Co-Chair of Clark Hill's Cannabis Industry Group, Sander Zagzebski sits down with Saphira Galoob, the Executive Director of National Cannabis Roundtable to discuss the recent news that the United States Department of Health and Human Services transmitted a recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration that marijuana be rescheduled under the CSA from a Schedule I controlled substance to Schedule III controlled substance; the status of the SAFER Banking Act; other cannabis policy initiatives pursued in 2023; and what's on the legislative agenda for 2024. Saphira recently participated in a panel at the Benzinga Cannabis Capital Conference which may be viewed here.
This podcast is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this podcast is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Listeners should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed in the podcast represent those of the individual speaker only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC.
Co-Chair of Clark Hill's Cannabis Industry Group, Sander Zagzebski sits down with Saphira Galoob, the Executive Director of National Cannabis Roundtable to discuss the recent news that the United States Department of Health and Human Services transmitted a recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration that marijuana be rescheduled under the CSA from a Schedule I controlled substance to Schedule III controlled substance; the status of the SAFER Banking Act; other cannabis policy initiatives pursued in 2023; and what's on the legislative agenda for 2024. Saphira recently participated in a panel at the Benzinga Cannabis Capital Conference which may be viewed here.
This podcast is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this podcast is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Listeners should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed in the podcast represent those of the individual speaker only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC.
This podcast is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this podcast is not intended to create and receipt of it does not constitute a lawyer-Client relationship. Listeners should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed in the podcast represent those of the individual speaker only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill p l c. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Clark Hill Cannabis Industry Group podcast. I'm Sanders Egzebski. I'm a co chair of the Cannabis Industry Group at Clark Hill, and I'm your host today. Sitting here with Saphira Gallup, Executive Director of the National Cannabis Roundtable, and uh, Industry insider, uh, severe. Welcome to our, uh, our podcast. Well, thank you, Sander. It's a, it's a pleasure to be here and this has been an exciting several weeks for us and given what is in store on Capitol Hill and Washington. Over the coming weeks, I think it's exciting time to be an industry. I would agree. Um, before we get going, I need to caution any listeners that what you're hearing here is not legal advice or investment advice. If you, if you would like to have formal legal advice for your particular legal situation, certainly feel free to reach out to any of the members of the Clark Hill, uh, cannabis industry group. But for purposes of this conversation, this is information only, and we're just, uh, catching up on what's going on in Capitol Hill. So, uh, tell me, Saphira, um, uh, give me a little details. Health and Human Services about, I want to say six weeks ago or so, recommended to the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration that marijuana be rescheduled from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. Um, what does that mean? How important is that to the industry? Well, first, um, I think, you know, I want to make sure as we're talking about, uh, what has happened that has been, um, kind of confirmed by the agencies versus what has been reported to have happened is important. And then we can talk about, you know, you know, what has been reported and how correct that is. So you are correct that the end of August, there was a report, uh, By, um, by very notable publication that HHS transmitted a communication that recommended cannabis be rescheduled to a schedule 3 and following the reporting of that. Transmission. H h s confirmed that it did in fact transmit a scheduling recommendation and d e a in receipt of that confirmed receipt. What we have not seen was HH s's formal acknowledgement that the transmission was in fact a recommendation to a three, nor did d e A acknowledge that it was a schedule three. Now, then the question becomes, well, how likely. Is the contents of that transmission actually a schedule 3 recommendation? And I would say we are more confident than not, or we have every reason to be confident that it was, in fact, a 3 recommendation, but I just think it's important for industry stakeholders to specify with precision what we know and what we do not yet. No, as confirmed by the agencies. And that's helpful. I mean, it, it, it makes sense to unpack this in detail for our listeners, because again, you know, this is, uh, this podcast is intended for cannabis industry participants who are really trying to understand what's happening right now and kind of handicap what it means for them as well as for the industry. It strikes me, though, and I don't want to put you on the spot, but sure. You're a DC insider. You're a longtime lobbyist for folks that don't know you. You are the primary, uh, primary lobbyist behind the Safe Banking Act, which is now the Safer Banking Act. I believe you're, you're, you're all over this health and human services recommendation. You were the lobbyist behind the CLIMB Act and other things that are, you know, federal, federal policy focus for the cannabis industry. So, um, Uh, do you think if it was, in fact, a recommendation to a schedule other than schedule 3, don't you think that would have leaked by now? Yeah, well, and I, 1st of all, you are incredibly generous in your accolades about my role in all of this. Um, I have been working on safe banking since, uh, I think November 7th, 2017, and we have been working. In communications with the White House, um, and administration on scheduling reform. I will say I have a deluge of colleagues and staffers and industry stakeholders who've been so important on all of these efforts. So I would hate for anybody to think that I think that I am anything, but it's still me. Is this is, this is, I know, but I just wanna make sure, you know, in, in law school, if there was something that someone presented to you on a witness stand and you did not refute it, you were acknowledging it. So in this situation, oh, I get it. So it's been a few years, but I at least know enough to say it has been an army of many for the success of, you know, where we are. But thank you for your, um, acknowledgement. So, so I do, I do want to get to the heart of what you asked, which is, Um, do I think it would have been corrected? And the answer is absolutely. Um, I also think at kind of when you look and at an unpeel the layers of when President Biden initially announced the direction for the scheduling to be, um, commenced, it was actually it's coming up on a year Friday. In fact, October the 6th. So, you know, based on that and some other. Yeah, absolutely. Inside, um, insight that we have and the direction that we think this is going, I do believe that had it not been a schedule 3, we would have heard a different tone and temperament out of both HHS and EA or DOJ, right? I agree. And 1 thing that occurs to me, and this may be something you're unwilling to answer, but in reading the tea leaves, thinking through the political situation, um, It also strikes me that, um, uh, the White House likely would not have made this announcement or at least it would be sort of managing expectations if it didn't intend to see it through. Uh, is that a, is that a reasonable guess on my part? I think, um, your intuition I would find to be more accurate. Even though you live on the opposite end of the world of dc which is in the LA area, which is not DC , you're in your entertainment capital of the world. It's all where we are. You're in your own la la land out there. We're in our la la land. Exactly. Um, but I do, I do think your political intuition is correct. Um, I, I, I characterize it a little bit differently. And, and the reason I say that is because, you know when, when President Biden, um, Exercised his administrative authority to direct and to reexamine the scheduling that was completely within the purview of his authority. And he did. So, knowing that was going to be relying on the FDA FDA to conduct a scientific analysis and 8. Factor scientific analysis and for and to do a 5 factor analysis around criminal justice international obligations. Um, I, I don't know. I don't think that that Biden could say, oh, it's going to land on a, um, and then enter where it was going to land. But I do think there are some political, there would be some political consequences in an event where. President Biden, you know, initiate the scheduling. And it landed on either a 1 or 2 that would seem to really, um, backfire very negatively on him and almost it would have been better. I mean, obviously, 2020 hindsight will will be the clear picture, but, you know, 1 could probably say that if it doesn't land on an improved. State on the scheduling for 1 or 2, they would probably would have been better if he didn't say anything at all. I think the other thing that is important here, and we know this both from President Biden's campaign acknowledgements as well as kind of some of his intentions and his actions since he has become president is that he is very criminal justice focused relationship with cannabis is. You know, legalizing the plant and that medicine focused, um, he had or or criminal justice focus or social justice focus or libertarian focused, um, or, you know, regulated markets are better than illicit markets. And certainly, uh, President Biden has acknowledged. Um, you know, uh, the, the correlation, at least in the medicinal cannabis side, but he's a very conservative. Um, he's very conservative. His cannabis. Uh, perspective for many, many reasons, probably age related generationally related. He has this menu on this podcast. No, um, addiction issues in his family that cause a lot of sensitivity, but this. I, I believe this to be the case, I believe that his motivation for initiating the scheduling change. Was reforming criminal justice and addressing more on drugs. That was the motivation as opposed to kind of ramping up industry and having, you know, commercialization, helping open up commercialization cannabis. Well, that's helpful. And so so the reason I, I, I bring it up is it's obviously it obviously hasn't happened yet, but, um. You know, we were both at the benzing a capital conference last week. And, uh, I heard many people commenting that, um, the DOJ DEA had never, um, failed to act on a recommendation of this type by HHS. So there seems to be a high degree of confidence around the industry about that it will likely happen. And it will likely be a schedule three. Um, it will likely land on schedule three. And of course, what that. Means most significantly, uh, to the industry is that to a going forward would go away. And I recall talking to you, I think, in a prior podcast or a prior meeting that, you know, had to 80 even dealt with in Congress, the congressional. Pay for rules would have kicked in and the revenue lost from 280E would have had to be recovered through, through some other process. And that makes legislative change difficult. And administrative rescheduling, though, doesn't require that rule because you're not actually changing the law. 280E says what it says and still says what it says. It's simply that, uh, that, um, it no longer would apply to marijuana if it moves from schedule one to schedule three. Uh, it's also fair to say, I think, and confirm me if I'm wrong, that, uh, 280e liabilities that have accrued are not going to go away. Um, I, I, I've, I've heard some people speculate that, that they'll be able to get, get out from under their accrued 280e liabilities. I think that's wishful thinking. Uh, I think it'll go away when, if, if and when rescheduling happens going forward, but you're still gonna have to pay the piper for the old stuff. So, you know, so much to unpack. And just shared the 1st thing I can, I'll kind of go through it from what I heard as triggering feedback. I think where I can add either additional color or additional depth or consideration. You know, I think, um, I'm very, um. I was really pleased to have confirmation of the transmission and that there was a very credible press reporting on being a schedule 3. I want to be very clear that industry should be, it's not time to open the champagne bottle yet. We still have to get through a process within the Department of Justice and DEA that involves. Um, you know, working through our obligations on international treaties and individuals who are long time, uh, kind of bureaucrats who've not been cannabis supporters over decades. And so we're not, we're not where we need to be yet, but I'm a next best thing girl, which means. That now that D. O. J. and D. E. A. have the recommendation, they're in a window of time in which they will review the scientific analysis, which great news. They seem to always follow the science. So that's great news. Right and they will then make a recommendation. For an interim rule and open at administrative comments period. And as, you know, as a lawyer, administrative law and administrative comments period. Can really be an entire kind of. New and, um, a territory of conversation and dispute and consideration. And, and, and that is going to have to be after we get through the recommendation. Okay, here's what DOJ recommends, um, and we start a rulemaking and the rulemaking would then commence where the public and public interest, both cannabis industry and non cannabis supportive stakeholders would articulate what they think should happen. And then. After that period of time, um, happens following the conclusion of the rulemaking. That's when we would get a rule that the president could sign. So I just want to make sure stakeholders in the industry know is that we are, we're in battle, but we haven't won the war on this 1. Or we haven't gotten to where the end stage is, so I just want to, I don't wanna jump with the gun. The, you are, you are absolutely correct that if we were to fast forward and we were to find ourselves in a schedule three situation, that two 80 E, the, the language of two 80 E, which is addresses schedule one as schedule two, would no longer be applicable to the customary normally business. Customary and rural business expenses. The other things that are notable is that by placing, formally placing by both HHS and DOJ, and actually I'll back up. Once DOJ makes its recommendation, it then makes public. All of the scientific findings and supporting documentation out of HHS. And so now we would be in a situation where for the first time, a, an agency of the cabinet agency of the president is formally acknowledging the correlation between cannabis and medical benefits and efficacy. And that is game changer because not only does that kind of solidify what we all know and what. The National Academy's reporting and anecdotes and hundreds of thousands of patients and millions of people around the world know it would kind of change the line in the sand between the medical benefits and efficacy and safety profile. It's probably not the safety profile, but medical benefits and efficacy. And that would then signal to people who are. Kind of purists, which, if it's schedule 1, I'm eyes, ears, ears, eyes closed, ears closed, mouth closed, which is schedule 1 or bust. I'm not doing anything. And it says, okay, it's not schedule 1 anymore. We're, we're working towards schedule 3. so people in Congress who are, you know, will not move on cannabis because it's schedule 1 moving to schedule 3 changes. The dynamics states and state lawmakers who have been reluctant to advance state programs or expand state programs, medical programs, um, to more to have more qualifying conditions, the medical space, they are going to have kind of a different directive because the line in the sand will be moved. So, it's, it's, it's not just the tax benefits. I think. Um, that we experience it's absolutely a signal from 1 of the most important signal error in this process. Finally, I will compliment your recollection of legislative process. I don't know if you read your notes, or you're just you've that great of a memory, but you're absolutely right. The idea that we could have changed to 80. In Congress, any time in the next foreseeable future was, um, was unrealistic and there were a lot of folks who were kind of asking Congress for 2 80 legislation and great. It was a great simple bill. And there were a lot of great lawmakers who led it. But if you, if you, if you look at how a bill, what it requires for a bill to become a law, and the committees of jurisdiction that would have to be involved and the relationship with joint tax and showing a pay for. And the scoring that would have to happen and the positive scoring that would have to happen, we were not positioned to realistically advance 280E in Congress. So this was our, not, not only was it the most expedient way forward, it was the only realistic way forward for repealing 280E. And it was a mouthful, but you gave me a lot to address and I want to make sure I grabbed all of it. No, and I, I agree. Look, I think, um, This industry has been, uh, sort of taking it on the chin for the last couple of years, particularly if you follow the capital markets and I'm a capital markets securities M and a lawyer, you know that, so, you know, when the capital markets speak, I certainly listen and I haven't loved what I've been hearing for the last two and a half years. Now, all of a sudden I'm hearing news that I think is the most positive news since the coal memo. Because schedule three, we can get into some of my own personal views in a minute, but schedule three, if it, if it happens, and like you said, there's, there's more work to be done, but I think the momentum is certainly in the direction of making it happen. And the political situation is appropriate for making it happen. So if it were to happen, if schedule three were to happen, 280E going forward would be sort of just eliminated. Actually, 280E would stay in effect. It just would no longer apply to cannabis companies because it only applies to Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, uh, uh, substances. And, and that's just a game changer economically for cannabis companies, and we can't, um, can't really understate that. Now, yes, there are a number of things that will need to happen in conjunction with that because, of course, if you're Schedule 3, You still are supposed to, to only, um, uh, deal in the substance with, uh, with a DEA license, and, and people need a prescription for Schedules 3 substances, so it doesn't really, it doesn't legalize everything that's been going on, uh, in the, in the broader cannabis industry. But I also find it somewhat unrealistic for, uh, for marijuana to, to go down the priority of schedules and then at the same time for the DEA or the FBI or any other law enforcement agency to come in and say, okay, this is a signal for us to increase enforcement. Right? I mean, if they haven't been doing it when it's schedule one, I don't see them doing with schedule three. But I do know that. Other things will need to happen. There will probably need to be some, uh, um, some, some rulemaking or some other sort of memos and in the Justice Department to kind of give people comfort that they can continue operating the way they, uh, the way they should operate. Um, uh, let's shift gears for a second, though, actually, before we shift, because there is one because you mentioned, you know, what the markets respond to and what the markets need for certainty. And you touched on not significant since the Cole memo and that there needs to be some other pieces in play. I just want to jump in there because we work closely with Jim Cole. He's actually on my advisory board, and he's been a close and key member of our team as well as. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who was HHS secretary under Obama. So we have, you know, the number 1 person at HHS and the number 2 person at justice under the Obama helping us navigate through this. So we've got a pretty good expertise and credibility. And 1 of the things that Jim and I and Kathleen have spoken about at length is the call memorandum. Once introduced didn't just establish a policy of deference towards respecting the integrity of state programs. It established a policy of preference that stakes continue to be the architect and enforcer of their commercial programs and with a schedule 3. Change and HHS and DOJ having limitations on what they can do as it relates to activity in the states. I could foresee. We can foresee that this would be the impetus for the reintroduction of a renewed memorandum designating prioritization around prosecutorial discretion. You know, remember the call memorandum said, we're going to let states operate as long as they. Comply with certain kind of thresholds of behavior. What are the things in fact, if you, if you, if you sit down and talk with Jim, I think, actually, Sandra, you and Jim, as I recall, had a recent conversation. We certainly did. You know, what do we care about what state programs are going to exist and there isn't much that you're not going to put the back in the model, but there are certain things we really care about. And those were the elements within the call memorandum that said, as long as you're. You know, not doing these things that we really care about, we will defer to state programs. And I think you're going to see that again. Um, and I think this would be an appropriate time. There hasn't been the, you know, the, uh, we'll call it a moment that would have required that because there weren't like, you know, black helicopters descending down. There wasn't a reason for D. O. J. to reinstate it because at the D. O. J. since the rescinding of the Coleman random. There has been a policy of preference. There wasn't a reason just to kind of put another memo in place, but this would be the impetus for that. And we are hoping for that because we actually think a memorandum of that sort one can work in conjunction with our treasury guidance, which of course is still in place a safe banking act. And that can give more certainty. Not just the canvas industry, but let's talk about who our new allies are governors who have state programs to protect, um, industries with any of these states that are dependent on a growing cannabis economy. I mean, we are no longer a sole actor. We are part of the ecosystem of the American economy. We are the fastest growing industry for the past 10 years, and we are well threaded into the fabric of economic stability for our future. Well said. Um, uh, look, I love it, and we could probably talk for hours just on this, but I think what I'd like to do is also, you know, even more recent than the, uh, HHS announcement is the fact that the SAFER Banking Act came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, uh, less than a week ago. And, uh... And banking, yes. Senate Banking. Wrong committee. Wrong committee. The committee on committees. Right. The Senate Banking Committee for, and this is the first time the Senate has taken any action on safe banking or now safer banking so I think uh, I think that's first of all, in no small part due to your efforts, but also it finally shows that the Senate is paying attention to this. Uh, so A little history lesson. The safe banking has passed through the house no fewer than seven times, uh, since 2018. It it always seems to die in the senate Uh now it got picked up in the senate And so explain to me what happens next, uh, or explain to our viewers What happens next now that the senate banking committee has has cleared it what happens? So, um, you know, the significance of it coming out of Senate, Senate banking is, is pretty enormous because, um, 1, the Senate banking committee has passed, has, has moved 2 bills out of their committee in 5 years. And 1 of them is a cannabis bill. So, in 5 years. The Senate banking has marked up and approved of 2 bills, and we're 1 of them so that alone is a moment to take a pause. The other reason that this is important is, as our viewers know, we need 60 votes in the Senate in order to get a piece of legislation moved out of the Senate. Right. We still have to, it's a House and Senate both have to agree, but the Senate is 60 votes. As such, we're going to need Republicans, the nine Republican co sponsors that we have, plus any other yes votes of people who are not co sponsors, but we still have acknowledged them and confirmed that they're a yes. That group, which is the prerequisite to get to 60, has said unless we get out of, go through Senate Banking Committee, which is called regular order, which is the normal process of legislative. Um, rule lawmaking in the Senate, we, they wouldn't vote. Yes. So this was a prerequisite criteria for safe banking to announce that to advance, even though it's still not law. This was a necessary step in the path from here. The Senate banking is done with its job and this. Bill language is safer. Bill language is now in the hands of leader Schumer, who is the gatekeeper for legislation to be considered on the Senate floor and based on his articulated priorities publicly, as well as our conversations with his office, um, and other key members of his caucus, we expect that he will bring the safer bill language. Banking Act to the Senate floor for a full Senate vote in the coming week slash month. You know, a lot of this depended on shutdown news. We avoided the shutdown and we are in a continuing resolution until the middle of November, which is good news because it means that Senate activity can continue. But floor time is really the precious currency here. Um. For folks who want a deeper dive, the conversation that I had with representative Senator Gardner and Reggie Babin at Benzinga goes into this in even more detail because those guys lived it, but the Senate floor is where we have to go next leader Schumer controls it. And given, you know, in addition to some technical changes, as well as, um, uh, some additional elements that we expect to be put in the bill, I would not be surprised if we are successfully out of the Senate by the middle of November. Excellent. And you mentioned the panel you hosted at Benzinga with Senator Gardner and Congressman Perlmutter and Reggie Babbin from Akin Gampana. That was a, that was a fantastic panel. Kudos on it, by the way, because it was very informative. And I think what I'm trying to, trying to maybe get to with our listeners here is something of a summary and Thank you. And what I remember from that panel discussion and what you just mentioned was, you know, this getting out of the Senate through regular order is nothing really less than historic in the sense that, you know, the Senate, it looks like the Senate is poised to, um, is poised to make this move. Now, one of the things you also discussed in that panel, and Congressman Perlmutter I think was, was the one to discuss it was that, uh, there was. There's, let's say there's optimism that even though the House is controlled by Republicans and that the House Banking Committee has a, I think, a chair that is not particularly keen on cannabis reform, but it seems like we're actually going to, uh, they're not going to stand in the way if we can muster the votes in the House. Is that correct? In other words, they'll let it go to regular order in the house. Well, and that's actually where I think it gets a bit murky. I mean, right now I'm getting real updates, um, you know, on where we're going to be on on the speaker changing and so forth. So, it's a, it's a curious in fact, I can see my text blowing up on things real time. So I'll just turn that over because I don't want to be shocked on anything. But my, my, my point is, once we get out of the Senate. There are a lot of pathways towards, um, the House and the Senate being able to come to an agreement on this part of the legislation. And it will, as a promoter shared, it will likely, um, resolve itself in a larger must pass legislation and for viewers who have heard us talk about must pass legislations and safe banking, you know. Getting attached to a mess about past legislation at the end of a year. They're probably like rolling their eyes and saying, yeah, but McConnell's never going to let it go through. Well, here is why this year is different from other years. And this is something that congressman pro matter explained on the panel in past years, because safe banking had not gone in regular order through the Senate through the committee and through a floor vote when it gets to that big end of the year bill, the negotiators of that big. End of the year bill fall on four individuals, the Republican head, Republican and Democrat in the house and the head Republican Democrat in the Senate. I mean, I use the word McCarthy, but, you know, that's probably going to change. It's changing. All right. So it's Jeffries and whoever the leader is and Schumer and McConnell. And the, the person that the Republican is going to look to is Patrick Henry, who heads financial services, because he is the committee, he runs the committee of jurisdiction, he's going to waive it as long as his caucus is in support. And he's got some things that he wants, but essentially now that we've gone through regular order, Mitch McConnell no longer has a veto against it being included in the end of the year bill. And depending on how many people, how many Republicans actually support it in the Senate really impacts McConnell's desire to be like, you know, not my headache today. Um, so it's, we are a different, it's a different day for safe banking in Washington. Now, we are still at the mercy of broader political agendas and priorities and time is never our friend and floor time is even less our friend. And so shutdowns don't help us. And, you know, unexpected crises in, you know, domestically and globally don't help us and, you know, senators being indicted and passing away and getting COVID like all of that is we have to contend with these realities, but, but we are in a position that is wildly different than we've ever been before. And we are also a priority of leadership in a way that we've never been before. That's fantastic. I mean, I think that, that, um, the, you know, it was funny. Uh, somebody, I might've been Perlmutter on your panel, uh, looked out of the audience at one point and said, if your, if your business plan depends on. On, uh, legislation at the federal level, you need a new business plan. And on the one hand, it, it, it got a chuckle, but on the other hand, I look at the entire cannabis industry and note that the entire industry has been waiting. Rather patiently for some years up to 26, if you're a medical marijuana producer in California, uh, for, for federal reform and at some point, you know, we, we, the, the maturation of this industry doesn't happen. Without some of that reform. So I think the fact that we've got this HHS recommendation, which has some very significant, um, uh, upside for the industry for the industry, particularly the operators that are subject to touch the plant. So that's subject to 2 80. Uh, and, and the potential for safer banking to become law. I mean, I just think that is far and away the best news that I've seen since I got into this industry in 2016. Yeah. No, and I'll tell you, I think there's also a moment here. Um, the, the industry, you know, your listeners are more likely business owners and, um, you know, individuals who are kind of running businesses in this industry. And and so that that is who I'm speaking to. And if if that group of people. Thinks we are going to get a descheduling in Congress. We need to have a more basic conversation, right? If, if, if what we are seeing is not a testament, that the only thing that works in Washington, and by the way, it barely works, is incrementalism. Ed Perter said it takes 10 years. Anything through congress, incrementalism is how we progress. And this bill say banking was first introduced. In 2013, this is the 10th year anniversary. It's a, you know, this is this is we're right. We're right on schedule in DC time. But this idea that this, these legalization measures where everyone gets everything or no 1 gets anything is, is absolutely an unrealistic posture is an unrealistic strategy. And I do understand that people have to kind of put out there what they're hoping is going to happen. But when you're putting energy and money and advocacy around around what's possible to happen, then put it behind something that's plausible to happen. And that's really in terms of like, we only we are resource constrained. We are exhausted. I think I think you were generous when you said we've taken on the chin. I mean, I think we're like, practically for some people down for the count and barely able to get our head up off the mat. And so if you're going to, if you're going to fight for something in Washington, D. C. for God's sakes, let's fight for what we can get Reggie Babin, who was the former. Ledge council for the speaker said something incredibly insightful and he said you don't get the congress you want you get the congress you get so you better work with what you get. So, that means we have to understand where these lawmakers, where these committee members of jurisdiction, where the votes are, and you've got to work within that paradigm as opposed to introducing legislation for another decade, another Congress, another, you know, that that's really industries. I think biggest, um, handicap and I, I say that word, like, that is our vulnerability is that we are not realistic. To put forward legislation reform based on the Congress we have. We're completely aspirational and realistic and it's a huge waste of resources and incredibly distracting for the work we could be doing. Well, I would, I would agree with you. In fact, one thing that I had some very interesting conversations at the Bangzanga conference and, you know, I, I look at our clients. I look at the industry and I look at the folks that have. Really put the industry on their shoulders financially, you know, the investors that have been in here, uh, and for the most part, you know, the lion's share them. I've never seen a big return. They've never seen a big payday. Um, you know, some very early folks saw big paydays, but a lot of the folks have put in money in this industry and they've watched it. You know, they watched it. It. Be invested but but not usually coming back to them in big with big checks And and they're the ones who've been patient and continue to support it and for that group of people To you know a a rescheduling recommendation is very very big news. Number one it it has A light at the end of the 280E tunnel, and I don't think it can be overstated how important it is to get rid of 280E if you're actually trying to run a business that is intended to make money, uh, you know, getting rid of 280E is huge. The other thing, at the risk of sounding a little bit, uh, uh, uh, snide about this is, Rescheduling to Schedule 3 still keeps a lot of the, a lot of the potentially big players on the sidelines, right? Big tobacco, big alcohol, the ones that have been sort of licking their chops, looking at the cannabis industry, wondering when they can get involved. They're not really going to make a move if it's still, you know, a scheduled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. And while I know that. A lot of our friends would like to see it completely descheduled in the short run. Number one, I don't think that would have ever happened administratively. I just don't think that, you know, I don't think that would have made sense given the factors that the, the executive branch needs to think about. The criteria would not have allowed it. Given that if you look at the 8 factor analysis, there's no way they could have come to that conclusion. They never would have been able to do it with a straight face. And so therefore, um, you know, a schedule 3 is probably far and away the best we can hope for right now. And I think this industry should be not just happy with the progress, but extremely happy because the alternative, I don't think the alternative is a de scheduling and, you know, it's, uh, um, you know, it's, it's ponies and rainbows for everybody, right? It's, it's, it, it doesn't go that way. I think the alternative would be more of the same. For another couple of years. And that's just a lot of pain for a lot of folks. Um, incidentally, I, I'm, I don't know if you've taken a look, de scheduling, let's say de scheduling were to have occurred. Um, I know a lot of folks that, that seem to think that would have a big impact on the criminal justice side of our fight. Uh, I don't, I don't see how people who already have existing convictions with existing sentences. I don't see how a de scheduling would impact that. They need comments of your apartment. So that we do have some individuals who are incarcerated. And so there would be commuting sentences is, is, is, is, is something we've been focusing on, but folks that have, you know, who've served their time and you have convictions on records that is expungement based. And that's, that has to be done through Congress, the administrative process. Cannot doesn't have the power to expunge records. In fact, it was to say, in fact, I went to the White House with a gentleman who had been, um, had a sentence commuted and he was parted by 2 different presidents. And we couldn't get in the White House because his record had not been expunged. And we're going into criminal justice and cannabis. So how's that for irony? No, I think it's, I, I, I, I think it is very ironic. And I just would like to remind people that the industry, you know, sometimes there's some tension between the, the, you know, it's talking to 1, 1 person in the industry. And he admitted that he has, uh, he's torn between his, his business interests sometimes and his, and his. Criminal justice and social justice interests, uh, and just sort of seeing criminal reform, sentencing reform, all these, all these things that the industry has long supported. And I, I reminded him, and I think it was, I think he, he caught on to it, was reminded of the fact that this industry has been enormously supportive, not just financially, but, you know, in terms of, of their, of their efforts in, uh, in, Adding criminal justice reform and social justice reform as part of their advocacy, right? This isn't just businesses out there lobbying Congress to, you know, to, to make themselves some more money or eliminate the competition. The industry itself, the, the, the players that the big MSOs, the, the Trulieve's, the Cresco's of the world folks that you know very well, they have, they have taken on the financial burden and supplied the people. To go out and, and, and a lot of cases make these arguments before, before Congress. And so if you, if you allow these companies to, to survive, if you, if you support an incremental change, which rescheduling would be, I think it just gives them more heft, and more strength to continue this fight. Yes, it's disappointing that the fight isn't, isn't won, but it's kind of unrealistic to think it could be right now. Bye. And 1 thing I would say, I want to add to that, because there's another element to your point that deserves to be added, which is if you look at where criminal justice reform has really been addressed in the States, um, and even kind of people's hearts and minds is directly a result of the fact that the commercialization of cannabis has normalized the industry and remove the stigma. And so people who would have, you know, before either not known about. Yeah. Cannabis incarcerations, cared about cannabis incarcerations or prioritized cannabis incarcerations. Now that they see this cannabis economy, this regulated economy, they see that that's like, not the right thinking. And so it's, in fact, the irony is it's the very existence of, uh, regulated commercial cannabis industry. That has been the impetus for. Incarceration reduction, um, people's, um, uh, commutations and all of the, uh, addressing these prior injustices about war on drugs and individuals who were disproportionately impacted. It's really a direct correlation between the cannabis economy that these very individuals who you articulate at the beginning of your remarks just recently. Have made have invested in and not yet made money, by the way, yeah, for a large part. They haven't. Well, look, we're going to be running out of time. And I really want to thank you for for joining us folks that would, uh, that should get in touch with you. For, uh, you know, if they want to reach you to contact you about your work on the hill, your work with, um, Safer Banking Act or HHS, what's, uh, what's a good way for them to contact you, Saphira? My lobbying firm is the best way. Saphira at the liaison group. com. Um, you can also go onto the National Cannabis Roundtable website and there's an info, kind of contact us there and you can definitely send information there and we'll reach out. Um, and maybe in show notes, you could include the reference to when you can put my contact information there on the show notes to be fine. But also, I really want to direct folks to that panel, um, from because it is a nice addendum to our conversation and goes more deeply into some of the, uh, remarks that you and I shared today as well as. Um, gives a little more insight from the folks who are, you know, both lawmakers and senior staff doing it at the time that they were, um, in their positions. Sounds good. Well, thank you, Saphira, for joining us. Uh, and thanks to all of us, uh, everybody who signed on to listen. Thank you for having me, Sander.