US Politik

Heute starten die letzten 12 Tage in denen House und Senat zusammenkommen!

Kommt nun endlich ein Vorstoss oder werden die Hoffnungen ein weiteres Mal zerstört? Die Newskanäle haben keinen anderen Fokus mehr als SAFE (+). Aber es ist weder etwas durchgedrungen noch gibt es zuverlässige Politikeraussagen.

Unterdessen machen die Kurse der MSOs rein gar nichts. 

Wird der Hype real? Zum Börsenschluss gestern kamen die ersten Meldungen durch unter anderem von Natalie Fertig direkt aus dem Capitol: https://twitter.com/natsfert/status/1598437062281424896

Kurse gingen entsprechend gegen Tagesende ab, einige schon tagsüber. Nach wie vor aber keine schriftliche Bestätigung. Und die Uhr läuft unerbittlich weiter, sprich noch 9 Tage in denen sie im Capitol zusammenkommen. Soweit ich es auf dem Schirm habe war das der 16. Dez (kann aber auch der 15. sein). Und dann habe ich noch gehört dass in Ausnahmefällen eine "extension" gemacht werden kann, je nach Bill und der Dringlichkeit. Da kommt es aber drauf an wo der SAFE (+?) angehängt werden würde.

Unter dem Strich also weiterhin noch nicht konkretes aber die positiven Stimmen verdichten sich. 

Aktuelle Einschätzung von Pablo (Cantor):

Investment Summary: Here we are, us financial analysts trying to read the tea leaves and subliminal messages of powerful politicians (think of this more as an opinion piece). So, Sen. Schumer delivered, right? He did try to add SAFE to the Defense Bill (NDAA) even though it did not work out. Moreover, he is not giving up and said, “we’ll try to discuss (with Republicans) the best way to get it done.” The consensus view is now via the Appropriations Bill, but there is no guarantee that Bill will actually pass during this Congress (only a “keep the lights on” version, we say). We still believe the narrative that there are >60 votes in the Senate for SAFE (no, this does not equal actual passage), but are doubtful this will be done by attaching it to a "must pass Bill" piece of legislation (no need to provide a play-by-play of the last 48hrs, no? NDAA delayed; Sen. McConnell’s comments today, and Sen. Schumer’s response). If the Bill is to pass at all this lame duck session, it will have to be on a standalone basis…(but why didn't Sen. Schumer pursue that path to start with? Not good optics? Not enough votes?). Still, if Sen. McConnell indeed sees SAFE as “making the financial system more sympathetic to illegal drugs” (did he just kill SAFE?), we wonder whether he will “whip” Republican Senators not to vote for SAFE (if Sen. Schumer decides to put the Bill up for a vote on its own). That said, if we want to be more positive, we could say maybe this is all about “horse trading,” for the now (what gets included in SAFE, or excluded), and for the future (a new Farm Bill?). Yes, maybe there is a veiled message there (“heck, they could have scheduled those matters for a vote this week,” said Sen. McConnell). If you ask for the probability of the SAFE passage, we now say 49% only (vs. >70% before), but with the MSOS ETF at 12 now, that is not bad risk/reward, in our view.

• We have learned one lesson. Folks in DC apparently plant “outcomes/scenarios” with people in the media, and even those in the financial sector. They do so in order to provoke an outcome or trigger a change in the negotiating stance of others. How else do we explain the various theses that have been floating out there for the past few days (ranging from “SAFE in the NDAA by Monday” to “a standalone version of SAFE+HOPE will drop for a vote on 12/15,” to name a few)?

• We sincerely believe key Republican Senators (enough to get to 60) want SAFE passage. But they want it as a standalone Bill. They might remind Sen. McConnell that cannabis is not an illegal drug in ~45 states (sold in some fashion for medical purposes, or for recreational use). Yes, in this lame duck session.

• Yes, supposedly, there are still (or there were?) 60 votes in the Senate to pass SAFE banking legislation, with these 60 Senators also agreeing to attach the HOPE Act to the Bill. Supposedly. In this lame duck session. That said, and maybe stating the obvious, the Senate Minority Leader’s (implied) comments about SAFE (“making the financial system more sympathetic to illegal drugs”) make us wonder whether he will press Republican Senators not to support SAFE.

• Or maybe as Sen. McConnell said, “cut unrelated hostage-taking and put forward a bipartisan NDAA.” This is more about not mixing apples and oranges, and putting a standalone Bill for a vote (“heck, they could have scheduled those matters for a vote this week”).

• Sen. Schumer now has less bargaining power (regarding SAFE), in our view. There is a scenario in which he does not have the 60 votes for SAFE, and this is why he took the approach of putting it in the NDAA (he did put it in, in our view, if we go by Sen. McConnell’s comments today). Maybe he knows there is no time to put it forward as a standalone Bill? We would encourage him to move it as a standalone Bill (but what will he need to give up for next year?).

• We are increasingly skeptical about other add-ons (to SAFE) being possible at this late stage, no matter how laudable: veteran equal access; SBA support; safe harbor language for capital market access; language around protection for minors; and specific research for the DOJ/HHS de-scheduling review process. Worse, we do realize the lack of these add-ons (or inclusion) could be a deal breaker for some of those 60 votes.

• Not to get too far ahead, for stocks, of course SAFE (banking services) on its own is positive, even though the larger and more impactful positive would be “safe harbor language,” as that would propel the U.S. exchanges to uplist U.S. plant-touching stocks, rerating the entire sector, in our view. We see this scenario (inclusion) as a long shot now.

What happens in the next Congress (118^th), if anything? In our view, this will depend on if and how SAFE is passed in the lame duck session. But, big picture, we see reform momentum increasing. Key House Republicans have taken a more boisterous and coordinated role (the co-chairs of the Cannabis Caucus, David Joyce [OH] and Brian Mast (FL); and the sponsor of the SRA, Nancy Mace [SC]), and have signaled a Republican-controlled House may be willing to “play ball” with incremental reforms. We do not see them as outliers (and yes, we know they have to work with the new House Speaker). Depending on how quickly the re-scheduling or de-scheduling review mandated by the White House (DOJ/HHS/DEA) is completed, the need for some form of regulatory framework will increase. True, whether this is a 2023 or 2024 outcome is up to debate (probably more 2024). But we would assign little probability to the scenario that nothing else happens in the next Congress.

Auch diese Nacht wieder unerfreuliche News welche Marijuanamoment.net gut zusammengefasst hat:

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/mcconnell-brags-about-marijuana-banking-defeat-in-defense-bill-signaling-hell-fight-to-stop-it-in-omnibus-spending-too/

Realistischerweise bleibt so nur noch eine standalone Bill wenn der Republikaner McConnell Omnibus blockieren will. Die nächsten Tage in dieser Lame-Duck Periode werden extrem entscheidend sein!

@blister 

Vielen Dank für Dein daily briefing + dazugehörige eigene Wertung der Geschehnisse!

Noch nie war das Warten auf den   B u s   spannender 😉

Trotz guter Prognose von Unterstützer und Analysten kam es zum SAFE Desaster und die politische Zukunft sieht wieder einmal ungewiss aus. Ob es im Q1 oder Q2 zu weiteren Vorstössen bzgl. SAFE kommt kann momentan nicht vorhergesagt werden.

Daher geht die Spekulation jetzt mehr in Richtung einer Deregulierung die einen SAFE Act obsolet machen würde. Wie der Prozess aussieht ist in diesem Beitrag ausformuliert:

We recently wrote about President Joe Biden’s pardon of federal marijuana convictions and raised some cautions concerning possible proposed rescheduling of marijuana under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Even if President Biden is successful in persuading his administration to move to either deschedule or reschedule marijuana, we wouldn’t expect to see any significant change for many months, if not years.

To recap, 39 of the 50 states have adopted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana notwithstanding federal prohibition under the CSA. Nineteen of those states have gone further, authorizing adult use marijuana under their state laws without regard to medical need. The state-level legalization of adult use marijuana appears to be accelerating. Just as the early advocates for medical marijuana legalization showed little concern for federal illegality, the adult use advocates seem unlikely to slow their move for broad legalization, whatever the federal government decides to do.

As we previously observed, rescheduling marijuana under the CSA is likely to create more difficulties for state medical marijuana compliance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therefore, descheduling – removing marijuana from the CSA completely – appears to be the most viable and prudent goal to reconcile federal and state regulation of marijuana. But whether the future of marijuana under the CSA is descheduling or rescheduling, the process will be complex.

The CSA authorizes the attorney general, working with subsidiary Department of Justice agencies like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FDA and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to reschedule, or even deschedule, substances after consideration of the drug’s medical use and its potential for abuse and dependence. However, the statutory process the DEA is required to follow to change the status of an already controlled substance is incredibly arduous.

The CSA mandates scheduling decisions be made by the DEA in conjunction with the HHS and the FDA based on medical and scientific data considering the relative abuse potential of a drug. The HHS must consider the following eight factors in making its recommendation:

• The drug’s actual or relative potential for abuse.
• The drug’s scientific evidence of its pharmacologic effect, if known.
• The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug.
• The drug’s history and current pattern of abuse.
• The drug’s scope, duration and significance of abuse.
• The risk, if any, to public health.
• The drug’s psychic or physiological dependence liability.
• Whether the drug is an immediate precursor of a controlled substance.

The HHS’ recommendations are then binding on the DEA as to scientific and medical matters. Rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II controlled substance, at a minimum, would require proof that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in the United States. Descheduling marijuana would require a finding that it does not meet any of the criteria for scheduling. However, in response to a 2016 petition to reclassify marijuana, the FDA concluded that it has no accepted medical use in the U.S., has a high potential for abuse and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision. Accordingly, the DEA denied the petition.

The rescheduling and descheduling processes involve similar analyses under the CSA, but both are unlikely to occur at this time. The DEA remains powerless to reschedule marijuana without a finding from the HHS that it has an accepted medical use or to deschedule without evidence that it should not be scheduled under the CSA at all. The current Schedule I status of marijuana makes it difficult for researchers to receive federal sources of funding to obtain the evidence-based clinical research necessary to support the rescheduling or descheduling of marijuana. While recent DEA policy has expanded the number of marijuana cultivators for research, the HHS is still far from obtaining the evidence necessary to support a change.

Beyond the regulatory roadblocks, the scheduling of marijuana also impacts the international treaty obligations of the U.S. The U.S. is a party to a United Nations treaty, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which requires the U.S. to control marijuana in the schedule that the DEA Administrator deems most appropriate. The courts have previously held that marijuana must be scheduled in Schedule I or II to satisfy the obligations under the treaty.

Even if a change is possible in the future, maintaining marijuana on the controlled substances list likely raises more problems than it solves. A more prudent approach is to deschedule it completely. However, because these processes are riddled with roadblocks, it is unlikely that the current scheduling of marijuana will change any time soon.

TEXTLINK: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-complexity-of-rescheduling-or-8303986/

Letzte Nacht die Nachricht über eine neue Runde mit dem SAFE: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bipartisan-u-s-house-and-senate-lawmakers-reintroduce-marijuana-banking-bill/

Nach der Dezemberschmach hat das nun doch lange gedauert. Ich werde dieses Mal aber auf keine Marktflüsterer hören da die ja genauso würfelten wie wir es selber können. Gestern ging der ETF AH schön hoch, mal schauen ob es die Underlinings heute mitnimmt. Die am Boden liegenden Kurse dürfen gerne wieder etwas anziehen.

Leider aber gab es auch diese frische Entwicklung: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/senate-republicans-block-marijuana-research-bill-for-veterans-in-procedural-vote/

welche so einfach nicht zu verstehen ist. Aber da kuck ich in die deutsche Entwicklung und kann auch nur den Kopf schütteln.

Der Leiter der Geriatrieabteilung Chuck Schumer kommt mal wieder mit seinem "top priority" um Social Justice um die Ecke: https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1651694262197661698

Dies nachdem er seinen ersten vernünftigen Tweet zu diesem Thema gelöscht hat. Will er mal wieder jeglichen Progress stoppen? Denn die Republikaner wollen von alledem nichts wissen und dies ist auch dem Schumer bekannt.

Die Kommentare die er kriegt sind zurecht gehässig.

Kleiner Funken Hoffnung: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/feds-aim-to-finish-cannabis-scheduling-review-this-year-top-biden-official-tells-marijuana-moment/

The head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is aiming to present President Joe Biden with a federal cannabis scheduling decision “this year” as agencies work “as quickly as we can” to complete an administrative review, Secretary Xavier Becerra told Marijuana Moment during a press briefing in Sacramento on Thursday.

Der Horizont ist mit "diesem Jahr" etwas schwammig und der Artikel resp. die Aussage konnte gestern keine Markteuphorie erzeugen. Jedoch wäre die Zurückstufung das Grösste was dem Markt passieren könnte da SAFE, Besteuerung etc. auf einen Schlag wegfallen würden.