💸 The Tape

The New York Times editorial board recently published an opinion piece arguing that America needs to “admit” it has a marijuana problem—an unmistakable pivot from the more optimistic legalization-era framing. Predictably, the piece is being waved around as proof that cannabis reform was a naive experiment and the legal industry is the villain of the story.

As a cannabis advocate, I’ll concede one thing right up front: America does need better cannabis policy. Where the argument goes off the rails is the leap from “policy gaps exist” to “the cannabis industry itself is the primary culprit,” with a side of moral panic and a nostalgia-fueled implication that we were somehow safer when cannabis was pushed into the shadows.

The real story is less dramatic and more solvable: we tried to replace prohibition with a patchwork of state markets, then acted surprised when the outcomes looked… patchwork.

1) “Daily use is up” isn’t a mic drop—it’s a policy design problem

Yes, frequent use has increased. That’s not nothing, and responsible advocates shouldn’t pretend otherwise. But “use is up” is not a complete argument—it’s the beginning of one.

What the “marijuana problem” framing often smuggles in is the assumption that legalization caused the rise in frequent use in a vacuum, and therefore the only rational response is to re-stigmatize cannabis and treat the entire category like a public menace. That’s not public health; that’s branding.

A more honest interpretation is this: legalization exposed demand that already existed, shifted some consumption from illicit to regulated channels, and—crucially—did so while federal law kept cannabis illegal. That federal illegality blocks national standards for testing, packaging, banking, interstate commerce, and research. In other words, we built a market with one hand tied behind its back and then scolded it for not looking like an idealized Scandinavian regulatory model.

If frequent use is genuinely the concern, then regulate like grown-ups: sensible potency rules, dose caps for edibles, clear labeling, advertising restrictions, and real enforcement against bad actors. But don’t pretend the existence of a legal industry is the root disease.

2) Health risks are real—so stop using them as an argument for nostalgia

Cannabis isn’t broccoli. There are legitimate health issues tied to heavy use. There are also mental health considerations for some users, especially adolescents and people predisposed to certain psychiatric conditions. A serious advocate doesn’t dismiss these risks; a serious advocate insists they be addressed with evidence-based policy, education, and access to care.

Here’s what a public-health-forward approach looks like: targeted education for high-risk users, clinician training, standardized warning labels for heavy/frequent use, and research that isn’t trapped in a bureaucratic time capsule. Stigma doesn’t help patients. It doesn’t help families. It doesn’t help consumers. It helps the illicit market.

And if impaired driving is part of the concern (it should be), the answer is not pearl-clutching op-eds. The answer is clear messaging (“don’t drive high”), better roadside and post-incident protocols, and consistent enforcement. If the goal is safety, then we need tools and education—not rhetorical regression.

3) The editorial underplays the biggest “worse outcome” of prohibition: policing

Legalization has reduced certain criminal justice harms. That point deserves more than a polite nod—it deserves to be the baseline of the conversation.

For decades, we funded mass enforcement of low-level possession, with enormous racial disparities, community disruption, and life-altering consequences for conduct that—today—often looks indistinguishable from a weekend beer run. People lost jobs, housing opportunities, scholarships, custody battles, and professional licenses. Communities lost trust in law enforcement. Courts and jails absorbed the cost. Prohibition didn’t eliminate cannabis; it criminalized people.

So when we’re told legalization “went too far,” it’s worth asking: too far compared to what—an era where a joint could derail someone’s life trajectory with an arrest record? A conversation that forgets this is not a serious policy conversation. It’s amnesia with a byline.

4) “Big Cannabis” isn’t the boogeyman—bad rules create bad markets

A recurring theme in legalization backlash is the insinuation that the industry is uniquely predatory, as if cannabis companies invented profit. But the incentives we’re seeing—high-potency competition, price compression, corner-cutting, gray-market leakage—are exactly what you get when:

• illegal competition remains massive,

• taxes are layered to the point of absurdity,

• licensing is slow and politicized,

• banking restrictions force cash-heavy operations,

• and federal illegality blocks normal supply-chain efficiencies.

These conditions don’t create a “responsibility ecosystem.” They create a survival ecosystem. The industry’s worst actors exploit those gaps, while the compliant operators—the ones paying taxes, testing product, and following packaging rules—get punished for doing the right thing.

If you want fewer “cannabis problems,” you don’t demonize the legal operators trying to comply; you make compliance viable and scaleable.

5) The solution isn’t to “admit we have a problem”—it’s to admit we have a plan problem

If the NYT editorial’s bottom line is “more regulation,” great. Most serious advocates are not anti-regulation. We’re anti-dysfunction. There’s a difference.

Here’s what “finishing the job” actually looks like:

• National product safety standards (testing, contaminants, pesticides, packaging).

• Age-gated marketing rules with real enforcement.

• Potency and serving-size guardrails that are consistent and consumer-friendly.

• Impaired-driving enforcement paired with public education.

• Tax policy that undercuts the illicit market instead of subsidizing it.

• Medical claim enforcement so brands can’t cosplay as clinicians.

• Research access that reflects reality rather than ideology.

None of this requires a return to criminalization. It requires adult governance.

The irony is that the loudest voices declaring “legalization failed” often oppose the very reforms that would make legalization work better—federal modernization, rational taxation, interstate commerce frameworks, and research expansion. You can’t sabotage the plumbing and then write a think piece about why the shower is cold.

So no, the cannabis industry doesn’t need a scarlet letter. It needs coherent regulation, credible science, and an honest public conversation that can hold two truths at once: cannabis has risks, and prohibition was worse.

If that’s America’s “marijuana problem,” then congratulations—we finally have the kind of problem adults can solve.

📈 Dog Walkers

$ACB ( ▼ 0.84% ) Is In The Mix

Aurora Cannabis is doubling down on the Asia-Pacific medical market, expanding its Aurora® portfolio across Australia and New Zealand with new high-THC flower and resin cartridge offerings designed to give prescribers more flexibility—and patients more precision.

For a company that has clearly prioritized global medical over lower-margin consumer segments, this move fits squarely within its long-term thesis: own regulated, high-barrier medical markets and scale through proprietary genetics and GMP infrastructure.

New Zealand: Expanding the Flower Shelf

In New Zealand, Aurora is rolling out two new high-THC cultivars this month:

• Big Wave™ – Hybrid, THC 26%, CBD <1%

• Night Ride™ – Indica, THC 29%, CBD <1%

Coming in Q1 FY27 is Half Moon™, a balanced hybrid featuring THC 9% and CBD 13%, broadening the company’s appeal to patients seeking a more moderate cannabinoid profile.

The addition of both high-potency and balanced options reflects a maturing prescriber base in New Zealand—one that increasingly demands differentiated cannabinoid ratios rather than one-size-fits-all SKUs.

Australia: Resin Cartridges Enter the Chat

In Australia—one of Aurora’s largest international markets—the company is launching four new resin vape cartridges:

• Chemango™ Kush – Indica, THC 780mg/g

• Cosmic Cream™ – Indica, THC 780mg/g

• Lunar Express™ – Indica, THC 780mg/g

• Soul Train Haze™ – Sativa, THC 780mg/g

All cartridges contain <10mg/g CBD and are derived from Aurora’s proprietary genetics.

The cartridge expansion signals a continued shift toward alternative delivery formats in Australia’s medical system. While dried flower remains dominant, vaporization products are increasingly preferred by certain patients for convenience, dosing control, and discretion.

GMP as the Moat

Importantly, all products are manufactured at Aurora’s EU-GMP and TGA-GMP certified Canadian facilities. That detail matters. In tightly regulated markets like Australia and New Zealand, consistent quality and regulatory compliance are not marketing slogans—they are gatekeeping mechanisms.

Stanley Sack, Interim Managing Director of MedReleaf Australia, emphasized that evolving patient needs require diversified formats and reliable supply. Translation: scale only works if you can ship consistently and pass every audit.

The Bigger Picture

Aurora’s international expansion strategy remains disciplined and medical-first. Rather than chasing fragmented adult-use growth, the company continues to lean into markets where physician oversight, insurance reimbursement, and regulatory frameworks create durable barriers to entry.

Australia has quietly become one of the fastest-growing regulated medical cannabis markets outside Europe. New Zealand, while smaller, operates under a pharmaceutical-style framework that favors GMP-certified suppliers with clinical credibility.

For Aurora, expanding SKU depth in these markets is less about splashy launches and more about reinforcing its role as a dependable supplier in systems where trust is currency.

As global medical cannabis continues to professionalize, Aurora’s approach—science-backed genetics, certified manufacturing, and incremental geographic expansion—suggests a company positioning itself for longevity rather than short-term headline growth.

In other words, this isn’t just a product drop. It’s another brick in a carefully constructed international platform.

$MRMD ( ▼ 1.67% ) To Report

MariMed Inc. has officially set the date for its fourth quarter and full-year 2025 earnings release, giving investors a mid-March checkpoint on the company’s operational trajectory.

MariMed will report financial results for Q4 and full year 2025 on March 11, 2026, after market close, with management scheduled to host a conference call the following morning on March 12 at 8:00 a.m. EDT.

The earnings call and accompanying webcast will be accessible via the company’s Investor Relations website, where a replay will also be archived for those who prefer to digest their cannabis earnings alongside their morning coffee rather than before dinner.

From a strategic standpoint, this report will likely draw attention for several reasons. MariMed has increasingly leaned into its consumer packaged goods strategy—expanding distribution of branded products such as Betty’s Eddies™, Vibations™, and other differentiated SKUs across both regulated cannabis and hemp-derived channels. Investors will be looking for clarity on margin performance, wholesale growth, and capital discipline, particularly as the industry continues navigating pricing compression and shifting regulatory headwinds.

Key areas to watch on the call:

• Gross margin stability amid product mix shifts

• Performance of hemp-derived THC beverage initiatives

• Retail same-store sales trends

• Cash flow and liquidity positioning heading into 2026

• Commentary on federal regulatory developments

With broader market focus intensifying around rescheduling, capital markets access, and state-level reform momentum, MariMed’s forward guidance and tone could carry added weight.

For shareholders and sector observers alike, March 12 offers an opportunity to evaluate whether MariMed’s brand-forward strategy is translating into durable financial performance—or simply solid narrative execution.

Either way, the scoreboard updates next week.

🗞️ The News

📺 YouTube

Why Cannabis Criticism Is Getting Loud Again | TDR Cannabis in 5

What we will cover:

✅ The latest episode of TDR Cannabis in Five, presented by FREpouch.com, features host Shadd Dales walking through a New York Times op-ed that’s suddenly getting a lot of attention in Washington and across the cannabis industry.

The opinion piece argues that the U.S. now has a so-called “marijuana problem,” pointing to higher usage rates, dependency concerns, emergency room visits, and public safety issues. It stops short of calling for prohibition, but pushes for tighter regulation, higher taxes, potency limits, and a more skeptical cultural stance toward cannabis.

On the surface, none of this is new.

What makes it interesting is when this conversation is popping up again.

In this episode, Shadd puts the op-ed in context — not just against long-running cannabis data, but against the current moment in federal policy. Much of the criticism outlined in the piece has circulated for years, often without consistent national evidence showing a crisis that matches the tone. Meanwhile, the most important development in cannabis policy remains unchanged: the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has already recommended rescheduling cannabis based on medical and scientific review.