💸 The Tape

A major constitutional showdown over federal marijuana authority is now in the Supreme Court’s hands, as three heavyweight organizations—Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF), the Cato Institute, and the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)—urge the justices to revisit, limit, or outright overturn Gonzales v. Raich (2005). Their amicus briefs support petitioners in Canna Provisions v. Bondi, a case challenging whether the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) can reach cannabis activity that occurs entirely within a single state.

All three briefs deliver a similar message: Congress went too far, Raich was wrongly decided, and the CSA cannot constitutionally regulate wholly intrastate, state-licensed marijuana businesses—like the operators in Massachusetts who never send a gram across state lines.

AFPF emphasizes federalism, arguing the CSA tramples state police powers and calling Raich “a constitutional aberration.” Cato dives deep into originalism, insisting that in 1787 “commerce” meant trade, not cultivation, possession, or anything resembling a police power. PLF, representing Florida homeowner Michael Colosi, highlights the broader consequences of unchecked Commerce Clause expansion, drawing parallels to federal overreach in property-rights cases.

Despite stylistic differences, all three agree the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot “bootstrap” unrelated local activity into federal jurisdiction, and that state sovereignty—especially in the 24 states with legal adult-use cannabis—demands clearer limits on Washington’s authority.

If the Court takes the case, it could reopen the constitutional debate around federal marijuana prohibition for the first time in nearly 20 years. A decision on whether the justices will grant certiorari is expected around December 15.

SOURCE: Marijuana Herald

📈 Dog Walkers

Virginia Has Some Light

After five years of legal limbo, Virginia is finally inching toward a fully regulated adult-use cannabis retail market, as the Joint Commission on the Future of Cannabis Sales prepares to unveil its long-awaited final proposal on Tuesday. The plan—carried by Del. Paul Krizek, Sen. Louise Lucas, and Sen. Aaron Rouse—aims to end the state’s awkward era of “legal to possess, impossible to buy.”

The latest draft drops the controversial local opt-out, expands local taxing authority, and builds a licensing system designed to favor micro-businesses and independent Virginia operators over large, vertically integrated medical giants. As many as 50% of initial licenses would go to small operators, with all companies capped at five total authorizations—a direct strike at industry consolidation.

Krizek says the goal isn’t a short-term tax grab but a “decentralized, sustainable market” that reinvests revenue into communities harmed by the War on Drugs. Localities would now be able to levy up to 3.5% in excise taxes, while the statewide rate remains at 8%, with new deductibility provisions for cannabis businesses.

Regulators point to progress: the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority has launched Metrc seed-to-sale tracking, the medical system logged $30 million in sales over two months, and forthcoming rules on labeling, testing, and delivery licensing promise tighter control than past vetoed bills.

Labor groups like UFCW 400 applauded the emphasis on workers and micro-operators, calling it a step toward a “people-based market.”

If lawmakers and Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger sign off, retail sales could begin November 1, 2026—finally bringing order, equity, and legal storefronts to a market that’s been stuck in neutral since 2021.

SOURCE: VA Mercury

Water Is Wet (This is not satire)

A new report from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy has added fresh data to a long-running question in cannabis policy: does living near a licensed marijuana retailer raise the odds of developing cannabis use disorder (CUD)? According to the study, released in September, the answer appears to be yes—at least for Medicaid recipients between ages 12 and 64.

Researchers compared Washington residents who lived within a 10-minute drive of a cannabis shop to those farther away, using Medicaid claims data from 2012 to 2023. During that decade, the number of stores skyrocketed from fewer than 50 to more than 450.

The findings: youth ages 12–20 were 13% more likely to be diagnosed with CUD if they lived near a retailer, while adults 21+ were 7% more likely. The study notes CUD is linked to anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and psychosis, and found individuals near shops were more likely to receive these diagnoses after developing CUD.

Lead researcher Amani Rashid suggested several explanations: lower prices, more advertising, and retailers differentiating products through packaging or high-THC concentrations.

State Rep. Lauren Davis, a longtime advocate for stricter cannabis regulations, said the results didn’t surprise her, citing the proliferation of high-potency products and dense retail clusters. Meanwhile, the Washington Cannabusiness Association questioned whether the study distinguished legal purchases from the illicit market, noting licensed shops have strong ID-check compliance.

The report stops short of proposing policy changes but feeds into an ongoing statewide cost-benefit analysis of legalization—one that’s clearly still evolving more than a decade after Washington’s green light.

🗞️ The News

📺 YouTube

Cannabis Industry Shake-Up: Tilray Split + Cali's New Regime + SC Review | TTB Powered by Dutchie

What we will cover:

✅ Trade To Black Podcast is back with another jam-packed episode as hosts Anthony Varrell and Shadd Dales are joined by special guest Michael Bronstein, President of ATACH (American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp), to break down three of the biggest storylines shaking up the cannabis industry: Tilray’s reverse split, the new sheriff in charge of California cannabis, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending review of key cannabis cases.

We start with Tilray Brands’ (TLRY) latest reverse stock split—why it happened, what it means for share structure, exchange compliance, ETF inclusion, and broader sentiment toward cannabis equities. Anthony and Shadd walk through how this move fits into the consolidation trend across the sector, while Michael adds the policy and institutional lens on how capital markets are treating U.S. vs. Canadian operators.

Then we head to California, where there’s effectively a new sheriff running the cannabis industry with a tougher posture on enforcement, illicit markets, and regulatory compliance. Is this the turning point California’s legal market needs? We unpack the impact on operators, taxes, pricing, and whether real reform can finally level the playing field against the legacy market.

Finally, Michael Bronstein helps decode the Supreme Court’s upcoming look at several cannabis-related cases—from federal preemption and 280E implications to interstate commerce and states’ rights. Could these cases open the door to broader reform, or tighten federal constraints on the industry?