the state and local level. As I was prepping for my conversation with you, I was going through some of the media last few years, and I could see when you first get appointed, there's all this huge enthusiasm, is oftimes the case, but especially you're being a young black woman coming from an advocacy background, appointed to this position, having obviously equity concerns, fund and Center and then a few years later, I see people coming from the minority

business community others who want to go getting so angry at you and attacking you and stuff like that, And I know how incredibly difficult to mean, people have unreals expectations. Not everybody's going to get a license. There's a whole complicated, bureaucratic mess. But I mean, how was that for you, and how is that for you? Dealing with that sort of stuff. It's it's difficult, it's exhaust thing, but I

think it's worthwhile. I think the reality is that you have to show up and do the work, even when people are unhappy. You have to show up and do the work. I think that there's a lot of work that has to get done internally within organizations, within agency, within government institution before the outcomes, before the consequences of that initial effort is recognized. And I'm comfortable doing the

work even before those outcomes are available. And that's what I think a lot of us who step into these roles for the first time, leading leading these agencies from the ground up or dealing with But I do think that it was particularly difficult as someone who organized alongside

some of these individuals and organizations. I think it was difficult both for UH them and for me for that relationship to change almost overnight, and I had to communicate of folks that because of this new role, my relationship is going to change with you, And I think that that was difficult, in particular for some of the stakeholders that I engage most regularly with. But I all think

that it kind of ebbs and flows. Some of the same folks who have been most critical of the Department of Me personally, I work with on a daily basis because at the end of the day, there's work to be done, and so I don't have to agree with folks on everything. But where there is agreement, let's do the work. We'll be talking more after we hear this.

Add Just at the end of there were a whole bunch of articles, a wave of articles, not just in the California media, but the national media, seeing that California marijuana disaster. Nobody's making money in the industry. People are tell talking about going out of business that basically the legacy markets, the unregulated markets on tax paying markets are two to three times people think the size of the legal market, the taxation structure is onerous and punitive. It's

a goddamn mess, and what are we gonna do about it? Now? We're talking now in mid January, and I just saw that Governor Newsom, who was one of our key allies on the marijuana legalization initiative. In fact, I think that one of the first statewide leaders in America to step out boldly in supporting marijuana legalization. But he's saying, I get it. I recognized we gotta change the tax structure,

we gotta change the regulatory context. But there's certain things that we're counting on to come from the tax revenue, so we just can't eliminate the taxes. So what's your perspective when you look at all this hand ringing? And I saw somebody like Michael Steinmitz, one of the guys running Flocana, one of the marijuana he's up north in California, saying, we're just going to refuse to pay our taxes. This is becoming so onerous now, you know, going a tax strike.

What's your sense about this statewide situation? And is California going to begin to get a handle on it this year? Is there going to be effective statewide regulation? Do you and other municipal directors have input into this process. What can you tell us? So, what I can tell you is that I have a very close relationship with a coal who leads the efforts of the cannabis department at the state, and I have confidence in her leadership and

the team that she's assembled. Really over the course of the last year, as the California cannabis licensing agencies have consolidated. That being said, there's still a lot of work to do in order to move this industry forward in a way that is more responsible. I think that for many

folks it is still messy, it is still chaotic. I think that for many entrepreneurs oarporticularly folks who have been in it, who started this several years ago, this has been a painful process, and I think it's it's important to acknowledge that because I think that we can find ways over time to provide relief. I have confidence that it's something that can be done. I think the challenge is going to be whether or not folks are willing to compromise about what we're asking for and clear in

what our objectives are. And it has to be a collective effort. I mean, for as much as can be said about what the California cannabis regulatory program has gotten wrong. There are so many jurisdictions, local jurisdictions, other states that aren't participating at all, and so I think we have to be in a position where we can constantly make improvements. But I think we're in a position both here in California, uh and in other jurisdictions where we we need a

We can't do this in a piece mill way. We have to be able to make bold and comprehensive reforms now because the slow pace comes at a cost across the border. Yeah, I mean, can I'll say, I mean when I step back big picture, people would always ask me what I envisioned about the consequences and legalization, and my answer would be essentially that, look, I'm not fighting for the moral orderization or budweiserization of marijuana markets. I

much prefer to see the smallest, beautiful model. But I know that we live in the most dynamic capitalist society in the world, if not in history. And then if you look at other things, the transition from alcohol prohibition, I mean, after we got rebuilt nineteen thirty three, there was a huge black market for many years before things finally shook out, and eventually the the illicit market kind of really faded into really playing a minor role. Or I even think about the fact that I almost make

the analogy. You look at something like what happened with coffee when Starbrooks comes in and it sort of takes over the world. Living in New York City, I see all the small car fee shops shutting down. But now I look around and I see that there's more small coffee shops than ever before, and that Starbucks is still out there, but they no longer dominate the way they did. And so I sometimes wonder whether there's just this almost inevitability to the sort of capitalist forces at work, that's

the nature of the world we live in. There's in the end those stopping it. That we have a moral obligation to try to do what we can do in terms of advance as small as beautiful or a racial equity model in all this. But over time we'll be

able to get this thing right. And I think in the California context, which is unique in terms of the magnitude and size of the illicit market here in the market not just selling to Californians, but exporting to the rest of the country, that there has to be a priority on trying to reduce the magnitude of of this illicit market and move as much as possible will into a legally regulated market, which may mean things like reducing some of the regulatory barriers, reducing some of the taxation.

What's your thoughts about that. I think that we have to make it way easier for folks to do what we're asking them to do. That's for businesses, for consumers. We've got to make it easier for folks to do what we say is a good public health, public safety strategy. And so I think lowering taxes, making regulations less complex, making licensing more accessible is absolutely things that should be

on the top of our to do list. But I think that we we have to think about how we balance that with with an enforcement strategy, because the reality is that we're not going to have a successful licensed and regulated market if there isn't an enforcement strategy. But I think we have to be careful not to replicate the drug war by allowing criminal infor sent to take

the lead. And so I think that there are ways that we can combine providing access to licensure, access to resources, to help folks get through the process, tax breaks, the lower ring of tax rate, all of those things combined, but also looking at how we can have an alternative to what our historic and existing enforcement strategy has been.

One of the ways we've been trying to do that here in the in the City of Los Angeles is by doing things like utilizing utility disconnection or padlocking buildings, using our Building and Safety Department or Department of Water and Power again to disconnect utilities as agencies that can lead in these efforts that aren't police or criminal enforcement taking the lead. Well, let me ask you this. I mean, I sometimes reflect back on the initiative of d p

A where we play such a big role. We were talking to folks in the environmental activism area, We're talking to labor unions, we were talking to people a whole host of areas, and so we put in stuff requiring environmental protection stuff, and water quality protection stuff, and and

some labor type stuff. And I sometimes wonder if we went too far in that regard, essentially holding the cannabis industry to a higher standard, not just on on racial equity issues, on issues that people have been subject to have been harmed by the War on drugs, but even more broadly, And I also sometimes wonder where we too, because we went out of our way to minimize the severity of the penalties for people operating outside the legal market.

But if you look back about what we might have done differently with this initiative, are there things that really stand out to you that could have made it work a lot better. Yeah, I definitely think that the environmental requirements as I engage with stakeholders across the state, them being held to a higher standard is coming as a real cost. So I think that that's one of the areas that probably went too far. I think that there's a delicate balance between the pros and cons of local control,

and I say that as a local regular there. But part of the challenges is that there are so many jurisdictions in the state of California that aren't participating. I think that part of that is because there hasn't been the infrastructure to help them figure out what it is that they need to do. I think that that's going to take a while for folks to be able to revisit that, and the kind of allocation of the tax structure. I know that Proposition sixty four was one of the

first efforts that allowed for expungement of cannabis records. But I think part of what we've learned in hindsight is that in order for those types of reforms to be as effective and impactful, they need to be free and automatic to folks. So I think that there are lots of lessons that we can learn in hindsight. But I also think that there are several actions that can be taken today, both at the state level and at the

local level, to to try uh and address this. And again, you may not see the results of decisions that are made today until two, three, five years from now, but if that's the work that needs to to be done, at least needs to be started. So let's go back

to these issues around equity again. It's just recently a big rally in the state capital, Sacramento around the equity issues, and I think there's a plans to have a local initiative on the ballot in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Equity Fund Initiative, in which our former colleague Glenn Lineman is playing a role. What do you think about these efforts?

This local initiative Effort and some of these other ones. Well, I'm glad to see communities organizing in support of themselves because I think that what happens a lot of times is that there is a lot of deference that is given to some elected officials, even regulators, and folks think

that they don't need to participate. The reality is that in order to see the types of reforms that are going to allow us to do this more responsible, responsibly, and more equitably, we have to have collective participation across the board. And so I'm happy to seem unities organizing across the state and support of making sure that folks have access to participate in the industry and have resources

they need to be sustainable in the industry. I think part of what you're referencing Ethan in terms of some initiatives that may be happening in Los Angeles is really centered around transparency of where cannabis tax revenue is going. And I think that this is one of the biggest pieces that often gets missed in some of these conversations around equity and reform. Generally, we always got to follow

the money in terms of the cannabis tax revenue. I think there's of course resources that go into and are necessary to administer these programs, but where is the rest

of the money going. And communities here in the city of Los Angeles, in California and across the United States that want to see that community that revenue go back to communities that have been impacted by cannabis prohibition because cannabis prohibition and its enforcement led to the vestment of communities, and there are opportunities for us to use those resources

to build back these communities stronger. And so I think that's part of what's happening in the City of Los Angeles and what we've seen, and if I think folks in Los Angeles or or leading that effort because elected officials haven't, but in other jurisdictions we've seen, particularly when legislators are leading these efforts. We've seen jurisdictions like Illinois, New York, Virginia, New Jersey dedicating significant percentages of their

tax revenue to communities who have been most impacted. UH And in the grand scheme of things, that may have a greater impact on equity reform efforts overall. They can then fund different elements of equity efforts than some of the work that's being done to allocate a few licenses here and there, the reality is that everybody who wants a license isn't gonna get one. People who everybody who gets a license isn't going to keep their their license.

And so as we think about disparities that exist and how we can strategize to address those disparities, we have to think about what the impact of some of these programs are going to have. And I've been happy to see over time that this concept of equity has rightfully expanded beyond equity and licensing to include assessments of things like equity and health and the distribution of cannabis tax

revenue and enforcement. Moving forward, all of these different data points need to be tracked, I think, in order for us to sit here and assess whether any individual program or strategy is working without that information is ill informed. Well let me ask you this. One of the issues that comes up in the equity thing is about access to capital, and that by and large, folks of the money, typically white people, have better access that are experiencing getting

it all this sort of stuff. And now, in terms of federal legislation, and there's this debate whether or not to pass the Safe Banking Act, which would presumably ease access to capital for you know, poor people, including people of color, or basically to say we're not going to allow that to pass until we've addressed broader issues around equity. And this has played out where the House of Representatives has passed both the More Act, which integrates the whole thing.

It's kind of a comprehensive good bill that includes all the equity issues as well as Safe Banking Act and a whole range of other things. But in the Senate there doesn't look to be any real support to go for a broader thing anytime soon, and the Democrats have a very good chance of losing control of the Senate at the end of this year. So from where you sit,

what's your feeling about this issue. Would you like to see this Safe Banking Act at the federal level just go through because it actually would help your efforts around equity locally, or do you think it's better to say hold off, hold off, even if it takes years until we get a more comprehensive package through. So I have to tell you first, access to capital is a real barrier, a marked barrier to industry, to participation in the cannabis industry here in the city of Los Angeles and California

across the nation. It's difficult for us to administer our equity program and to see the benefits associated with our equity program. Our our efforts are thwarted because our applicants, because this industry has historically and continues to lack access to capital and banking services. However, you're asking me what what my opinion is today. I don't want to see banking reform prioritized above the multitude of other issues that

need to be addressed at the federal level. I think we're signaling our priorities always in our decision making, and it's just kind of crazy to me that we are priority using businesses and their concerns, albeit black and brown businesses have these concerns too, but above individuals and communities

that have been impacted. So as much as I see day to day and deal with the challenges of an industry's lack of access to banking, I also see many other impacts that federal prohibition continues to have on our

community in the industry at large. Yeah, I have to say I've really been torn about it because I keep very close to my successors the Drug Policy Alliance on these policy issues, and I really admire the way they put together a coalition New Yorpe to pull together a comprehensive bill, and the moment was right with very strong Democratic majorities and COMO being not really all that keen and marijuana reform being hostile, and so I think they played it right on the federal thing, where what I

see is essentially a lot of people saying, look, when it comes to access to capital, A lot of the biggest marijuana businesses, which are you know, generally white owned, that they already have access capital, they have other ways of getting it. This is an issue for them. It's

a much bigger issue for the smaller guys. And meanwhile, when you look at the politics, there aren't even fifty Democrats to support a broader kind of more social justice oriented marijuana legalization model right now, never mind the fact that there are no Republicans to do it, and a very good chance that the Democrats may lose their powers.

And I worry in fact that either this thing is just gonna not get taken care of for many years to come, thereby disadvantaging all the poorer people black, white, brown, you name it, who want to try to get going in this industry because they can't get the capital, or more alternatively, the Republicans take over and they either block it or maybe just allow a very narrow version of this thing to suite their own interests while getting a

political credit. I don't know. I mean, I read the capital thing, and I don't know if the states themselves, whether the state of California other can help address this on their own. Maybe there's there's action, you know, happening on that front, but what do you think. I think that the reality is that black businesses have always and today, even outside of a cannabis concept, have struggled getting access

to financial services. And so I don't see unless they're specific provisions on on how and why access to banking is going to provide specific benefit to minorities, folks who participate in equity programs, etcetera. I don't have any expectation that allowing everyone to have access to banking services is actually going to result in black and brown communities being lifted up in the ways that are being kind of

campaigned on today. I recognize that many of these entrepreneurs would like to have access to banking services, but I don't know that this legislation gets them what they actually should be entitled. Tom I'm curious. I saw the basketball player Al Harrington, who's very involved in the marijuana industry, now being interviewed on a podcast hosted by another basketball player, Steve Jackson, who is actually a guest on Psychoactive. He raised this issue and he goes, I'm taking this into

my own hands. I am basically now getting ten licensees, m providing them of the capitol. I think he said, they're all black, and this is my way of really moving this thing forward. And I wonder about, especially being in a Los Angeles where you know, there's a lot of entertainment money, a lot of wealthy black entertainment money, many of them getting involved in the industry from sports or other types of entertainment. Are you seeing more of an effort coming out of that part of the wealthy

black community in this area. Are they just kind of doing their own thing, making their own investments and staying on the sidelines from these broader issues of equity when it comes to what the industry. I am saying, over time, I have seen more black and brown folks involved in direct investment and the cannabis industry and folks trying to set up a structure similar to al Harrington's and going after multiple licenses and trying to fund them. I think

that for some those those models could work. For for others they may not work. What I can say as a point of caution is that for for businesses who are involved in investment, is just critically important to make sure that you all have attorneys at the table, because we want to make sure that even when black and brown folks are the ones who are investing into these businesses, that they're not doing so in a predatory way. Remember some of the criticisms around min already set asides and

government contracts years back. And I never really study this deeply, so I don't know how accurate this is, but there was ofttimes the perception that you'd have people with money, typically white people, white business and they see the opportunity and what they would do is they would get a person who is black and they say, okay, you get a ten percent stake, you're the face, you get the title, but effectively the fact that you'll work for us, And

I wonder is that happening again? In this area, or there's safeguards against that sort of thing, and how would those safeguards work. So it's definitely happening in this area, there has to be an intentional effort to build safeguards to prevent against it, and when it occurs, to address it. That's just part of the reality. I can tell you that some programs put more infrastructure and in building those safeguards in place, and some programs don't have many safeguards

in place at all. But what we've done here in the City of l A is that we require lots of disclosure from our applicants and owners and investors, and require, particularly when we're talking about folks who participate in our equity program, to demonstrate how the equity applicant owns UH centator, profits,

voting control, ole, et cetera. Part of what we've done over the last two years is to create pro bono legal assistance program with the Los Angeles County Bar Association to try and provide support to folks as they're going through their business formation process and as they're signing all of these contracts. But I can tell you that without safeguards, without resources to help folks prevent against predatory practices in

the Canada space. It is absolutely happening all over the place, and the resources need to come from the city or the state or both. And is there more of an effort. I remember one these were very proud of in Top sixty four was that we wrote in there a provision where a certain percentage of the tax revenue needed to go to support those communities that have been most victimized by the War on drugs. I can't remember what the percent was, but I think it's it's set up some

sort of grants program. Has that played out fairly well? And is it continuing? And is any of that money going to help advance equity challenges in the marijuana industry. So the money that was set aside, specifically in Prop six before, it hasn't primarily gone to equity applicants seeking to participate in the cannabis industry. It went to other elements of community reinvestment, workforce development, but and it it went to things like substance abuse treatment in those communities,

of building up community organizations in those communities. But the money that's gone to these equity programs has come from one or two places, either local and up until this point, local jurisdictions have led equity programs in the state of California. The State of California just recently, in their last year, created a position Deputy Director of Equity, which is led by Eugene Hillsman, and I know that he and his office and Nicole and her operations are leading that work.

But at the local level where these programs are led, money is either coming from the local jurisdictions budget their general fund, or local jurisdictions are getting this money competitively through grants that have been administered at the state. Now, these grants that have come from the state are not a result of Proposition sixty four, but are the results of the California Cannabis Equity Act, which Senator Bradford Stephen Bradford lad in support with our office and other regulators,

equity applicants across the state. Back in so since there has been a bucket of money that local jurisdictions could apply for, but that those resources are simply not enough. We're talking about the entire state distributing thirty million dollars forty million dollars a city of Los Angeles, the largest market, walking away with one year eight million dollars, the next

year two million dollars. And so that's the challenges that because there's not a dedicated source of funding, it's difficult to do this strategic planning and management of our programs because we're fighting for resources year to year as opposed to knowing what our economic outlook looks like at least two three years from now. We've been successful, that's far at securing resources and getting them out the door. My department has distributed six million dollars over two hundred and

five equity applicants just this past year. But all the money that we've got is already distributed, and so in order for us to do more, we need more. Let's take a break here and go to an ad. There's obviously what hundreds of people sitting in jobs like yours around the country now essentially in charge of the city or counties regulation of marijuana around around in the eighteen states that have legalized marijuana, and more than double that

number who have legalized it for medical purposes. I'm sure you're in touch with some of them. I saw that you're part of a group called Canada's Regulators of Color Coalition, but obviously involved in the broader ones as well. And I'm thinking at this point you've been in the position for coming on four and a half years, you must be one of the senior members in the entire country now in terms of longevity in this position, And so I'm curious, what are those networks like, what are those

relationships like, who you're learning a lot from? How much are people looking up to you at this point that you've been in this position so long? What is that world like? I've grown to appreciate civil servants and public servants public administrators in this space because they're doing a

lot and getting hit with criticism from all sides. It's true, Ethan, most of my colleagues have come and gone at this point and transitioned into other roles, and I'm very excited for all of them and the work that they're doing next. But it has become a very kind of close knit community of regulators just because we fail, as though there are only so many people who know exactly all of

the challenges and headaches, similar litigation, personnel issues. We're sharing or charts and budgets and how did you train your staff to do X, Y and z, And inevitably we're interacting and engaging with each other at industry conferences and and regulator specific conferences, and so there is a network of folks who are working collaboratively, trying to learn from one another, trying to improve our our local programs. I'm curious because I was delighted when you got this position.

And then more recently, one of our other colleagues that Drug Policy Alliance, Chris Alexander, a young black man working in our New York office, got appointed by the new governor to head up New York States offers the cannabis regulation. If you two been in touch, yes, and he's got a task on his hand, Chris, I'm I'm here to support you in any way that I can. Obviously, this is about regulating locally and helping people get licenses and set up a system that meets the state guidelines in

that city guidelines. But on other issues, like on clearing people's criminal convictions for marijuana. I talked earlier today with Dale Garinger, who is a long time has been is still the long time ahead of California Normal the marijuana

legalization group, and played a role in these initiatives. And I asked him and he says, he's focusing on now, is that you still have people all around California being drug tested for cannabis in order to get or keep their job, which even conclude nurses in the face of a nursing search shortage around COVID, where you have pain patients, people getting legitimately prescribed opioids who will be forced to get off the opioids if they use marijuana, even though

there's evidence that those two drugs actually have a positive interaction in terms of pain management. So how much you getting involved in those other sorts of issues which are not about the business and licensing but more about broader mari juanna policy. So I I am always available and ready to stand with communities when there are these types of issues that are occurring, and so Dale, if you're listening, I'm down to connect and we can figure out how

to organize together on this. The reality is that even though the code that I administered that I'm primarily responsible for, does relate to the business and licensing of the cannabis industry, my role is and I see my role and responsibility is much larger than that. My part of my responsibility is to advise the City of Los Angeles on their cannabis laws and programs and the impacts that cannabis laws

and programs have on our residents and visitors. And this is a reality that folks are continuing to be impacted by pre impost employment drug testing, and it seems crazy

that this is still the case here in California. I know other jurisdictions still have these provisions as well, but I feel as though you had made a comment earlier, Ethan about how the consequence of California being the first to have medical cannabis back in nine and then taking twenty years to kind of catch up with its regulatory program.

My concern, and this is what we actively a fight against, is that even with our legalization effort, we will be the first, but then slow to catch up after the fact. That's part of the reason why I think that there there has to be the work done now to map out all of these different lingering issues and effects of the War on Drugs, of cannabis prohibition, and some of

the negative consequences of our regulatory efforts to date. Because there are so many decisions, Because there are so many pieces, I think it's difficult or it's easy sometimes to not be able to prioritize all of them. But the reality is that the consequence of these lingering consequences and for visions are are ridiculous. And listen, if the Feds somehow land up legalizing cannabis at the federal level, does that fundamentally change the nature and challenges of your job? For

the change is bigger at the state level. I think that it will definitely change what things look like in the city of Los Angeles, just because we are such a large market. But our job is to help this industry navigate through the challenges of the day and the reality and that's part of what our equity program seems to do as well. And the reality is that when federal legalization happens, there will be a whole host of new challenges that states and local jurisdictions will need to

figure out. How do we continue to protect our markets many businesses, and I think markets are going to collapse after federal legalization if there isn't intentional provisions put in place to protect them. And so I think that it will be a new iteration of different challenges that we hope navigate folks through. I'm hoping what this means is that our equity efforts become a little bit easier and that we can rely on existing federal, state, local infrastructure

to provide business programming. That's the reality with our our equity programs right now, even is that we're starting from scratch, reinventing the whale with business programming for the cannabis industry because the cannabis industry, for legal reasons, can't have access to the already existing infrastructure that provides every other industry

business support in this country. So once we're able to connect our industry to these existing resources, I think that will free up some of our capacity to work on more challenging issues. Okay, so the last quick questions here. First, when you look back over these last foreign off years in a job, what would you rate as your biggest disappointment in these foreign half years and what would you write as your biggest success. So I think my biggest

disappointment would be just the disparities that exist today. I think I I assume that this would happen much sooner, that some of these reforms, some of these efforts would happen much much sooner. I didn't learning how long it took to go through a budget process to secure resources, to get council members lined up to take a vote to actually implement these pieces. It's taken so much longer, and again that time has been money for applicants, and that that's that's been a pain point for many of

our operators. I'd say another disappointment, which is because I'm thinking about another one, is just the disappointed with some of our elected officials who have kept cannabis at an arms length and that local city council or elsewhere. I'm

specifically talking about the local city council, but elsewhere. Also, I'll use this as an opportunity to call out all of the other elected officials everywhere else who keep cannabis at an arm's length because they don't see it as their issue or affecting their constituents, or amongst a host of other priorities. It just doesn't rise to the level

of prioritization. Cannabi's policy is one of those hult policy areas that has long been in need of reform and attention, and I feel as though, at least at the local level, it's often felt as though when when folks first legalized in first passed their first ordinance, they wanted to pat themselves on the back and say we did it, and in reality, there were and there are so many decisions that still need to be made and issues that need

to be work through. I think what I will count as the success is the movement that we've generated that I've been able to contribute to around the country that has led to an environment where it's difficult to try and move cannabis policy orform without the inclusion of equity.

It is the I'll count as my success the rally that's happening at the state Capitol, that just recently happened at the state Capitol, just because there it's a lot of infrastructure and organizing that went into just making sure that there was a platform and something for folks to react to in this space. But we have so much more work to do, and we've got to think more

strategically about how we help each other in the work. Yeah, it's kind of a semi requisite question on psychoactive and giving that you're in a public position, you can only say so much. But on this one, so do you enjoy cannabis? Is it part of your life? Cannabis? It is a part of my life. It has been for several years. I'm a cannabis consumer of been open about that since so I started this position. I've also told folks that it's uh, none of their business how much

I consumer or what I'm consuming. But I think it's important for folks to be comfortable talking about their cannabis use, and so I've made an intentional effort to be strategic about that communication, but also unashamed and unapologetic about it as well. So Ken, I'm so gratefully you're taking the

time to do this. I'm so incredibly proud of you for not just the job you did when you were working with me at d p A, but these foreign half years you've spent trying to make, you know, some real sense in order and responsibility in the way that Los Angeles deals with marijuana marijuana regulations. So more power to you, and I wish you all the best, Ethan. Thank you. I look forward to continuing to coordinate and support your efforts as well. We've love to hear from

our listeners. If you'd like to share your own stories, comments and ideas, then leave us a message at one eight three three seven seven nine sixty. That's eight three three Psycho zero or you can email us at Psychoactive at protozoa dot com or find me on Twitter at Ethan Naedalman. You can also find contact information in our show notes. Psychoactive is a production of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. It's hosted by me Ethan Nadelman. It's

produced by noa'm osband and Josh Stain. The executive producers are Dylan Golden, Ari Handel, Elizabeth Geesus and Darren Aronovsky from Protozoa Pictures, Alex Williams and Matt Frederick from My Heart Radio and me Ethan Nadelman. Our music is by Ari Blucien and a special thanks to a Brio s f Bianca Grimshaw and Robert bb. Next week I'll be talking with Paul Stamit's one of the world's leading my colleges, who explains my mushrooms can be magical, whether they're psychedelic

or not. When you look at the scalability of the fermentation in future technology, the ability of you being able to generate enough mysilium to replace leather, to replace meat, to be able to help ecosystems breakdown toxins, to be able to grow enough sulcybin mushrooms to expand consciousness and I think saul cybin it will lead to humans becoming a new species. We are not the Homo sapiens of the past several hundred thousand years. Subscribe to Psychoactive now see it, don't miss it.