April 4, 2025 • 46 mins
The world of cannabis isn't isolated from global economic shifts—it's deeply embedded in them. When the Trump administration announced sweeping new tariffs against major trading partners, from China to Canada, few analysts considered how these protectionist measures would impact an industry that's already entirely domestic by legal necessity.
In this deep-diving conversation, Ben and Anna Rae unpack the paradox at the heart of cannabis economics: an industry that already achieves the "domestic manufacturing" goal that tariffs supposedly promote, yet still struggles with profitability and scale. The new trade war creates a perfect storm of upward pressure on manufacturing costs while simultaneously dampening consumer confidence and purchasing power.
The ripple effects of these tariffs expose fundamental tensions in the cannabis industry. Labor costs will rise while consumers become more price-conscious. Smaller craft operations will face greater challenges than larger, more efficiently scaled businesses, likely accelerating consolidation. Value products will gain market share as premium offerings struggle to justify higher price points to budget-conscious consumers.
Most importantly, this economic moment highlights the urgent need for regulatory convergence between hemp and cannabis frameworks and the breaking down of state barriers to create true economies of scale. As the hosts note, "If you're in the business of strengthening or building walls, you might be on the wrong side of history."
Whether you're an industry operator navigating these challenging waters or simply curious about how global economic policies affect niche markets, this episode provides critical context for understanding cannabis as both a product category and a business ecosystem. The path forward requires both responding to immediate economic pressures and advocating for sensible policy reform that centers consumer needs while allowing businesses to operate efficiently.
Ready to join the conversation about the future of cannabis in this changing economic landscape? Listen now and discover why smart industry leaders are thinking globally while acting locally.
--
High Spirits is brought to you by Vertosa and Wolf Meyer.
Your hosts are Ben Larson and AnnaRae Grabstein.
Follow High Spirits on LinkedIn.
We'd love to hear your thoughts. Who would you like to see on the show? What topics would you like to have us cover?
Visit our website www.highspirits.media and listen to all of our past shows.
THANK YOU to our audience. Your engagement encourages us to keep bringing you these thought-provoking conversations.
Remember to always stay curious, stay informed, and most importantly, keep your spirits high.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
AnnaRae Grabstein (00:05):
We want to give a quick shout out to our
friends and sponsor over atKitPrint, the cannabis operators
production design partner.
Is your team getting boggeddown with static and variable
packaging layouts and productrenders?
Are you looking to support yourretail and wholesale teams with
better and more frequentstate-specific sales and
marketing assets?
With KitPrint's productiondesign team, you get files
(00:28):
turned around in three businessdays or less at roughly 50% of
the cost of the averagefull-time employee.
New customers use code highspirits all one word when you
sign up at kitprintco and you'llget 10% off your first two
months.
To learn more, go to kitprintcoto book a call with their team.
Ben Larson (00:53):
Hey everybody, welcome to episode 82 of High
Spirits.
I'm Ben Larson and, as always,I'm joined today by Anna Rae
Grabstein.
We're recording Thursday, april3rd 2025.
And we've got a great show foryou.
Today we are doing a little bitof a one-on-one our Cannabis
Business News Roundup.
(01:14):
We'll talk about that a littlebit.
So yeah, anna Rae, how's yourweek going?
How are you feeling?
AnnaRae Grabstein (01:21):
I'm feeling good.
I am in this funny moment ofrealizing how fungible reality
has become.
Ben Larson (01:28):
Ooh, intriguing Fungible.
AnnaRae Grabstein (01:33):
Yeah, fungible.
I mean, I don't know if that'sthe right word to use, but it's
this feeling of after a lot ofexploration as it relates to AI
and using new technology in mywork and in my life.
It's like starting the line isgetting blurry of what's real
and what's computer generated.
I have for a while been doingexercise classes at home, like
(01:57):
on YouTube, a yoga class or someother sort of like hit high
intensity workout at home, andthis week I started
experimenting with this app thatwill do like these custom
workouts for you and you cantell it how many minutes you
want to work out and what sortof extra tools you want to use
(02:18):
Do you want to use a resistanceband or a chair or whatever?
And and then it generates aworkout for you.
And I was really enjoying theworkout.
But I was also watching theperson that was leading me
through it and saying, oh, Ithink this is a robot.
I'm pretty positive, it's arobot.
And then I went off on thiswhole thing of how do I feel
(02:38):
about getting exercise tips fromrobots, even though I knew that
I was benefiting from it, andafter this whole narrative of
coming to grips with the factthat a robot was guiding my
health.
I started Googling around totry to figure out if it really
was a robot, because I couldn'teven tell.
At which point I found out thatit isn't a robot and that it's
(02:59):
actually a real person thatrecorded all these different
exercises and they just reorderthem in the app.
And then I thought it was evenmore weird that I can't even
tell who's a real person andwho's across the uncanny valley.
Ben Larson (03:13):
That's that.
That's an exciting time, as, asa technologist, I don't know,
um, but mind blown, it raisesthe question like, what is a
robot?
Right?
Because ai in general is justan amalgamation of our
collective consciousness, likeall woven together into whatever
it is that you desire.
So, like, this is the same.
It's not the same, maybedifferent, but it's like the
(03:35):
same internal uh debate I havewith, like targeted ads, right.
It's like no, don't track me,but then you get all these
shitty ads that you don't wantto see.
So it it's like well, if you'regoing to see ads, you might as
well see ads that you like.
Again, I think I'm losing thethread here, but I don't know.
And what if you know thinkingabout how these AI agents are
(03:57):
developing?
You know what if this person isindeed built on a real person,
but they leverage AI to weavetogether all these different
moves for them?
AnnaRae Grabstein (04:06):
Well, and the amount of access and
accessibility that can bebroadened.
When you scale things likepersonal training with
computer-generated support, itall of a sudden goes from
something that only rich peoplecan afford to something that
anybody can be doing in theirliving room, and that's pretty
effing cool, um, so I think it'smore just about, and what I'm
(04:31):
thinking about this week is howwe metabolize this fast pace of
change that's happening in theway that we live, in our culture
, our business and ourrelationships, and both kind of
accept what it is, get out ofthe way to try to understand how
this affects all the otherthings, all the domino effects,
because that's really what it'sabout.
It's like I can be having aconsciousness crisis as it
(04:57):
relates to is it okay that an AIbot is teaching me how to
support my lower back better?
But the reality is, is that Ibenefited from that and that's
just what's happening, so I needto accept it.
Move on, figure out how tomanage through it.
What does this mean about theworld?
Ben Larson (05:15):
Yeah, I mean, we'll take it a step further, and I
know we're not talking aboutcannabis.
We might get there, maybe not,but we will I promise.
But it makes me think aboutlike therapy I, we, you and I
were talking about this likeI've, I've suddenly scheduled
morning therapies, couplestherapy, 8 am on thursdays,
(05:35):
which is interestinglypositioned not too far before
this, this recording and justfor the record, your couples
therapy is not with me, it'swith your actual wife.
Yes, that is true, although itmight help us because, um, this
particular therapist he focuseson eft, which is emotional, uh,
(05:56):
focus therapy, which is allbuilt around attachment theory
and creating kind of safe space,uh, for someone to feel
attached so that you can processyour conversations and your
actions healthfully.
Anyways, we recently startedwith him.
Matthew is awesome.
If you're doing therapy, checkout EFT.
(06:16):
It's really great.
He's made us cry every sessionand even on my one-on-ones,
which I like to cry.
So you know there's that.
But I got to thinking it's likeanyone that does therapy
generally knows that to find theright person, to find that
effective method, to find theright time in the day that
really is able to unlock and andmake you cry every session, it
(06:40):
can take years if you ever findit at all.
But I think the power of AImight be able to accelerate that
for people and, like you,remove that, that human error.
I just think it's going to beso powerful.
It's a little scary because,like this is a step beyond.
This is getting into yourpsyche and not just your lower
back.
But then it manifests indifferent ways, like how people
(07:02):
are feeling about the StudioGhibli stuff, which we posted
something on April Fool's, butthen Belinda, our designer, the
(07:29):
root of the art, but it isforever changed because of how
accessible it is, so like.
What does the future look likeand what does it mean for
everyone?
AnnaRae Grabstein (07:37):
well, everything you said it's goes
back to this like what is realand what isn't real and how do
we accept the future path?
Because there's this funnything happening is like yes,
therapy can be done veryeffectively with a real human
therapist, and yet you can also,in a crunch moment in the
(07:58):
middle of a crisis, when youdon't have an appointment with a
therapist, you can go onto chatGPT and say pretend you're my
therapist.
I'm having this massive crisisright now about X, y, z and I
don't know what to do, and itwill give you some pretty good
feedback.
Try it everyone.
You might be surprised.
And so this coming together oflike when we do the human path
(08:19):
and when we do the computergenerated path, I think starts
to become more of the questiondo we do some of both
appropriately?
Yeah, wild times yeah, yeah andshould?
should we start to make?
Should we start to make thejump into the news of the world?
Ben Larson (08:36):
I don't know, I'm having a lot of fun here, but I,
we can, we can.
There's the news is real, ish,I guess there's.
There's a lot going on.
We can talk about cannabis news, which you know, leading up to
this show.
There's a lot of news, but atthe same time it just seems like
a lot of noise and I don't knowif I'm just getting long in the
(08:56):
tooth and just kind of jaded,but it's just like oh yeah, the
attorney generals are doing somenonsense down in Arizona, or
there's a ban trying to happenin Texas, or Trulieve is doing
their thing in Florida, orwhat's happening in Georgia.
I don't even know All that'sgoing on.
And then the layer of likewhat's happening in the macro
(09:16):
environment with thisadministration and the tariffs
and all that.
So I don't know what directiondo you want to go with it?
AnnaRae Grabstein (09:23):
So I don't know what direction do you want
to go with it?
Yeah, I want to talk aboutwhat's happening in the global
economy and how the new tradewar that was announced yesterday
is going to impact cannabis,because I think that there is a
(09:44):
like.
Is that?
Yes, iipr, one of the largestcannabis public REITs, has lots
of defaults of large public andprivate companies.
Yes, that's news.
Another prominent Californiacompany is in receivership.
This time it's voluntary.
Yes, that's news too.
And, as you mentioned, lots ofhemp stuff.
But really, the trade war thatTrump announced yesterday is the
(10:07):
news in cannabis and in therest of the world, and what's so
interesting about it, and why Iwant to talk about it today, is
that this narrative around thetrade war is about creating
domestic manufacturing.
That's what the Trumpadministration is talking about.
Ben Larson (10:23):
So creating jobs back at home, bringing
everything back to the soil,repatriatizing everything.
AnnaRae Grabstein (10:29):
Yes, making America great by bolstering our
manufacturing legacy andensuring that the money that is
spent in the US is going tocompanies that are creating in
the US.
That's the narrative.
Ben Larson (10:44):
Okay, I'm starting to see the connection here with
our previous conversation, butthe initial question that jumped
in my head is like are thosethe jobs that Americans want?
And maybe there are a lot ofAmericans that want those kind
of blue-collar factory workingjobs, but then I, you know,
connect it with what we'retalking about.
Maybe that's what they'll haveto have if all their white
(11:05):
collar design work, therapy workwell so.
AnnaRae Grabstein (11:08):
So let's take it a bit further.
I think that what you're sayingis is what needs to be true, for
what this trade war's statedobjective is to actually come to
fruition, and, and so, if thepoint is is that the trade war
creates manufacturing jobs andthat makes America great, what
(11:29):
is needs to be true about thosemanufacturing jobs, and what
those manufacturing jobs need tobe in order for America to be
great as a result of them, issomething different than they
are now, because what you arealluding to is that Americans
don't want manufacturing jobsright now, and the reason has
been that, largely, if you havea manufacturing job, you are
(11:49):
probably living close to thepoverty line.
You are struggling in a hourlyrole with not a lot of
protection.
It is not the 1950s, whereworking at the Ford plant was a
path to homeownership.
There's less homeownership thanthere ever has been before.
So, really, what we're talkingabout, though, is that cannabis
(12:14):
is already a largely domesticindustry.
There is no allowance to beimporting cannabis into the US
from other places With oneexception and there is the hemp
industry.
Ben Larson (12:28):
Right, and I don't actually know the exact status
of this.
We talk about the Farm Bill alot, which is focused purely on
domestic hemp, but there ismurmurings of hemp coming from
China, south America andotherwise coming into the states
.
I'm curious what's going tohappen when these tariffs hit
(12:50):
and how that might affect thebusinesses and or practices or
prices of some of the suppliersin the hemp side of the business
.
And just real quick, in case noone's aware, I think list is
accurate but I'm just going togo through it.
There's a baseline tariff of of10 on imports into the us.
(13:13):
China's tariffs increased to 20.
European union uh, 20.
Japan, 24, which, god damn it,I better stock up on my japanese
whiskey.
South korea 20 percent.
Vietnam 46 percent.
Taiwan 32 percent.
So uh, dennis o'brien, in inthe audience, commented that
(13:36):
chips and pharmaceuticals arevery important.
Taiwan a lot of chips comingfrom taiwan.
Mexico and canada 25.
And, uh yeah, steel, aluminum,automobiles, automobile parts
all 25.
This is nuts.
AnnaRae Grabstein (13:53):
Cars are gonna get really expensive if we
take, if we really are tryingto connect the dots here with
our audience being people thatare working in cannabis and hemp
and the businesses thatsurround them what?
What does this trade war mean?
And I'd say that we alreadyknow we talk about it all the
time that cannabis businessesare financially in a very tight
spot.
It's been hard to make a profit.
(14:14):
There's been a lot ofcomplicated oversupply in
certain regions while there'sundersupply in others, but
there's not interstate commerce,so it's not flowing.
But what we do know is that allthe cannabis in the regulated
market outside of hemp is beingproduced in the state markets
where it is being sold.
(14:35):
And if the trade war policyworks, as the Trump
administration is telling us itwill, it means that
manufacturing costs of laborwill increase and that will mean
that labor costs at cannabiscompanies will be forced up.
And this is a hard time forthat, when cannabis companies
(14:55):
are already struggling to figureout how to have a profit and at
the same time, because of theoversupply and because of what
we'll talk about next time,because of the oversupply and
because of what we'll talk aboutnext, consumer confidence
decreasing.
Consumers are spending less oncannabis, buying less cannabis,
and are really like starting togo more towards value products
across the supply chain, notjust in cannabis, but in all
(15:18):
categories.
So this is a scary thing,because what it feels like is
that everybody's going to getsqueezed, that producers are
going to struggle to raise theirprices, but they'll need to
because their costs will go upand, at the same time, consumers
aren't going to be able toafford what's being sold.
Ben Larson (15:35):
Because the truth is is that even if labor costs are
increasing, they're not goingto increase at the same pace as
what's needed to metabolize allof the other increases and costs
for consumers, in my opinionit's just an interesting
confluence of the market, thecannabis market, and like where
(15:56):
it's currently at, it's not, Imean, it's not in a good, great
state currently right, and soit's like putting more pressure
on it's certainly not going tohelp.
But maybe it forces aconversation of like how do we
actually make it tenable and howdo we help.
And there's two different ways.
There's the.
There's the business side, theprivate side.
Like you know, you canconsolidate and create
(16:17):
efficiencies.
You can launch value focusedproducts, like we've seen cheap
products on the market.
You can go out to a dispensaryright now and and buy a hundred
milligram beverage for for lessthan eight dollars.
So there's alternatives outthere, not to pump my side of
the business, but if there areindeed politicians which I'm not
(16:37):
fully convinced yet but ifthere's indeed politicians out
there that support the categoryand they've already been made,
made aware of, like howuntenable the infrastructure is
right now Like this will be abreaking point and unfortunately
there will be a lot ofcasualties along the way.
But maybe it forces aconversation for a better
framework.
I don't know.
(16:58):
I'm going to be in Sacramentonext week talking about some of
this.
I wasn't planning on talkingabout tariffs, but maybe now I
will.
AnnaRae Grabstein (17:05):
But I think that the other winners that
happen in the more short term,because policy reform is so slow
.
Is larger companies, becausethe fact is is that underscaled
(17:30):
craft businesses in anenvironment like this really
struggle.
Ben Larson (17:37):
It's harder to metabolize.
What do we consider a largecompany in the cannabis industry
?
AnnaRae Grabstein (17:42):
Because, by the measures of general commerce
, we're all craft business thathave reached 10 to $15 million
(18:08):
of annual revenue per year,which is there's not a lot of
them.
There's so many more that arein that five to $10 million a
year range.
Yeah, I think it's.
It's the companies that areabove $10 million a year and
that have the ability toconsolidate and scale existing
manufacturing with capacity.
Because that's what this isgoing to mean is that you're
(18:29):
going to need to do more withless.
If your business is not builtfrom the beginning to be able to
do more and it's intended toalways stay small, it will be
very challenging to competesmall.
It will be very challenging tocompete, and that means that
ultimately, like what you see asa result of this is
(18:50):
consolidated interest at the top.
And yes, the top might stilllook like a small business in
the eyes of a larger capitalistenvironment, but it will set the
stage for those 10 to $20million businesses rolling up
together to consolidate furtherinto larger, harder to compete
with operators that are moreresilient and focused.
(19:15):
So it isn't that the Republicantrade policy is going to break
cannabis.
I think that it's actuallydoing what it's designed to do,
which is to favor big businessand to reward capital over craft
.
That is the point yeah, yeah,it's interesting.
Ben Larson (19:37):
I I'm thinking about the, the journey that our
company has gone on.
Right, we've gone through anumber of different waves in the
industry.
For a couple of years wefocused, we were fortunate
enough to be in a position topare back, focus on efficiencies
and building systems so that wecould maximize the utility of
(19:57):
each employee, which generally,with most companies, that's your
biggest line item in your P&L.
And now we're in this phasewhere you know it's a mixed bag.
There's certainly restrictionshappening here and there, but
the category that we largelyserve has been moving up and to
the right, and so this year it'sabout building on those kind of
(20:17):
metrics that make us feel alittle bit better, a little bit
more established as a company,but still focused on that
employee efficiency and whatthat's allowed us to do.
I'm feeling like maybe we'll getahead of it a little bit.
You know, paying our across theboard, our employees, you know
from the manufacturing level upto the executives like just
(20:38):
making sure that we're payinggood living wages.
And, you know, I think aboutlike where we might have been in
times past is like, yeah, theworkforce might have been bigger
, but we wouldn't have beenpaying everyone as well as we
are, and so it's like, yeah,it's this catch 22 where it's
like I hear you Like we can meetthat moment and pay people what
they need to be paid, butthere's gonna be a lot of people
(21:00):
that are out of work.
AnnaRae Grabstein (21:01):
it feels like yeah, and so in order to pay
people more, it means that youhave to be more efficient, which
is a buzzword these days.
But what does that really mean?
It means more automation.
It means AI.
It means people doing only thethings that people need to do
and other levels of automation,ai and technology doing as much
(21:23):
as as is possible to keep thehumans doing human things yeah
and and what those human thingsare, start to become less so.
When we talk about bolsteringdomestic manufacturing, how much
of that is actually going to bedone by humans and um, and how?
How fast can we even build that?
I think you know in cannabis,we have seen how long it takes
(21:45):
to build manufacturing as newmarkets have come on.
We've seen the struggles toimprove electrical
infrastructure and power so thatpeople could build cultivation
facilities and manufacturingfacilities all over the country,
and one of the things that's sointeresting about this
conversation and then looking atcannabis is that the Trump
(22:09):
administration is talking aboutbolstering domestic production,
but cannabis is not onlydomestic, it's hyperlocal.
It's like all these differentstate by state markets.
So cannabis has been buildingdomestic manufacturing on a
state-by-state levelincrementally over the past 10
years, with varying levels ofsuccess and in some cases and I
(22:32):
remember before Pennsylvaniapassed its medical law, there
were some Pennsylvanialegislators that came to
California to do this tour tolearn about legal cannabis, and
I met with some of them, andthis was back in 2018.
And a couple of theselegislators two of them that I
sat and had about an hour longconversation with really had
(22:54):
absolutely no interest incannabis at all.
But what they liked aboutcannabis was that they were
hoping that coal plants that hadbeen abandoned would be able to
be turned into factories forcannabis products, and they
thought, okay, we shouldlegalize so that we can use this
existing, old, abandonedmanufacturing infrastructure.
(23:16):
So is cannabis a proof point tobolster domestic manufacturing?
Has it created the economicpathways that the Republican
policy thinks that manufacturingwill inevitably create for the
American worker?
Ben Larson (23:33):
I think it could.
I mean, that certainly is anarrative right, like it's, if
anything, it's an industry thatis in high demand and can create
a lot of jobs and a lot ofmanufacturing jobs or
agriculture jobs.
But, to your point, there'sgoing to be that consistent
pressure to refine that and makeit more efficient over time.
When you were talking, I wasthinking about Huawei's dark
(23:57):
factory that they have thatbasically spits out a new cell
phone every second and it's anentire building that has no
people in it.
It's crazy.
I you know, we do hit thisinteresting tension in the
cannabis space where, like thehyper localized nature of the
industry, like I want to breakdown those walls, I want to like
be able to, you know, moveproduct from state to state and
(24:21):
have more free commerce, right,and so it's like, after we
achieve that, then US cannabiswants to go international, right
, and then we start talkingabout internationalization again
, and that's the interestingthing about a trade war, right,
we can impose tariffs on othercountries to force jobs back to
(24:42):
the US, but then those othercountries want to impose more
tariffs on us, and so thelikelihood of us being able to
export becomes more challenging.
AnnaRae Grabstein (24:53):
Absolutely, and you're right that there is
this narrative about wanting tobe able to transport cannabis
over state lines and thenglobally, and so it's almost the
flip side of what we're talkingabout.
And and yet I think that whatwe're seeing happening with US
policy is not dissimilar fromwhat we could see if federal
(25:16):
legalization happened that, butwas more of like a state's
rights path, in that I think itcould be very likely that even
if there was US policy changethat said, okay, now cannabis is
legal, states can regulate itand states can come up with
whatever policy that they feelis right for them, which has
(25:37):
been a pathway to legalizationthat's been proposed, that it's
very likely that states aregoing to say, actually, we don't
want product from Californiaand Oregon, or states could be
imposing tariffs from otherstates to be able to import
product into their state so thatthey can foster their own
(25:58):
economic activity.
Ben Larson (26:00):
But then you start hitting constitutional issues
there right Because of thedormant commerce clause and so
you can't disincentivizecommerce from one state to the
next.
But this brings up aninteresting conversation that is
kind of layered in there, whichis like states' rights versus
federal preemption, and I thinkthis is coming up a lot.
So I want to just dwell on itfor a moment.
(26:22):
Because of the bans that arehappening in different states
and, as we said on our lastepisode or the episode before,
like we are anti-ban.
I'm not a fan of bans, rightLike I like the opportunity that
the hemp industry has presentedfor the cannabis plant, hemp
(26:46):
industry has presented for thecannabis plant.
However, we should not betrying to defend against these
actions by saying that thisfederal law exists and therefore
it preempts the state's rights,because the benefit that
state's rights has granted us isthe cannabis industry which
predates, you know, thisintoxicating hemp movement, and
so like I just want people to becareful when they're out there
(27:08):
being like, oh, federal lawreigns, reigns, supreme.
It's like, well then, we havethe controlled substances act.
That kind of fucks a lot of alot of our industry.
Yeah, you know it's.
AnnaRae Grabstein (27:17):
It's one of those two things can be true at
the same time.
Uh, that is so challenging towrap our head around in life and
in business, especially when itcomes to policy stuff like this
.
Well, we've been talking a lotabout kind of manufacturing and
labor force as a result ofwhat's happening with the trade
war, but I think that it's alsoworth talking about consumer
(27:39):
confidence amid tariff concernsand how that ties in to the
cannabis industry and theproducts, because during COVID,
there was this idea thatcannabis was essential and the
industry did very well, and thethought was that people were
really stressed and so theyneeded their cannabis and we saw
(27:59):
these big spikes.
Ben Larson (28:01):
There's also stimulus.
That was happening.
AnnaRae Grabstein (28:04):
But it's maybe that it was the financial
stimulus, that people actuallyhad more money to spend, and so
they chose to spend it on lotsof things, and cannabis was just
one of them.
Exactly Because I think thatwhat we are seeing and what the
data shows is that consumerconfidence has basically been on
a downward trend since thefinancial stimulus ended during
(28:27):
COVID, and that surveys areindicating that 80% of consumers
are concerned about tariffsdriving up prices on everyday
goods, and this behavior, orthis anxiety, is leading to
changes of purchasing behavior.
This behavior, or this anxiety,is leading to changes of
purchasing behavior.
In particular, consumers aretrying to be more careful about
(28:47):
spending on non-essentialexpenditures.
So the question becomes are ourTHC beverages and our pre-rolls
non-essential or are theyessential?
And what are consumers going todo when it comes to their
spending patterns with weed?
Ben Larson (29:06):
I think it's as essential as I'm going to choose
my words wisely here I'm to trya wide breadth of categories,
right, so like caffeine, alcohol, therapeutics, vitamins,
whatever, what you purchasewithin those categories is more
fungible, right, and so it'slike.
I think this drives to againlike low cost generic products,
(29:31):
unfortunately, days of bud lightand folgers and and what have
you, not to get super depressing.
But like, people want theircannabinoids.
So if they can get good, clean,cheap cannabinoids, so if they
can get good, clean, cheapcannabinoids, they're going to
purchase them.
Yeah, you're going to see thetop line revenue might drop, the
craft products, the premiumproducts might suffer, but I
(29:55):
don't think cannabinoids aregoing away.
It's just a shift in consumerpurchasing.
AnnaRae Grabstein (29:59):
Yeah, I don't by any means think it's going
away.
A shift in consumer purchasing?
Yeah, I don't by any meansthink it's going away.
But this idea of continuationof depression in the markets, of
pushing prices down within, theyeah, the push, pull of prices,
of costs of production going upis is just very complicated
(30:20):
Because I I think ultimatelythat consumers are going to be
purchasing less cannabis.
Ben Larson (30:26):
Yeah, um, well, I mean this.
This is a motivation becausethey're purchasing less of
everything, right, I I have tothink that the general macro
trend in in what they'repurchasing you know, alcohol
versus cannabis like that alsocomes into play, and I do
believe that we have more peoplepicking up cannabis instead of
(30:47):
alcohol, especially as weprogress into the future, and so
, absolutely so, it's providingoptions for those people.
But as we we talk about all thisand how it all comes together
is like we kind of need the the,the barrier, the state barriers
, to drop so that we can createconcentration of manufacturing
and production, because that'swhere economies of scale is,
(31:08):
where you actually get to startcreating products that people
can afford.
We've seen it in the beveragecategory.
Right, we used to be like whowants a $10 five milligram drink
in a dispensary?
Nobody, like that's just not aprice point that people want to
pay like, even people that aresuper enthused about the product
(31:28):
category.
But you get it into the openmarket where you can find a
manufacturer in the Midwest andserve the entire you know, the
entire country, and all of asudden you're getting to price
points that that people canpalletet and so like we need
that across cannabis, becausethe way that the market is
designed today it's like it'slike sure it works in california
(31:51):
when you have like the fifthlargest economy in the world, it
doesn't fucking work in inrhode island.
AnnaRae Grabstein (31:56):
We need to create that opportunity for for
the category and yet that is thepush and pull, because that is
also a reduction ofmanufacturing jobs.
Because when you consolidatemanufacturing across markets,
less factories, less production.
Ben Larson (32:13):
You, you take venture capital out of the
equation and then you will seelike what a reduction in jobs
looks like, which is going tohappen like the other.
The other side of the coin withconsumer confidence is is lack
of investment.
People pull their money, put itinto cash, which means a lot
less venture right, and thisindustry is built on venture
(32:33):
capital although I do thinkthat's changing.
AnnaRae Grabstein (32:35):
I think that we're seeing a lot of more.
I mean, we already know thatthe money that's been coming
into cannabis predominantly isnow debt, not venture, and the
reason for that is that therehas been a loss of confidence
that these types of businessesare venture scalable in most
cases, in most situations.
(32:57):
That doesn't mean that therearen't some types of businesses
that are venture scalable, andcannabis and I just I want to be
clear that, like I remainresolute and confident on
indicators and these things thatare moving all around us affect
cannabis businesses in veryspecific ways, and it's that
(33:32):
that we're not seeing in thenews.
Seeing lots of coverage aboutthe trade war and we're seeing
coverage about one-off littlebits of cannabis, news of a
business failing or atransaction here or there or a
new policy turning on, but whatwe're not seeing is the is the
connection between what'shappening in the world and
(33:53):
what's happening in our localcannabis.
Ben Larson (33:56):
oh my god, yeah, such a good example of this.
Right, it's like it's like whatthe news likes to highlight you
and it's this highly politicizedlike news cycle that we're in,
like this, this whole signalgate thing, where you know they
were talking about like bombingthe hooties or whatever.
It's like what you get out ofthe news, like what does that
even mean is.
It's like, oh, like they wereusing the wrong platform, but
(34:17):
but like what was that actuallyabout?
And it was actually about likemoving goods around Europe,
mostly Europe and Africa and theSuez Canal, and if anyone's
receiving goods or products thatcome through there, which most
of it's going to Europe, butlike some of it comes to the US
or some goes to Europe and thento the US.
So like how does that impactyour business?
(34:38):
And like these are the thingsthat the mass media is not
talking about, but it's likesuper important to our business.
And so I'm really appreciatingyou kind of bringing this topic
up today, because this is thekind of conversation that we
should be having as as businessleaders.
AnnaRae Grabstein (34:53):
Yeah, I mean we have to.
We have to pay attention, wehave to be constantly thinking
about what the solutions are torespond, but also weighing what
the different potential outcomesare.
This idea of intendedconsequences versus unintended
consequences and askingourselves the question
constantly about what needs tobe true for this other thing to
(35:15):
be true is kind of what takesour thinking to the next step.
So if we believe that theindustry is going to go a
certain direction.
what needs to be true is kind ofwhat takes our thinking to the
next step.
So if, if we believe that theindustry is going to go a
certain direction, what needs tobe true in order for that to
happen?
And and understanding ifeverything else that's happening
outside of the cannabisindustry in policy in Washington
, in in the factories in Chinadoes that support our hypothesis
(35:39):
on where we think the industryis going?
And those are the conversationsthat I'm excited to be having
and I hope that people haveenjoyed our ranting as we've
thought about this.
Ben Larson (35:49):
It kind of showed itself throughout the
conversation is is the challengeof where are we going and who
is we right?
And and I think this gets lostin cannabis and hemp and as we
converge and again, I know thisis one of your favorite topics,
but like we have to acceleratethe regulatory convergence of
hemp, cannabis, or at least theconversation, and we we need the
(36:11):
leaders of both sides of the ushemp roundtable, of ncia,
attach, uscc, aha everyone needsto get together and like start
thinking about what a unifiedfuture looks like and what that
conversation should look like incongress.
When we have this kind ofchaotic opportunity to insert a
(36:35):
new narrative right, likewhether you're right or left,
trump or not or never, we havewhat we have and we need to make
some progress here.
And we need to think about whatRFK's position is and I know
it's been flip-flopping or whatTrump has said about the
cannabis industry and how he'sthinking about all this.
(36:55):
And how do we take this laborconversation and make it a
pillar of why cannabis and hempneed to be legalized.
And we need to take down theseinternal barriers and I'm gonna,
I'm gonna, I will die on thathill.
We need to take down the statebarriers because, like many of
the businesses, are not scalable.
(37:17):
And we've talked about the MSOs, right, like we talk about big
companies and their likelihoodto survive, maybe one as we've
identified like yeah sure, gti,but I don't think any of this is
going to help all the otherswho are running, you know,
negative on their P&L andbalance sheet.
AnnaRae Grabstein (37:37):
Well, you are right to say that I do believe
in the importance of looking ata policy-based regulatory
convergence, of looking at thefull industry as one the
cannabis industry and the hempindustry are ultimately a
cannabinoid industry but thereason that I think that, and
where I think it needs to start,is because, ultimately, it's
about the consumer, and theconsumer doesn't know the
(37:58):
difference, and the consumer isthinking about form factors,
experience and access, and thatthat is where we have to start,
with the consumer.
We must center on the consumerall the time, because those are
the voices, the stories, themotivations that are going to be
able to drive policy changestories, the motivations that
(38:22):
are going to be able to drivepolicy change, and the ripples
of that policy change obviouslyhave massive implications into
what the business opportunitiesare, to how businesses build
supply chains, how they go tomarket, how they price, how they
distribute all of those things.
And yet, though, the stories ofdistribution and supply chain
are not moving the needle Policymakers to get anybody to care,
(38:49):
and I just I think that thenarrative must focus on
consumers If, if we want to, ifwe want to ever believe that
progress could happen, the storyis going to be about the people
.
Ben Larson (38:57):
Yes, I 100% agree.
Story is going to be about thepeople.
Yes, I 100% agree.
I'll take it one step further,though, and say that if you are
in the business of strengtheningor building walls, I'll accept
that maybe you can defend it asyour fiduciary responsibility,
but you're on the wrong side ofhistory.
(39:17):
We need to break down the walls.
We need to build for the future, and if we're not doing that,
we're going to be stuck in thisconversation for fucking ever,
and it's going to get really old.
AnnaRae Grabstein (39:34):
Yeah, and it already is getting old, and
while I don't disagree, I justalso am skeptical of the ability
for such broad, sweeping changeto happen, and have just come
from 20 years of payingattention to cannabis policy and
seeing how small incrementalprogress is the only thing that
(39:55):
we have ever been able to do,and so, while, of course, having
our eye on this prize of even aglobal market, not just a
national market, is somethingthat is both exciting and
hopeful, it doesn't feel withinreach at this point, and so I
(40:18):
think working within theconstraints of what we have now
is the short-term strategy thateverybody needs to deal with is
great.
Yes, let's have our eye on theprize, but let's also be
realistic about what we can dotoday, what's coming at us in
the next two to 18 monthsbecause of the global
(40:41):
macroeconomic environment, andlet's also make sure that we're
responding and not reacting.
Ben Larson (40:46):
I hear you.
I'm all about the incrementalwins, right, and a lot of the
beverage wins I see from a macroperspective as those
incremental wins and it'scausing a lot of infighting,
right, because people want thosebig, sweeping changes and they
see an incremental step as likea give yeah, not enough not
(41:11):
enough, but I'm and I'm gonna,I'm gonna do some nice
connecting back to, like, one ofthe topics that was
disconnected from this andthat's like eft, like the
emotionally focused therapy.
Right, it's like the whole goaland I'm going to read this is of
eft is to help people recognizeand express their emotions in a
way that fosters connection andemotional safety in couples,
(41:34):
that aims to transform negativeinteraction patterns and build
stronger emotional intimacy, andso this actually connects.
I could go on about how thisconnects into your like business
relationships, how this connecthemp and cannabis, but I think
it's important to understandthat we all generally want the
same thing.
We have our own livedexperiences and our own biases.
(41:58):
But if we find like triggers oflike infighting is like okay,
this is the infighting, is theenemy.
Like we need to find alignmentand like now we now is the time,
we are at the tipping point, asdennis o'brien in our audience
said, it's like we need tocreate these triggers for
ourselves in this industry hempor cannabis or marijuana,
(42:20):
whatever you want to call it anduse those triggers to be like
what is the commonality here?
How do we get to it?
How are we both open to why weare acting the way we are and
maybe some people are justassholes and they don't belong
in the industry or conversation,and I am fully accepting of
that, but I think, on the whole,the majority of us want to see
(42:42):
cannabinoids succeed.
I think now's the time, like Ijust have this sense of urgency
and anyone on my NCIA boardunderstands that right now, or
in my company or like anywherethat I'm interacting with people
I just have this like 2025 is ayear for me where like urgency
is just like top of mind.
AnnaRae Grabstein (43:01):
Yeah.
So policy must shift, otherwisethe math doesn't math and um,
otherwise we risk endlesslyreplicating the same broken
cycles that we have seenmanifest over and over again.
So, yes, 100, don't stop, don'tgive up.
But there's this differencebetween what we can control and
what we can't control, and so,as business leaders, we can
(43:24):
control our actions, our words,our ideas of how we move forward
to try to get policy changed.
The other thing you can controlis maybe it's been for
president what do you guys think?
These are the things it's thatwe have to be careful of, like
how big we go in our thinking interms of what we can change
(43:46):
compared to our actions in ourdaily lives and the way that
that manifests in our business.
And so that's that's theconstant is is getting back to
the core and the center of whoyou are.
What are you you trying to do?
Taking in all of theinformation, connecting the dots
and responding in a thoughtfulway that is hopefully going to
(44:07):
open up opportunities in yourbusiness and your teams for the
consumer, and that are ethicallyand morally aligned with the
direction that we think thepolicy needs to be moving.
Ben Larson (44:19):
Yeah, I'll just cap it off by saying that we can do
hard things.
We can do hard things and you,the audience, you can do more
than you believe.
Hell yeah.
AnnaRae Grabstein (44:32):
I feel like we've said enough yeah.
Ben Larson (44:36):
Is anyone listening?
Is this thing on?
No, I'm good, I feel fulfilled.
That was fun.
A little bit of a departure, aswe tend to do sometimes, from
the typical news, the typicalconversations.
But let us know what you think,Anne-Marie.
Any last words before we signoff here.
AnnaRae Grabstein (44:56):
I think that leadership is about stretching
the bounds of our imaginationand really making sure that we
are metabolizing lots of outsideinformation in order to be able
to move it through our ownprocess, our own perspectives,
and to form opinions.
So what you're hearing us dotoday is go through the process
(45:17):
of metabolizing some major newsand shifts and thinking about
how that relates to the workthat we do every day, and my
hope is that we're inspiringothers to do the same and to
broaden their horizons of theirinformation and the way that
they process it.
Ben Larson (45:36):
Amen.
And if you want to do that, andyou want to do it live, in
person, I will be in Sacramentoat the NCIA Stakeholder Summit
next Thursday in the afternoon.
Reach out, yeah, I'll meet youthere.
And if that's not your sauceand you want to get on the hill,
we have Lobby Days coming up inMay as well.
(45:57):
So a lot of time to getinvolved.
And now is the moment.
Big shout out to our teams atVertosa and Wolfmeyer, our
producer, eric Rossetti.
Thank you for keeping thelights, the mics and everything
moving so smoothly.
Thank you for tuning in to HighSpirits.
If you enjoyed this episode,please like, subscribe, share,
(46:20):
do all the things, give it toyour family, your friends, your
colleagues.
If you're listening on ApplePodcasts and Spotify, please
leave us a review.
Very helpful Five stars.
That would be great, thank you.
Otherwise, folks, as always,stay curious, stay informed and,
most importantly, keep yourspirits high Until next time.
(46:43):
That's the show.
We want to give a quick shout out to our
friends and sponsor over atKitPrint, the cannabis operators
production design partner.
Is your team getting boggeddown with static and variable
packaging layouts and productrenders?
Are you looking to support yourretail and wholesale teams with
better and more frequentstate-specific sales and
marketing assets?
With KitPrint's productiondesign team, you get files
(00:28):
turned around in three businessdays or less at roughly 50% of
the cost of the averagefull-time employee.
New customers use code highspirits all one word when you
sign up at kitprintco and you'llget 10% off your first two
months.
To learn more, go to kitprintcoto book a call with their team.
Ben Larson (00:53):
Hey everybody, welcome to episode 82 of High
Spirits.
I'm Ben Larson and, as always,I'm joined today by Anna Rae
Grabstein.
We're recording Thursday, april3rd 2025.
And we've got a great show foryou.
Today we are doing a little bitof a one-on-one our Cannabis
Business News Roundup.
(01:14):
We'll talk about that a littlebit.
So yeah, anna Rae, how's yourweek going?
How are you feeling?
AnnaRae Grabstein (01:21):
I'm feeling good.
I am in this funny moment ofrealizing how fungible reality
has become.
Ben Larson (01:28):
Ooh, intriguing Fungible.
AnnaRae Grabstein (01:33):
Yeah, fungible.
I mean, I don't know if that'sthe right word to use, but it's
this feeling of after a lot ofexploration as it relates to AI
and using new technology in mywork and in my life.
It's like starting the line isgetting blurry of what's real
and what's computer generated.
I have for a while been doingexercise classes at home, like
(01:57):
on YouTube, a yoga class or someother sort of like hit high
intensity workout at home, andthis week I started
experimenting with this app thatwill do like these custom
workouts for you and you cantell it how many minutes you
want to work out and what sortof extra tools you want to use
(02:18):
Do you want to use a resistanceband or a chair or whatever?
And and then it generates aworkout for you.
And I was really enjoying theworkout.
But I was also watching theperson that was leading me
through it and saying, oh, Ithink this is a robot.
I'm pretty positive, it's arobot.
And then I went off on thiswhole thing of how do I feel
(02:38):
about getting exercise tips fromrobots, even though I knew that
I was benefiting from it, andafter this whole narrative of
coming to grips with the factthat a robot was guiding my
health.
I started Googling around totry to figure out if it really
was a robot, because I couldn'teven tell.
At which point I found out thatit isn't a robot and that it's
(02:59):
actually a real person thatrecorded all these different
exercises and they just reorderthem in the app.
And then I thought it was evenmore weird that I can't even
tell who's a real person andwho's across the uncanny valley.
Ben Larson (03:13):
That's that.
That's an exciting time, as, asa technologist, I don't know,
um, but mind blown, it raisesthe question like, what is a
robot?
Right?
Because ai in general is justan amalgamation of our
collective consciousness, likeall woven together into whatever
it is that you desire.
So, like, this is the same.
It's not the same, maybedifferent, but it's like the
(03:35):
same internal uh debate I havewith, like targeted ads, right.
It's like no, don't track me,but then you get all these
shitty ads that you don't wantto see.
So it it's like well, if you'regoing to see ads, you might as
well see ads that you like.
Again, I think I'm losing thethread here, but I don't know.
And what if you know thinkingabout how these AI agents are
(03:57):
developing?
You know what if this person isindeed built on a real person,
but they leverage AI to weavetogether all these different
moves for them?
AnnaRae Grabstein (04:06):
Well, and the amount of access and
accessibility that can bebroadened.
When you scale things likepersonal training with
computer-generated support, itall of a sudden goes from
something that only rich peoplecan afford to something that
anybody can be doing in theirliving room, and that's pretty
effing cool, um, so I think it'smore just about, and what I'm
(04:31):
thinking about this week is howwe metabolize this fast pace of
change that's happening in theway that we live, in our culture
, our business and ourrelationships, and both kind of
accept what it is, get out ofthe way to try to understand how
this affects all the otherthings, all the domino effects,
because that's really what it'sabout.
It's like I can be having aconsciousness crisis as it
(04:57):
relates to is it okay that an AIbot is teaching me how to
support my lower back better?
But the reality is, is that Ibenefited from that and that's
just what's happening, so I needto accept it.
Move on, figure out how tomanage through it.
What does this mean about theworld?
Ben Larson (05:15):
Yeah, I mean, we'll take it a step further, and I
know we're not talking aboutcannabis.
We might get there, maybe not,but we will I promise.
But it makes me think aboutlike therapy I, we, you and I
were talking about this likeI've, I've suddenly scheduled
morning therapies, couplestherapy, 8 am on thursdays,
(05:35):
which is interestinglypositioned not too far before
this, this recording and justfor the record, your couples
therapy is not with me, it'swith your actual wife.
Yes, that is true, although itmight help us because, um, this
particular therapist he focuseson eft, which is emotional, uh,
(05:56):
focus therapy, which is allbuilt around attachment theory
and creating kind of safe space,uh, for someone to feel
attached so that you can processyour conversations and your
actions healthfully.
Anyways, we recently startedwith him.
Matthew is awesome.
If you're doing therapy, checkout EFT.
(06:16):
It's really great.
He's made us cry every sessionand even on my one-on-ones,
which I like to cry.
So you know there's that.
But I got to thinking it's likeanyone that does therapy
generally knows that to find theright person, to find that
effective method, to find theright time in the day that
really is able to unlock and andmake you cry every session, it
(06:40):
can take years if you ever findit at all.
But I think the power of AImight be able to accelerate that
for people and, like you,remove that, that human error.
I just think it's going to beso powerful.
It's a little scary because,like this is a step beyond.
This is getting into yourpsyche and not just your lower
back.
But then it manifests indifferent ways, like how people
(07:02):
are feeling about the StudioGhibli stuff, which we posted
something on April Fool's, butthen Belinda, our designer, the
(07:29):
root of the art, but it isforever changed because of how
accessible it is, so like.
What does the future look likeand what does it mean for
everyone?
AnnaRae Grabstein (07:37):
well, everything you said it's goes
back to this like what is realand what isn't real and how do
we accept the future path?
Because there's this funnything happening is like yes,
therapy can be done veryeffectively with a real human
therapist, and yet you can also,in a crunch moment in the
(07:58):
middle of a crisis, when youdon't have an appointment with a
therapist, you can go onto chatGPT and say pretend you're my
therapist.
I'm having this massive crisisright now about X, y, z and I
don't know what to do, and itwill give you some pretty good
feedback.
Try it everyone.
You might be surprised.
And so this coming together oflike when we do the human path
(08:19):
and when we do the computergenerated path, I think starts
to become more of the questiondo we do some of both
appropriately?
Yeah, wild times yeah, yeah andshould?
should we start to make?
Should we start to make thejump into the news of the world?
Ben Larson (08:36):
I don't know, I'm having a lot of fun here, but I,
we can, we can.
There's the news is real, ish,I guess there's.
There's a lot going on.
We can talk about cannabis news, which you know, leading up to
this show.
There's a lot of news, but atthe same time it just seems like
a lot of noise and I don't knowif I'm just getting long in the
(08:56):
tooth and just kind of jaded,but it's just like oh yeah, the
attorney generals are doing somenonsense down in Arizona, or
there's a ban trying to happenin Texas, or Trulieve is doing
their thing in Florida, orwhat's happening in Georgia.
I don't even know All that'sgoing on.
And then the layer of likewhat's happening in the macro
(09:16):
environment with thisadministration and the tariffs
and all that.
So I don't know what directiondo you want to go with it?
AnnaRae Grabstein (09:23):
So I don't know what direction do you want
to go with it?
Yeah, I want to talk aboutwhat's happening in the global
economy and how the new tradewar that was announced yesterday
is going to impact cannabis,because I think that there is a
(09:44):
like.
Is that?
Yes, iipr, one of the largestcannabis public REITs, has lots
of defaults of large public andprivate companies.
Yes, that's news.
Another prominent Californiacompany is in receivership.
This time it's voluntary.
Yes, that's news too.
And, as you mentioned, lots ofhemp stuff.
But really, the trade war thatTrump announced yesterday is the
(10:07):
news in cannabis and in therest of the world, and what's so
interesting about it, and why Iwant to talk about it today, is
that this narrative around thetrade war is about creating
domestic manufacturing.
That's what the Trumpadministration is talking about.
Ben Larson (10:23):
So creating jobs back at home, bringing
everything back to the soil,repatriatizing everything.
AnnaRae Grabstein (10:29):
Yes, making America great by bolstering our
manufacturing legacy andensuring that the money that is
spent in the US is going tocompanies that are creating in
the US.
That's the narrative.
Ben Larson (10:44):
Okay, I'm starting to see the connection here with
our previous conversation, butthe initial question that jumped
in my head is like are thosethe jobs that Americans want?
And maybe there are a lot ofAmericans that want those kind
of blue-collar factory workingjobs, but then I, you know,
connect it with what we'retalking about.
Maybe that's what they'll haveto have if all their white
(11:05):
collar design work, therapy workwell so.
AnnaRae Grabstein (11:08):
So let's take it a bit further.
I think that what you're sayingis is what needs to be true, for
what this trade war's statedobjective is to actually come to
fruition, and, and so, if thepoint is is that the trade war
creates manufacturing jobs andthat makes America great, what
(11:29):
is needs to be true about thosemanufacturing jobs, and what
those manufacturing jobs need tobe in order for America to be
great as a result of them, issomething different than they
are now, because what you arealluding to is that Americans
don't want manufacturing jobsright now, and the reason has
been that, largely, if you havea manufacturing job, you are
(11:49):
probably living close to thepoverty line.
You are struggling in a hourlyrole with not a lot of
protection.
It is not the 1950s, whereworking at the Ford plant was a
path to homeownership.
There's less homeownership thanthere ever has been before.
So, really, what we're talkingabout, though, is that cannabis
(12:14):
is already a largely domesticindustry.
There is no allowance to beimporting cannabis into the US
from other places With oneexception and there is the hemp
industry.
Ben Larson (12:28):
Right, and I don't actually know the exact status
of this.
We talk about the Farm Bill alot, which is focused purely on
domestic hemp, but there ismurmurings of hemp coming from
China, south America andotherwise coming into the states
.
I'm curious what's going tohappen when these tariffs hit
(12:50):
and how that might affect thebusinesses and or practices or
prices of some of the suppliersin the hemp side of the business
.
And just real quick, in case noone's aware, I think list is
accurate but I'm just going togo through it.
There's a baseline tariff of of10 on imports into the us.
(13:13):
China's tariffs increased to 20.
European union uh, 20.
Japan, 24, which, god damn it,I better stock up on my japanese
whiskey.
South korea 20 percent.
Vietnam 46 percent.
Taiwan 32 percent.
So uh, dennis o'brien, in inthe audience, commented that
(13:36):
chips and pharmaceuticals arevery important.
Taiwan a lot of chips comingfrom taiwan.
Mexico and canada 25.
And, uh yeah, steel, aluminum,automobiles, automobile parts
all 25.
This is nuts.
AnnaRae Grabstein (13:53):
Cars are gonna get really expensive if we
take, if we really are tryingto connect the dots here with
our audience being people thatare working in cannabis and hemp
and the businesses thatsurround them what?
What does this trade war mean?
And I'd say that we alreadyknow we talk about it all the
time that cannabis businessesare financially in a very tight
spot.
It's been hard to make a profit.
(14:14):
There's been a lot ofcomplicated oversupply in
certain regions while there'sundersupply in others, but
there's not interstate commerce,so it's not flowing.
But what we do know is that allthe cannabis in the regulated
market outside of hemp is beingproduced in the state markets
where it is being sold.
(14:35):
And if the trade war policyworks, as the Trump
administration is telling us itwill, it means that
manufacturing costs of laborwill increase and that will mean
that labor costs at cannabiscompanies will be forced up.
And this is a hard time forthat, when cannabis companies
(14:55):
are already struggling to figureout how to have a profit and at
the same time, because of theoversupply and because of what
we'll talk about next time,because of the oversupply and
because of what we'll talk aboutnext, consumer confidence
decreasing.
Consumers are spending less oncannabis, buying less cannabis,
and are really like starting togo more towards value products
across the supply chain, notjust in cannabis, but in all
(15:18):
categories.
So this is a scary thing,because what it feels like is
that everybody's going to getsqueezed, that producers are
going to struggle to raise theirprices, but they'll need to
because their costs will go upand, at the same time, consumers
aren't going to be able toafford what's being sold.
Ben Larson (15:35):
Because the truth is is that even if labor costs are
increasing, they're not goingto increase at the same pace as
what's needed to metabolize allof the other increases and costs
for consumers, in my opinionit's just an interesting
confluence of the market, thecannabis market, and like where
(15:56):
it's currently at, it's not, Imean, it's not in a good, great
state currently right, and soit's like putting more pressure
on it's certainly not going tohelp.
But maybe it forces aconversation of like how do we
actually make it tenable and howdo we help.
And there's two different ways.
There's the.
There's the business side, theprivate side.
Like you know, you canconsolidate and create
(16:17):
efficiencies.
You can launch value focusedproducts, like we've seen cheap
products on the market.
You can go out to a dispensaryright now and and buy a hundred
milligram beverage for for lessthan eight dollars.
So there's alternatives outthere, not to pump my side of
the business, but if there areindeed politicians which I'm not
(16:37):
fully convinced yet but ifthere's indeed politicians out
there that support the categoryand they've already been made,
made aware of, like howuntenable the infrastructure is
right now Like this will be abreaking point and unfortunately
there will be a lot ofcasualties along the way.
But maybe it forces aconversation for a better
framework.
I don't know.
(16:58):
I'm going to be in Sacramentonext week talking about some of
this.
I wasn't planning on talkingabout tariffs, but maybe now I
will.
AnnaRae Grabstein (17:05):
But I think that the other winners that
happen in the more short term,because policy reform is so slow
.
Is larger companies, becausethe fact is is that underscaled
(17:30):
craft businesses in anenvironment like this really
struggle.
Ben Larson (17:37):
It's harder to metabolize.
What do we consider a largecompany in the cannabis industry
?
AnnaRae Grabstein (17:42):
Because, by the measures of general commerce
, we're all craft business thathave reached 10 to $15 million
(18:08):
of annual revenue per year,which is there's not a lot of
them.
There's so many more that arein that five to $10 million a
year range.
Yeah, I think it's.
It's the companies that areabove $10 million a year and
that have the ability toconsolidate and scale existing
manufacturing with capacity.
Because that's what this isgoing to mean is that you're
(18:29):
going to need to do more withless.
If your business is not builtfrom the beginning to be able to
do more and it's intended toalways stay small, it will be
very challenging to competesmall.
It will be very challenging tocompete, and that means that
ultimately, like what you see asa result of this is
(18:50):
consolidated interest at the top.
And yes, the top might stilllook like a small business in
the eyes of a larger capitalistenvironment, but it will set the
stage for those 10 to $20million businesses rolling up
together to consolidate furtherinto larger, harder to compete
with operators that are moreresilient and focused.
(19:15):
So it isn't that the Republicantrade policy is going to break
cannabis.
I think that it's actuallydoing what it's designed to do,
which is to favor big businessand to reward capital over craft
.
That is the point yeah, yeah,it's interesting.
Ben Larson (19:37):
I I'm thinking about the, the journey that our
company has gone on.
Right, we've gone through anumber of different waves in the
industry.
For a couple of years wefocused, we were fortunate
enough to be in a position topare back, focus on efficiencies
and building systems so that wecould maximize the utility of
(19:57):
each employee, which generally,with most companies, that's your
biggest line item in your P&L.
And now we're in this phasewhere you know it's a mixed bag.
There's certainly restrictionshappening here and there, but
the category that we largelyserve has been moving up and to
the right, and so this year it'sabout building on those kind of
(20:17):
metrics that make us feel alittle bit better, a little bit
more established as a company,but still focused on that
employee efficiency and whatthat's allowed us to do.
I'm feeling like maybe we'll getahead of it a little bit.
You know, paying our across theboard, our employees, you know
from the manufacturing level upto the executives like just
(20:38):
making sure that we're payinggood living wages.
And, you know, I think aboutlike where we might have been in
times past is like, yeah, theworkforce might have been bigger
, but we wouldn't have beenpaying everyone as well as we
are, and so it's like, yeah,it's this catch 22 where it's
like I hear you Like we can meetthat moment and pay people what
they need to be paid, butthere's gonna be a lot of people
(21:00):
that are out of work.
AnnaRae Grabstein (21:01):
it feels like yeah, and so in order to pay
people more, it means that youhave to be more efficient, which
is a buzzword these days.
But what does that really mean?
It means more automation.
It means AI.
It means people doing only thethings that people need to do
and other levels of automation,ai and technology doing as much
(21:23):
as as is possible to keep thehumans doing human things yeah
and and what those human thingsare, start to become less so.
When we talk about bolsteringdomestic manufacturing, how much
of that is actually going to bedone by humans and um, and how?
How fast can we even build that?
I think you know in cannabis,we have seen how long it takes
(21:45):
to build manufacturing as newmarkets have come on.
We've seen the struggles toimprove electrical
infrastructure and power so thatpeople could build cultivation
facilities and manufacturingfacilities all over the country,
and one of the things that's sointeresting about this
conversation and then looking atcannabis is that the Trump
(22:09):
administration is talking aboutbolstering domestic production,
but cannabis is not onlydomestic, it's hyperlocal.
It's like all these differentstate by state markets.
So cannabis has been buildingdomestic manufacturing on a
state-by-state levelincrementally over the past 10
years, with varying levels ofsuccess and in some cases and I
(22:32):
remember before Pennsylvaniapassed its medical law, there
were some Pennsylvanialegislators that came to
California to do this tour tolearn about legal cannabis, and
I met with some of them, andthis was back in 2018.
And a couple of theselegislators two of them that I
sat and had about an hour longconversation with really had
(22:54):
absolutely no interest incannabis at all.
But what they liked aboutcannabis was that they were
hoping that coal plants that hadbeen abandoned would be able to
be turned into factories forcannabis products, and they
thought, okay, we shouldlegalize so that we can use this
existing, old, abandonedmanufacturing infrastructure.
(23:16):
So is cannabis a proof point tobolster domestic manufacturing?
Has it created the economicpathways that the Republican
policy thinks that manufacturingwill inevitably create for the
American worker?
Ben Larson (23:33):
I think it could.
I mean, that certainly is anarrative right, like it's, if
anything, it's an industry thatis in high demand and can create
a lot of jobs and a lot ofmanufacturing jobs or
agriculture jobs.
But, to your point, there'sgoing to be that consistent
pressure to refine that and makeit more efficient over time.
When you were talking, I wasthinking about Huawei's dark
(23:57):
factory that they have thatbasically spits out a new cell
phone every second and it's anentire building that has no
people in it.
It's crazy.
I you know, we do hit thisinteresting tension in the
cannabis space where, like thehyper localized nature of the
industry, like I want to breakdown those walls, I want to like
be able to, you know, moveproduct from state to state and
(24:21):
have more free commerce, right,and so it's like, after we
achieve that, then US cannabiswants to go international, right
, and then we start talkingabout internationalization again
, and that's the interestingthing about a trade war, right,
we can impose tariffs on othercountries to force jobs back to
(24:42):
the US, but then those othercountries want to impose more
tariffs on us, and so thelikelihood of us being able to
export becomes more challenging.
AnnaRae Grabstein (24:53):
Absolutely, and you're right that there is
this narrative about wanting tobe able to transport cannabis
over state lines and thenglobally, and so it's almost the
flip side of what we're talkingabout.
And and yet I think that whatwe're seeing happening with US
policy is not dissimilar fromwhat we could see if federal
(25:16):
legalization happened that, butwas more of like a state's
rights path, in that I think itcould be very likely that even
if there was US policy changethat said, okay, now cannabis is
legal, states can regulate itand states can come up with
whatever policy that they feelis right for them, which has
(25:37):
been a pathway to legalizationthat's been proposed, that it's
very likely that states aregoing to say, actually, we don't
want product from Californiaand Oregon, or states could be
imposing tariffs from otherstates to be able to import
product into their state so thatthey can foster their own
(25:58):
economic activity.
Ben Larson (26:00):
But then you start hitting constitutional issues
there right Because of thedormant commerce clause and so
you can't disincentivizecommerce from one state to the
next.
But this brings up aninteresting conversation that is
kind of layered in there, whichis like states' rights versus
federal preemption, and I thinkthis is coming up a lot.
So I want to just dwell on itfor a moment.
(26:22):
Because of the bans that arehappening in different states
and, as we said on our lastepisode or the episode before,
like we are anti-ban.
I'm not a fan of bans, rightLike I like the opportunity that
the hemp industry has presentedfor the cannabis plant, hemp
(26:46):
industry has presented for thecannabis plant.
However, we should not betrying to defend against these
actions by saying that thisfederal law exists and therefore
it preempts the state's rights,because the benefit that
state's rights has granted us isthe cannabis industry which
predates, you know, thisintoxicating hemp movement, and
so like I just want people to becareful when they're out there
(27:08):
being like, oh, federal lawreigns, reigns, supreme.
It's like, well then, we havethe controlled substances act.
That kind of fucks a lot of alot of our industry.
Yeah, you know it's.
AnnaRae Grabstein (27:17):
It's one of those two things can be true at
the same time.
Uh, that is so challenging towrap our head around in life and
in business, especially when itcomes to policy stuff like this
.
Well, we've been talking a lotabout kind of manufacturing and
labor force as a result ofwhat's happening with the trade
war, but I think that it's alsoworth talking about consumer
(27:39):
confidence amid tariff concernsand how that ties in to the
cannabis industry and theproducts, because during COVID,
there was this idea thatcannabis was essential and the
industry did very well, and thethought was that people were
really stressed and so theyneeded their cannabis and we saw
(27:59):
these big spikes.
Ben Larson (28:01):
There's also stimulus.
That was happening.
AnnaRae Grabstein (28:04):
But it's maybe that it was the financial
stimulus, that people actuallyhad more money to spend, and so
they chose to spend it on lotsof things, and cannabis was just
one of them.
Exactly Because I think thatwhat we are seeing and what the
data shows is that consumerconfidence has basically been on
a downward trend since thefinancial stimulus ended during
(28:27):
COVID, and that surveys areindicating that 80% of consumers
are concerned about tariffsdriving up prices on everyday
goods, and this behavior, orthis anxiety, is leading to
changes of purchasing behavior.
This behavior, or this anxiety,is leading to changes of
purchasing behavior.
In particular, consumers aretrying to be more careful about
(28:47):
spending on non-essentialexpenditures.
So the question becomes are ourTHC beverages and our pre-rolls
non-essential or are theyessential?
And what are consumers going todo when it comes to their
spending patterns with weed?
Ben Larson (29:06):
I think it's as essential as I'm going to choose
my words wisely here I'm to trya wide breadth of categories,
right, so like caffeine, alcohol, therapeutics, vitamins,
whatever, what you purchasewithin those categories is more
fungible, right, and so it'slike.
I think this drives to againlike low cost generic products,
(29:31):
unfortunately, days of bud lightand folgers and and what have
you, not to get super depressing.
But like, people want theircannabinoids.
So if they can get good, clean,cheap cannabinoids, so if they
can get good, clean, cheapcannabinoids, they're going to
purchase them.
Yeah, you're going to see thetop line revenue might drop, the
craft products, the premiumproducts might suffer, but I
(29:55):
don't think cannabinoids aregoing away.
It's just a shift in consumerpurchasing.
AnnaRae Grabstein (29:59):
Yeah, I don't by any means think it's going
away.
A shift in consumer purchasing?
Yeah, I don't by any meansthink it's going away.
But this idea of continuationof depression in the markets, of
pushing prices down within, theyeah, the push, pull of prices,
of costs of production going upis is just very complicated
(30:20):
Because I I think ultimatelythat consumers are going to be
purchasing less cannabis.
Ben Larson (30:26):
Yeah, um, well, I mean this.
This is a motivation becausethey're purchasing less of
everything, right, I I have tothink that the general macro
trend in in what they'repurchasing you know, alcohol
versus cannabis like that alsocomes into play, and I do
believe that we have more peoplepicking up cannabis instead of
(30:47):
alcohol, especially as weprogress into the future, and so
, absolutely so, it's providingoptions for those people.
But as we we talk about all thisand how it all comes together
is like we kind of need the the,the barrier, the state barriers
, to drop so that we can createconcentration of manufacturing
and production, because that'swhere economies of scale is,
(31:08):
where you actually get to startcreating products that people
can afford.
We've seen it in the beveragecategory.
Right, we used to be like whowants a $10 five milligram drink
in a dispensary?
Nobody, like that's just not aprice point that people want to
pay like, even people that aresuper enthused about the product
(31:28):
category.
But you get it into the openmarket where you can find a
manufacturer in the Midwest andserve the entire you know, the
entire country, and all of asudden you're getting to price
points that that people canpalletet and so like we need
that across cannabis, becausethe way that the market is
designed today it's like it'slike sure it works in california
(31:51):
when you have like the fifthlargest economy in the world, it
doesn't fucking work in inrhode island.
AnnaRae Grabstein (31:56):
We need to create that opportunity for for
the category and yet that is thepush and pull, because that is
also a reduction ofmanufacturing jobs.
Because when you consolidatemanufacturing across markets,
less factories, less production.
Ben Larson (32:13):
You, you take venture capital out of the
equation and then you will seelike what a reduction in jobs
looks like, which is going tohappen like the other.
The other side of the coin withconsumer confidence is is lack
of investment.
People pull their money, put itinto cash, which means a lot
less venture right, and thisindustry is built on venture
(32:33):
capital although I do thinkthat's changing.
AnnaRae Grabstein (32:35):
I think that we're seeing a lot of more.
I mean, we already know thatthe money that's been coming
into cannabis predominantly isnow debt, not venture, and the
reason for that is that therehas been a loss of confidence
that these types of businessesare venture scalable in most
cases, in most situations.
(32:57):
That doesn't mean that therearen't some types of businesses
that are venture scalable, andcannabis and I just I want to be
clear that, like I remainresolute and confident on
indicators and these things thatare moving all around us affect
cannabis businesses in veryspecific ways, and it's that
(33:32):
that we're not seeing in thenews.
Seeing lots of coverage aboutthe trade war and we're seeing
coverage about one-off littlebits of cannabis, news of a
business failing or atransaction here or there or a
new policy turning on, but whatwe're not seeing is the is the
connection between what'shappening in the world and
(33:53):
what's happening in our localcannabis.
Ben Larson (33:56):
oh my god, yeah, such a good example of this.
Right, it's like it's like whatthe news likes to highlight you
and it's this highly politicizedlike news cycle that we're in,
like this, this whole signalgate thing, where you know they
were talking about like bombingthe hooties or whatever.
It's like what you get out ofthe news, like what does that
even mean is.
It's like, oh, like they wereusing the wrong platform, but
(34:17):
but like what was that actuallyabout?
And it was actually about likemoving goods around Europe,
mostly Europe and Africa and theSuez Canal, and if anyone's
receiving goods or products thatcome through there, which most
of it's going to Europe, butlike some of it comes to the US
or some goes to Europe and thento the US.
So like how does that impactyour business?
(34:38):
And like these are the thingsthat the mass media is not
talking about, but it's likesuper important to our business.
And so I'm really appreciatingyou kind of bringing this topic
up today, because this is thekind of conversation that we
should be having as as businessleaders.
AnnaRae Grabstein (34:53):
Yeah, I mean we have to.
We have to pay attention, wehave to be constantly thinking
about what the solutions are torespond, but also weighing what
the different potential outcomesare.
This idea of intendedconsequences versus unintended
consequences and askingourselves the question
constantly about what needs tobe true for this other thing to
(35:15):
be true is kind of what takesour thinking to the next step.
So if we believe that theindustry is going to go a
certain direction.
what needs to be true is kind ofwhat takes our thinking to the
next step.
So if, if we believe that theindustry is going to go a
certain direction, what needs tobe true in order for that to
happen?
And and understanding ifeverything else that's happening
outside of the cannabisindustry in policy in Washington
, in in the factories in Chinadoes that support our hypothesis
(35:39):
on where we think the industryis going?
And those are the conversationsthat I'm excited to be having
and I hope that people haveenjoyed our ranting as we've
thought about this.
Ben Larson (35:49):
It kind of showed itself throughout the
conversation is is the challengeof where are we going and who
is we right?
And and I think this gets lostin cannabis and hemp and as we
converge and again, I know thisis one of your favorite topics,
but like we have to acceleratethe regulatory convergence of
hemp, cannabis, or at least theconversation, and we we need the
(36:11):
leaders of both sides of the ushemp roundtable, of ncia,
attach, uscc, aha everyone needsto get together and like start
thinking about what a unifiedfuture looks like and what that
conversation should look like incongress.
When we have this kind ofchaotic opportunity to insert a
(36:35):
new narrative right, likewhether you're right or left,
trump or not or never, we havewhat we have and we need to make
some progress here.
And we need to think about whatRFK's position is and I know
it's been flip-flopping or whatTrump has said about the
cannabis industry and how he'sthinking about all this.
(36:55):
And how do we take this laborconversation and make it a
pillar of why cannabis and hempneed to be legalized.
And we need to take down theseinternal barriers and I'm gonna,
I'm gonna, I will die on thathill.
We need to take down the statebarriers because, like many of
the businesses, are not scalable.
(37:17):
And we've talked about the MSOs, right, like we talk about big
companies and their likelihoodto survive, maybe one as we've
identified like yeah sure, gti,but I don't think any of this is
going to help all the otherswho are running, you know,
negative on their P&L andbalance sheet.
AnnaRae Grabstein (37:37):
Well, you are right to say that I do believe
in the importance of looking ata policy-based regulatory
convergence, of looking at thefull industry as one the
cannabis industry and the hempindustry are ultimately a
cannabinoid industry but thereason that I think that, and
where I think it needs to start,is because, ultimately, it's
about the consumer, and theconsumer doesn't know the
(37:58):
difference, and the consumer isthinking about form factors,
experience and access, and thatthat is where we have to start,
with the consumer.
We must center on the consumerall the time, because those are
the voices, the stories, themotivations that are going to be
able to drive policy changestories, the motivations that
(38:22):
are going to be able to drivepolicy change, and the ripples
of that policy change obviouslyhave massive implications into
what the business opportunitiesare, to how businesses build
supply chains, how they go tomarket, how they price, how they
distribute all of those things.
And yet, though, the stories ofdistribution and supply chain
are not moving the needle Policymakers to get anybody to care,
(38:49):
and I just I think that thenarrative must focus on
consumers If, if we want to, ifwe want to ever believe that
progress could happen, the storyis going to be about the people
.
Ben Larson (38:57):
Yes, I 100% agree.
Story is going to be about thepeople.
Yes, I 100% agree.
I'll take it one step further,though, and say that if you are
in the business of strengtheningor building walls, I'll accept
that maybe you can defend it asyour fiduciary responsibility,
but you're on the wrong side ofhistory.
(39:17):
We need to break down the walls.
We need to build for the future, and if we're not doing that,
we're going to be stuck in thisconversation for fucking ever,
and it's going to get really old.
AnnaRae Grabstein (39:34):
Yeah, and it already is getting old, and
while I don't disagree, I justalso am skeptical of the ability
for such broad, sweeping changeto happen, and have just come
from 20 years of payingattention to cannabis policy and
seeing how small incrementalprogress is the only thing that
(39:55):
we have ever been able to do,and so, while, of course, having
our eye on this prize of even aglobal market, not just a
national market, is somethingthat is both exciting and
hopeful, it doesn't feel withinreach at this point, and so I
(40:18):
think working within theconstraints of what we have now
is the short-term strategy thateverybody needs to deal with is
great.
Yes, let's have our eye on theprize, but let's also be
realistic about what we can dotoday, what's coming at us in
the next two to 18 monthsbecause of the global
(40:41):
macroeconomic environment, andlet's also make sure that we're
responding and not reacting.
Ben Larson (40:46):
I hear you.
I'm all about the incrementalwins, right, and a lot of the
beverage wins I see from a macroperspective as those
incremental wins and it'scausing a lot of infighting,
right, because people want thosebig, sweeping changes and they
see an incremental step as likea give yeah, not enough not
(41:11):
enough, but I'm and I'm gonna,I'm gonna do some nice
connecting back to, like, one ofthe topics that was
disconnected from this andthat's like eft, like the
emotionally focused therapy.
Right, it's like the whole goaland I'm going to read this is of
eft is to help people recognizeand express their emotions in a
way that fosters connection andemotional safety in couples,
(41:34):
that aims to transform negativeinteraction patterns and build
stronger emotional intimacy, andso this actually connects.
I could go on about how thisconnects into your like business
relationships, how this connecthemp and cannabis, but I think
it's important to understandthat we all generally want the
same thing.
We have our own livedexperiences and our own biases.
(41:58):
But if we find like triggers oflike infighting is like okay,
this is the infighting, is theenemy.
Like we need to find alignmentand like now we now is the time,
we are at the tipping point, asdennis o'brien in our audience
said, it's like we need tocreate these triggers for
ourselves in this industry hempor cannabis or marijuana,
(42:20):
whatever you want to call it anduse those triggers to be like
what is the commonality here?
How do we get to it?
How are we both open to why weare acting the way we are and
maybe some people are justassholes and they don't belong
in the industry or conversation,and I am fully accepting of
that, but I think, on the whole,the majority of us want to see
(42:42):
cannabinoids succeed.
I think now's the time, like Ijust have this sense of urgency
and anyone on my NCIA boardunderstands that right now, or
in my company or like anywherethat I'm interacting with people
I just have this like 2025 is ayear for me where like urgency
is just like top of mind.
AnnaRae Grabstein (43:01):
Yeah.
So policy must shift, otherwisethe math doesn't math and um,
otherwise we risk endlesslyreplicating the same broken
cycles that we have seenmanifest over and over again.
So, yes, 100, don't stop, don'tgive up.
But there's this differencebetween what we can control and
what we can't control, and so,as business leaders, we can
(43:24):
control our actions, our words,our ideas of how we move forward
to try to get policy changed.
The other thing you can controlis maybe it's been for
president what do you guys think?
These are the things it's thatwe have to be careful of, like
how big we go in our thinking interms of what we can change
(43:46):
compared to our actions in ourdaily lives and the way that
that manifests in our business.
And so that's that's theconstant is is getting back to
the core and the center of whoyou are.
What are you you trying to do?
Taking in all of theinformation, connecting the dots
and responding in a thoughtfulway that is hopefully going to
(44:07):
open up opportunities in yourbusiness and your teams for the
consumer, and that are ethicallyand morally aligned with the
direction that we think thepolicy needs to be moving.
Ben Larson (44:19):
Yeah, I'll just cap it off by saying that we can do
hard things.
We can do hard things and you,the audience, you can do more
than you believe.
Hell yeah.
AnnaRae Grabstein (44:32):
I feel like we've said enough yeah.
Ben Larson (44:36):
Is anyone listening?
Is this thing on?
No, I'm good, I feel fulfilled.
That was fun.
A little bit of a departure, aswe tend to do sometimes, from
the typical news, the typicalconversations.
But let us know what you think,Anne-Marie.
Any last words before we signoff here.
AnnaRae Grabstein (44:56):
I think that leadership is about stretching
the bounds of our imaginationand really making sure that we
are metabolizing lots of outsideinformation in order to be able
to move it through our ownprocess, our own perspectives,
and to form opinions.
So what you're hearing us dotoday is go through the process
(45:17):
of metabolizing some major newsand shifts and thinking about
how that relates to the workthat we do every day, and my
hope is that we're inspiringothers to do the same and to
broaden their horizons of theirinformation and the way that
they process it.
Ben Larson (45:36):
Amen.
And if you want to do that, andyou want to do it live, in
person, I will be in Sacramentoat the NCIA Stakeholder Summit
next Thursday in the afternoon.
Reach out, yeah, I'll meet youthere.
And if that's not your sauceand you want to get on the hill,
we have Lobby Days coming up inMay as well.
(45:57):
So a lot of time to getinvolved.
And now is the moment.
Big shout out to our teams atVertosa and Wolfmeyer, our
producer, eric Rossetti.
Thank you for keeping thelights, the mics and everything
moving so smoothly.
Thank you for tuning in to HighSpirits.
If you enjoyed this episode,please like, subscribe, share,
(46:20):
do all the things, give it toyour family, your friends, your
colleagues.
If you're listening on ApplePodcasts and Spotify, please
leave us a review.
Very helpful Five stars.
That would be great, thank you.
Otherwise, folks, as always,stay curious, stay informed and,
most importantly, keep yourspirits high Until next time.
(46:43):
That's the show.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.