#067 - Election Recap w/ Returning Guest, Hirsh Jain of Ananda Strategy - High Spirits: The Cannabis Business Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ben Larson (00:06):
Hey everybody, welcome to episode 67 of High
Spirits.
I'm Ben Larson and, as always,I'm joined today with Annery
Grabstein.
It's Thursday, November 7th,2024, and we just had an
election, and today we're goingto talk about what happened this

(00:28):
week.
But before we get there, I'mgoing to do a brief little
check-in with Anna Rae.
See how you're doing, Anna Rae.
How are you doing?
Let me just jump to that.

AnnaRae Grabstein (00:38):
Yeah, I'm doing good.
Yesterday was kind of wildafter staying up late Tuesday
night kind of obsessivelywatching the election results
come in.
My family wanted no part in it,so I was hiding in the laundry
room watching the election wherenobody else could hear me in my
house.
But yeah, I'm doing OK today.

Ben Larson (01:26):
Yeah, I'm doing okay today.
I am starting to be able towrap my head around and digest
the changes and the results andthink about how it affects, just
ride this one out in my, in mydreams and then wake up and
check things.
And yeah, I woke up at like 430 on wednesday morning and just
checked it really quick beforegoing to the gym and then I had
a great workout afterwards, uh,working out some, some
frustrations.
But besides all that I thinkmost people that know me I'm a
little bit of a bleeding heartand an empathic leader and

(01:49):
trying to be there for my teamand kind of say the right things
knowing that you know we havepeople on all sides of the fence
or fences and trying to createthe right space for people,
because it could be prettyemotional depending on where you
stand.

Yeah, what I will say is and I'm no stock
picker, but I did have thisimpulse leading up to the
election that there was going tobe a lot of stock performance
that looked bad in the daysleading up to the election, with

(02:30):
big jumps right afterwards andI'm not talking about cannabis
stocks, but the broader stockmarket and in my mind it was
like no matter who wins thepresidency, what it does is give
people confidence and insightinto actually what's happening,
and I think that the uncertaintyleading up to the election made
lots of businesses and retailinvestors just feel insecure.

(02:54):
And I was right and it feltpretty good to just see the
overall stock market get prettywild in the last 36 hours.
I mean it was a record-breakingpost-election day, I think, for
the S&P yeah it's been reallycrazy and at the same time and

(03:14):
we're going to be diving intothis when we bring on Hirsch in
a minute to talk about theelection on the back of the
election, a number of cannabisstocks, specifically companies
that are over-indexed in Florida, had insane, insane drops.
Ayr saw 60% drop the day afterthe election, Trulieve 50%, and

(03:39):
then even companies that have alot broader diversification in
lots of markets, like Curaleafand Cresco and GTI, all saw
reductions in their stock ofsomewhere between 20 and 30
percent.
Today there has been somerecovery.
You've seen a lot of thosestocks back 5, 6, 10 percent,
but from where they were onMonday to where they are now,

(04:04):
it's pretty shocking.
I think that MSOS, the industryETF it, went below $5 yesterday
, which I hadn't seen in a verylong time.
It's back in the low fivestoday, but it was in the sevens
a couple of days ago.

Ben Larson (04:22):
It's so funny when I think of cannabis investing,
I'm always thinking with areally long lens and that, like
all the volatility is expected,no matter who's in charge.
And then it's times like thesewhere you realize how many
people are trying to ride thewaves and time it and yeah, it's
just like, just get back in,like it's especially now after

(04:42):
the crash, like, get back in, wewill see legalization, maybe
sooner, maybe later.
We'll talk about that soon whenwe bring on Hirsch.

I did buy some cannabis stock yesterday.
Yeah, when it was low, not alot, but I did buy.
I just felt that it was asymbol of solidarity and a
belief that these are temporaryvolatile reactions and not of
the overall performance of thesector.

Ben Larson (05:13):
So we'll see, we will see, we'll see.
Should we bring on our friend?

Yeah, let's do it.
I'm super pumped to bring backHirsch Jane, founder of Ananda
Strategy, a strategy consultancyadvising lots of top cannabis
companies across the US, canadaand Western Europe.
Hirsch serves as the vice chairof the Cannabis Chamber of

(05:47):
Commerce, is on the board ofdirectors for Normal California
and has had previous roles atcompanies like Airbnb, McKinsey
and others, and he brings awealth of experience in policy
and politics to today'sdiscussion.
Hirsch, welcome back to HighSpirits.

Hirsh Jain (05:54):
Hey guys, so great to be back here with you.

Ben Larson (05:57):
Great to have you.
Where are you today?
That looks a little bitdifferent.

Hirsh Jain (06:00):
I am in St Louis for MJ Unpacked and it is awesome
to be here.
It's really been a great, greatconference, yeah, got some team
members out there, I heard.

Ben Larson (06:08):
it's been a lot of fun.

Hirsh Jain (06:11):
It's been super fun and I actually went to the St
Louis Botanical Garden, which,low-key, is like one of the most
beautiful places I've ever beenin my entire life, so pro tip
if you're ever in St Louis.
It's really extraordinarilybeautiful.

I love that.
Well, so it's Thursday.
The election was Tuesday.
How are you feeling after thishistoric election?

Hirsh Jain (06:36):
Did you stay up late Tuesday?
What was going on in Hersh'sworld?
Yeah, you know, I think I'mstill sort of processing the
outcome.
It's been a pretty wild andhistorically relevant election
both for our country and hashuge implications for cannabis.
So full processing and in termsof how I took it, like I'll be
honest, the failure of the stateballot initiatives on Tuesday
night, especially Florida, wasdevastating, and so after those
Florida results came in, I sortof privately watched the rest of

(06:59):
the results in my room bymyself.
So it was a tough night, Ithink, especially from a
cannabis perspective, and thefailure of those initiatives I
think really might have animpact on how cannabis policy is
led by Republicans goingforward.
So it was tough.

Ben Larson (07:13):
I'm not going to lie .
Yeah, medical in Nebraskawasn't enough to lift the
spirits.

Hirsh Jain (07:19):
I mean, I think, as we'll get into, that illustrates
the broad bipartisan supportthat medical cannabis continues
to have across the country, andmany of us thought that would
translate to adult useinitiatives as well, and we can
unpack why each of those failed.
I think maybe the story isdifferent in each place, but
yeah, I was hoping that we'd getmore than Nebraska, but we
didn't.

Yeah, yeah.
Well, to set the stage for theway we want to go through this
conversation today, I think thatthere is state initiatives
related to cannabis that we wantto touch on, but that starting
the conversation talking aboutfederal elections and the GOP
landslide is a good place tostart.

(07:57):
And looking at Donald Trump'sincoming presidency what's going
on in the Senate, the House andsome appointments and things
like that would be a good placeto start, and then we'll ladder
down into talking about thestates.

Ben Larson (08:11):
I like that little Freudian, slip right there.

So let's dive into that Totally GOP landscape
.

Hirsh Jain (08:22):
Tell us what happened from your perspective,
hirsch, totally that sounds likea great agenda.
And just one quick thing I'llsay at the outset right,
Obviously, this was a prettywild and historical election.
I think we can still have aproductive conversation about
what this means for our spaceand what we do going forward.
But I think there are points inthe conversation where there'll
be a lot of uncertainties.
There'll be a lot of I don'tknows.

(08:43):
There'll be some places wherethings kind of look bleak.
So I guess I just want to say Isee this.
You know I don't have all theanswers.
I see this as part of theconversation.
There's a lot of smart peoplethat watch your show.
So I think this is aninitiation of the conversation
we're all going to have to havegoing forward as we navigate
uncharted territory.
So uncharted territory.

(09:06):
So, with that caveat aside, Imean, let's maybe one place to
start and I think your agenda isgreat, anna Rae.
One place to start is just likewhat the election results were.
And look, this was a landslide,right.
I think it's important for us toacknowledge that the GOP
obviously won the presidency.
Donald Trump won more than 300electoral college votes.
This is the most electoralcollege votes that a Republican

(09:26):
has won since 1988.
So that's pretty significant.
The Republicans won the popularvote by 5 million votes.
Again, in our lifetimes, youknow, the Republican had only
won the popular vote like oncebefore 1988.
And I guess I'm kind ofbringing that up because in our
adult lifetimes, guys, the waythat Republicans would win the

(09:47):
presidency is they would losethe popular vote and narrowly
win the electoral college.
You know that's what happenedwith George W Bush a couple of
times.
That's what happened with Trump.
So I think it's important forall of us to acknowledge,
regardless of our politics, thatthis was a seismic sort of
conservative wave, and the onlyanalogy that I can sort of make
is to, you know, ronald Reagan'slandslide win in 1984.

(10:09):
This might be the most seismicpolitical event in the past 40
years.
So I know that's not good newsto some people, but I think it's
important to acknowledge thescope of the landslide.
The other thing I'll just sayabout the sort of mechanics of
the election and then we cantalk about Trump himself is the
GOP also won the Senate right.
So the GOP, as of now, has won52 seats in the Senate.

(10:30):
There's still some Senate racesthat are waiting to be called,
so the GOP could win 53 seats inthe Senate.
So the GOP will go in with thecommanding majority in the
Senate.
And again, I'm just kind ofsetting the table here.
I know this might sort ofconcern some people.
The GOP has such a strongmargin in the Senate that number
one right it'll be able toconfirm almost any appointment

(10:51):
that Donald Trump puts forwardto the cabinet.
It's important for us toacknowledge that the GOP has
such a wide margin in the Senatethat they will have the
latitude to confirm perhapsmultiple Supreme Court justices
during this first term.
The GOP has such a wide marginin the Senate that they will
control the Senate for probablyat least the next four years,
perhaps through the end of thedecade.
So I think that's important forall of us to acknowledge its

(11:13):
impact on cabinet appointments,its impact on potential Supreme
Court justices, and obviouslythis is relevant for American
life, but it's also relevant forcannabis, as we have cases
going through the Supreme Court.
And then maybe a couple morethings I'll say and then I'll
pause, and then we can talkabout Trump or whomever.
On the House side, we're stillwaiting for the House to be
called.
I think this is reallyimportant if you want to see a

(11:36):
balance of power in the UnitedStates.
It'll probably be another weekbefore we know who controls the
House of Representatives.
If the Democrats win backcontrol of the House.
The speaker will likely beHakeem Jeffries, who is someone
who is quite friendly tocannabis, although, again, he'll
have limited power.
But that will essentially bethe only check on the Republican
Party's ability to passlegislation.

(11:56):
And then the final thing I'llnote is, as you mentioned, anna
Rae, we saw losses in thosethree state ballot initiatives.
So that's basically whathappened on Tuesday and now we
can talk about where we go fromhere, but that's kind of what
happened.

Well, let's pause for a minute.
I'm curious how surprised weare.
I will say for myself, livingin Northern California a liberal
stronghold that nobody evenconsidered would be a place that
the Republicans could win I didstart to see a lot more signs

(12:34):
for Trump, flags for Trump, thanI ever had before, and there
started to feel like there was acultural shift going on around
me in the days leading up to theelection and I had a feeling
that this might happen.
I didn't predict what alandslide it would be and I was

(12:56):
caught by surprise.
Ben, what did you think?
Were you surprised?

Ben Larson (13:04):
It's hard to be surprised by anything in
politics these days.
I'm not surprised,unfortunately.
I've been sorely disappointedwith how the DNC has been
running their strategies and Ithink they've been fumbling it
for the last eight years, youknow.
Even with Biden winning, I justthought it was the complete
wrong strategy.
So I can totally understand howpeople have a hard time getting

(13:26):
behind it and anyone left inthe middle.
They're going to look forsomething that is clear and
definitive and we just didn'tfeel like that.
Like slotting Kamala in with107 days left is probably the
best chance that they had giventhe situation, but it was just a
very poor strategy.
So not totally surprised.
I am surprised by some of thecannabis stuff, though.

Hirsh Jain (13:47):
Yeah, and I mean I think you know I'm glad you kind
of raised this, anna Rae, and Ithink you, you know there's a
bunch of interesting things thatyou kind of invoked here right
on whether we should besurprised, first, I think the
answer is to some extent weshould be, because the polling
right for the third electioncycle in a row in this
presidential cycle in a row wasoff dramatically right For the

(14:07):
past three presidential cycles.
Now we've seen that polling hasunderrepresented Trump's
support, and so that's why I wassurprised, and I guess I will
say, like I did, a lot of soulsearching after this, because,
as someone who likes to look atpolls as an empirical way of
trying to determine whatoutcomes are, I think we learned
that there is a problem in theAmerican information system,

(14:28):
complex such that we are notcapturing the attitudes of a lot
of our fellow citizens, and soI bring this up because I think
it relates to the state ballotinitiatives.
There were many of us that werereally myself included maybe
the most guilty one rigorouslylooking at that polling number
and had developed some sense ofconfidence about the outcomes
here, particularly in Florida.
But I think what we learned isthat the polling sort of

(14:49):
profession in this country isnot working as it should right
now, both in cannabis andoutside, and I think Trump's
results show that.
The second thing I'll say is Iagree with you anecdotally right
, I've seen plenty of examples,like in blue communities, of
people expressing their supportfor Trump and, without venturing
too far into politics, I thinkwhat we saw in these results is

(15:12):
a repudiation of sort of theidea that a more diverse
American electorate wouldinevitably lead to a Democratic
majority.
Right, there was a line ofthinking during the Obama years
that demographics were destined,that the steady sort of like
development of a multiculturalcountry would lead to the
Democrats obtaining power.
I think, whether you agree ordisagree, whether you're happy

(15:35):
or unhappy, we saw a strongrepudiation of that yesterday
and I think it's notable thatyou know, donald Trump made
significant inroads with everydemographic group in America,
with the exception of whitecollege educated women.
Again, that is just a reallyremarkable fact.
Whether it's Latino men, youknow Latino women, um, you know

(15:55):
all all across the board.
So, uh, yeah.

Ben Larson (15:58):
Can I ask a controversial question?
Yeah, do you think America'sready for a female president?

Hirsh Jain (16:05):
That is a that is a controversial question.
Um, here's what I would say.
I think bias of all formscontinues to exist in American
life, right?

That is undeniable right.

Hirsh Jain (16:12):
Gender bias continues to exist, racial bias
continues to exist, so that'sall a way of saying I think a
female candidate is like aninherently racist or sexist
country.
I will say I don't believe thatnarrative.
I think you know prejudice anddiscrimination have been reduced

(16:40):
over time.
So that's the second thing I'llsay.
And the third thing I will sayis, although bias continues to
exist, I think it should concerna Democrat if that is the
explanation that's invoked forthis failure here.
Right At the end of the day,this is a contest, this is a
game.
This isn't really aboutfairness, and I think you know

(17:00):
the Democratic Party does not doitself a service when it when
it provides that as theexplanation for the loss here.
A different way of putting thisis like a black man named
Barack Hussein Obama, onecommanding electoral majorities
like 15 years ago, and so Ithink you have to acknowledge
those limitations, but figureout how you're going to navigate

(17:21):
them.
And that's just my take.
I'm curious of your take, ofcourse.
Yeah.

Yesterday night I spoke with Erin Gore.
She's the CEO of Garden Society, a multi-state cannabis company
, and she said I'm not surprised.
As a woman, I have encounteredso many challenges that are
unique to being a woman in anexecutive role that I never for
a second thought that Americawould elect a female president.

(17:50):
Wow, that America would elect afemale president.
And that was based on her ownlearned experience and I thought
that was really telling.
So yeah, ben, I was hopeful thatthe fact that the Democrats had
a female at the top of theticket would not have anything

(18:11):
to do with the outcome, but Ithink that there's a lot of men
and maybe a lot of women too,that didn't want to vote for a
woman, and I think that, in theend, a big takeaway for me is
that it wasn't so much about whothe Democrats had up front, but

(18:33):
I think that there was a lothopeful economic agenda than the
Democrats were, and that allthe other things didn't matter.

(18:58):
It didn't matter the type ofvitriol that was being expressed
by a certain candidate.
It didn't matter how hopefulthe Democrats were about the
future of equity and diversity.
None of those things mattered.
What mattered was what peoplethought was going to happen to

(19:18):
their grocery bills and theprice of gas.

Ben Larson (19:24):
Well, let's use that as a transition point to get
focused on the cannabis economyand the things that we generally
try to talk about on this show.
So I appreciate you guysopening up a little bit about
the heavier side of all this.
But what does a Trumppresidency mean for cannabis?
And to Hersh's point earlier on, there's a lot of uncertainty.

(19:47):
He's flip-flopped a lot on theconversation everywhere, from,
you know, executing people tolegalizing, and so are we
feeling hopeful, you know, withthis new trajectory and might we
see legalization, you know, inthe next four years.

Hirsh Jain (20:06):
Yeah, I think if you were a Trump supporter and you
wanted to make the case forTrump being good on cannabis and
why we shouldn't be concerned,this is the case you would make
and then we can explore the caseagainst it.
So again, if you wanted to makethe case, you would say
something like look at Trump'srecent support for cannabis.
It's been incredible.
Right?
You would say you know Trumpcame out in support of Amendment

(20:26):
3 in Florida, which is thefirst time that a presidential
candidate has weighed in on anissue like that.
You would also note not onlythat he's been supportive, but
he's articulated that supportwith the precision that's kind
of remarkable for someone likehim.
Right, like he has said, hesupports Amendment 3 in Florida.
He has talked with nuance aboutthe medical utility of cannabis
.
There are reports that a numberof his cronies and Mar-a-Lago

(20:49):
are older and find immenserelief from cannabis, and that
has sort of resonated with him.
One of his chief advisors,roger Stone, who he
controversially pardoned, hasbeen very vocal about his
longstanding support forcannabis and has pushed Trump in
that direction.
Again, if you were making thecase here, you would say
something like you know, one ofTrump's main allies is a guy

(21:09):
named Joe Gruters, the guy whoconvinced him to support
Amendment 3 in Florida, the guywho will be the future CFO of
Florida.
He's on board, so you can makethose comments.
You could also say Trump hashistorically supported states'
rights and that's good forcannabis.
So I think those are thecomments in support.
I think the counter arguments tothat are sort of familiar to us

(21:30):
by now.
One person might say you know,trump has been known to make
contradictory comments and Ithink, no matter your politics,
that's something you have toadmit.
A candidate and that candidatefails, the stink of losing
really impacts Trump, and so hedoesn't want to be associated
with that candidate.

(21:57):
So that could change hissentiment.
And then perhaps the last thingI'll say is a critic or a
skeptic might say well, trumphistorically has appointed
attorney generals that arehostile to cannabis, such as
Jeff Sessions, and he might doso again and derail rescheduling
, and we can talk about that ina second.
And a skeptic might also saywell, the GOP is going to

(22:18):
control the Senate and so evenif Trump is pro-cannabis, you
know, if we have another MitchMcConnell-like anti-cannabis
Republican there, maybe we makeno progress for four years.
So I think those are thecompeting arguments there, yeah.

I think that Trump has been pretty clear on
his support of cannabis recently, and so I'm going to take the
for those that want to see thecannabis light in Trump's recent
positions.
However, it's also very clearthat the Senate and the House

(22:52):
have a massive impact on theability for any type of cannabis
policy to move.
Like we've seen, no matterwho's in charge of which house.
Like we've seen safe bankingmove in one side and not in the
other, and it just it's beengoing on and on.
So I'd like to explore what'sgoing to happen with Senate

(23:13):
leadership and what we cananticipate from the Senate
supporting the positions thatTrump has espoused.

Hirsh Jain (23:23):
Totally yeah, and I think, as you pointed out, I
think that's really criticalright.
What will the Senate look like?
Who will lead it?
That'll determine what islikely to happen going forward.
So, again, as we were justdiscussing, the Republicans won
the Senate.
Right, they had 49 seats before.
Now they have 52.
So they just won Senate racesin West Virginia, they knocked
off an incumbent in Ohio, theyknocked off an incumbent in

(23:43):
Montana and again, if you kindof look at those states, those
are all red states that had aDemocratic representative, but
those folks are all kind of gonenow.
It's the reddening of theRepublican Party.
So they have 52 seats.
They might get 53 if they canwin Pennsylvania.
So they have command andcontrol of the Senate.
And then you know, I think yourquestion, anna Rae, is like who
might lead the Senate?

(24:04):
My short answer is that thereare, I think, four potential
people that could lead theSenate.
One would be positive and threewould be quite negative, and we
should really acknowledge that.
So I think the one person thatwe should be rooting for to
become Senate majority leader isa guy by the name of Steve
Daines.
Steve Daines is a Senator thatrepresents Montana.
Montana is a small state butMontana is actually a very

(24:26):
robust adult use state.
It was actually one of thefirst red states to actually opt
into cannabis four years ago in2020.
Montana again, it's a smallstate but it's like a $330, $340
million market for a state of 1million people, so it has some
of the highest per capitacannabis sales in the country.
It's, you know, big tourismspots so people come there.
That's all a way of sayingSteve Daines, who used to not

(24:48):
really like cannabis, you knowkind of had his come to Jesus
moment once Montana had such arobust cannabis economy and, you
know, has been a big advocatefor safe banking.
Steve Daines and you know, justto get into the weeds here a
little bit, he also has, youknow, trump's support to be the
Senate majority leader, which isimportant, and he was the guy
who was responsible for helpingthe Republicans win back the

(25:10):
Senate and because they did sowell, it will be seen that he
has done a good job and so thatkind of puts him in contention.
So we can talk about the otherthree folks in a second who are
not so good.
But I think the takeaway isthat's the best possible outcome
for cannabis legislation is tohave Steve Daines as the
Republican leader in the Senate.

Ben Larson (25:30):
It's kind of crazy to also think I'm sitting here
staring at a map showing thatthe GOP on the House side is
currently sitting at 207, whichis 11 away from the 218 mark.
Democrats are at 194.
I mean, we could very much seean entire administration stacked
in the GOP's favor.
And so I've been, like you know, going through all the

(25:55):
machinations of what couldhappen for cannabis and I felt
like a democratic administrationkind of gave us this middle of
the road we knew we were goingto get cannabis across.
Progress kind of that, you know, in the typical form that we've
seen in the regulated states,where this kind of iterative
probably highly regulated,something that lands in the
middle, where I now feel that wemight enter a situation where

(26:19):
legislation, whether good or bad, can just get, you know,
streamlined through the processand it might be this really
polarizing event where it couldactually go really bad or it
could go really good, where wecould see a less regulated but
more open and fasterlegalization pathway.
In particular, also thinkingabout RFK being appointed to

(26:39):
health and human services andwhere he's historically stood on
psychedelics and cannabis, it'sjust really wild to think about
how each one of these playersstarts to signal the direction
that we might be going for thecannabis industry.

Hirsh Jain (26:54):
Totally, yeah.
I'll say a few things inresponse to what you said, ben,
right.
So first, you're highlightingthat the control of the House is
still outstanding, which isright, and this is this is a
totally critical thing Right, asyou pointed out, if the
Republicans win control of theHouse, they will essentially
have unified control over allbranches of government and can
pass any laws that they want.
And so, if you were concernedabout a potential national

(27:15):
abortion ban, for example, right, if republicans win control of
the house, they will have, intheory, the the ability to do so
.
So you're right that that issuper important for issues
outside of cannabis.
Um, as I mentioned earlier, itwill probably be another week or
so before we know who winscontrol of the house and,
interestingly, it'll probablycome down to like a lot of races
in purple parts of New York orpurple parts of California,

(27:38):
which shows you that, even ifyou live in a blue state, like,
you want your purple citizens tonot feel terrible about the
state that they live in, becauseit can impact national politics
.
So that's important as well.
And look, I know some parts ofthis conversation are kind of
bleak.
Maybe I'll point to what wouldbe a best case scenario, I think
, for cannabis and I think thisis unlikely A best case scenario

(27:58):
, I believe right would be ifthe Democrats won the House and
that someone like HakeemJeffries were the speaker of the
House.
They would have a super narrowmajority if they did.
But Hakeem Jeffries is someonethat I think many of us in
cannabis have been meeting formeeting with for five, six or
seven years now, believing oneday he would be, you know, the
first black Democratic speakerof the House, which will

(28:19):
probably happen one day, even ifit's next week or two years
from now.
So he's a pragmatic,pro-cannabis Democrat.
So I think an ideal scenariowould be one in which he were
the speaker of the House andSteve Daines were the Republican
Senate Majority Leader, becausethey are both pragmatists.
And so, again, you know thereis some bad news here today
which we're discussing.
But if you believe DonaldTrump's conversion to cannabis,

(28:41):
as Anna Rae was mentioningbefore, is really sincere, if
you believe that you know he'ssincere and it's actually a
priority, the two people that Ithink that would allow him to
enact that agenda would be, youknow, hakeem on the Democratic
side and then Steve Daines onthe Republican side.

So, yeah, what about if the Republicans
win the House?

Hirsh Jain (29:03):
You know, if the Republicans win the House, I
think it's going to be tough.
So I noticed that when Trumpgave his victory speech on
Tuesday night, mike Johnson,who's the current Republican
speaker of the House right, wasright there, like alongside him,
and if you guys were watchingthat speech, you may have
noticed that.
You know Trump said I thinkMike Johnson's doing a hell of a
job, right, which is his kindof way of saying okay, it's up
to your caucus to sort out whothe leader is, but this guy has

(29:23):
my tacit endorsement and, as youmay know, you know Mike Johnson
is a fairly evangelicalChristian from Louisiana who is
not particularly pro-cannabis.
So, you know, maybe if thiswere enough of a priority for
Trump, you could make theargument that Trump could exert
some influence on him and gethim to move cannabis forward.
But it's a much tougher pathwith him being the head of the.

(29:44):
The speaker of the House.

Well, so let's talk about the other thing
that Ben brought up, which ishealth and human services, about
I don't know.
Six weeks ago we saw Robert FKennedy Jr endorse Trump and
withdraw his candidacy and withthat it seemed to be a bit of a
quid pro quo that if Trump won,that RFK would be brought into

(30:08):
the administration.
And RFK has been very vocalabout wanting to change the way
that we look at health in thiscountry.
He's talked about things likeabolishing the FDA.
There have been some viralsocial media posts where people

(30:31):
are espousing that he willsupport psychedelic legalization
, cannabis legalization,legalization of raw milk, all
kinds of things.
Do we think that it is a surething that RFK Jr will become
the head of HHS, and will he bean advocate for cannabis inside

(30:52):
the administration?

Hirsh Jain (30:53):
Yeah, you know, I would say normally a nominee
like RFK again, regardless ofwhat you think about him could
be too controversial to getthrough a Senate confirmation
process.
One of the impacts of theRepublicans winning such a wide
kind of like majority right inthe Senate is they can confirm
whoever they want.
So historically controversialnominees run into trouble.
That check is no longer thereon the Trump administration.

(31:15):
That's all a way of saying ifhe wants him to be the head of
HHS, he will be the head of HHS.
So that's on the likelihood.
On his potential impact, thereis some line of thinking that
his presence at the head of HHSwould be helpful to cannabis.
As you mentioned, anna Rae,he's expressed a skepticism of
kind of prescription medicinewhich is common in our space.
He's, you know, voiced asupport for legalizing cannabis,

(31:38):
has voiced support for plantmedicine, so I think you could
make the case that hisappointment further confirms
Trump's belief right in plantmedicine.
I think what that misses,though, is that at least the
HHS's role in the reschedulingprocess has already occurred,
right.
So, like RFK, even if you werethe head of the HHS would not

(31:58):
really have too much of a rolein the rescheduling process
going forward because they'vealready kind of put out that
memo.
So it might be a good signal,but as a mechanical matter I
don't think he would have muchinfluence over rescheduling.
And lastly, I'll make kind ofthe obvious point that the
person that probably matters themost from a rescheduling

(32:19):
process is who the next attorneygeneral is.
And I think, again, theunfortunate news is that there
are some potential appointeesthat could give us great
heartburn in the same way thatJeff Sessions did right, and I
think the best example of thatis someone like Ken Paxton,
who's the attorney general ofTexas, is very anti-cannabis
Again, the kind of nominee thathistorically would not make

(32:40):
their way through a Senateconfirmation process because
he's been charged with all ofthese crimes and is
controversial.
But he is someone who couldmake it through, and so I think
maybe the last thing I'll say isI believe this process is now
an administrative one.
So I'm still quite optimisticthat rescheduling gets done
almost regardless of who theattorney general is, but there

(33:02):
is some uncertainty there.

Ben Larson (33:03):
I do think it's interesting that he is quite
critical of the FDA and a lot ofus in the cannabis industry are
afraid of cannabis falling intothe FDA's hands and him wanting
to make medicine more broadlyaccessible to the citizens I
think bodes well when we go acouple steps down the

(33:25):
legalization path.

Hirsh Jain (33:28):
I do think it's funny that he's kind of
appropriated the MAGA phrase andturned it to Make America
Healthy Again, so it's MAHAinstead of MAGA confidence to

(33:52):
you guys Like, look, theRepublican Party has like
unprecedented control over thelevers of state government, but
we just saw these red states optinto cannabis, and so we will
not see an attorney generalderail that progress.
We will see the Senate majorityleader respect that.
Unfortunately, we did not seethat, and so that's.
I think those are thereverberations of those failed
ballot initiatives and how itimpacts the calculus of who the
next attorney general is and whothe next Senate majority leader

(34:12):
is.
That's the bad news.

So let's dive into them then.
So, despite strong support forcannabis, there were three major
state-level ballot lossesFlorida and then both Dakotas.
In Florida, the recreationalcannabis measure failed to meet
the 60% threshold, but it stillreceived a majority of the votes

(34:37):
, landing at least 55%, and Ithink we should start with
Florida.
What we saw in Florida was amassive capital investment to
pass Amendment 3.
There was $149 million spent onthe campaign, of which over

(34:58):
$140 million of it was funded byTrulieve, and Trulieve
reportedly sat down with DonaldTrump was able to get support
for Amendment 3.
I think that probably all threeof us thought Amendment 3 was
going to pass and were hopeful,as cannabis industry

(35:20):
stakeholders, about theopportunity that Florida was
going to present from a businessperspective.
However, there was a lot ofcomplex issues like environments
at play here.

Ben Larson (35:35):
I was going to say I don't know how global the we is
, because I know a lot of peoplethat were kind of like anti,
truly, even in this.

And that was hemp right.
There was a lot of of antiamendment three.
Folks on the hemp side, thehemp industry, came out and
supported DeSantis and thenDeSantis came out against
amendment three.
Like what?
What happened here?
Why were we so wrong?

Hirsh Jain (36:00):
I think it's really important to you know to answer
that question that you askedAnna Rae, like what happened
here?
What can we learn from this?
I just want to say that it wasreally bewildering to me that
all three of these cannabisinitiatives failed.
If we just zoom out a littlebit, cannabis initiatives
historically have been verysuccessful in presidential
elections.
They've had a mixed record inoff-cycle elections, but if you

(36:21):
think about 2012, 2016, 2020,that has always been a giant
leap forward for cannabisinitiatives and that supported
the idea that presidentialelections bring out the whole
electorate and that the Americanpeople broadly are supportive
of cannabis and that it'llsucceed in presidential
elections.
And you know, cannabisinitiatives had been 15 wins and
one loss in presidentialelections.

(36:42):
The only loss was a very narrowloss and that was Arizona in
2016.
So it is pretty shocking thatwe lost three different
initiatives not only during apresidential year, but during a
year when both presidentialcandidates had voiced support
for cannabis.

Ben Larson (36:58):
And also one of those initiatives where it had
previously passed in the lastpresidential election, exactly
right.

Hirsh Jain (37:04):
South Dakota, which had passed by a wide margin in
2020, now failed.
So yeah, it was prettyremarkable and the question I
was asking myself that night wasis Sam right like smart
approaches from marijuana whenthey, when they saw all three
initiatives failed, put outpress releases showing like this
is a backlash against cannabisand there isn't kind of support
there, and I think that's thequestion we have to ask

(37:25):
ourselves um, let's talk aboutFlorida.
Um, so Florida did not um pass,I think there's.
There's a few comments.
I'll make here.
One we found that the pollingwas wildly off in Florida, right
, and it was the same thing thatwe were talking about earlier
in the show.
I think that's why this came assuch a great surprise to many
of us.
Like, much of the polling hadthis passing in the mid 60s, and

(37:47):
I think what we learned is thesame polling that was inaccurate
when it came to ourpresidential election was
inaccurate here.
Election was inaccurate here.
But that's challenging.
I mean, these were some of themost respected pollsters in the
United States talking about howthis was winning with a very
healthy margin.
So I think that kind of came asa surprise.
I think the second thing, ifwe're just clinically analyzing

(38:07):
what happened here, part of thereason this initiative failed
was because of the GOP dominancein Florida, which is to say,
this initiative passing wasalways dependent upon the idea
that Democrats would support themeasure at like an 80% level
and Republicans would supportthis at like a 50% level, and
the electorate would be made upof, in roughly equal parts, of
both of those parties.
But you know Democrats, youknow Trump won in Florida by 13

(38:31):
or 14 points, which is the mostthat anyone has won in Florida.
You know a Democrat has lost inFlorida in almost 40 years.
And so you know I guess that'sjust a way of saying the
Republican Party's dominance inFlorida trickled down and helped
the initiative fail.
On the initiative itself, Ithink what we learned is that
some of the opposition attacksin Florida worked and you know

(38:55):
there was like sort ofallegations that this initiative
was monopolistic and that itdid not allow a home grow.
There was a lot of criticism ofthis initiative from within the
hemp community, and so if wewant to get into those
criticisms, we can.
But I think what we saw is thatlegalization can still you know
, support for legalization candecline if it's perceived that

(39:15):
that legalization bill is notstructured in a way that most
stakeholders find is appropriate.
So there's more I could say,but maybe I'll just kind of
pause there.

Ben Larson (39:25):
You know, I know Kim Rivers was often pointing to
the single topic votingrequirement and you know we just
saw Nebraska pass medical andthere was two initiatives that
passed at the same time thereand they have a similar
requirement.
So it's easy to play Mondaymorning quarterback right, but

(39:46):
next time around maybe it has tobe two or three initiatives to
kind of address what theopposition was saying in.

Hirsh Jain (39:52):
Florida, totally.
You know I'm of two minds aboutthis, right.
Obviously, this criticism, thisinitiative was attacked for
many reasons and initially, whenI saw folks in cannabis saying
they wanted to vote againstlegalization, there was a little
bit of frustration there, right, and my sort of thinking was
like, hey guys, you know,actually the way to think about
this is that the FloridaRepublican Party you know, in
Florida the Republicans have asupermajority and they will

(40:13):
never legalize cannabis and theonly way to legalize it is via a
ballot initiative.
And because of the way thatFlorida laws work, you know,
ballot initiatives have to touchon a single subject and there
was an effort to include homegrow a couple of years ago and
it didn't succeed.
And look, I know you may notlike Trulieve, but the way this
is going to work is in this verynarrow fashion, we're going to
have our unique opportunity tolegalize cannabis and then the

(40:34):
Republican Party has so muchpower afterwards that they will
structure what the market lookslike.
So that for the past six toeight months is what I've been
telling people, you know, tryingto, in my sort of mind,
communicate to them that, likeno, you should actually support
this.
What I learned is that, likethat, just went over people's
head and, quite frankly, theydon't care right, I'm here at MJ
Unpacked, as I was telling you,and yesterday talking to a

(41:01):
bunch of folks, there were folksthat were happy that Florida
did not succeed, and I bringthis all up to say Cannabis
folks and not hemp folks.
Cannabis folks yeah, correct,believing it was monopolistic.
I guess I'm narrating all thisto say, throughout the past six
to eight months, I had this ideathat if we could just explain
this enough to people, if wecould say like, look, dude,
Florida has a reallyanti-democratic governing
structure, so you're never goingto legalize weed in Florida
unless we do it in this verynarrow way, and I promise you

(41:22):
that will lead to a broadeningof the market.
I thought that, and that's whatthe campaign attempted to do for
six to eight months, forwhatever reason, that did not
work.
And so I think maybe thetakeaway here is that, like, if

(41:42):
we have cleavages within thecannabis community, we will not
succeed, and that we have tofind a way of making all
stakeholders feel like they havea stake in legalization.
And so it's a way of sayinglike, yes, people have
legitimate reasons to beconcerned about a restricted
market and we will not succeedunless we figure out a way to
allay those concerns, eventhough I think in this instance
those concerns were just likedisingenuous propaganda that was
being put out there by peoplelike Ron DeSantis.

So those are kind of my complex views on all
this, do you think that therewill be an ongoing appetite in
Florida to try again?

Hirsh Jain (42:11):
You know like it's so expensive to do this via the
ballot, right that the onlyrealistic way to do it again via
the ballot would be four yearsfrom now, in 2028.
And that was sort of myfrustration about the way this
played out.
It's like, look guys, youbasically only have a chance
every four years to do this, solet's get this done and build on
it.
But my perhaps naivelyoptimistic way of looking at

(42:31):
this NRA is that this hasstarted the adult use
conversation in Florida, right.
This got 55, 56% of the vote,demonstrating that it has the
support of Floridians and theRepublican party.
When they were attacking thisinitiative, they were not
attacking cannabis.
They were attacking thestructure of the initiative and
suggesting that it wasmonopolistic and that it would
be enshrined in the constitutionand that you couldn't grow your

(42:53):
own, which implied that youshould have the right to grow
your own cannabis.
So I know that the Smart andSafe campaign has come under
tremendous criticism.
I could not disagree with thatmore strongly.
I think they were walking areal tight rope to put this on
the ballot, and I think theyhave created the momentum to
have an adult use conversationin Florida over the next couple
of years.

(43:13):
The problem is the RepublicanParty dominates Florida, so
it'll still be something of achallenge.

Ben Larson (43:20):
Well, and DeSantis still has a very significant
voice there, and he seems to beon the hemp side of the equation
.

Yeah, yeah.
I perceive this is a win forhemp in Florida.
What do you guys think?

Ben Larson (43:33):
Yeah, I mean it's going to keep moving forward and
there will probably beresurfaced legislation to kind
of put some more controls aroundit.
You know that failed earlierthis year, but I wouldn't be
surprised if we see it resurfacenext year, but without the
competition of a recreationalcannabis market yeah.
I see it continuing to gainmomentum.

Hirsh Jain (43:57):
Yeah, I mean I agree with Ben, right.
I mean I think this gives, likehemp products, the ability to to
to dominate the market inFlorida.
I do think this could be aliability for Ron DeSantis going
forward, right, if there issome, like you know, public
health incident with these hempproducts in six to nine months,
he's going to be potentiallycriticized for not being
supportive of regulated cannabis.

(44:17):
So we'll see how that plays outand how that impacts his
thinking.
And maybe just one other thingon this, as I've been searching
for explanations about whyFlorida didn't turn out the way
that we thought it might.
Some people have suggested thatthe connection between Florida
and this is just a hypothesis,maybe one for us to all think
about, and whether we think it'scredible or not that the
connection between Florida andNew York played a role right,

(44:40):
that New York's legalizationright came under much criticism
and that there were people inFlorida right, given the
cultural cross-pollinationbetween the states, who
developed a more negative viewof cannabis because of that New
York rollout.
And how credible that is Idon't know, but I think it's a
reminder that if these rolloutsdo not take place in a way that
generates public support, itrisks future legalization

(45:02):
efforts.

I think it is unfortunate that the measure
needed 60%, because the fact isthat they did win a large
majority and I want theRepublicans in Washington to
remember that when they thinkabout Florida and they think
about the electorate there, it'snot that legalization lost, but

(45:24):
that it had the majority of thevoters behind it.
We brought up hemp and I do wantto talk about the Dakotas, but
I think it's important to talkabout the Farm Bill and I think
Florida is an interesting segueto the Farm Bill, because we may
see that this loss of Amendment3 in Florida is a win for hemp

(45:45):
in Florida.
But what the hemp industryneeds is the Farm Bill to the
ability of hemp to like be inmarket in some way, shape or
form or form, and we are goingto need the house and the Senate
to move the farm bill forwardin some way.

(46:05):
Do we have any ideas here?
This is this is a confusingkind of gray space at this time
to understand who on theRepublican side is going to be
an advocate for the hempindustry and the Farm.
Bill.

Hirsh Jain (46:23):
It's a good question , ben.
I'd be curious not to throw itover to you, but if you have
thoughts on that question andthen I can build on it, yeah.

Ben Larson (46:30):
Well, yeah, I mean, you know I look at the again,
the momentum that hemp isbuilding in a lot of these red
states.
You know, I just got back fromTexas where, walking through a
Total Wine, you have three fullbays full of THC infused
beverages and it feelsincredibly normalized and big
retailers in Texas you know Spexand Total Wine they're very

(46:54):
much in favor of these productsand I think I generally know how
the Republican Party works, andso one thing I feel more
confident in is that the MillerAmendment's going nowhere.
You know we'll be a full likemaintaining of the opening that
the Farm Bill created.
I'm sure we'll get some moreguardrails, but I think this is

(47:15):
going to bode well for the hempcategory.

Hirsh Jain (47:18):
Yeah, I mean I don't really have any genius answers
here.
I would say one thing I've beenthinking about is if the way we
read these adult use ballotinitiatives is that there
continues to be lingering stigmaagainst cannabis, especially in
red or deep red America.
If that's a conclusion of theseballot initiatives, can a
category like hemp beverages bea way of destigmatizing cannabis

(47:38):
further?
Right?
So that's one thing, and Ithink we've always thought that
right.
We've always had the hypothesisthat these beverages, by virtue
of their form factor right andnot being combustible, would
generate support.
But, like if I, if we werenaive and thinking that we were
on a linear path towardscannabis normalization, if there
continues to be lingeringstigma in red America, do we
need to think about other waysto change the image of what

(48:02):
cannabis is?
So perhaps that's theopportunity in hemp and in hemp
beverages in particular.
And then the other thing I willsay is, if you know, the
thinking was that you know thefarm bill would not get resolved
because the federal governmentis so dysfunctional and can't
agree on anything.
If the Republicans do indeedget unified control over
government, then you will have,for the first time in a long

(48:23):
time, the ability for thefederal government to move in a
direction.
We might not like that on allissues.
We might not like that onabortion rights, for example,
but perhaps that createsmomentum for the Republicans to
stake out the way they want thisto look.
And then, as we all know, youknow, given the robust nature of
hemp industries in manyRepublican states, perhaps that

(48:44):
bodes well for hemp as acategory.

Ben Larson (48:47):
Yeah, focusing purely on cannabis and
cannabinoids and getting theminto people's hands.
There is just nothing morenormalizing than this.
Right.
And it doesn't say hemp, itsays THC infused, and so when
you see this in your grocerystores like this is kind of the
tip of the spear that normalizescannabis writ large.

(49:08):
Most people don't like that.
That's how we get there, but Ido think it is the pathway.

Hirsh Jain (49:15):
Yeah, I think that's the optimistic way of looking
at this.
Right If unified Republicancontrol and this is all
speculative, of course right.
But if unified Republicancontrol and GOP dominance means
the persistence of the hempcategory right across this
country, does that not start aconversation about how
nonsensical this artificialdistinction between hemp and
cannabis is?

(49:35):
Right?
And I think, again, evencritics of the hemp industry
have to acknowledge that inplaces like Texas, the
proliferation of the hempcategory is a visible
illustration of how prohibitiondoesn't make sense.
So is that the back door?
There's a lot of steps betweenhere and there, but I think it's
plausible.
Yeah.

I'm curious of a little bit of future
casting here.
We just had this election, butthere is going to be future
elections, future legislativechange in 2025.
Do any of us have ideas of whatstates are going to be likely
to make significant moves?
We've been talking aboutPennsylvania.

(50:13):
Is that going to actuallyhappen?
What are some other states thatare on the roadmap for
significant cannabis policychange in 25?

Hirsh Jain (50:23):
I think here's what a good 2025 would look like,
like I'm not going to lie, atleast for me, like this election
on the state ballot initiativeswas a gut punch about the
progress I think I thought wewere going to make.
But then the question is likeOK, where might we realistically
make progress?
And like, gain the momentum weneed over the next 12 to 18
months.
So here's what I think a bestcase but plausible scenario is

(50:43):
one right, we start to see adultuse rollouts.
I mean, in places likeMinnesota and Delaware that have
been long delayed.
I think Minnesota is thebiggest one.
You guys have covered Minnesotaextensively.
So I think in a, in a best casescenario, minnesota would
finally roll out, would becomethe program that we believe is
possible.
Right, we'll have those 600,700 dispensaries.
They all won't open next year,but they'll start to and, you

(51:03):
know, will exist alongside arobust beverage category.
Right, and we'll, you know,bring in people from North
Dakota and South Dakota who justrejected initiatives.
So I think that's a best casescenario, but a plausible one.
Minnesota starts growing and alittle bit of Delaware too.
I think another best casescenario is that we start to see
a lot of these.
You know, remaining states optinto medical and I think we

(51:27):
start to see you know we justgot 39 medical states with
Nebraska recently we get intothe forties maybe, and thereby
even with a hostile attorneygeneral like create support for
schedule three right throughmedical initiatives.
And here I'm thinking about, youknow, a state like Indiana.
What's interesting aboutIndiana is that maybe it can
show us that in fact, you know,the GOP does support cannabis,
and I mentioned this becauseIndiana, now that Ohio has gone

(51:49):
online, is surrounded on allsides.
Like every person in Indianacan drive like an hour and a
half to Michigan or Illinois orOhio to buy cannabis and their
new Republican government therehas expressed support for
passing a medical program.
So maybe Indiana can be number40, right and get us to 80
percent of states and then again, in a best case scenario, next
year you would see some of thesereds you know red or purple

(52:11):
states that have held out for awhile like a Wisconsin right
because of the GOP legislature,or if you guys have been
following the Carolinas thatevery year like flirt with
medical but fail at the end.
I think a best-case scenario isover the next 12 to 18 months we
get from like 39 to like 43, 44.
I think that provides the kindof conceptual and ideological
support for rescheduling.

(52:31):
And then no-transcript remain achallenge, just because it's as

(52:59):
divided as America is.
You have very rural, like whiteRepublicans, and very urban,
you know minority communities.
But in a best case scenarioPennsylvania would go adult use
and would get us to 225 states.

Ben Larson (53:12):
It seems like it really should go.
It's surrounded by a greatlegal markets right and you know
it is known as kind of asignificant state on the eastern
seaboard.
It's just.
It would be really shocking tosee it hold out races in

(53:38):
Pennsylvania, like I'm seeing.

Hirsh Jain (53:39):
Like Gen Z, republican women right Like run
for the Pennsylvania House on apro-cannabis.
Like a 25 year old, like Gen Z,like you know, republican woman
running on a pro-cannabisplatform.
That's the next iteration ofthe Republican party that we
need to see if we're going toget cannabis passed in a place
like Pennsylvania Fingerscrossed.

Amazing, hirsch, you have given us so
much to think about and we'veall been thinking, both ben and
myself, but also all of ouraudience uh, these last few days
, what to make of all of this?
And it's clear there's notanswers, but uh, things will
become more clear as we get moreinformation about what this

(54:14):
administration will look likeand action starts moving.
I would love for you to giveour audience your last call as
we close out the hour.

Hirsh Jain (54:25):
Yeah, I mean.
Thanks, guys, so much forhaving me.
I think I'll make a couple ofpoints on this last call, you
know.
First, I feel like you know,this conversation was a little
bit more somber than ourprevious conversation.
I hope that, you know it didn'tkill too much of the vibe.
I still enjoyed theconversation but it was maybe a
little bit more of a seriousconversation about the
challenges ahead.
So maybe I'll just say like Idon't know if there's anyone out

(54:46):
there who finds working in thisspace hard, like I'm with you,
right, I think there's a lot ofpeople.
Cannabis, most of the time,Like I feel like this has been
one of my best life choices andI love all the people I've met
in the work, but the past fewdays have been hard for me.
So I don't know I'm just kindof putting that out there If
there's anyone else out therelike that, I feel you Um and and

(55:09):
um, you know you're justprobably not alone, um.
And the second thing I'll sayis I think what we saw in
Florida right as we were talkingabout earlier, is that when
there are internal divisions incannabis, then we end up not
succeeding, and so I think wehave to do a better job of
talking to one another, and alot of cannabis discourse just
consists of shouting at eachother online.
I think that reflects a lot ofthe discourse that surrounded

(55:30):
the election.
But now the election hashappened, you know, even on an
issue that divided the cannabiscommunity.
So now that we're kind ofbehind the eight ball from a
governmental perspective, Idon't think we're going to
succeed unless we learn tooverlook kind of superficial
differences.
Right, the cannabis communityneeds activists, it needs
operators, it needs ancillaryproviders, and I hope we can all

(55:52):
remember that we have a commonstake in the progression of
plant medicine because we'vedevoted so much of our lives to
this right, and so hopefully wewant to make that investment
worth it and we should learn howto work together as best we can
.

Ben Larson (56:04):
Amazing.
Thanks so much, hirsch.
I really appreciate you takingthe time and yeah, it was a
little bit more serious thannormal, but it was certainly due
and I appreciate you especiallytaking the time out of your
travels to brief us oneverything that has happened,
taking the time out of yourtravels to brief us on
everything that has happenedover the last couple of days.
So we'll touch base soon andsee what's happening and

(56:25):
hopefully we'll get our spiritslifted by some of the activities
in the coming months hereTotally.

Hirsh Jain (56:30):
I hope to see you guys, and maybe other people, at
Benzinga Anaheim next week andwe can lift our spirits.

Ben Larson (56:36):
Very good, we'll see you then.
All right, anna Rae?
Well, do you feel like you gotto exercise some of those
anxious thoughts that have beenswirling around in your head?

Yeah, I just want to see the path through it.
I said to you yesterday like alot of what I try to do in my
work is take in all theinformation and the data and
then figure out what I thinkmight be a path through it all.
And it's not super clear rightnow, when you're thinking about
business, how to predict thefuture and what the right path

(57:10):
is through the uncertainty.
And I think that we all justneed to keep taking it all in
and having these types ofconversations to make sense of
how to make good choices.

Ben Larson (57:23):
Yeah, what do you think folks?
Did we miss anything?
Did we get anything wrong?
What's your take on theelection and our prospects for
cannabis in the future?
Thank you, thank you.
Thank you for joining us andlistening and interacting and
engaging, liking, subscribing,doing all the things Huge.

(57:43):
Thank you to our teams atWITOSA and Wolfmeyer.
Thank you so much forsupporting us as we've gone
through this journey this year.
This past week has felt a lotof gravity, but we got more to
come.
This journey does not end, asyou know, so until next time,
folks, stay curious, stayinformed and keep your spirits

(58:05):
high.
That's the show.

All Episodes

#067 - Election Recap w/ Returning Guest, Hirsh Jain of Ananda Strategy

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#067 - Election Recap w/ Returning Guest, Hirsh Jain of Ananda Strategy