Twenty-three brands took home 33 medals across 11 categories in Billings. Two farms split the flower board, one farm placed in every flower category, and solventless turned up in places it didn’t use to.

The High Times Cannabis Cup Montana ran in Billings on Saturday, September 5, and the official results are in. They say something specific about where Big Sky Country’s market is right now.

Start with flower. Three categories, nine medals, and one farm in all three. Funk Farm took second in hybrid with Apples & Bananas, second in indica with Permanent Marker and first in sativa with Ancient Blue Dream. Nobody else placed across the board. Add a third in solventless vapes for The Vision and Funk Farm finished the weekend with four medals, more than any other brand in the room.

But the golds went elsewhere. Wild Sky Farms won both hybrid and indica, with Purple Push Pop and Baby Yodaz, and then took second in solventless concentrates with Rainbow Chip. Two of the three flower firsts, from one farm.

The other thing worth noticing is where the word solventless shows up. It has its own two categories, as it does at every Cup now, but in Montana it also turned up in categories that aren’t about concentrates at all. Grizzly Pine’s second-place edible is a Bevvies collaboration built on Groove Solventless material, and Groove went on to win the solventless vape category outright with Rainbow Push Pop. SensiCare medaled with Solventless Caramels. Stokes took second in gummies with a peach solventless.

That is three of the six edible and gummy medals going to products that lead with their extraction method. A few years ago, solventless was a thing hash people argued about. In Billings, it was a selling point on a drink.

Here are all the winners.

Flower

Hybrid Flower

1. Wild Sky Farms, Purple Push Pop
2. Funk Farm, Apples & Bananas
3. Soultonix, Super Buff Cherry

Indica Flower

1. Wild Sky Farms, Baby Yodaz
2. Funk Farm, Permanent Marker
3. Bloominati, Crimson Zkittles

Sativa Flower

1. Funk Farm, Ancient Blue Dream
2. Legends Cannabis, Green Crack
3. Collective Elevation, Golden Goat

Pre-Rolls

Pre-Rolls

1. Sacred Sun Farms, DJ Shorts Original Blueberry
2. High Mountain, Head Wreck
3. Holistic Releaf by Design, Donny Burger

Infused Pre-Rolls

1. Stokes, Diamond Moon Rocket Cheesecake
2. Bloom Montana – The Clear, Twax (Blueberry)
3. Fused, Strawberry Ice Cream

Concentrates

Solvent Concentrates

1. Montana Kush, Member Berry
2. Sacred Sun Farms, Blue Octane
3. Uncle Bucks, Rick Pickle

Solventless Concentrates

1. Glacier Solventless, Z Head #4 Private Reserve
2. Wild Sky Farms, Rainbow Chip
3. Cannabis Counter, Lemon Fatman

Vapes

Solvent Vape Pens & Cartridges

1. Grizzly Pine, Dime Huckleberry Jam
2. Nimbus, Kiwi Dragon
3. Viking Vapes, Asgardian Apple

Solventless Vape Pens & Cartridges

1. Groove Solventless, Rainbow Push Pop
2. Montana Kush, The Fizz
3. Funk Farm, The Vision

Edibles

Edibles

1. Holistic Releaf by Design, Dark Sea Salt Caramel Truffle
2. Grizzly Pine, Bevvies x Groove Solventless Huckle Cherry Drink
3. SensiCare, Solventless Caramels

Edibles: Gummies

1. Smokiez Edibles, Sour Watermelon
2. Stokes, Peach Solventless
3. Bloom Montana – Wana, Fast Acting-Peach Bellini

Congratulations to every winner, and thanks to everyone who came out to Billings to judge, smoke, sell and argue about it. The next Cup is Massachusetts.

Source link

The WNBA has officially removed marijuana from its prohibited substances list while also laying out rules for how players can invest in and promote cannabis companies.

At the same time, however, the women’s basketball league is also adding several psychedelics to the list of banned drugs.

As part of negotiations between the Women’s National Basketball Players Association and WNBA earlier this year, the league offered to remove cannabis from its drug testing protocol. Now, under the terms of the long-form version of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) signed by representatives of both sides, marijuana no longer appears on the prohibited substances list, whereas under the prior CBA it was included under “Drugs of Abuse.”

Prior WNBA policy treated cannabis significantly more restrictively compared to the NBA, as well as multiple other professional sports leagues beyond basketball that have also adopted reforms amid the state legalization movement. First-time offenses generally resulted in treatment referrals, but repeated violations could lead to fines and suspensions.

Under the new rules, players could still be subject to testing for cannabis if they enter the league’s Drugs of Abuse Program, if they are found to have been under the influence “while engaged in activities” for the team or the league or if they have “a dependency or other related issue involving the use of marijuana.”

Those who are referred to a marijuana treatment program and do not comply with the rules would be subject to fines of $300 per day. Any player who exhibits a “pattern of behavior that demonstrates a mindful disregard for her treatment responsibilities” or tests positive for marijuana would face escalating penalties such as a $3,000 fine or suspension for three or more games.

Players could be subject to “reasonable cause” drug testing or administrative proceedings if they are convicted of a felony involving the distribution or marijuana.

At the same time WNBA and the players union are loosening up on marijuana, however, it has also added specific entries for the psychedelics dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, psilocybin and psilocin to the prohibited substances list for the first time.

Also prohibited under the new policy are synthetic cannabinoids, which the document describes as “including, but not limited to, Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (also called delta-8-THC)) and their By-Products.”

Separately, the CBA also addresses players’ investment in and promotion of companies that sell marijuana and hemp-derived CBD products.

It says that players can hold a direct or indirect ownership interest in marijuana companies as long as the interest is passive (meaning no management, governance, voting, or executive role or other operational rights or roles” and they have less than a 50 percent stake in the business.

There is also a requirement for the company to operate “in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,” and the document specifically notes that players may not hold any ownership interest in a business “that produces or sells any products containing any Prohibited Substance or any other Schedule I or II substance under the Controlled Substances Act.”

While marijuana has been classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act since 1970, the Trump administration in April announced that it was moving state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as any cannabinoid products approved by the Food and Drug Administration, to Schedule III, where WNBA’s prohibition would presumably no longer apply. Broader reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III will be the topic of a hearing scheduled to begin later this month.

WNBA’s rules for CBD-specific companies are looser than those for marijuana businesses in that they don’t require passive interest or less than 50 percent ownership. The document also says that players can actively promote and endorse that sell CBD products. If the products are produced by a marijuana company, however, players will first need to receive permission from the league and the union.

“Without limiting such approval right of the WNBA and the Players Association, the promotion or endorsement by a player of a CBD Product that is produced or sold by a Marijuana Company (A) will not be permitted if such CBD Product is associated by the Marijuana Company with any Marijuana Product (e.g., the CBD Product is marketed or sold under a brand that also includes or refers to Marijuana Products) or if any proposed promotion creates a reasonable risk of public confusion with any Marijuana Product, and (B) if approved, shall be subject to any terms and conditions imposed by the WNBA and/or the Players Association.”

“For clarity, any investments in or promotions or endorsements of entities that produce or sell products containing a form of cannabis (including, for clarity, a CBD form of cannabis) not expressly permitted…are prohibited,” the agreement that was finalized on May 22 says. “In the event a player engages in a prohibited investment, promotion, or endorsement, then, without limiting other WNBA rights or remedies, the player shall be required to promptly dispose of her ownership interest in the prohibited investment and/or immediately terminate her participation in the prohibited promotion or endorsement, as applicable.”

The league gave some indication about its willingness to accept the changing tides around cannabis in 2024, when the WNBA team New York Liberty entered into a partnership with a CBD beverage company.

Meanwhile, Brittney Griner—a WNBA player who was previously incarcerated in Russia over possession of marijuana—pulled out of an appearance at a cannabis event last year after discovering what she felt was a threatening message in her hotel room.

Conference attendees had hoped to hear from Griner about the nature of her incarceration in Russia, which helped fuel international debate about cannabis prohibition laws domestically and abroad.

How other sports leagues have navigated marijuana policy for players amid the reform movement.

NBA, for its part, removed marijuana from the banned substances list for players in 2023, and it also freed them up to invest in and promote cannabis companies.

The NFL, meanwhile, reached an agreement with its players union in 2024 to further reform its marijuana policies, significantly reducing fines for positive tests while increasing the allowable THC threshold for players. About four years after NFL ended the practice of suspending players over cannabis or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the league again revised its Substances of Abuse Policy and Performance Enhancing Substances Policy.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 2024 voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players.

The reform builds on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

In 2024, Nevada regulators officially adopted a rule change that will protect athletes from being penalized for using or possessing marijuana in compliance with state law.

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) blasted the “unfair” ban on marijuana for athletes competing in international sport events, including the Olympics that were underway in Paris at the time of the comments.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart said it was “disappointing” that WADA has maintained the cannabis prohibition based on what he considers a misguided justification.

WADA did carry out a review into its marijuana policy at the request of USADA and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) following the controversial suspension of U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson, who was barred from participating in the Olympics in 2021 after she tested positive for THC. Richardson said she used cannabis to cope with the recent passing of her mother.

While UFC announced in late 2023 that it was formally removing marijuana from its modified banned substances list for athletes, the league notified participants that the reform didn’t apply under California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) rules.

UFC advised fighters that they could be subject to a $100 fine by CSAS if they tested over 150 nanograms of THC per milliliter ahead of the UFC 298 event that took place in February.

In 2024, NFL announced it was partnering with Canadian researchers on a clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of CBD for pain management and neuroprotection from concussions—key issues for many football players who experience injuries as part of the game.

Source link

The debate on vaping policy in the United Kingdom is at a critical juncture. A motion to expand indoor smoking restrictions — also called “smoking bans” — to include vaping has, of course, sparked outrage from harm reduction advocates, public health experts and business leaders. Emerging research indicates that restricting access to certain vaping products has unintended consequences, including a potential resurgence in smoking.

Inaccurately lumping vaping with smoking

The government’s proposal would treat vaping in the same way as smoking, across indoor public spaces — workplaces, pubs and clubs, even specialist vape shops. This, critics say, is a fundamental misunderstanding of these products’ risk profile. In fact, public health messaging has been grappling with a fundamental problem for ages: relative risk. Combustible cigarettes continue to be one of the largest preventable causes of death, yet vaping is broadly recognised as a far lower risk option for adult smokers. That distinction disappears when both are regulated the same way.

Experts say the proposed restriction would contribute to a misconception gaining ground among the public — that vaping is just as dangerous as smoking, a belief that has been associated with slower switching rates among smokers.
It is also important to note that several independent assessments — including one by Public Health England (PHE) — have concluded that second-hand vapour poses little risk to those around the user.” This begs a critical question: In the face of very low exposure risk, what is the scientific basis behind expanding smoke-free laws?

Encouraging former smokers to revert to smoking?

The proposal arrives at a moment when advances in driving down smoking rates have been closely linked with greatly reducing accessibility to lower-risk alternatives. A grassroots campaign led by the New Nicotine Alliance reiterates that limiting where people can use vape products may prevent smokers from switching — or, worse still, drive former smokers back to cigarettes. This concern is not theoretical. Research from the University of Bristol, published in PLOS Global Public Health, suggests that such a policy restricting access to certain vaping products could lead to adverse outcomes. And some young adult vapers say they might smoke more cigarettes or relapse to smoking as a result of the UK’s disposable vape ban.

Although many participants reported they would switch to reusable devices, the findings point to an important risk: When barriers are raised for safer alternatives, not all users make a smooth transition. Some default to the most available, even if that is the most damaging choice. For harm reduction advocates, this highlights a key principle: the demand for nicotine does not evaporate when products are banned. On the contrary, behaviour is modified — at times in ways that thwart public health objectives.

Economic costs and no health gains

Besides serious public health concerns and scarce evidence that such restrictions would offer measurable health benefits, the proposed ban also has serious economic implications.

Besides serious public health concerns and scarce evidence that such restrictions would offer measurable health benefits, the proposed ban also has serious economic implications. The government’s own impact assessment estimates businesses could face costs of up to £532 million. Hospitality venues, in particular, may take a hit. Many already regulate vaping through internal policies that more closely serve their customers. A broad legal ban would eliminate that flexibility and create new compliance burdens.

Additionally, lessons from other regulatory encroachments indicate that overly restrictive policies can create parallel, illegal markets. If legal access is limited, informal supply chains tend to grow to meet demand. The Bristol study hinted at this dynamic, too, with some participants predicting that restrictions might have the opposite effect, driving underground trade in prohibited products. Whereas some thought that enforcing the law could further reduce illegal sales, even this ambiguity highlights how complex consumers’ behaviour tends to be. At the same time, policies that limit the availability or convenience of vaping may inadvertently advantage cigarettes, which are widely available. But it also creates a paradox: the most damaging product is often the one that’s easiest to get and use.

A significant difference in risk that is not being considered

Policies that do not take this gradient seriously risk oversimplifying a problem and potentially making it more difficult to reduce deaths from smoking-related disease. The new Nicotine Alliance’s Save Vaping campaign is calling on policymakers, businesses and the public to get involved in the consultation process. But at stake is not just a particular policy, but something deeper — the overall approach to tobacco control in the UK.

Regulation should be risk-proportionate, evidence-based, and in keeping with the principles of harm reduction. This means acknowledging the role of vaping as a smoking cessation tool through smoking minimisation policies and keeping access to safer alternatives for adult smokers.

It’s time to align policy with science and reality

The trick for policymakers is not to downplay risk, but to put it in its proper perspective. While treating all nicotine products as if they posed the same risks may seem precautionary, it may also have unintended consequences that ultimately kill people.

The UK is at a turning point regarding nicotine regulation. On one side is an increasing body of scientific data supporting harm reduction. On the other hand, a policy approach risks conflating fundamentally disparate products. If the aim is to mitigate smoking-related harm, then access to less hazardous substitutes must continue to be an important part of any strategy.

Source link