Medical cannabis CTO says vendors would hang up when he called looking for a deal When Myles Lawlor took the job as chief technology officer at Alternaleaf, Australia's largest online alternative health clinic, he started calling industry contacts to talk about the startup's tech needs – and they would hang up on him. He tried to use Shopify for e-commerce and Stripe for payments. Neither would let …
That is true, of course, But Alternaleaf can slap back by making their technology available to others in the field, for free or for a small profit, thereby undercutting Shopify, Stripe, and the others' prices -- effectively shutting them out. In fact, Alternaleaf may have the beginnings of a long tern side hustle....
I know this is Oz, not the USofA, but here is a prime example of the American capitalist's wet dream personified.
In this case cannabis IS a drug ..... most governments class it as a drug ..... the problem it has is that it has arrived in society via the recreational pharmaceutical route.
Opioids are also a drug ..... governments class them as drugs ..... yet because it arrived in society as a medical pharmaceutical it is available. Tightly controlled, but available.
If the same controls are applied to cannabis why should it not be available to those for whom cannabis as a drug would be beneficial?
No-one said it isn't a drug. The issue is providing it from an "alternative health service". I don't know what else Alternaleaf prescribe, but if they're not flogging "alternative medicine", they're doing themselves no favours with use of the "a" word.
Cannabis is a proven drug for pain relief and other distressing symptoms. Its description as a "natural treatment" is irrelevant. Most proven medicines started out as "natural treatments", because there were no other sources apart from the "natural" world. Many proven medicines are still sourced this way. They are no better, or worse, for it and are not "alternatives". That's a word reserved for the bollocks that can't demonstrate that it actually works.
If cannabis is to be used as a real medicinal drug, then it can be called it a real medicinal drug, and provided as part of a real health service.
In England, one can obtain a medical prescription for almost exactly the same cost as the street price of the product.
The process of being referred to a clinic is involves handing over your medical history from your GP, and two video interviews with clinicians at a cost.
Then every three months another video call with a clinician at a cost.
Your prescription itself is limited to a months supply, you are not allowed to buy more, you are not allowed to buy less.
As to what you are being sold well. The licencing regime seems to have licensed THC not cannabis per say. Which has led to the clinicians being trapped in this charming enclave outside of the mainstream ecosystem.
They are not allowed to tell you what strains they have, They are not allowed to describe the strains by smell or taste or anything other than a "brand name" which itself on multiple occasions is really not what that name relates to outside the medical enclave.
The experience is almost reminicient of the 1990s
Clinician: "would you like to try this one, it's called smelly armpit, the THC % is 17 and it's an indica."
Patient: "I don't really know, do you think this will be better for me than the last one called ingrowing toe nail?"
C: "Either way the last one is out of stock so do you want it or not?"
P: "Well you've talked me round with your fancy medical terminology"
Now imagine that coversation went like this
Clinician: "would you like to try this one, it's called smelly armpit, the Ethanol % is 17 and it's an wide glass"
Patient: "I don't really know, do you think this will be better for me than the last one called ingrowing toe nail with the same Ethanol % in a narrow glass"
C: "Either way the last one is out of stock so do you want it or not?"
P: "Bottoms up"
Most proven medicines started out as "natural treatments", because there were no other sources apart from the "natural" world.
Manure! Convince me that dupilumab (Dupixent, for those of you in the US used to seeing its trade name bombarded across your TV screens), or even salicylic acid (aspirin) is, or ever was a "natural treatment".
One of the weird things about the US and cannabis is that while cannabis products are legal in many states they're still 100% illegal at the Federal level. At a personal level this means that the gummies that I bought and possess legally in California become contraband as soon as I enter an airport for a flight to New Mexico, another state where the identical products are legal. It also means that the entire banking system is off limits to growers and suppliers -- its a cash only business which makes it difficult and potentially dangerous. (Not to mention that some bright spark in the San Bernadino sheriff's department had the idea to partner with federal law enforcement to intercept the secure transport carrying cash across the desert, nice work at $2 million a throw until the courts eventually smacked them down.)
The money's not just in cannabis. When this was legalized hemp growing became legal. Hemp is a valuable cash crop that grows well on marginal land (grows for THC are usually carefully tended in protected greenhouses).
Efforts are underway to try to fix this but its a slow and tedious process.
Yes, the US is a completely different kettle of fish compared to Australia.
In Oz, cannabis is strictly regulated (and thus lawful) at the *federal level*, whereas in the US, it is *illegal* at the same level, and any organisation doing business across state lines has to ensure they don't break any federal laws. That's why banks like Chase, BoA etc all refuse to do business with cannabis companies. The fact that they do business across state lines (which they do as large country-wide banks) exposes them to federal laws, even though a cannabis business might only be doing business within the state, and 'cannabis money' never crosses the border.
So Oz already has a leg up, and as such, no vendor or supplier should even be pondering the question whether it's legal or not. The Oz federal government says it is legal, provided it is regulated by it, and as such, that should mean you're ok. However, I guess if the suppliers are US-based, they are still concerned over any repercussions they may face from *their* government (i.e. the US federal government) whilst doing business regulated and authorised by a different country's government (i.e. Oz's federal government).
The US has a very odd view of its legal influence. If you are a business merely touching the US dollar, or if you are a business doing business with a US entity or an entity owned by a US entity, the US has this belief that you are immediately within its sphere of legal influence and subject to US laws. This is what screwed over Standard Chartered (the bank) when they did business with Iran at the time Iran was sanctioned by the US but not by Europe. Standard Chartered handled oil contracts in US dollars that never saw the US coastline or touched a US-owned business, but because it was the US dollar currency, *and* Standard Chartered also happened to do business with US entities (albeit *not* on the oil contracts), the US government sued them for sanction busting. That's one reason why Iran switched all its contracts to the Euro, because Europe did not have such a view, and US laws couldn't be applied (despite the US trying).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
