The Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR), in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) issued two public health and safety advisories this morning after they identified pesticide residues on dried cannabis flower, trim, concentrates and infused products, according to the advisory. The contaminated products come from cannabis grown by Rocky Mountain Ways, LLC and Herbal Options, LLC, both doing business as Good Meds.
The advisory cautions consumers to check their labels for the license numbers of the businesses and the harvest batch numbers. They list the license number as, “Medical Optional Premises Cultivation License 403-001116 and/or Medical Marijuana Center License 402-00736.” The harvest batch numbers in question are B11H15.041317-Headband, B11H15.041317-Night Terror OG, and B11H15.041217-Citrix.
The CDA found the presence of off-label pesticides, including Pyrimethanil, Tebuconazole, and Spinosyn, in the products. Pyrimethanil is a fungicide commonly used on seeds, but it is generally regarded as not acutely toxic to humans. Tebuconazole is another fungicide, while the FDA says it is safe for humans, other sources say it could have a moderate acute toxicity in humans. Spinosyn is a class of insecticides with a slight acute toxicity to humans and has been the culprit in a previous cannabis recall in Oregon. In the public health and safety advisory, the CDPHE and DOR say the pesticides were used off-label and none of them are on the approved list of pesticides for cannabis.
You’ve heard it in a lot of campaigns to legalize cannabis on a state level and even as the name of a bill in Congress for legalization on the federal level. The Marijuana Policy Project through their campaigns in several states, along with activists, politicians and lobbyists, have used the phrase “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol” as a rallying cry to pass legislation reforming cannabis laws. This isn’t an attack on them; those campaign names serve the cause well, moreover it was the name of successful campaigns in Massachusetts, Maine, California, Alaska and Colorado among others. It is a relatable and fair comparison, helping to normalize the concept of adults using cannabis in a legal environment.
But that feeling of validation is short-lived after lawmakers write the actual regulations. In reality, I don’t think a single state can confidently say they actually regulate cannabis like alcohol. Most states do not allow public or social consumption of cannabis; many people that would like to enjoy cannabis in a social setting are restricted to the confines of their home.
Voters in Colorado passed Amendment 64 in 2012 with this language in the very beginning of the bill: “In the interest of the health and public safety of our citizenry, the people of the State of Colorado further find and declare that marijuana should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.” If you look closely, you can see how important phrasing is when it comes to the specific regulations. The key words here are “a manner similar to alcohol,” not exactly like alcohol. That language is critical to understanding how regulators address the double standard.
The most obvious way lawmakers regulate cannabis like alcohol is through a tiered system of license holders: manufacturers, distributors or wholesalers and retailers. Many states might set a limit on potency, just like they do with alcohol, according to Pamela S. Erickson, former executive director of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Both of the drugs are taxed and there are usually regulations for both governing the advertising of products, such as preventing targeting youth or encouraging high consumption. Regulators might limit the store hours or locations for both cannabis and alcohol. Beyond those similarities, there are a number of areas where cannabis is over-regulated and alcohol is seemingly under-regulated. It is very possible that much of this has to do with the power of the alcohol lobby. In 2016, the alcohol industry spent over $26 million on lobbying efforts, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, nonpartisan group that tracks lobbying efforts. During election season, the alcohol industry spent more than $11 million on campaign contributions. There are several examples of the alcohol industry actively fighting legalization efforts, including paying for anti-cannabis ads in a Politico newsletter and even funding opposition campaigns. While this doesn’t exactly pertain to the regulation of cannabis versus alcohol, it gives you a glimpse of how deep their coffers go and the amount of influence they have on politics.
Last year, the city of Denver passed a ballot measure, Initiative 300, which will legalize the social consumption of cannabis in permitted venues. The Denver Social Consumption Advisory Committee met for the final time last week. That committee designed two styles of permits: one for events and one for established businesses, which would receive a designated consumption area permit (DCA). Those permitted venues must be 1,000 feet from schools, child-care centers or drug rehabilitation centers. They need a waste plan, compliance with the Indoor Air Quality Act and they cannot sell cannabis products. Rachel Gillette, attorney in the cannabis law group and shareholder at Greenspoon Marder, says the legal implications of the initiative are still up in the air. “This was a step in the right direction,” says Gillette. “You can’t pass a law to regulate marijuana like alcohol and then say people can only use it in their home. You are going to run into problems like people smoking on the street. This is why this initiative was introduced.”
The general idea here is B.Y.O.P.- bring your own pot. They cannot have a liquor license, the location cannot be accessible to the general public, they have to submit a detailed security plan and patrons have to sign a waiver to get in, according to Westword. Signing a waiver to get into a bar should seem asinine to anyone, but I have been to some dive bars where a waiver could’ve definitely been useful. The point is that cannabis doesn’t lead to violence or destructive behavior, alcohol is the drug that does that. There is plenty of evidence to support that, including a comparative risk assessment of the drugs, which found alcohol’s danger to be strongly underestimated previously.
Senate Bill 63 in the Colorado State legislature would have been very similar, issuing licenses for “marijuana consumption clubs.” However that bill was voted down last Thursday, largely due to the uncertainty of federal policy, according to ABC News.
Amendment 64 also has specific language saying you cannot consume cannabis in a public space, but that is not exactly the case with liquor, even when you consider open container and public intoxication laws. “In my previous interactions with the state and particularly the liquor licensing authority, they consider liquor-licensed premises to be de facto public spaces but you can’t consume cannabis there, which is why hotels, bars and restaurants explicitly prohibit cannabis consumption, they have a liquor license,” says Gillette. “There is a bit of conflict in the law here.”
Yet other rules, such as mandatory childproof containers for cannabis retailers, seem a bit draconian compared with buying a bottle of twist-off wine from the grocery store. “Childproof packaging isn’t required in liquor stores anywhere,” says Gillette. “Why cant responsible adults be trusted to keep it out of a child’s reach? Unfortunately there is a lot of trepidation to allow responsible adults to be responsible when it comes to cannabis.” In some ways, we are seeing states begin to regulate cannabis very closely to how they would alcohol, yet there is a long way to go. “There is still this nanny state mentality where we run the risk of regulating it to the point of absurdity,” says Gillette. For now at least, we need to be cognizant of the age-old stigma and work to normalize social cannabis use in a legal sense. Until that time comes, we will have to tolerate lawmakers regulating cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, not exactly like alcohol.
Voters in Florida passed Amendment 2 last year with an overwhelming majority of over 70%. The constitutional amendment went into effect on January 3rd this year and regulators have until July 3rd to promulgate the rules.
The Florida Department of Health set up the Office of Compassionate Use (OCU) in July of 2014 after the passing of the so-called Charlotte’s Web measure (HB 843). That bill allows use of low THC/high CBD cannabis for treating seizures. The OCU is charged with the task of writing and implementing medical cannabis rules. Ongoing public hearings and workshops at the Department of Health (DOH) are meant to give stakeholders the opportunity to chime in on the proposed rules.
On January 17th, the DOH published proposed rules and announced public hearings, seeking input from the public on the matter. The OCU is required to implement rules consistent with Amendment 2, but they would defer to the legislature if a bill were passed, promulgating rules consistent with Amendment 2 and the bill.
After the passing of Amendment 2, Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) filed SB614, a bill that establishes four license categories instead of the currently required vertically integrated business model. Notably, Sen. Brandes’ bill requires laboratory batch testing, whereas other proposed rules do not include such a measure. Sen. Brandes sees the DOH’s proposed rules as more of the same from the current medical program, according to a quote from FloridaPolitics.com. “Any proposal which seeks to mold the spirit of Amendment 2 into the narrow and flawed law on the books today should be rejected, and a more comprehensive strategy must take priority,” says Sen. Brandes. “I will support no bill, nor any rule, that maintains the established state sanctioned cartel system we have today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in proposing a free market solution for Florida.” He is referring to the seven licensed nurseries from the low THC/high CBD medical program, all of which are vertically integrated.
According to Matthew Ginder, senior counsel in the cannabis law practice at Greenspoon Marder, the biggest question for the legislature is how many licenses will they issue and what kind of structures are required for the licensees. Another big issue is the process by which patients access medical cannabis through their physicians. “The current program requires physicians to register as the orderer of medical cannabis, specify dosing and order medical devices, which is highly uncommon in other state programs,” says Ginder. “Sen. Brandes’ bill removes these requirements and is more consistent with other states by requiring a physician’s recommendation.” He says that bill would create four licenses: cultivation, processing transportation and retail.
Sen. Robert Bradley (R-5th District) also filed legislation (SB 406) to implement Amendment 2, but this bill is very different from Sen. Brandes’ bill. “Bradley’s bill is built upon the statutory framework that is already in place,” says Ginder. “Bradley’s is keeping vertical integration intact, seeking to also limit the amount of vertically integrated license based on a patient ratio of about 20,000 registered patients per license issued.” Bradley’s bill does not provide for independent lab testing requirements. Some might characterize Bradley’s bill as more of the same, allowing for the consolidation of existing monopolies.
Ginder says these are just two bills from the Senate, the House still has not proposed any bills. “We will most likely see more bills,” says Ginder. “We still don’t know what iteration of the bill or what language might be adopted and you can expect them to change as it moves through the committees.” With the legislative session beginning on March 7th, we can expect to see these bills debated on the floor and likely the filing of other legislation.
On February 1st, Greenspoon Marder announced the launch of their Organization for Safe Cannabis Regulation (OSCR) in Florida. By hiring lobbyists and making contributions to certain political candidates, the OSCR aims to advocate for a broad and fair marketplace, specifically “advocating for laws that create independently “registered” entities that perform specific functions along the production and distribution chain.”
PA Secretary of Health Dr. Karen Murphy last week announced applications for growers and processors, while dispensary license applications will be available January 17, 2017. License applications will be accepted from February 20 through March 20, 2017. Governor Wolf signed the medical cannabis bill into law back in April of this year.
“We’ve reached an important milestone in the program with the release of permit applications on January 17, 2017,” says Secretary Murphy. The PA Department of Health will issue 12 licenses for growers and processors and 27 dispensary licenses, according to Secretary Murphy’s statement. “The decision for which counties will be issued permits in this first phase was determined by using the department’s medical data, as well as comments from more than 5,000 patients and nearly 900 potential grower/processors and dispensary applicants.”
According to the Philly Voice, the highly populated Southeast region of Pennsylvania will get ten dispensary permits, including three in Philadelphia, two in Montgomery County and one in Bucks, Chester, Berks, Delaware and Lancaster counties each. The state will fully implement its medical cannabis program by 2018, but a temporary program with ‘Safe Harbor guidelines’ was effective in May of 2016, essentially allowing access for patients in the mean time, while establishing preliminary regulatory compliance guidelines.
In last week’s statement, Secretary Murphy also stressed the importance of their Physician Workgroup in developing the regulations. “We cannot underestimate the role of physicians in making sure that patients can access medical marijuana,” says Secretary Murphy. “That’s why the involvement of physicians and health care professionals through our Physician Workgroup is vital to the successful development and implementation of Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Program.” The Workgroup’s recommendations include establishing quality monitoring, training for dosage recommendations while addressing rural and urban access, education and delivery.
This November 8th, voters in five states will head to the polls to decide on legalizing recreational cannabis and another three states have ballot initiatives that would legalize medical cannabis. If any of those five states pass a measure for recreational legalization, including Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Arizona and California, (which are all leading in the polls) they could potentially create massive new market opportunities for cannabis brands that have their eye on expansion.
Nancy Whiteman, co-owner of Wana Brands and chair of the Cannabis Business Alliance Infused Product Committee, sees great potential in capitalizing on those markets early. Whiteman has been working with Wana Brands since 2010 in Colorado, starting out in the young medical market there.
After expanding to the recreational market, Wana Brands saw its sales skyrocket. From January to August 2016, Wana had the best-selling candy brand in Colorado with 21% dollar share, according to BDS Analytics. Wana Brands has already expanded to Oregon and will launch in Nevada on November 15th, with agreements signed to expand in other states as well. “The model we are pursuing is a licensing agreement where we partner with existing or new license holders in their state,” says Whiteman. “In many ways they are doing the heavy lifting, but we are providing an enormous lift by licensing our intellectual property to them.” That model for growth is becoming increasingly common in some of the more established brands, like Steep Hill Laboratories, GFarma Labs, Dixie and others. Whiteman says that Wana Brands also has a partner in Illinois, Massachusetts and a number of other states they hope to reach.
According to Mark Slaugh, executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance and chief executive officer of iComply, a compliance services provider, brands from Colorado expanding to other states need to ask themselves if their reputation is on the line with these new operators. “If you are licensing to companies that are not compliant, the penalties could be huge and they vary state to state- that could potentially hurt the overall brand image nationally,” says Slaugh. “People doing the licensing that are operating with full compliance really need to look at controlling that risk and mitigating that as much as possible.” With brand trust on the line, there are substantial risks that come with expansion. “We help clients ensure quality is consistent so, for example, an edible product would taste the same in Colorado as it would in Nevada or Arizona. They need to follow the intellectual property consistently but more importantly follow those specific regulations in that state to stay afloat.” Managing ongoing compliance in different states requires monitoring regulatory updates across multiple markets, which can get incredibly complex.
“Six years ago, it was much easier to get into the market in Colorado,” says Whiteman. “There were no capital requirements, no limits on the number of licenses, but there was still a lengthy application and vetting process- as long as you met those minimum requirements you could get a license.” Other new states put stringent limits on the number of licenses granted and some have extraordinarily cost-prohibitive capital requirements, up to a million dollars, as is the case for New York. “Anyone who becomes a license holder in Massachusetts has to be prepared to embark on three separate business models, which is a massive undertaking,” says Whiteman. Massachusetts requires license holders to cultivate, process and dispense in a vertically integrated model.
In other states, Wana Brands is working with exclusive partners who will have the capabilities to manufacture and distribute throughout the entire state, but in Massachusetts that won’t be the case. “To cover the state, we need several partnerships; the partner we are working with is a little south of Boston,” says Whiteman. But all that could change if voters in Massachusetts legalize it recreationally, opening a much larger market than the current medical program. “With no legislation drafted yet, the regulatory environment is still up in the air in Massachusetts so there is no way of telling what the recreational market will look like.” In terms of ongoing regulatory compliance, Whiteman believes that Colorado still has some of the most stringent rules. The universal symbol printed on every individual edible product serving is one example. “Every state has different lab testing and licensing requirements, but Colorado looks like the most stringent currently,” says Whiteman. “Colorado requires a full gamut of lab testing including homogeneity, potency, residual solvents, contaminants and soon pesticides too.” According to Mark Slaugh, Nevada’s lab testing regulations are fundamentally different from Colorado’s with regard to sampling procedures, but the broader inconsistencies in lab standards need to be addressed. “The lack of laboratory standardization state to state with regard to methods creates a big challenge to get consistent, proficient lab testing across the board,” says Slaugh.
A big differentiator between Colorado and other states is that it was a first mover. “When Colorado came online there were not any established brands to speak of anywhere in the country- we were all pioneers,” says Whiteman. “Because it is so difficult to get a license in another state, either the organization or investor groups are looking to partner with established brands.” The advantages to this business model are many. Expediting your entry to market gets you the advantage of being a first mover. Working with an established brand also minimizes risks and the learning curve. “Bigger players understand that building a brand from scratch is time consuming and expensive so I think we will see a lot of these partnerships.”
As those new states come online, similarities in their regulations might appear in the form of standard operating procedures (SOPs) or good manufacturing practices (GMPs). “We might start to see a standardization from state to state that models FDA GMPs or USDA GAPs, [good agricultural practices] moving toward a framework that is more consistent with the possibility of federal regulation,” says Slaugh. Another commonality among a number of states is the implementation of a statewide tracking system. According to Slaugh, California has no such mandated system in place yet. “They will probably have one eventually but the market is so localized there- we will see if California will be ready with a statewide compliance system for tracking by 2018,” says Slaugh. “With such a weird patchwork of local governments allowing or not allowing certain operations to exist, it is a tough business to be in and it’s getting tougher every day.”
Last week, Pennsylvania Department of Health Secretary Dr. Karen Murphy announced the formation of temporary regulations for cannabis growers and processors in the state, according to a press release. Those temporary rules were published on Saturday, October 29. Secretary Murphy asked for public comment on developing regulations for dispensaries as well.
The PA Department of Health published the new set of temporary regulations this past Saturday, outlining “the financial, legal and operational requirements needed by an individual to be considered for a grower/processor permit, as well as where the facilities can be located.” The regulations also discuss tracking systems, equipment maintenance, safety issues, disposal of cannabis, tax reporting, pesticides, recalls and insurance requirements. “One of our biggest accomplishments to date is the development of temporary regulations for marijuana growers and processors,” says Secretary Murphy. “We received nearly 1,000 comments from members of the community, the industry and our legislative partners.”
The general provisions published on Saturday outline the details of the application process, fees, inspections, reporting, advertising and issues surrounding locations and zoning. The temporary regulations for growers and processors delve into the minutia of regulatory compliance for a variety of issues: including security, storage, maintenance, transportation, tracking, disposal, recall, pesticides and packaging and safety requirements. A list of pesticides permitted for use can also be found at the bottom of the rules.
The document discusses the regulations for performing voluntary and mandatory recalls in great detail. It requires thorough documentation and standard operating procedures for the disposal of contaminated products, cooperation with the Department of Health and appropriate communications with those affected by the recall.
The department has yet to release temporary regulations for laboratories and dispensaries, but hopes to do so before the end of the year. “I am encouraging the public – and specifically the dispensary community – to review the temporary regulations and provide us with their feedback,” says Secretary Murphy. “The final temporary regulations for dispensaries will be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by the end of the year.”
Since Governor Tom Wolf signed the medical cannabis program bill into law in April 2016, the state has made considerable progress to develop the program, including setting up a physician workgroup, public surveys for developing temporary rules and a request for information for electronic tracking IT solutions. The PA Department of Health expects to implement the program fully in the next 18 to 24 months.
Even though half of U.S. states and the District of Colombia now permit the possession of medical or recreational cannabis, state regulatory bodies differ greatly in their approaches to managing our industry. In Washington, anyone over the age of 21 can legally possess one ounce of usable cannabis and/or seven grams of concentrate. In Minnesota, patients are only allowed to purchase non-smokable cannabis in pill, liquid or oil form.
Given these substantial differences, it is no surprise that the application process to open a dispensary or cultivation facility also varies from state to state. The question I am most often asked (and catch myself mulling over late at night) is what can applicants do to ensure their success, regardless of where they are applying?
Recently we helped a client secure one of the first 15 licenses issued to grow medical cannabis in Maryland. The Maryland application process was particularly unique because most of the applicants had political or law-enforcement ties, or were connected to successful out-of-state growers. That experience, along with our work in places like Arizona, Colorado and Florida, has shown me the importance of teamwork, diversity and security in developing a winning application.
So here are my suggestions for ensuring a successful submission, regardless of which state you are operating in:
Build the Right Team. My dad likes to say, “Use the right tool for the right job.” I think the same is true about creating the team for your application. Do not assume one or two people will be able to fill all of the required roles. You will need experts in a range of different areas including medicine, pharmacology, capital investment, cultivation, real estate, security and law.
Focus on Diversity. I think one of the reasons we have been successful in helping clients secure applications (we are six for six, in six different states) is our commitment to gender, racial and even geographic diversity. For example, we recently helped a client secure a license in an economically underdeveloped area. I think our choice to headquarter the new business outside of the metropolitan corridor was at least partially responsible for our success.
The Devil is in the Details. According to ArcView Market Research, the cannabis industry is expected to be worth $23 billion by 2020. If you want to be one of the organizations selected by your state to sell cannabis, you need to have your act together. Most applications ask incredibly detailed questions. Therefore it is essential that you answer them thoroughly and accurately. All answers should be in compliance with your state’s regulations.
Put Safety First. You will need a comprehensive plan that takes all aspects of security into account. This includes everything from hiring security guards to purchasing cameras, and implementing internal anti-theft procedures. Regardless of the size of your operation, safety should be a primary consideration.
Secure Funding. Successful cannabis businesses require capital. It’s important to be realistic about the amount of money you will need to have on hand. Application costs typically range from $500,000 to $1 million. This will cover things like hiring an architect or leasing land. Ideally, your organization will have another $5 to $10 million or more available to start your project once you’ve been approved so that you can quickly become operational.
Connect With Your Community. It is essential to consider the impact of your business on the community. Being a good corporate citizen means being transparent and engaging in a two-way dialogue with neighbors, government officials and patients. I strongly recommend that my clients develop a comprehensive community outreach plan that designates which organizations they plan to work with, (hospitals or universities, for example) and what the nature of those partnerships will be.
I recently had a discussion with a colleague of mine on how the cannabis industry lacks business sophistication. There are not many MBA level, or proven business professionals, that have made a living and name for themselves in another industry, entering the cannabis space. At first glance, you would think there should be, primarily because they can leverage their previous expertise and success into a new, multi-billion dollar space. Instead, those professionals are watching from afar and eying a move to enter the industry five to ten years down the line.
It just so happens that the individual I was speaking to is in the situation described above, so I asked why? Why not leverage your success and make a name for yourself in this industry where there is clearly an opportunity? This individual is coming from a legal background so this piece will focus on that area primarily. However, the story is the same for many others that come from different professional backgrounds.
They informed me that entering the cannabis industry could risk them potentially losing their license to practice law. They practice law in a state that does not have any form of cannabis legalization. So even if this person wanted to actively pursue working in the cannabis industry (where legal), they run the risk of potentially losing their license and not being able to practice law again. This creates a difficult decision for someone considering an emerging industry that still has an uncertain future.
Beyond putting professional careers and relationships in jeopardy, the cannabis stigma affects personal lives. It amazes me that there is still an extremely negative stigma that surrounds this industry. No matter the level of professionalism the industry demonstrates, many still think working with cannabis could be considered unprofessional.
I know from first hand experience in talking with a handful of professionals that are working in the industry, they do not tell everyone what their job is. Or they use their job title from their other current, or previous, job outside of the industry. They do not want certain individuals to know they are in the industry because they know it will damage their current reputation in certain groups.
This is one of the recurring issues with startups not only going through Greenhouse Ventures accelerator program, but throughout the industry. Many lack that level of business sophistication to have the know-how and ability to scale and grow their startup. Yes, they are the founding team and they have the idea and the vision, but they are not the team that investors put their faith and capital in.
My question is, what needs to happen to start attracting these business professionals into the cannabis space? We have already seen a few of the more risk averse professionals jump ship, but a majority are still hiding in the shadows or watching from the sidelines.
MasterPlans, a business planning firm based in Portland, Oregon, has more than 13 years of experience in the emerging cannabis industry. The firm has worked to develop financial models and business plans for new and existing companies that are looking to secure funding, grow partnerships, and manage their long-term strategies for success. They have created business plans for more than 100 companies at every level of the market, from cultivators to dispensaries, to businesses in packaging, security and tourism. They work with nonprofit ventures, investor propositions, commercial lending and self-funded companies.
“We know how difficult it is to launch a business in the cannabis industry, because we work with businesses in this field every day,” says Mike McCulley, VP of Sales at MasterPlans. Cannabis Industry Journal spoke with McCulley to learn more about some of the challenges that marijuana businesses face.
Cannabis Industry Journal: What are some of the biggest hurdles in launching a new grow operation?
Mike McCulley: Many of our cultivation clients say that the largest hurdle they face is in identifying the ideal location for their business. Grow operations need to factor in a wide range of concerns including cost, zoning, security, soil viability (for outdoor operations), energy costs (especially for indoor operations), and proximity to schools and similar buildings. Location can really make or break the success of any grow operation, and this is often the single largest cost incurred when launching this kind of business.
CIJ: What are some key ingredients in a successful marijuana business plan?
McCulley: It probably goes without saying that a successful business plan for a company in the marijuana field first has to execute all of the elements that every business plan needs to include: Detailed financial projections, accurate market analysis, [and] a comprehensive overview of strategies and goals. Marijuana business plans in particular need to also address the key issues and challenges that are unique to operators in this industry. How will your company be impacted by state-level regulations, and how will your operational model address those? What steps will you take to ensure the security of your product? How will you accommodate the complicated issue of accounting while federal regulations are still impacting the way marijuana companies manage their banking? These issues should be acknowledged and addressed if you hope for your plan to be compelling.
CIJ: With the growing schism between recreational and medical markets, how do you determine your target market and meet those customers’ needs?
McCulley: Determining a target market can be difficult before launching operations, but it’s not impossible. A key tool to help work through this question is up-to-date census information or demographics for the area in which your company is serving. Recreational markets provide a much broader audience to become potential clients, but medical markets can also offer lucrative opportunities if an operator can launch in an area with a high concentration of eligible patients. Accurate market data plays a key role in this process, and close analysis of that data can help operators determine their best course of action.