SAFE

MayoMobil3

Anavex (AVXL) is highly likely the most promising late-stage Alzheimer’s potential, over ANVS and SAVA. The company completed and succeeded in passing a phase 2b/3 pivotal Alzheimer’s trial in late 2022. The drug is likely to result in halted disease progression or improvement in a large percentage of the patient population (80%+) based on extensive responder/genomic analysis conducted by the company. It’s also SAFE, orally taken, and inexpensive. The company is currently in late stages for filing for approval in Europe, a customer-base that hasn’t seen a new Alzheimer’s drug in decades. The EMA requested the company file based on private conversations and will likely beat any monoclonal antibody to market in Europe. Remember: efficacious, safe, wide-patient applicability, massive market, exclusivity in Europe, and orally taken. FDA is expected to be pursued with a similar copy-paste filing shortly after.

TomorrowLow5092

I'm not sure how to read this. If anyone sells $700 million a year in product and doesn't turn a profit, what needs to change? There isnt anything left for the investors. S3 and SAFE will increase competition for the licenced shops, right. If and when tax relief is allowed it will add to bottom line, that's all there is. Good luck everyone.

KAI5ER

Sensible. I look forward to a day we no longer need to debate SAFE. Or cannabis prohibition for that matter.

roloplex

Garland memo would be great. But without a Dem president, it doesn't mean much. If Biden wins, we don't "need" SAFE although it would be nice. If Trump wins, we really really need SAFE and any other bulwark against an anti cannabis DOJ / executive branch.

GeoLogic23

GOP won't even sponsor SAFE so we can't know. I just think what the Democrats are trying to include are extremely reasonable amendments. As active cannabis investors who are paying attention, we should be making sure everybody knows what Dems are actually proposing, because the GOP spin machine keeps making it seem like they are trying to add all this crazy stuff when they aren't. It's totally a valid opinion to just want them to pass clean SAFE. I just have a very strong opinion that doing so would not be the right move.

KAI5ER

5 years ago I would have said different. But looking at our history.. Yes. You know probably better than most that the GOP's obstructionist bullshit extends far beyond our weedstock bubble. In my opinion SAFE itself is viewed as the GOP bipartisan compromise. Dems should take the deal... but they wont.

KAI5ER

After years and years of attempts Its clean SAFE or nothing at this point. Using it as a vehicle for other reforms is a fallacy now. Ideally we vote out the GOP in all branches, but that's not simple at all. We are stuck.

GeoLogic23

For people suggesting Democrats put poison pills in SAFE, just look at what the GOP were trying to do when they had control. https://mjbizdaily.com/key-senate-leader-signals-major-changes-to-cannabis-banking-bill-dimming-prospects-for-significant-reforms-in-2020/ "Among other things, the Idaho Republican is considering a **2% THC potency cap** on cannabis products for businesses to be eligible for financial services" **They were literally trying to turn SAFE into a bill that only helped the hemp industry.** "Crapo’s announcement outlined other possible changes to SAFE including: Preventing banking for companies that produce edibles and high-potency THC vape products."

GeoLogic23

What in particular have they suggested that would be considered "unachievable" to you? Because if those amendments are so unachievable now, despite the GOP having a decade to suggest a single thing they'd add to SAFE, then what makes you think the GOP are going to come to the table after SAFE passes? If these tiny bits of progress are so unachievable after a decade, maybe we should simply vote out the GOP.

oldschoolczar

I’m not defending onpar but he said SAFE would never pass and it looks like he was right. I believe he said you should hold LONG-TERM as there were future TBD catalysts other than SAFE.

GeoLogic23

Really need to stop misrepresenting that spammer. They said: 1. SAFE is never passing 2. Cannabis stocks 100% are going to crash 3. But also you shouldn't sell His position literally made no sense. They were playing both sides so if it crashed they could say they were right that would happen, and if it didn't crash they could say they were right for saying to hold.

CaptainAssneck

Man, you should see the collection of downvotes I’ve gotten over the past 2 years for suggesting SAFE never happens. It’s amazing these dipshits in Congress are still milking that thing.

CaptainAssneck

Beyond broken. The S3 move is literally the only thing that kept me from completely bailing from this sector a while ago, and it’s solely due to the fact that Congress is not involved. Can’t trust them to get anything right. Definitely agree that S3 and a Garland memo could make SAFE irrelevant. (Of course, THEN they would pass it and be quick to boast of their amazing accomplishment….).

CoolLordL21

Agreed. The repubs will block pretty much anything, and even the dems are attaching poison pills to any SAFE legislation. 

CaptainAssneck

I think SAFE banking never passes.

Real_anonymous_human

What's the other stonks that got to play a part last time? AMC, BB, NOK any others? I was only on the sidelides last time and made some money yesterday but no positions right now. Trying to guess best moment to jump back in (one way or the other). And one other thing. Didn't this hype lasted like weeks or even months last time? BE SAFE AND REMEMBER TO WASH YOUR HANDS.

dchusband

It’s probably a good bet through the summer. SAFE isn’t happening until the lame duck session. What catalysts could ruin it between now and then? Unless there is a meme stock like attack on shorts, they will just continue to pull everything down.

badgebruce

If SAFE passes, the Garland memo is not necessary.

trebuchetty1

Don is intentionally being misleading. For one, Schumer and McConnell shared a lot of the Senate leadership responsibility for those two years, but 50 senators plus a VP breaking tie is meaningless when you need at least 60 votes to pass anything through the Senate. It's comments like this that tell you everything you need to know about Don. He may be pro-cannabis, but he's also heavily pro-republican, so he makes shit up to fit the overall narrative he's selling. This ultimately makes him untrustworthy. The few times it looked like SAFE had a real chance, it was specifically McConnell's anti-cannabis comments that ultimately killed the momentum.

stickman07738

The illegal (black market) and mom and pops are hurting the dispensary business - just google dispensaries closing in CA or IL. Here is [one article](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/curaleaf-cutting-10-of-staff-as-it-exits-three-u-s-states-11674740437) and [another](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/23/marijuana-black-market-undercuts-legal-business.html) and another on i[nventory glut](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/25/weed-prices-business-michigan-00075485). [Poltico has numerous articles](https://www.politico.com/search?q=red+state+marijuana) on the issues. From your comments, sorry you are bag holding and hoping for rebound. MSOS share price may increase to the $15 range is the SAFE act is past and it becomes federally approved - but I do not see it happening in an election year.

noobstockinvestor

Gillibrand: _____ bill shelved b/c "McConnell does not want the SAFE Banking Act” But yeah keep blaming Schumer for not getting safer into FAA

zygodactyly

*Can you name the ten GOP senators Schumer needs to pass SAFE?* No one can. So are the prospects of losing SAFE why Schumer hasn't introduced it to the floor for a vote? Yet Schumer has not said much about why SAFE is important all by itself, and he has framed it as *bankers win* legislation. So he's argued for additions he knows republicans will oppose. But I'd to hear from Schumer why SAFE alone is important. Bring it as it is, let it lose, and then those who caused it to lose now have to answer to their voters why they oppose cannabis, which is popular. Red state voters support reform, so to Schumer, even if SAFE loses, he would have succeeded in clarifying the losers. These same arguments were made >10 years ago; clearly Schumer isn't onboard with this style of incremental cannabis reform.

zygodactyly

*Can you name the ten GOP senators Schumer needs to pass SAFE?* No one can. So are the prospects of losing SAFE why Schumer has not introduced it to floor for a vote? Schumer has not said much about why SAFE is important, and he has framed it as *the bankers will benefit most* legislation. So he's argued for additions he thinks will benefit more than just the bankers, additions he knows republicans will oppose. I'd like Schumer to make the case for why SAFE (as a stand alone bill) needs to be passed. Bring it as it is to a vote, let it lose, and then those who caused it to lose shall have to answer to their own constituents why they oppose cannabis reform. Red state voters support cannabis reform, so to Schumer, even if SAFE loses, he would have succeeded in clarifying the losers. These same arguments were made >10 years ago; clearly Schumer isn't onboard with this style of incremental cannabis reform.

badgebruce

Senator Rand Paul has been saying for quite some time the votes are ther to pass SAFE in the Senate, fwiw.

GeoLogic23

Industrial hemp is the reason I believe the Koch family ever got involved in "cannabis" at all. And also explains why their advocacy organization The Cannabis Freedom Alliance didn't register for federal lobbying until [pretty recently](https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/search/?registrant=&registrant_country=&registrant_ppb_country=&client=cannabis+freedom&client_state=&client_country=&client_ppb_country=&lobbyist=&lobbyist_covered_position=&lobbyist_conviction_disclosure=&lobbyist_conviction_date_range_from=&lobbyist_conviction_date_range_to=&report_period=&report_year=&report_dt_posted_from=&report_dt_posted_to=&report_amount_reported_min=&report_amount_reported_max=&report_filing_uuid=&report_house_doc_id=&report_issue_area_description=&affiliated_organization=&affiliated_organization_country=&foreign_entity=&foreign_entity_country=&foreign_entity_ppb_country=&foreign_entity_ownership_percentage_min=&foreign_entity_ownership_percentage_max=&search=search), despite existing for a few years. I think they're only lobbying now because the Farm Bill is being negotiated. Though Farm Bill does not appear in their [lobbying record](https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/4a2e4a9e-4555-4773-856e-7cd1c9fda585/print/), one of their lobbyists came directly from working for Jim Baird (2019-2022). In 2022, Jim Baird was one of the earliest people to say we should make sure to include [CBD regulations in the Farm Bill](https://baird.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=266). One of the companies most focused on CBD early on was Canopy Growth. After Bruce Linton left there he was at Gage Growth in Michigan for a while. Extremely influential Michigan-based Republican family the DeVos family recently [added CBD to their lobbying](https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/cb28d3e3-fbdd-4caa-8a7e-a070d0aec4cb/print/) disclosures for their giant cosmetics company Amway. I've also previously noted that a significant (>10%) shareholder of hemp-focused British American Tobacco (Kenneth Dart) is from Michigan. Also perhaps notable to the biofuel discussion that Michigan is home to our auto industry. While he was at Gage Growth in Michigan, Bruce Linton started a [SPAC called Collective Growth](https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/08/06/bruce-linton-hemp-spac/?sh=2414185e381a). This was focused on industrial hemp. He noted that by the time you get to extracting CBD you should already have significant profit from the rest of hemp. He said the EU was the best opportunity for this. His SPAC didn't work out that way, but Linton is now with Synbiotic in Germany. They are very focused on hemp/CBD (and also seem oddly overvalued). I think hemp biofuel also makes a lot of sense in regards to things the EU is doing with policy. In regards to hemp/CBD, sustainable aviation fuel goals and general climate goals, and the odd juxtaposition of those goals with [Germany's insistence on remaining on gas power](https://www.politico.eu/article/nuclear-reactors-germany-invest-gas-power-plants-energy/). Germany's description as committing to their gas expansion for "long term energy security" also helps answer the question of why SAFE Banking was being considered for the National Defense Bill here in the US. Just like Germany, the US can help its global security by becoming even more energy independent by expanding biofuels. Not to mention the other imports hemp can help us become less reliant on, as it can produce so many products.

UFO-crackpot

yeah - also if leadership slapped down SAFE from being in the National Defense bill saying it was unrelated bill despite throngs of service members relying on cannabis for PTSD, can't imagine they'll be receptive at all to tossing it in the aviation bill.

IliaMadeVolk

Remember everyone questioning these things getting banned and scolded? SAFE AND EFFECTIVE

CannaVestments

I'm in the same mindset as you. Don't know anything specific but my guess is S3 alone does not trigger uplisting. I think we need SAFE to get there

Tiaan

Think it's best chance is the lame duck session after the election, but tbh I have zero faith that SAFE will ever become law. Too many forces working against it. I also think rescheduling to S3 will ultimately result in some fincen guidance to get issued that makes SAFE irrelevant

jmu_alumni

The issue is SAFE is different than SAFE+. Hard to tell which ones of those likely get removed to no with SE

roloplex

shit SAFE is dead. There isn't enough GOP support in the senate to get past the fillibuster and it is highly unlikely that GOP senators are going to change their mind after 5 years (particularly with an election coming up with an anti cannabis candidate at the top of the ticket).

Yogurt_Up_My_Nose

so you know nothing about their Aerospace division and how it's the safest shuttle? and how it can land on land and sea ? they were literally being belittled 2 years ago about delays because they were being "TOO SAFE". yeah. that's perception too. but it's not pushed by the media to morons likes yourself cuz it doesn't get clicks. good job being another moron.

NextTrillion

Why? Some of us have been around since 2013, and there have been some seriously dark days in this sector. As of now, I’m ok with whatever. If they reschedule, cool. If not, and they say hard ‘no’ to rescheduling, I’m probably going to sell at a loss at and seriously reduce my exposure. My hope was that something would have changed before the mid term elections, and nothing really happened. Chuck Schooner lost his chance with the SAFE act, while democrats controlled congress. They simply didn’t want to get it done for whatever reason. They got a lot of other things passed, but the devil’s lettuce is far too unimportant given the tax revenue it could generate. So IMO, anyone suffering through early 2021 to mid 2023 got hit really hard. Those were dark times around here because it was just nothing but a downward slide followed by empty promises and a lot of hopium. It’s been nearly 4 years of being a terrible investment and at this point, it feels like there’s light at the end of the tunnel. If so, who cares about waiting a few more months? And if it’s a fake out, I believe we’re probably right back to being dead money.

EzVirus-SF

Banking services can't happen without SAFE passing. Market: :O \*sell off

creedthoughtsblog

MSOS could benefit from SAFE banking legislation in the works

WilsonTradesMaui

All the MSOs that aren’t listed on a US exchange are talking to Nasdaq currently. That’s the trigger event for everything in the etf MSOS to fly. Then SAFE Banking Act passing later this year 🤞🏽 will launch everything to the moon

Many_Easy

Markets don’t like uncertainty. Schedule III is now a certainty. Markets are also forward looking and fundamental analyses include present value of discounted future cash flows. Current uncertainties are Germany Pillar II, ability for LPs to export to U.S. OR U.S. importing from Canada, Florida vote, Farm Bill revisions, SAFE(R), improved operating results, uplistings, improvements to existing management teams, M&A, institutional investors, Canadian excise taxes, and surprises. All one has to do is review the list and to be patient. S3 was a huge step forward.

LetMeAskPls

2 - usually your bank will have an autopay feature that you can setup a schedule to send money. Or on the stock brokerage side you account will have the same thing to pull money from your savings/checking account. Each bank will be different, but all should have this available. 3-So while Oil, Apple, Microsoft are doing good now, if you put all your money into them and they stop doing good (Microsoft really did nothing from 2001-2015) you will not make any money. But if you do put money in an ETF/Index fund the has for example the top 500 stocks in the US stock market you have a better chance of making money, but not as much if you are lucky and pick a wonderful stock. So are you lucky or do you want safer/steady? Everyone has different investing approach. Find your own, by winning some and losing some. Plus like you said may of these include Apple/MSFT/all the big companies. You will learn to look at the "holdings of VOO" for example: [https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VOO/holdings](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VOO/holdings) shows what % of the ETF the top 10 stocks are and what % each sector (tech/oil/retail/finance) etc. 4-Every government loves to tax. Search the internet for "investment taxes in Israel" or "stock taxes in Israel" or "capital gains taxes Israel" or "short and long investment taxes in Israel". Ask an accountant or friends or others who invest 5-I do not understand your #5 question. 6-The honest answer is to start young, put as much as you can in the investments. Invest in slow and safer (not the safest) methods. There is no easy way. In the USA/western countries all marketing/advertising is to make people spend money and compare yourself to other people (great for the economy, but you waste so much money or dumb things). They tell you to use Credit cards and pay 19% interest as long as you are having fun. If you can stop yourself from doing that and save that money instead you are already better than most people. I bought a sports car for $80,000 when I was younger to be cool, my friend laughed at me and told me "how fast can you drive that super cool car in traffic on your way to work, since you need to make money to pay for it". It has been over 25 years and I remember that so clearly. I would sit in traffic driving 20mph in a sports car on my way to work and back every day. If I had invested that $80,000 in the S&P500 today it would be $500,000 - [https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=2EVpz0NRImKv4TaJL6w1LP](https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=2EVpz0NRImKv4TaJL6w1LP) I am not saying don't have fun and don't spend money (don't be miserable), but prioritize the investing if you have a choice. That is also where automatically sending money to your investment account comes into play. Example: your paycheck is $1000, the day it enters your saving account you send 20% to your investing account. You live your life like you only earn $800. Don't give yourself a choice to spend or not spend the 20%. 7. Gold/Silver - I do not know much about these, but I believe these do not GROW as much as the GOOD stocks do. They are more to keep value than to grow value. This is similar with US Government bonds. They are SAFE to keep value. People usually add GOLD or bonds when they are closer to retiring so if the stock market crashes they don't lose as much. 8-You can invest it each month and not quarterly, my point is not to check and play with the investments every day. At $200 per month it will grow very slowly, so if you check all the time you might get discouraged. It is the long term race. 9-Sorry yes take 10% of the $200 (so in our example $200 is 20% of your paycheck, you would use $20 for this purpose) and use it for play/testing theories etc. This includes CRYPTO so your bitcoin can go here after you buy the $500 worth if you want to add more. -Other things to note is that here in the US some brokerage firms allow you to buy fractions of shares. So you do not have to for example buy 1 share of VOO at $469, you can buy $20 of VOO. So investing with $200 is easy and can be done. I am not sure if the firms in Israel would have things like that. If not get a separate savings account and move the 20% of your paycheck there every month until it is enough to buy stocks with. Good luck

UsedState7381

Comment period is also 90 days, this is the most concrete thing to look forward to now. Both Garland memo and SAFE are still hopium, they are more likely to happen now that S3 is here, but when they will happen is the question and nobody truly knows.

heliumbox

Biggest news in the sector since Canadian legalization and we're up like 10-20%... I seriously just am lost. We are sitting at the low point pre-SAFE 2022 pump... just absolutely bonkers price action.

I_Got_High

MSOS logic: SAFE RUMORS 13.xx$ S3 9.xx$ 🙄

Marsh1022

# HITI  High Tide Inc. High Tide Inc. has an extremely competitive business model and a low cost of expansion. * The cannabis industry is facing catalysts from both rescheduling and the passage of some form of the SAFE Banking Act. * High Tide has reached positive cash flow a quarter earlier than management previously projected. * Multiple valuation methods indicate the company is significantly undervalued.

reneegulae

Yeah, still can’t uplist. Volatility here to stay until SAFE goes through.

Ok-Replacement9595

That type of bipartisanship is their goal, or at least the appearance of it. Dems may get one or two bills through the house, and can go campaign on the willingness to reach across the isle. I think we can only hope that SAFE gets over the line, but I don't think there will be the type of assurances sufficient to get schumer to pull the trigger.

slie911

Observation: Some repubs want to try and oust House Speaker Johnson as early as next week, but Dems have reportedly stated they would save him if that happens. I wonder if Dems will use that as leverage to cut a deal with Johnson to let SAFE be added to FAA as an act of good faith… 🤔

roloplex

There aren't even 10 GOP senators in support of SAFE. No chance that CAO even gets close. Removing the fillibuster would be nice, but if it happens, it won't be because of cannabis and it will be a shitshow. But anyways, i'm not sure what people expect Schumer to do. Just drop any cannabis legislation because the GOP is going to stonewall?

WilsonTradesMaui

Chuck and Booker want attention - we all know they don’t want action. Would’ve passed SAFE by now if they really cared.

trebuchetty1

Mitch also said that he couldn't push through a supreme court nomination during an election year cause the people should decide by voting. Then the very next election did a 180 and shoved a new nominee into the supreme Court with a month left before the election. Mitch will say whatever necessary to get what he wants and he clearly doesn't want SAFE. Anyone talking about the problem being Soonmer is drinking from the GOP propaganda pool.

dchusband

Because then SAFE becomes the easy compromise without giving up the big win to Biden on complete legalization. It’s how DC works.

DonJohnson108

I always get down votes when I talk about the reality of Schumer cock blocking SAFE lol. He’s got some boner bodies here. When the senate banking committee took one SAFE I listened to every session. The opposition had lots of concerns with SAFE but still were on board to move forward with it being taken up on the floor. Then Schumer had one of his opening floor speeches where he made sure all knew he’d be attaching important social equity provisions. Weed stocks all flopped because everyone knew that anything added takes its it’s chance to near zero from probably fairly decent without these things.

f0xns0x

I’m a little ashamed to admit that I’m not as in tune with the fundamentals of the businesses as I should be. I’ve been trading and holding on the sentiment that the sector would turn on the inevitable positive news of S3/legalization/SAFE. Fundamentally, will the 280E shift provide profitability to MSOs that would justify trading at higher levels? Sorry, I know you might not have these answers - but I appreciate the support while I figure out the right questions I should be asking to have a better developed thesis

DonJohnson108

Mitch during lame duck in his speech that tanked SAFE hopes…specifically said his problem was attaching it and not having it discussed on the floor. I listened live. He said he was opposed to it but said but acknowledged his colleagues had interest and that it needs brought to the floor to discuss. Why is anyone believe the joke of it being attached to something else

Paluchowicz88

Does anyone know whether rescheduling makes SAFE more or less likely to pass?

TuffNutzes

Four years ago when MSOS was $40+ on SAFE **promises only**, a rescheduling of cannabis to S3 wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye. It was just so improbable that no one even considered it. Today, we actually **have S3 confirmed by DOJ** and in the pipeline, Pres and VP and Congressional leadership pushing for it as well as pushing further for **full legalization**... and MSOS is trading below $10. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

DonJohnson108

Sorry I didn’t see today’s news about CAOA. Either way he’s trying to attach HOPE to SAFE. And 2 years ago pledge to block safe unless him and Schumer got their additions. It’s pretty obvious to all that SAFE isn’t loved and adding less liked things only makes it less likely

talktothepope

It's no big mystery who is standing in the way of SAFE lol. Read any reporting done on the matter. There might be 1-2 Republicans who are on the fence, who cares. Anyways, I'd rather they wait until they know they have the votes, vs rush it and fail.

GeoLogic23

Tired of having this same discussion. The votes aren't there and you don't bring bills to the floor so they fail and have to go back through committee and stuff. Not to mention there would be Democrats who would likely vote no if SAFE didn't include expungements, because that's just common sense fairness. Republicans can end this debate by simply co-sponsoring the bill. Republicans could even end this debate by*"simply making a statement** they would vote yes on a clean SAFE. They won't do that, because they don't support it. It's not rocket science.

-PsillyFunGuy-

Sorry do you think CAOA was an attachment to SAFE? Because if so, that’s not true at all. If not, then I’m not sure what you’re saying.

Ok-Replacement9595

Schumer cannot take a win to save his life. He could force a vote at any time to see who is standing in the way of SAFE, but instead prolongs the torture of hope that has allowed the stranglehold of shorts in this sector. I know you have been here to see this transpire. I hate Republicans with the fury of a thousand suns, but I cannot do anything about how backward they are, and have to live under their total rule in my state. You know what brings to light and into the new their obstructionism? Actually voting on legislation that is popular.

GeoLogic23

How is Schumer single handedly destroying the sector? Are you saying you DO have names of Republicans who would vote for SAFE now? If so, let some reporters know, because that would be huge news. Otherwise perhaps consider redirecting your anger to the prohibitionists, instead of the people who talk about cannabis constantly and who are actually working on comprehensive federal legalization strategies. In a functioning Senate, we wouldn't even be expecting Schumer to have to submit a CAOA bill that is guaranteed to pass. It would be submitted, debated, sent through committee, etc.

jamminstein

Kudos to Natalie F. for asking about moving and voting for SAFE. Of course Sen Wyden and Boooker basically avoided her question and used the opportunity to answer her question by blaming republicans. While they are not entirely wrong, their answer proves what the CAOA bill and conference has always been, and is today, and that is just a bill used for optics, pandering, and not a bill that has a serious chance of passing, unlike SAFE.

GeoLogic23

Putting forth the CAOA has no effect on SAFE. It's totally fine to submit your bill and emphasize your party's legislative goals. Can you point me towards any Republicans who are now saying that they will vote for SAFE? Because otherwise Schedule 3 changes nothing about that situation.

mindwip

Safe? Maybe VOTE ON SAFE THERES AN IDEA!

Ok-Replacement9595

He spoke on the floor. Instead of moving to pass SAFER, or anything logical, he is reintroducing CAOA, and calling for de-scheduling all together. Which on the one hand is, good for you, but everyone knows has no chance of 60 votes. It is so frustrating watching schumer single-handedly destroy this sector through his ineptitude. Take a win, for once, and just pass SAFE now that S3 is assured. You don't have to counter, here, with some legislation that has no chance, Chuck. Come ON!

oldschoolczar

Eh. Easy come easy go. I guess we’re back on the SAFE train. Which is a shitty place to be but sch3 might be the impetus we needed to finally move SAFER.  I think these go back up pretty quickly as investors realize the impact of 280e removal. All the MSOs just became much more profitable. Maybe earnings next week will finally be a catalyst as we see how profitable these companies will become. 

ValenTom

Schumer will apparently reintroduce CAOA today in 45 minutes. https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/schumer-to-hold-press-conference-on-cannabis-bill-wednesday I appreciate that this keeps things in the news cycle but it should be realized that this bill is entirely dead in the water. The Senate majority is too tight and the House won’t let this through. If SAFE can’t even get close after 7+ years then a comprehensive decriminalization bill doesn’t have a remote chance this decade.

I_Got_High

Went way higher on SAFE rumor a year ago. Total shit sector.

Logz94

We ran hard yesterday but I don't think we can expect to do that every day until more progress is made pull backs will happen. Important to remember that this is the announcement and not the actions of rescheduling itself. This kicks off another exciting bureaucratic process of submitting to the federal register and going through the formal rulemkaing process. We are still a few steps away from it officially being rescheduled. We will run up in the lead up and when that happens. The larger play here is SAFE which seems much more likely to pass in a world where weed is no longer schedule 1. All of this action is happening without major involvement from retail and institutional investors because we have not yet uplisted. Look at any other subreddit discussing this and people had no idea it was coming or exactly what it meant, I would bet money most people you talk to wouldn't even be aware you can invest in these companies or how; even among people who do regularly invest they may not be able to purchase on their trading platform. Feels like we have been here for fuckin ever because we have, but realistically this is still very early in an industry that is barely set up and in it's infancy compared to what it will look like once it is properly regulated and given the freedom to fully operate. Rescheduling is the most substantial progress we have ever seen at the federal level, and it's only the first domino. In the long term our patience will be rewarded and our ridiculously masochist investments will pay off

CaptainAssneck

I actually thought this was **finally** going to be where the “sell every pop” approach failed. Wrong again. We saw MSOS run to $14 just a year and a half ago on a mere rumor of SAFE. This sector is really something else. That said, I mentioned the other day that I wouldn’t recommend anyone with no exposure to the sector enter it with all the uncertainty and endless letdowns. I definitely feel different about that now that we know S3 is for sure coming. F’ing blows my mind people could be entering here with what we now is REALLY on the horizon.

northdancer

That's a conundrum for investors post SAFE. Right now, the panic buying from speculators who buy stocks on their phone will not be directed at OTC names unfortunately.

creedthoughtsblog

it crashes because it DIDNT happen, SAFE is all talk and no progress this is real progress with S3

okay_thatworks

this is great and all, but let's talk about what can go wrong let's not forget, GTI was C$21 before SAFE crashed in 2022

stillwaitingonit82

You. have. to. be. built. for. this Edit... You. HAD. to. be. built. for. this. 2018 vet.. Canadian legalization crash.. covid crash.. numerous SAFE rug pulls... Too many "SOONS" to remember. Never fucking sold, never fucking left added the best i could during dips,...

reneegulae

Yeah, he’s been spot on. He got fooled by Sooner in the Senate with SAFE but Boris isn’t all hype. He tries to tell his truth.

TuffNutzes

The MSOS move up to $40 plus happened simply on SAFE rumors and promises. Schedule 3 is significantly more materially important and it's actually happening.

TuffNutzes

MSOS hit $40+ on SAFE promises only and S3 is significantly more material and important AND it's actually happening. Obviously this is a different time than 2020 but my guess is we're just at the start of this move up with plenty of juicy anticipatory headlines as the regulatory process rolls out with SAFER certain to follow.

Ok-Replacement9595

I am hoping a grand bargain between FAA/SAFE and the House produced Farm Bill. Let it be so.

Bonzoso

No that will be in the SAFE banking bill if that ever fking passes dam GOP. It is closer then ever after finally clearing senate committee for first time since they've been introducing it for like 5 years lol. There's more hop with sched III allowing gop to vote for it now that weed doesn't = heroin

IAmNotNathaniel

then I would say, absolufruitinlutely this is just a bump on the rumor. but then there's actual DEA announcement, and we still have SAFE to look forward to. so I think a lot of upside from here.

thetaFAANG

Summary: This invalidates the need for the SAFE Banking Act And there are no consequences for the US not complying with a treaty Dispensaries can deduct expenses now And technically have to report things to the DEA but the agency isnt equipped to process those reports

GuyVEE

Psychologically, this should force the hands of Republicans in both the House and Senate should Senator Sooner bring SAFE(R) to a vote. R's will have a tough time justifying a no vote, especially those in tight races come November

I_Got_High

MSOS not even close of the peak of the SAFE rumor.

reneegulae

Yes, uplisting will open the floodgates and SAFE is the first step. Wonder if the rescheduling will move McConnell at all.

Psychological-Ant803

Half true. While there is more that could be done to further improve the "business end of things" such as the SAFE banking act, this rescheduling makes it so Section 280E of the IRS code doesnt apply, which is what has prevented cannabis companies from deducting business expenses.

bananastock

Me, but only is SAFE is included in FAA

SFBayStocks

Still need SAFE to pass.

tr1xus

Been a long road guys, looked at my Barron's print about US Cannabis from 2021 and the prospects of SAFE back then, lost hard but knew eventually we'd get to the finish line. We no longer need Schumer, McConnell, or anyone else in Congress. Goodbye 280E, and I'm sure US equity markets will find a way to list them now. Also shout out to Kevin Sabot who is probably reading here, goodbye SAM funding, we won.

Fifteen_inches

Schedule 3 by the DEA was announced, next is final ruling, OLC opinion, then SAFE BANKING, than the moon.

Ok-Replacement9595

Still under 500 comments. No final notice. No SAFE. This is only the beginning.

CaptainAssneck

The irony of the SAFE / FAA reauthorization bill…

KabbalahDad

I've yet to see a single good argument against the SAFE banking bills. The fact that it's even a partisan issue is, quite frankly, exhausting.

Ok-Replacement9595

Out today that Jefferies vows to save Johnson speakership from Marjorie's motion to vacate. This may open bipartisan legislation options further, like SAFE, if it gets there.

bananastock

If Schumer gets SAFE in FAA I'll eat 30 bananas I know the deadline is May 10 but I assume they have to have it agreed on before so it can get to Bidens desk.

PlumDumbCumGetchySum

Wait….???? Lawmakers are frustrated! Are these the same lawmakers who have been trying to pass SAFE for 6 years. lol

Many_Easy

Surmising all except that Schumer does have more power and Dems have done more for cannabis than GOP. My opinion is that Mace and Don Murphy are just talking heads. I believe Schumer does want pro-cannabis legislation and has to go through slow bureaucracy. I don’t think he’ll push issue until he knows he’ll have enough votes in both houses. That’s being a politician. So is adding social equity to old SAFE.

SFBayStocks

can you ask for reschedule 3 today and SAFE passing? kthx

zygodactyly

Sure! So many friends along the way! To us investors it seems so easy: *incrementalism* is the way, duh. Small step by small step, in a saner American government, one acting on behalf of the citizens that vote officials into office, SAFE would have past *years* ago. SAFE would have zipped through Congress and into law before even Colorado and California went rec. Cannabis is an extremely strong and promising industry, do not be fooled by detractors for one moment, we'll get returns as those old creaking wheels grind onward.

Ok-Replacement9595

As many times as these industry groups have said there was a good chance of SAFE passing or being added to some legislation, I have to wonder if they might be wrong here as well, and a surprise is in store.

GeoLogic23

I think there could be lots of investments in the sector in the form of Simple Agreement for Future Equity loans (SAFE). Essentially they are loans to early stage companies, but that investment doesn't convert into an equity stake until a "triggering event" occurs. They have less regulatory scrutiny because of this, and therefore are ideal for an industry that lacks financial access. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_agreement_for_future_equity A prominent example of this type of investment was in Parallel Brands: https://www.greenmarketreport.com/parallel-defaults-on-debt/ Here is another example. General Cannabis Corp investing in Flowhub via SAFE: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477009/000139843218000125/exh10_01.htm In previous interviews the CEO of Miracle Gro said they had investments that would convert to equity upon SAFE Banking/uplisting. So those sound like Simple Agreement type investments and triggering events. So long story short. I don't think SAFE Banking or uplisting or Schedule 3 will **only** allow for institutional investment that wasn't there before. But rather I think those events will also be things that trigger the ownership stakes that already exists. I think the mostly unknown amount of private equity investments in US cannabis is a fairly big risk that isn't considered enough.

DEASqueezeAllComing

The story of this sector is DEA Don't Expect Anything SAFE nothing so far No Canada Excise Taxes No Schedule III