r/TLRY

England pulled off a miracle winning in Mexico

Until tonight Mexico have only lost 2 games in that stadium in the last 59 years, totaling 89 games. England Red Card and played with 10 men for a large part of the game.

Absolute classic

Big game today!

Don't miss the action at @BrewDog and @tilray @brewpubs

If England or USA reach the final, beers are on us when you wear the winning nation's shirt to our bars (and @tilray @brewpubs).

T&Cs apply. Please enjoy responsibly.

Eyes on $MSOS $TLRY - rescheduling momentum vs state limits. Watch policy vs safety headlines into the open.

Federal momentum toward rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III clashes with state restrictions and fresh health studies. Heading into the July 6 open, investors should weigh policy progress against regulatory and safety headwinds.

Sunday, July 5, 2026 StockAlpha @WolfOfWeedST

The Big Picture

The most impactful development overnight is regulatory, not market action: the DEA told a tribunal it supports moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. That federal signal could change licensing, research, and banking dynamics if finalized, and it's reshaping how markets and lawmakers think about the industry even while US equities were closed for the long weekend.

At the same time you're seeing diverging state trends and new safety and public perception challenges. Georgia expanded patient access in a way that could dramatically boost the medical market, while North Carolina's Senate voted to restrict hemp THC and kratom products. How will these competing forces affect revenue growth and risk for operators? That's the question investors face heading into Monday's open.

Market Highlights

US stock markets were closed on Sunday. The last trading day was Thursday, July 2, and the next session is Monday, July 6. Here are the top headline facts and figures from the stories affecting the sector.

• Federal action: DEA attorneys told a hearing they support downgrading cannabis to Schedule III, a key step toward wider medical acceptance and research access.
• Patient growth: Georgia's expanded medical marijuana law could triple registered patients within a year, an approximate 300% increase in potential demand for licensed providers and dispensaries.
• Health risks: A JAMA Health Forum study tracking over 463,000 adolescents reports roughly doubled risks for psychotic and bipolar disorders among teens who used cannabis in the prior year, signaling material public health concerns.
• State policy split: North Carolina's Senate passed a bill to ban most cannabis products currently sold in the state, tightening the market for hemp-derived THC and kratom products.
• Safety sector pushback: A coalition led by the American Trucking Associations warned federal officials about the consequences of rescheduling for drug testing of truck drivers and pilots, spotlighting workplace regulation issues.
• Stocks to watch in this sector: $MSOS, $TCNNF, $GTBIF, $CURLF, $TLRY, which investors commonly track for ETF and major operator exposure.

Key Developments

DEA Hearing: A Potential Shift to Schedule III The DEA's counsel told a federal tribunal that the agency supports moving cannabis to Schedule III. That position could ease research barriers, alter banking and tax treatment, and influence investor sentiment about long-term normalization. If implemented, the change would not instantly solve state-by-state regulatory differences, but it could move the needle on capital formation and credibility for medical claims.

State Divergence: Georgia Expansion Versus North Carolina Restriction

Georgia enacted the Putting Georgia's Patients First Act, which broadens allowed potencies and delivery methods for medical patients, and analysts estimate registered patient counts could triple within a year. That expansion creates a clear, near-term demand opportunity for licensed operators and ancillary businesses in the state.

By contrast, the North Carolina Senate passed a bill to restrict hemp-derived THC and kratom products, effectively banning many products currently on shelves. That action highlights how state-level politics can blunt national progress and create patchwork markets. For companies operating across states, compliance complexity and inventory risk will remain central issues.

Safety, Research, and Public Perception Questions

A large longitudinal study found that teens who used cannabis had significantly higher risks of later developing psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety. The reported doubling of risk for psychotic and bipolar disorders will likely feed calls for tighter youth access controls and targeted public health campaigns. You're likely to hear this study cited in legislative debates and compliance discussions.

Meanwhile, transportation and safety groups are urging federal authorities to clarify rules on drug testing after rescheduling. Their letter stresses concerns for truck drivers, pilots, and transit workers, which could slow implementation of any federal change or lead to worker-specific carve outs. How regulators balance workplace safety and criminal policy reform is now a live question for investors and operators alike.

What to Watch

You'll want to monitor the DEA tribunal and any formal rulemaking timelines closely. Will the agency publish a proposed rule and a comment period, or will Congress try to legislate change? Regulatory process timelines will determine how quickly the market can price in meaningful structural benefits.

State-level moves matter as much as federal ones. Watch for implementation guidance from Georgia regulators as new patient registration ramps up. Also track North Carolina's next steps and any legal challenges from businesses affected by the restrictions. Which states move to expand access next, and which will tighten rules?

Keep an eye on public perception and safety-driven policy responses. Expect advocacy from transportation groups and health organizations that could shape workplace testing rules and marketing limitations. You should also watch the investor reaction in the ETFs and names that follow the sector, including $MSOS, $TCNNF, $GTBIF, $CURLF, and $TLRY, when markets reopen on July 6.

Bottom Line

• Federal momentum toward Schedule III creates long-term structural opportunity for research, banking, and legitimacy, but the timeline and details remain uncertain.
• State divergence is increasing, with Georgia likely to be a growth market and North Carolina illustrating downside regulatory risk for product lines.
• New health data on adolescent risk and transportation sector concerns add regulatory and reputational headwinds that could affect marketing, labeling, and workforce rules.
• You're advised to follow rulemaking and state implementation updates closely, since process details will determine who benefits and who faces compliance costs.
• Sector ETFs and major operators will likely react to concrete policy steps, so watch $MSOS, $TCNNF, $GTBIF, $CURLF, and $TLRY when US markets reopen on July 6.

Pillar 2 Recreational Cannabis Coming Soon to Germany?

Streeck, serves in the Federal Ministry of Health as the Federal Government Commissioner for Drug and Addiction Policy and is a member of the Bundestag. Streeck is the Federal Government Commissioner for Drug and Addiction Policy

July 3, 2026 MedCanOneStop

On June 5, 2026, Federal Drug Commissioner Hendrik Streeck (CDU) spoke out for the first time to the Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland in favor of cannabis model projects, including the option of using specialty shops as distribution points. An unusual step for a CDU politician, whose party has officially labeled partial legalization a mistake.

Just under four weeks later, on July 2, 2026, Streeck followed up with the Rheinische Post: Pharmacies as sales outlets within the framework of pilot projects, explicitly as his personal opinion. The direction remains the same, but the framework becomes more concrete.

Streeck himself put it this way in June: “If cultivation associations are regulated in such a complicated way that they can hardly function, no control is created, but rather evasion behavior. Then one must honestly talk about simplifications.”

Published on July 3, 2026 By MarijuanaMoment

“There was no discussion of the lasting harms of marijuana criminalization itself—the arrests, convictions, incarceration and collateral consequences that continue to affect individuals, families and communities.”

By Cat Packer, Drug Policy Alliance

At 7:15 Monday morning, I was standing outside the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, waiting to attend one of the most consequential federal marijuana proceedings in decades: the DEA’s hearing on whether marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Although the Drug Policy Alliance, where I work, sought permission to participate as an interested party, DEA denied our request, along with those submitted by organizations including NORML, Marijuana Policy Project, Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, Latino Cannabis Alliance, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, Doctors for Drug Policy Reform, the Parabola Center for Law & Policy, Supernova Women and Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

Many of these organizations have spent decades at the forefront of marijuana reform that addresses the harms of criminalization, prioritizes health, and delivers legalization that puts communities first–but were notably excluded from participation in the hearing.

Instead, the DEA designated just seven parties to participate—and every one of them opposes rescheduling.

The hearing wasn’t scheduled to begin until 9:00 a.m.—but members of the public were admitted on a first-come, first-served basis, and only a handful at a time. There was no livestream. No video broadcast. No public audio feed. If you wanted to know what was happening inside the hearing room, you had to be there.

For the first two days, I was.

On the third day, I was denied entry after being told the administrative law judge had barred public attendees after 8:50 a.m.—a restriction that had not been publicly disclosed.

Most people simply don’t have the time, flexibility or financial resources to attend a hearing like this in person. I recognize that I am fortunate to have a job that gave me the opportunity to do so. I believed it was important to attend—not only to better understand the proceeding firsthand, but also to help explain to the public what this hearing is and what it means.

From the outset, DEA framed the proceedings as advancing “regulation, not legalization.” But regulation and legalization are not competing goals—they are complementary responsibilities. By refusing to acknowledge that most Americans have embraced marijuana legalization and by excluding many of the voices that helped make those reforms possible, the hearing failed to address the central questions Americans have about the future of marijuana policy.

After spending two days inside the hearing room—and being denied access on the third—three observations stood out.

My first observation was: This conversation is being shaped by a narrow set of voices—those of DEA and of opponents of marijuana reform.

On one side of the room sat the federal government, represented by DEA and its legal counsel, defending its proposal to move marijuana to Schedule III. On the other side, sat the legal counsel of the seven designated participants selected by DEA—every one of whom opposes rescheduling.

That matters because beyond DEA, these parties are the only ones permitted to present witnesses, introduce evidence and cross-examine the government’s experts. Their testimony—and the testimony they challenge—will help shape the administrative record the administrative law judge will review before making a recommendation to DEA.

When many of the stakeholders most directly affected by federal marijuana policy are excluded from participating, the record inevitably reflects a narrower range of perspectives.

That became especially clear as the testimony unfolded.

Dr. Dominic Chiapperino, Director of the Controlled Substances Section at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), shared testimony that was generally limited to FDA’s scientific and medical review—the process used to determine marijuana’s currently accepted medical use, abuse potential and the methodology supporting the recommendation to reschedule marijuana.

The government’s second witness, Dr. Corey Burchman, shifted the discussion from scientific analysis to clinical practice. Drawing on his experience treating patients, he described helping many patients transition from opioids to cannabis and discussed the relative risks of opioid use and marijuana.

These issues are important and deserve thoughtful consideration. But so do the perspectives that weren’t represented.

There was no discussion of the lasting harms of marijuana criminalization itself—the arrests, convictions, incarceration and collateral consequences that continue to affect individuals, families and communities. There was no discussion of the racial disparities that have characterized marijuana enforcement for decades, the Nixon-era Shafer Commission’s recommendation against criminalizing personal marijuana possession or the lessons learned from the dozens of states that have legalized and regulated marijuana.

If we are evaluating marijuana’s place under federal law, we should also evaluate these issues and the consequences of the federal policies that have governed it for more than half a century. Questions around marijuana criminalization and the social and financial cost of enforcement are central to evaluating whether the current system serves the public interest.

My second observation was: This hearing is about marijuana. Not medical vs. adult use.

Much of the recent public discussion surrounding these proceedings has focused on what rescheduling might mean for adult-use cannabis. But from the outset, government counsel made clear that, in DEA’s view, “this is not about recreational cannabis. This is about regulation, not legalization.”

But what’s important about an acknowledgement that this isn’t about ‘recreational,’ in part, is the reality that the CSA does not distinguish between “medical marijuana” and “recreational marijuana.” It regulates “marihuana” as a single defined substance, and this hearing is considering whether that substance—as defined in the CSA—should move from Schedule I to Schedule III.

There is one important exception. Earlier this year, DEA finalized a separate rule moving FDA-approved marijuana medications and marijuana produced by qualifying state-licensed medical marijuana operators into Schedule III. Those decisions are already final and are not being reconsidered here. Everything else that falls within the federal definition of marijuana remains in Schedule I and criminalized under federal law.

My third observation was: This hearing matters—but it fails to consider or address the biggest questions facing marijuana reform.

This hearing is only one step in the administrative process.

Every question asked and every answer given becomes part of the official record. Once the hearing concludes, the administrative law judge will compile that record and issue a recommended decision to DEA. The agency will then determine whether to issue a final rule, and whatever decision it reaches will almost certainly face judicial review.

In other words, this hearing matters—but it is not the final word.

That brings me back to the government’s opening statement: that this proceeding is “about regulation, not legalization.”

The American people have repeatedly made clear that they are ready to move beyond marijuana criminalization. They also expect thoughtful regulation that protects public health, supports scientific research, creates clear rules for legitimate businesses, draws on the lessons learned by states and begins repairing the harms created by decades of prohibition.

Legalization and regulation are not mutually exclusive. Nor do they have to be competing goals. They should be complementary responsibilities.

Rescheduling may change marijuana’s status under federal law, but it will not end federal criminalization, resolve the conflict between federal and state law or create the comprehensive regulatory framework the country increasingly needs and expects. Those are questions that only Congress can answer.

That is why, regardless of how DEA ultimately rules, Congress should advance comprehensive marijuana reform through legislation such as the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act and the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA). Ending federal marijuana criminalization, supporting state-regulated systems, restoring rights, releasing those still incarcerated for marijuana offenses and beginning to repair the harms of prohibition are not separate from the conversation about regulation—they are essential to it.

I won’t be able to attend the remainder of the hearing in person. Like most members of the public—and like the many organizations and experts denied the opportunity to participate as designated parties—I will be waiting to see what ultimately comes from a process that has been both exclusionary and lacking in transparency.

What I already know, however, is this: if we want a marijuana policy that protects public health, advances evidence-based regulation, addresses the harms of prohibition, and reflects the will of the American people, we need both legalization and regulation.

Cat Packer is the director of drug markets & legal regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance and a distinguished cannabis policy practitioner in residence at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. From 2017 through 2022, Packer served as the first executive director of the City of Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation.

Canada won't be replaced as the main German Cannabis supplier so quickly—rescheduling or not.

The USA plans to downgrade cannabis from the highest risk level to Schedule III.

For German patients, nothing changes in the short term.

The path from a US decision to an open export market to Europe is a long one.

For American patients, however, it would be real progress. Schedule III means: Cannabis is officially recognized as medicine, research becomes easier, and insurance companies could reimburse treatments for the first time.

MedCanOneStop