Business

Are Social Equity Cannabis Rules a Corporate Strategy to Monopolize the Marijuana Industry?

Published

4 years ago

August 2, 2022

Why Social Equity Cannabis Legalization is a Corporate Strategy to Monopolize the Cannabis Market

I am always very weary when it comes to “Social Equity” and policies like “Affirmative Action”. Not because I don’t believe that we need to create systems that empower the individual to rise above their current situations – but because for the most part the “social equity” card has been utilized by corporations to dodge responsibility while “seeming” to be working for a greater good.

For example, the “Climate Change” argument detracts from the real culprits that are destroying our earth; MONSTER CORPORATION AND GLOBAL ARMIES.

That’s right, most of the pollution that massively affect the planet comes from the very corporations pushing green agendas. They fly in their private jets to far off lands to talk about how they can “save the world”.

That level of sadistic psychopathy can only be mastered by the ruling elite and what’s worse is that they believe that everybody will simply “go along with it”.

The scary thing is that at the very least there is some portion of the population who do blindly go along with these policies.

However, today we’re not here to talk about the flaws of Climate Change, but rather, we’re taking a closer look at another “hype term” – Social Equity.

Dafuq is Social Equity?

You may have heard the term “Social Equity” thrown around with cannabis legalization bills, workplace policy and so forth. So for the sake to end all doubts, let’s take a closer look at the definition of “Social Equity”.

According to Knowledge Bank,

Social Equity, at its simplest, can be understood as impartiality, fairness, and justice for all people.1 This means taking into account systemic inequalities to ensure that that everyone has access to the same opportunities and outcomes.

In other words, it’s a retroactive system that attempts to “level the playing field” in a number of ways whether through affirmative action, and creating “special rules” for the marginalized or restricting other people from engaging with a particular activity.

Now, before some of you go ballistic and break down the concept of “Social Equity”, it isn’t necessarily coming from a “bad place”.

After all, in an ethical and open society, we would want to ensure that everybody in a legal sense is treated equally.

THE PROBLEM with social equity comes in relation to one of its core motivations – that everyone has access to the same opportunities and outcomes.

While in an ideal world, this would be a nice scenario. Everyone has access to the same opportunities and outcomes. The problem is that no outcome, even if you get all the help from the government, is guaranteed.

In relation to “opportunities”, by definition every individual has their own advantages and disadvantages. For example, if Candidate A, B and C all work in the exact same position at their job but Candidate A is a single person in good health, Candidate B is a single mother barely making it each week, and Candidate C is a person with a physical disability – they all might have the same opportunities, but their outcomes will differ significantly.

This is because you can’t engineer the outcome. You can only provide the opportunity.

This is the core issue with social equity – trying to engineer an artificial outcome. And this is exactly why the whole social equity experiment in cannabis isn’t working out.

What’s more, it seems that the only real people benefiting from these “social equity licenses” are monster corporations who are supposed to not have access to these licenses.

What’s happening in Arizona?

In Arizona, they have such a scheme where people with prior marijuana convictions can get access to Equity licenses. Essentially, this is the state’s attempt to undo the damage of the drug war. While this is a nice gesture, the biggest problem for people who have a state or federal marijuana record is that – they typically don’t have any funds.

Since starting up a successful cannabis venture requires a lot of money. And so, big firms are searching for people who can essentially “partner” with them for access to the equity licenses, and in turn, everybody wins!

Well – at first!

Then, after a while, the firm can buy out the license and keep it under the name holder, add it to their portfolio, and essentially muscle out the affected communities!

And why wouldn’t you do that. The state has this entire scheme of licenses that can’t really be touched by the affected community due to their lack of financing. Even if they got financing as well, it’s very different to run a successful cannabis business than selling weed out of the trunk of your car.

Having a marijuana conviction doesn’t immediately make you an expert in selling marijuana in a legal environment. In fact, one would argue that having a marijuana conviction indicates that you were impoverished enough that risking your freedom for the promise of money was “worth it”.

These aren’t the type of people who necessarily can run a dispensary, check payroll, pay the lights, taxes, etc.

Therefore, it makes sense that corporations want to jump in, float the hefty bill of running the place, and then siphon off money from these equity licensing for years to come.

This is why a new civil lawsuit is being issued against the state of Arizona by an advocacy group who claim the state have failed to protect these minority communities from corporate overreach.

The new legal complaint argues that the social equity program has failed to meet the standards laid out in Prop 207, the ballot initiative voters passed last year that legalized marijuana and has allowed thousands of Arizonans to expunge prior marijuana charges. Through Prop 207, voters directed the state to create a program that promoted dispensary ownership by people who were disproportionately impacted by marijuana laws — which, in Arizona, often was poor, Black and Latino communities.

But since the draft rules for the social equity program were released, advocates warned that major cannabis investors might easily game the system. And now, Rodriguez says that’s what she’s seeing.

“What the voters were trying to do was enrich communities that were impacted by the drug war.” Jimmy Cool, the lead attorney on the case, told New Times. “From our clients’ perspective, all [the program] does is enrich 26 people.” – SOURCE

And that’s the truth with virtually all of these schemes.

Why Social Equity fails!

It’s easy for a millionaire to sit down, analyze the problems of the poor and say, “Do this and you’ll achieve that!” The problem with the millionaire is that he or she does not share the same values, needs, and desires as that as a poor person.

Therefore, “thinking” from the perspective of an affluent individual can never understand the nuances needed for the affected to truly succeed. The Social Equity licensing is a solution produced by the affluent to whitewash their “drug war” guilt.

It’s an invention by woke-corporatism to show they care, when in reality they profited off the war on drugs and will profit on the legalization of drugs too.

The main problem with Social Equity is;

Limited licenses creates artificial value
The costs associated with cannabis is still high
You still need corporate to run a cannabis store

Since costs are so exuberant, it’s impossible for someone who spent years in jail to raise capital. Without access to banking loans, or even the experience of running a successful business – the only solution to these “equity license” holders are to partner with some money-hungry firm.

The solution is a 2-Tier Cannabis Industry

I have said this once, and I’ll say this again. The ONLY real solution is to create a distinction between corporate cannabis, and “mom and pop” operations.

The biggest problem with the lower strata of society is that the fees associated with the cannabis industry reflect the budgets of big corporations, while the rest of us are working on Farmer’s Market budgets.

Which is why we need to create a system that allows people of the lower income bracket to be able to build a business without needing too much investment. We can also reduce the burden on these businesses by reducing the strictness on testing, etc.

My plan has always been;

$1000 for a yearly license for cannabis operations earning up to $1,000,000 in profits annually. Once the $1,000,000 thresh hold is met, then the corporate cannabis scheme can come into play.

This gives people the opportunity to be able to grow a business from the ground up. What this will also mean is that there would be no “Equity licenses”. Anybody would be able to get it for $1,000.

If you can’t get $1k together, you might not deserve a cannabis license.

This also gives these equity license holders the opportunity to grow a business from the ground up, hire local talent, and undo the damages of the drug war.

Yet, we must first separate the need to add in social equity into every bill, because before you know it – the corporations will gobble up all those licenses and then we’re all screwed.

Final Words

There’s a reason why Schumer hasn’t been able to pass any cannabis legislation. It’s because of these social equity laws. While it’s nice to think about those effected by the Drug War, unless you bring actual solutions that can be scaled by the affected demographic – you’re just making up millionaire solutions to the impoverished who can never attain the standards set by the elite.

Reduce legalization to what it is; a plant that needs to be cultivated, processed and sold, There needs to be no social equity written into the core of legalization.

Rather, each state could create investment clubs via taxation, however – understanding the nature of politics…unless we push back and remove their social equity language from the legalization efforts – the Arizona dilemma will only continue everywhere else in the US.

Make weed legal, make it cheap to get involved, and allow these small businesses a grace period to grow. And you’ll see the net benefit would far outweigh social equity laws.

Source: https://cannabis.net/blog/opinion/are-social-equity-cannabis-rules-a-corporate-strategy-to-monopolize-the-marijuana-industry

Business

Alleged Crores Pharma Scam Mastermind Arrested from Surat

Published

1 week ago

May 25, 2026

Jon Tru

After evading law enforcement for nearly 13 years, an accused linked to a large-scale pharmaceutical fraud case has been arrested by Delhi Police from Surat, Gujarat. The suspect is alleged to have orchestrated a series of financial scams involving fake identities, forged documents, and dishonoured cheques used to procure high-value pharmaceutical raw materials.

Authorities say the accused, identified as Himmat Singh Lodha, is believed to have defrauded multiple pharmaceutical companies in Delhi of goods worth approximately ₹98 lakh before disappearing and remaining underground for years.

Fake Business Deals and Dishonoured Cheques Used in Fraud

Investigators claim the accused posed as a legitimate pharmaceutical trader and placed bulk orders for expensive drug ingredients, offering post-dated cheques as payment security.

In one documented case from 2013, he allegedly obtained around 550 kilograms of Gliclazide, a diabetes-related pharmaceutical ingredient, valued at over ₹26 lakh. When suppliers attempted to encash the cheques, they were reportedly returned with the remark “account closed.”

Following the transaction, the accused allegedly vacated his office and rented residence and disappeared without settling payments. He was later declared a proclaimed offender in 2016 after repeatedly failing to appear before court proceedings. Authorities had also issued a reward for information leading to his arrest.

Multiple Identities and Repeated Fraud Pattern

Police investigations further link the accused to another cheating case dating back to 2012, where he allegedly used a fake identity, “Kailash Jain,” to obtain a large consignment of Ambroxol HCL, a pharmaceutical compound used in cough medications. The value of that consignment was estimated at around ₹72 lakh.

Officials believe the accused followed a consistent modus operandi—posing as a credible businessman, securing high-value goods on deferred payment terms, and then disappearing after delivery while shutting down business operations.

Investigators suspect that forged business records, fake company credentials, and fabricated financial histories were used to build trust with suppliers and gain access to expensive raw materials.

Multi-State Surveillance Leads to Arrest in Surat

A special Crime Branch team tracked the accused through coordinated surveillance efforts across multiple cities, including Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Surat. After nearly a month of technical monitoring and intelligence gathering, officials located and arrested him from a residential area in Surat.

Authorities also revealed that the accused had been involved in property-related activities while staying under the radar to avoid detection.

Growing Threat of Corporate Identity Fraud

The case highlights a rising trend of organised financial fraud targeting industries that rely heavily on trust-based transactions and deferred payments. Experts note that criminals increasingly exploit gaps in corporate verification systems by using fake GST registrations, temporary offices, and forged documentation to appear legitimate.

Cybercrime and financial fraud specialists warn that such schemes are becoming more complex with the widespread availability of digital business tools, making it easier to create convincing but fraudulent corporate identities.

Experts Urge Stronger Due Diligence in High-Value Transactions

Experts, including former IPS officer and cybercrime specialist Prof. Triveni Singh, emphasize the need for stricter verification procedures in commercial dealings. He noted that relying solely on paperwork or digital business profiles can expose companies to significant financial risk.

Authorities and industry experts recommend physical verification of business operations, bank account validation, and detailed background checks before engaging in high-value or deferred-payment transactions—particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals, where single consignments can involve transactions worth crores.

Business

EU Pressure Builds on Google as Regulators Face Calls for Massive Fine Over Search Practices

Published

3 months ago

March 17, 2026

Jon Tru

A growing coalition of European industry groups is intensifying pressure on regulators to take decisive action against Google over allegations of unfair search practices that could reshape competition rules across the region’s digital economy.

Investigation Under Digital Markets Act Gains Momentum

The case is being examined by the European Commission under the European Union’s landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA), introduced to curb the dominance of major technology platforms and ensure fair competition.

Launched in March 2024, the investigation focuses on whether Google has been prioritising its own services in search results, potentially disadvantaging rival businesses that rely on online visibility to reach customers.

Industry Groups Demand Swift Action

Several prominent European organizations have jointly urged regulators to conclude the probe without further delay. They argue that prolonged investigations allow alleged anti-competitive practices to continue, putting European companies—especially startups—at a disadvantage.

Signatories include the European Publishers Council, the European Magazine Media Association, the European Tech Alliance, and EU Travel Tech.

In a joint statement, these groups warned that delays in enforcement are affecting innovation, profitability, and growth prospects for regional businesses competing in digital markets.

Google Denies Allegations

Google has rejected claims of bias, stating that its search algorithms are designed to deliver the most relevant and useful results to users. The company has also proposed adjustments to address regulatory concerns.

However, critics argue that these changes are insufficient and fail to address the core issue of market dominance.

Potential Billion-Euro Penalties

If found in violation of the DMA, Google could face significant financial penalties. Under EU rules, fines can reach a substantial percentage of a company’s global turnover, potentially amounting to billions of euros.

Regulators may also impose corrective measures requiring changes to business practices, which could have long-term implications for how digital platforms operate in Europe.

Wider Implications for Big Tech

The case highlights ongoing tensions between European regulators and major U.S. technology firms. In recent years, the EU has taken a more aggressive stance in enforcing competition laws, aiming to create a level playing field for local businesses.

A final ruling against Google could set a major precedent, influencing future enforcement actions and shaping the regulatory landscape for global tech companies operating within Europe.

As scrutiny intensifies, the outcome of the investigation is expected to play a critical role in defining the future of digital competition across the European Union.

AI & Technology

Amazon Faces Potential Criminal Trial in Italy Over €1.2 Billion Tax Evasion Allegations

Published

3 months ago

March 17, 2026

Jon Tru

Milan: U.S. tech giant Amazon is facing the prospect of a major legal showdown in Italy, after prosecutors in Milan formally requested a court to move forward with criminal proceedings over alleged tax evasion totaling approximately ₹12,500 crore (€1.2 billion).

The case targets Amazon’s European division along with four senior executives, marking one of the most significant tax-related investigations involving a global e-commerce platform in Europe.

Trial Push Despite Multi-Million Euro Settlement

The move comes even after Amazon reached a financial settlement with Italian tax authorities in December, agreeing to pay around ₹5,500 crore (€527 million), including interest, to resolve part of the dispute.

Typically, such settlements lead to the closure of criminal investigations. However, Milan prosecutors have opted to proceed, signaling a tougher stance on alleged corporate tax violations.

A preliminary hearing is expected in the coming months, where a judge will decide whether to formally indict the company and its executives or dismiss the case.

Allegations of VAT Evasion Through Marketplace Sellers

At the center of the investigation are claims that Amazon’s platform enabled non-European Union sellers to avoid paying value-added tax (VAT) on goods sold to Italian consumers between 2019 and 2021.

Prosecutors allege that the company’s marketplace structure allowed thousands of foreign vendors—many reportedly based in China—to operate without fully disclosing their identities or tax obligations. This, authorities argue, led to substantial VAT losses for the Italian government.

Under Italian law, online platforms facilitating sales can be held partially liable if third-party sellers fail to comply with tax requirements, a key point in the prosecution’s case.

Italian Government Named as Affected Party

In their filing, prosecutors identified Italy’s Economy Ministry as the injured party, citing significant financial damage resulting from the alleged tax evasion.

Legal experts say the outcome of the case could have wide-ranging implications across the European Union, where VAT systems are harmonized and similar compliance rules apply to digital marketplaces.

Multiple Investigations Add to Pressure

The VAT probe is just one of several legal challenges facing Amazon in Italy. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is reportedly examining additional tax-related issues covering more recent years.

Meanwhile, Milan authorities are pursuing separate investigations into alleged customs fraud linked to imports from China and whether Amazon maintained an undeclared “permanent establishment” in Italy—potentially exposing it to higher tax liabilities.

In a separate regulatory action, Italy’s data protection authority recently ordered an Amazon unit to stop using personal data from over 1,800 employees at a warehouse near Rome.

Amazon Denies Allegations

Amazon has consistently denied wrongdoing and indicated it will strongly contest the allegations in court if the case proceeds. The company has also warned that prolonged legal uncertainty could impact investor confidence and Italy’s appeal as a destination for international business.

Broader Impact on Europe’s Digital Economy

If the case moves to trial, it could become a landmark moment for the regulation of global e-commerce platforms in Europe. Governments across the region are increasingly scrutinizing how digital marketplaces handle tax compliance, especially in cross-border transactions.

With online retail continuing to expand, regulators are under mounting pressure to ensure that multinational platforms and third-party sellers adhere to the same tax rules as traditional businesses.