Connect with us

Published

on

As of last June, more than two years after New York legalized recreational marijuana, just 12 state-licensed dispensaries had opened for business, falling far short of Gov. Kathy Hochul’s prediction that more than 100 would be operating by that summer. Six months later, Hochul was bragging that “nearly 40 adult-use dispensaries will have opened in 2023.” The current count is 87. Those stores, The New York Times notes, “are far outnumbered by more than 2,000rogue head shops, the target of complaints that they siphon customers,sell to childrenandattract criminals.”

New York’s rollout of marijuana legalization has been a “disaster,” as Hochul conceded in January. “Every other storefront” is an unlicensed pot shop, she told The Buffalo News. “It’s insane.”

That disaster has frustrated would-be retailers, left farmers in the lurch, played havoc with tax revenue projections, and made a joke out of any expectation that New York, by learning from the experienceof states that legalized marijuana earlier, would do a better job of displacing the black market.The insanity that Hochul perceives is a product of bad decisions by politicians who should have known better and obstruction by regulators who sacrificed efficiency on the altar of diversity.

Unlike states such as New Jersey, where voters approved legalization in 2020, and Maryland, where a similar ballot initiative passed two years later, New York did not initially allow existing medical dispensaries to start serving the recreational market. Its slow and complicated licensing process, which was skewed by an “equity” program that prioritized approval of applicants with marijuana-related criminal records or their relatives, is maddeningly hard to navigate.

Those preferences invited lawsuits by people who were excluded, which further delayed approval of licenses. Guidance and financial help for people struggling to jump through the state’s hoops never materialized. And as in other states, high taxes and burdensome regulations have made it hard for licensed businesses to compete with unauthorized dealers.

TheTimes story, which opens with the stark numerical contrast between those two categories of marijuana suppliers, later takes a stab at a more positive spin: “New York now has more licensed recreational dispensaries than any state on the East Coast except Massachusetts.” But even that is not true.

Maine, where voters approved legalization in 2016, has 139 recreational dispensaries, serving a population less than a tenth as big as New York’s. New Jersey, with a population less than half as big as New York’s, has 101 recreational dispensaries two years after legal sales began.

Connecticut, which legalized recreational marijuana the same year as New York, has 28 dispensaries serving that marketnearly twice as many per capita. Maryland, which legalized marijuana in 2022, has 101 dispensaries that serve recreational consumers as well as patients. Maryland’s population is less than one-third the size of New York’s. Even tiny Rhode Islandwhich has a population one-twentieth as big as New York’s, legalized marijuana a year later, and has just half a dozen recreational dispensariesstill has more per capita.

New York’s population is almost three times as big as the population of Massachusetts, where legal recreational sales began in November 2018. Massachusetts has nearly 400 licensed dispensaries. That’s roughly six authorized retailers per 100,000 residents, compared to about 0.4 per 100,000 in New York.

If you consider the situation in other regions of the country, New York’s pitiful number of licensed dispensaries looks even worse. Colorado, where the first recreational outlets opened in 2014, now has 670, or about 11 per 100,000 residents. Oregon, where legal recreational sales began the same year, has more than 800 licensed outlets, about 19 per 100,000 Oregonians.

Both of those states, of course, had a jump on New York, approving legalization in 2012 and 2014, respectively. But New Mexico legalized recreational marijuana the same year as New York, and it has more than 1,000 dispensaries, serving a population one-tenth as big as New York’s.

Any way you cut it, New York has done a terrible job of getting licensed dispensaries up and running.But the Times sees another silver lining: It notes that dispensary owners “include people with criminal convictions, veterans, women, nonprofits and people of Black, Latino and Asian descent.”

The affirmative action that helped achieve that diversity is part of the problem. Among other things, New York mandated preferences for license applicants who suffered as a result of the crusade against cannabis. While that idea has a pleasing symmetry, it never made much sense as a way of making up for the harm inflicted by cannabis criminalization. And in practice, executing the plan has drastically limited the legal marijuana supply.

People with marijuana convictions certainly should not be excluded from participating in the newly legal market, a policy that would add insult to injury. But that does not mean they should have a legal advantage over cannabis entrepreneurs who were never arrested but might be better qualified.

The state arguably does owe something to people who were punished for engaging in a business it has now decided to legalize. But why should reparations take the form of marijuana license preferences, as opposed to, say, direct financial compensation for legal costs and lost liberty? The method New York has chosen is limited to people who are currently interested in selling cannabis, which illogically excludes many others who were injured by enforcement of the state’s marijuana laws.

Hochul nevertheless is proud of New York’s equity efforts, even as she complains about the state’s agonizingly slow progress toward a legal market. “I’m very fed up with how long it’s taken to get some of these approvals,” she told The Buffalo News after New York’s Cannabis Control Board canceled a meeting at which it was expected to approve new retail licenses. “My understanding is that the board was supposed to consider 400 applicants. They only had three new retail locations approved….My team got involved and [said], ‘No, go back to the drawing board, work harder, get this done.’ And no, I’m not satisfied with the pace.”

Part of the solution, Hochul thinks, is cracking down on all those “rogue head shops,” which is apt to inflict precisely the sort of injury that New York supposedly is trying to ameliorate, punishing entrepreneurs for filling the yawning gap left by the state’s misguided policies and administrative incompetence. More promisingly, Hochul has ordered “a top-to-bottom review of the state’s licensing bureaucracy,” aiming to “shorten the time it takes to process applications and get businesses open.”

TheTimes notes that license applicants “have filed lawsuits accusing the agency ofoverstepping its authority,giving conflicting guidanceanddiscriminating against white men in its push for diversity.” The rollout “has been delayed for months at a time by lawsuits, the state’s monthslong rule-making process and the state’s failure to provide the start-up loans and real estate that it promised to the first 150 dispensaries.”

A recent scandal involving Damian Fagon, the New York Office of Cannabis Management’s chief equity officer, reinforced the impression of dysfunction. Jenny Argie, who owns a company that supplied edibles to dispensaries, told theTimes that Fagon “retaliated against her company, Jenny’s Baked at Home, after New York Cannabis Insider published parts of a conversation with him about the state’s failure to punish bad actors, which she had recorded.” A month later, “her products were recalleda first for the stateand her business has been temporarily shut down.” Fagon has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation by the state inspector general’s office.

Legalization activist Annette Fernandez defended Fagon in an interview with theTimes. “Regardless of his hubris,” she said, “he’s still the No. 1 advocate for equity.” But the equity progra is itself an act of hubris, distorting the market by prioritizing progressive goals instead of awarding licenses to anyone with the wherewithal to run a successful marijuana business.

In addition to the bureaucratic shake-up, Hochul supports legislation that would substantially reduce the state’s marijuana taxes. As should have been obvious to anyone who was paying attention to what happened in states such as California (which apparently did not include New York’s legislators), taxes are a major factor in the ability of licensed marijuana businesses to compete with the black market, attract customers, and turn a profit.

New York collects a 13 percent retail tax on cannabis products, plus a tax based on their THC content: 3 cents per milligram in edibles, eight-tenths of a cent per milligram in concentrates, and half a cent per milligram in flower. That tax amounts to 30 cents for a gummy containing 10 milligrams of THC and $3 for a 100-milligram chocolate bar. And since it is collected from the distributor, its impact is compounded by the markup and tax at the retail level. Hochul favors replacing the THC tax with a 9 percent wholesale excise tax.

The THC tax is one of those ideas that appeal to progressive technocrats who give little thought to unintended consequences. The rationale was that it would help maintain revenue in the face of falling retail prices while deterring overconsumption by forcing consumers to pay more for products of higher potency. Legislators somehow did not take into account the existence of a black market in which the tax rate is zero. Given that reality, there is an unavoidable tradeoff between using taxes to raise revenue or paternalistically prod consumers and getting those consumers to patronize the businesses that actually collect the taxes.

Back in December 2022, Hochul unveiled a “licensed cannabis dispensary tool” that consumers could use to check a pot store’s legal status. She urged shoppers to look for signs “posted in the windows of legally licensed retail dispensaries” that include a QR code to verify that a store is officially allowed to sell cannabis. She said the signs “will help to protect public health and strengthen our ability to deliver the equitable cannabis market our law envisions,” and she promised to “shutdown illicit operators who are selling products that put New Yorkers at risk.”

More than a year later, those “illicit operators” outnumber “legally licensed retail dispensaries” by about 23 to 1. Instead of trying to scare consumers about the hazards that might be lurking in black-market pot or urging them to do their civic duty by eschewing it, maybe New York politicians should remove the barriers that have fostered the embarrassing situation in which they find themselves.

Continue Reading

Politics

All four UK governments ‘failed to appreciate’ scale of COVID pandemic threat – inquiry finds

Published

on

By

All four UK governments 'failed to appreciate' scale of COVID pandemic threat - inquiry finds

All four UK governments failed to appreciate the scale of the threat posed by COVID-19 or the urgency of the response the pandemic required, a damning report published on Thursday has claimed.

Baroness Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, described the response to the pandemic as “too little, too late”.

Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved during the first wave of COVID-19 had a mandatory lockdown been introduced a week earlier, the inquiry also found.

Noting how a “lack of urgency” made a mandatory lockdown “inevitable”, the report references modelling data to claim there could have been 23,000 fewer deaths during the first wave in England had it been introduced a week earlier.

The UK government first introduced advisory restrictions on 16 March 2020, including self-isolation, household quarantine and social distancing.

Had these measures been introduced sooner, the report states, the mandatory lockdown which followed from 23 March might not have been necessary at all.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

All four UK govts ‘failed to appreciate’ scale of pandemic

COVID-19 first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of 2019, and as it developed into a worldwide pandemic, the UK went in and out of unprecedented lockdown measures for two years starting from March 2020.

More on Covid Inquiry

Lady Hallett admitted in her summary that politicians in the government and devolved administrations were forced to make decisions where “there was often no right answer or good outcome”.

“Nonetheless,” she said, “I can summarise my findings of the response as ‘too little, too late'”.

Report goes long way to answer inquiry’s critics

This scathing report goes a long way to answer the Covid 19 Inquiry’s critics who have consistently attacked it as a costly waste of time.

They tried to undermine Lady Hallet’s attempt to understand what went wrong and how we might do better as a lame exercise that would achieve very little.

Well, we now know that Boris Johnson’s “toxic and chaotic” government could well have prevented at least 23,000 deaths had they acted sooner and with greater urgency.

The response was “too little, too late”. And that nobody in power truly understood the scale of the emerging threat or the urgency of the response it required.

The grieving families who lost loved ones in the pandemic want answers. They want names. And they want accountability.

But that is beyond the remit of this Inquiry.

The publication of the report into Module 2 will bring them no comfort, it may even cause them more distress but it will bring them closer to understanding why the UK’s response to this unprecedented health crisis was so poor.

And we can easily identify the “advisors and ministers whose alleged rule breaking caused huge distress and undermined public confidence”.

Or who was in charge of the Department of Health and Social Care, as it misled the public by giving the impression that the UK was well prepared for the pandemic when it clearly was not.

‘Toxic culture’ at the heart of UK government

The report said there was “a toxic and chaotic culture” at the heart of the UK government during the pandemic.

The inquiry heard evidence about the “destabilising behaviour of a number of individuals” – including former No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings.

It said that by failing to tackle this chaotic culture – “and, at times, actively encouraging it” – former PM Boris Johnson “reinforced a culture in which the loudest voices prevailed and the views of other colleagues, particularly women, often went ignored, to the detriment of good decision-making”.

‘Misleading assurances’

The inquiry found all four governments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland failed to understand the urgency of response the pandemic demanded in the early part of 2020.

The report reads: “This was compounded, in part, by misleading assurances from the Department of Health and Social Care and the widely held view that the UK was well prepared for a pandemic.”

The report notes how the UK government took a “high risk” when it significantly eased restrictions in England in July 2020 – “despite scientific advisers’ concerns about the public health risks of doing so”.

Lady Hallett has made 19 key recommendations which, if followed, she believes will better protect the UK in any future pandemic and improve decision-making in a crisis.

Repeated failings ‘inexcusable’

In a statement following the publication of Thursday’s report, Lady Hallett said there was a “serious failure” by all four governments to appreciate the level of “risk and calamity” facing the UK.

She said: “The tempo of the response should have been increased. It was not. February 2020 was a lost month.”

Read more:
A timeline of the UK’s response to the pandemic

Lady Hallett said the inquiry does not advocate for national lockdowns, which she said should have been avoided if at all possible.

She said: “But to avoid them, governments must take timely and decisive action to control a spreading virus. The four governments of the UK did not.”

Lady Hallett said none of the governments were adequately prepared for the challenges and risks that a lockdown presented, and that many of the same failings were repeated later in 2020, which she said was “inexcusable”.

She added: “Each government had ample warning that the prevalence of the virus was increasing and would continue to do so into the winter months. Yet again, there was a failure to take timely and effective action.”

Continue Reading

World

Britain rattles its sabre at Russia’s spy ship – but is it a hollow threat?

Published

on

By

Britain rattles its sabre at Russia's spy ship - but is it a hollow threat?

A fierce warning from Britain’s defence secretary to Vladimir Putin to turn his spy ship away from UK waters or face the consequences was a very public attempt to deter the threat.

But unless John Healey backs his rhetoric up with a far more urgent push to rearm – and to rebuild wider national resilience – he risks his words ringing as hollow as his military.

The defence secretary on Wednesday repeated government plans to increase defence spending and work with NATO allies to bolster European security.

Russian Ship Yantar transiting through the English Channel. 
File pic: MOD
Image:
Russian Ship Yantar transiting through the English Channel.
File pic: MOD

Instead of focusing purely on the threat, he also stressed how plans to buy weapons and build arms factories will create jobs and economic growth.

In a sign of the government’s priorities, job creation is typically the top line of any Ministry of Defence press release about its latest investment in missiles, drones and warships rather than why the equipment is vital to defend the nation.

I doubt expanding employment opportunities was the motivating factor in the 1930s when the UK converted car factories into Spitfire production lines to prepare for war with Nazi Germany.

Yet communicating to the public what war readiness really means must surely be just as important today.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Pic: Reuters

Mr Healey also chose this moment of national peril to attempt to score political points by criticising the previous Conservative government for hollowing out the armed forces – when the military was left in a similarly underfunded state during the last Labour government.

A report by a group of MPs, released on the same day as Mr Healey rattled his sabre at Russia, underlined the scale of the challenge the UK faces.

HMS Somerset flanking Russian ship Yantar near UK waters. on January 22, 2025.
File pic: Royal Navy/PA
Image:
HMS Somerset flanking Russian ship Yantar near UK waters. on January 22, 2025.
File pic: Royal Navy/PA

It accused the government of lacking a national plan to defend itself from attack.

The Defence Select Committee also warned that Mr Healey, Sir Keir Starmer and the rest of the cabinet are moving at a “glacial” pace to fix the problem and are failing to launch a “national conversation on defence and security” – something the prime minister had promised last year.

The report backed up the findings of a wargame podcast by Sky News and Tortoise that simulated what might happen if Russia launched waves of missile strikes against the UK.

The series showed how successive defence cuts since the end of the Cold War means the army, navy and air force are woefully equipped to defend the home front.

Read more:
Russia accuses Britain of being ‘provocative’ as spy ship nears UK
Briton who volunteered as spy for Russia jailed

But credible national defences also require the wider country to be prepared for war.

A set of plans setting out what must happen in the transition from peace to war was quietly shelved at the start of this century, so there no longer exists a rehearsed and resourced system to ensure local authorities, businesses and the wider population know what to do.

John Healey.
Pic: PA
Image:
John Healey.
Pic: PA

Mr Healey revealed that the Russian spy ship had directed a laser light presumably to dazzle pilots of a Royal Air Force reconnaissance aircraft that was tracking it.

“That Russian action is deeply dangerous,” he said.

“So, my message to Russia and to Putin, is this: We see you. We know what you are doing. And if Yantar travels south this week, we are ready.”

He did not spell out what this might mean but it could include attempts to block the Russian vessel’s passage, or even fire warning shots to force it to retreat.

The Russian ship Yantar is docked in Buenos Aires in 2017
Pic: David Fernandez/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
Image:
The Russian ship Yantar is docked in Buenos Aires in 2017
Pic: David Fernandez/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

However, any direct engagement could trigger a retaliation from Moscow.

For now, the Russian ship – fitted with spying equipment to monitor critical national infrastructure such as communications cables on the seabed – has moved away from the UK coast. It was at its closest between 5 and 11 November.

The military is still tracking its movements closely in case the ship returns.

Continue Reading

World

Why Zelenskyy has to tread carefully over peace plan, or face a Trump ultimatum

Published

on

By

Why Zelenskyy has to tread carefully over peace plan, or face a Trump ultimatum

If you’re not at the table then you’re on the menu, as the saying goes.

That’s why Ukraine and Europe are so concerned about reports of a new peace plan being drawn up without them.

Their fears appear to be well-founded. The plan’s proposals reportedly include two major concessions for Kyiv – that it must give up territory in the Donbas which Russia has not yet seized, and that it must dramatically reduce its armed forces.

Ukraine war latest: Trump ‘approves 28-point Ukraine peace plan’

Sound familiar? That’s because it is. These are two of Vladimir Putin’s long-held, key demands for peace.

The ‘new’ peace plan represents the latest about-turn from the Trump administration on how it approaches the conflict.

After the failure of the Alaska summit, and last month’s fractious phone call between Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and US secretary of state Marco Rubio (which led to the cancellation of a second summit in Budapest and US sanctions on Russian oil), it seemed like Ukraine had finally convinced Donald Trump to change tack.

More on Russia

Donald Trump meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August. Pic: AP
Image:
Donald Trump meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in August. Pic: AP

Instead of showing Moscow patience, he began applying pressure in the hope of forcing Russia to make concessions and to meet Ukraine somewhere in the middle.

But now it’s all change once again.

The key player seems to have been Kirill Dmitriev – the Kremlin’s investment envoy and a close ally of Vladimir Putin – who has operated as Steve Witkoff’s opposite number in peace negotiations.

(l-r) Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP
Image:
(l-r) Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP

Whenever the US special envoy has been in Moscow this year, Dmitriev has always been close by. He is Putin’s Witkoff whisperer.

After the Lavrov-Rubio bust-up, Dmitriev was sent to Miami to supposedly patch things up through Witkoff. He did more than, it seems.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Cheat Sheet: Russian spy ship and secret Ukraine peace deal

Read more from Sky News:
Witkoff’s ‘secret’ plan to end war
Navy could react to laser incident

What’s reportedly emerged from their discussions is a 28-point peace plan that has been signed off by Donald Trump.

Will Ukraine go for it? I very much doubt it.

If the reports are correct, the US-Russia proposals merely represent the Kremlin’s long-held demands, and Ukraine’s long-held red lines. For Kyiv, it’s a non-starter.

But President Zelenskyy will have to tread carefully. Failure to show engagement could rile Donald Trump and trigger an ultimatum – accept this plan or you’re on your own.

Continue Reading

Trending