Category: Cannabis Info-2

05/20/2025 – 01:59 PM

TAMPA, Fla., May 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FLUENT Corp. (CSE: FNT.U) (OTCQB: CNTMF) (“FLUENT” or the “Company”), a national cannabis company operating under the FLUENT™ brand, proudly announces the Florida launch of KNACK, its whole flower brand already trusted by New York consumers. Featuring a curated, rotating selection of hybrid, indica, and sativa strains in a 3.5-gram format, KNACK is now available at all 35 FLUENT dispensaries across Florida.

KNACK originally debuted in New York, where it quickly gained traction for delivering high-quality, flavorful, and affordable flower to everyday consumers. The brand is also available at third-party dispensaries in New York via ENTOURAGE wholesale platform.

The introduction of KNACK in Florida represents a milestone in FLUENT’s ongoing evolution and renewed focus on raising the standard of whole flower throughout the state. With revamped cultivation practices, refined genetics, and a deeper connection to consumer preferences, FLUENT is doubling down on quality and consistency.

Robert Beasley, CEO of FLUENT, shared his thoughts on the launch:
“KNACK’s expansion into Florida is more than just a product launch—it’s a reflection of the progress we’ve made in refining our flower quality. We’ve listened to our community, invested in our cultivation facilities, and made major improvements to bring Florida consumers the kind of flower they expect from a top-tier brand.”

Built for true connoisseurs, KNACK is guided by core brand pillars:

• Powered by Passion: We’re consumers ourselves and take pride in growing high-quality, affordable cannabis for our community that’s set to true connoisseur’s standards.
• Diverse and Consistent Genetics: Our ever-changing canopy has a wide array of strains, flavors and lineages, helping to ensure we have something for everyone looking for a great time.
• Local Roots: The community is an essential partner in everything we do. Our team works tirelessly in our locally grown garden to source the genetics our consumers want, delivering unmatched quality and approachability.

KNACK’s arrival signals FLUENT’s next chapter, one focused on cultivating exceptional flower with authenticity, transparency, and craft at its core. Wherever you are, KNACK is here to elevate the experience, because with KNACK, you’re always in good company.

This exciting launch follows the recent release of KNACK (Lit)les multipack pre-rolls in New York—a product FLUENT plans to bring to the KNACK lineup in Florida, along with larger whole flower size formats. To browse current KNACK strains and find your nearest dispensary, visit www.getfluent.com and follow FLUENT on Instagram @Fluent_FL to stay up-to-date on the Company’s latest innovations and offerings.

About FLUENT Corp.
FLUENT Corp. (“FLUENT”), a national cannabis consumer packaged goods company and retailer, is dedicated to being one of the highest quality cannabis companies for the communities it serves. This is driven by FLUENT’s unrelenting commitment to operational excellence in cultivation, production, distribution and retail experience. FLUENT produces an assortment of cannabis products under a diverse portfolio of brands including MOODS, Knack, Wandr, Bag-O and Hyer Kind. FLUENT operates in Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas. Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, FLUENT employs more than 700 employees across 8 cultivation and manufacturing facilities and 42 active retail locations. For more information about the Company, please visit www.getFLUENT.com.

FLUENT’s Common Shares trade on the CSE under the symbol “FNT.U” and on the OTCQB Venture Market under the symbol “CNTMF”. For more information about the Company, please visit www.getFLUENT.com.

Company Contact:
Robert Beasley, CEO
investors@getfluent.com

Media Contact:
press@getfluent.com

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at:
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/bacaec09-fcde-48be-ac78-239508263651

New shop coming to the spot formerly occupied by Better Tan in Poughkeepsie.

Better Tan was a popular tanning salon for years in Poughkeepsie located in the plaza on Taft Ave next to K&D Deli. I had a friend that used to go to Better Tan all the time and the place had a reputation for being one of the best tanning spots around.

Also See: New Super Kennedy Chicken and Burger Opens in Poughkeepsie

One Yelp review from a Nicholas R. from back in 2019 gave Better Tan a glowing 5 star review, stating “I love Better Tan, very friendly staff & clean store! I would highly recommend this tanning salon to any & everyone.”

For whatever reason, Better Tan eventually closed its doors and its been closed for a number of years now, with the storefront remaining empty. That is until now. At a recent visit to my favorite area deli, K&D Deli, I noticed that the former Better Tan storefront had paper over the doors and windows and new signage for a Cannabis Huts Dispensary.

Cannabis Huts Dispensary Coming Soon

That’s right. Yet another dispensary coming to the area. When did cannabis dispensaries become the new Dollar General? Its getting to the point where there’s  new dispensaries popping up on every block it seems. LOL I just wish I had gotten in on the ground floor of the dispensary craze. Tigman’s Cannabis Shop has a nice ring to it.

It turns out Cannabis Huts Dispensary has a location in Newburgh that’s been open about a month at 165 S Plank Rd Suite 2, Newburgh. You can check out their website here. Cannabis Huts describes themselves as Premium Cannabis for Nature & Adventure, your go-to dispensary for premium flowers, edibles, and concentrates. Designed for adventurers and wellness seekers. We spoke to someone at Cannabis Huts Dispensary in Newburgh and were told that the Poughkeepsie spot will be their second location with hopes of opening in June or July.

5 Cannabis Dispensaries in the Hudson Valley

Authorities on the Northern California coast said one person has died and two others were wounded in a shooting tied to an illegal cannabis grow last week.

According to the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office, the unidentified man was killed in a shooting near the community of Covelo, about 180 miles north of San Francisco.

Around 9 p.m. on May 14, deputies were dispatched to an area north of town following a disconnected 911 call. Deputies said an unidentified male caller told dispatchers he needed help for a friend before the call disconnected.

A dispatcher was able to trace the approximate location of the call to the 82000 block of Mina Road near Covelo. While deputies responded to the 911 call, another deputy responded to Adventist Health hospital in Ukiah after a man with possible gunshot wounds arrived in the emergency room.

During a search for the 911 caller on Mina Road, deputies were approached by a group of people who reported that an unresponsive male was found a mile away on Hulls Valley Road.

The deputies found the victim next to two vehicles and was pronounced dead from apparent gunshot wounds at 12:42 a.m. on May 15. Multiple firearms were found near the victim, along with expended cartridge casings.

Deputies said they followed a trail of blood for about ¼ mile and found what was described as a “large marijuana grow” with hoop houses and several trailers.

At the hospital, deputies were able to interview the man being treated for gunshot wounds and determined both incidents were related. He was then transported to a hospital outside Mendocino County for further treatment.

Detectives obtained a search warrant for the cannabis grow and the shooting scene.

Around 8:15 a.m. Wednesday, deputies located a third male on Hulls Valley Road who had also suffered apparent gunshot wounds. The man was airlifted to another hospital outside the county for treatment.

The man told deputies he was also wounded in the same shooting incident. Both victims are in stable condition, according to the sheriff’s office.

In a statement Monday, the deputies said they are trying to positively identify the deceased victim and that an autopsy has been scheduled.

Deputies said they found evidence of illegal cannabis cultivation under the control of a drug trafficking organization, but did not provide additional information about the group, citing the ongoing investigation.

Anyone with information is asked to contact the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office at 707-463-4086 and to select Option 1. Tips can also be given anonymously by calling 707-234-2100.

A group of Humboldt County property owners are taking claims against the county to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a press release issued by the Institute for Justice this week.

The case, should  petition be entertained by the Supreme Court, will be argued by the IJ on behalf of Corrine and Doug Thomas, Blu Graham, Rhonda Olson and Cyro Glad — landowners who say the county levied millions of dollars in cannabis abatement fines and fees on them, despite not owning or operating growing operations, in violation of their Constitutional rights.

At the heart of the IJ’s Supreme Court petition is the notion that the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — which guarantees the right to a jury trial in common law cases involving in excess of $20 — applies to state and local governments and agencies as well as federal ones.

In the absence of a jury trial, the IJ says, “local officials imposed life-altering penalties on property owners without having to prove the government’s case.”

Jared McClain, IJ’s lead attorney, told the Times-Standard that the five plaintiffs in the case have been in a state of limbo, unable to sell or develop their property as they wait to see what will happen with millions of dollars in fines imposed by the county.

“We are challenging (Humboldt County’s) code enforcement system because they issue millions of dollars in fines to people without any regard for probable cause,” McClain said. “They’re using code enforcement to make sure that people are entering their cannabis permitting regime and using these millions of dollars in fines as a stick to require that, but then, since it’s a dragnet enforcement system, they’re catching up all sorts of people in that.

“And when they don’t have any probable cause to believe that anyone was growing cannabis, they just never provide them a hearing. We have clients who have been waiting five, six years for a hearing, and the whole time they have millions in fines hanging over their heads. They can’t develop their property. They can’t sell their property. And it’s all to create this pressure to settle.”

McClain said that a jury trial to decide the facts of the case should be ensured by the Constitution; instead, he said, Humboldt County’s current system involves adjudicating claims in front of a court-appointed lawyer or a “hearing officer” contracted by the county. He claims that those lawyers are expressly presented as members of the county government who will force complainants to pay the maximum amount of fines in an effort to coax a settlement agreement.

“This case is not just about excessive fines — it’s about government accountability,” said McClain, in the institute’s press release. “Until the Supreme Court decides that the Seventh Amendment applies to the states, local governments will continue to destroy people’s rights outside of a jury’s view.”

“We just want a fair chance to defend ourselves in front of a jury,” petitioner Rhonda Olson said, in IJ’s press release. McClain told this reporter that stress related to the ongoing case had caused Olson to develop shingles in the last year. “The government shouldn’t be able to ruin people’s lives without letting them be heard by their peers.”

The case as it stands

IJ first filed a complaint on behalf of their clients in October 2022 — naming Humboldt County, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department and its director, John H. Ford, as defendants.

In May 2023, a federal magistrate, Judge Robert M. Illman with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in McKinleyville, initially dismissed the claimants’ civil rights case, saying that because none of the parties had, to date, paid the fines levied against them by the county, they were without standing.

A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in December of last year reversed much of that ruling, affirming the standing of four of the five plaintiffs over claims that Humboldt County violated their Eight Amendment rights (which ensure “freedom from excessive bail, fines and cruel punishments”) as well as procedural and substantive due process claims and claims associated with the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine.

Those claims will now go back to a district court this year. However, IJ’s Seventh Amendment claim is foreclosed by precedent, McClain told the Times-Standard, because of a 1916 Supreme Court ruling that upheld that Seventh Amendment rights, along with all other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, don’t pertain to state and local governments.

In the subsequent decades — known to jurists as the “selective incorporation era” — the Supreme Court has slowly been returning Bill of Rights-enshrined rights to their applicability with regard to state and local law. The IJ’s petition, should it be ruled on by the Supreme Court, could set precedent, affirming that the Seventh Amendment is applicable to local law.

The Times-Standard reached out to Humboldt County, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and the county’s Planning and Building Department; none could be reached for comment at the time of publication.

Robert Schaulis can be reached at 707-441-0585.

Attorney Eddie Greim of Kansas City speaks in Lancaster County District Court during a hearing on a lawsuit arguing Nebraska’s medical cannabis laws are preempted by federal law. He represents the plaintiff, former State Sen. John Kuehn, at right. May 20, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)

LINCOLN — A Lancaster County district judge is reviewing whether to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Nebraska’s voter-approved medical cannabis laws violate federal law after in-person arguments Tuesday.

This is the second medical cannabis case to reach District Judge Susan Strong, who in late November ruled against a preelection lawsuit challenging that the ballot measures shouldn’t have been placed on the ballot because of allegedly fraudulent notarizations. Strong rejected those arguments. In the latest case, Strong must first decide whether to let the federal preemption case proceed based on whether a longtime marijuana opponent, John Kuehn, has the necessary “standing” to sue.

That’s the legal term of art required for cases to proceed, meaning that Kuehn, a former state senator and former member of the State Board of Health, must show injury as a result of the new medical cannabis laws legalizing and regulating the drug.

The ballot measures overwhelmingly passed in November, with 71% approval for legalization and 67% approval for a regulatory law. Tuesday’s arguments came on the same day state lawmakers are considering Legislative Bill 677, a separate effort to create a clearer regulatory scheme around medical cannabis to assist in the program’s implementation.

‘He couldn’t wait’

Many of the arguments in court Tuesday mirrored legal briefs filed earlier. Largely, they argue that Kuehn is not the right party to challenge the measures under “taxpayer standing,” or that, as a taxpayer, he should get to challenge “illegal” taxpayer spending.

All 11 defendants named in the case from Kuehn have filed to dismiss the case. Attorney Jason Grams, for the three members of the new Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission that voters’ regulatory law established, told Strong no taxpayer funds had been spent by Jan. 10, when Kuehn amended his lawsuit to include the commissioners.

“He couldn’t wait to take the time to meet the demand requirement for taxpayer standing,” Grams said.

Grams represented the Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana campaign in 2020 against a lawsuit brought by Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled against the campaign and removed the measure from the 2020 ballot.

A ‘recycled argument’

Attorney Daniel Gutman, who is now representing the three sponsors of the 2024 cannabis ballot measures, said the “ship has long sailed” for election-related challenges against his clients. Gutman continues to defend the sponsors as Kuehn and the Attorney General’s Office appeal the earlier notarization case, also from Kuehn, to the Nebraska Supreme Court. 

Gutman said the sponsors didn’t agree to be “sued in perpetuity” for any challenge from Kuehn.

Of the dozens of states that have legalized medical cannabis, Gutman and Grams said no court has tossed the laws.

Gutman said states are meant to be “labs of democracy” and that the federal government and Congress do not preempt the Nebraska laws. He also noted a provision in annual federal spending bills prohibiting the U.S. Department of Justice from spending federal money to prosecute people following state medical cannabis laws.

“We would literally be here all day if I cited all the cases rejecting this recycled argument,” said Gutman.

Deputy Solicitor General Zach Pohlman, defending Gov. Jim Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen, Treasurer Tom Briese and two other state defendants in the case, summed up morning arguments that someone should challenge the laws, but Pohlman said it shouldn’t be Kuehn.

“Just because that statute is on the books doesn’t mean that Kuehn can run around the normal standing requirements,” Pohlman said.

Instead, the AG’s staff has said Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and his staff should be the ones to challenge the law, which they’ve pledged to do if and when the Medical Cannabis Commission issues any dispensary licenses under the new laws.

‘Snip this off at the bud’

Attorney Eddie Greim of Kansas City, representing Kuehn, said the challenge should proceed in part because public records requests indicate that staff for the Liquor Control Commission, which the regulatory law voters passed and tied closely to the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, have discussed how to implement the laws and estimated possible costs.

“If we can snip this off at the bud, and we can enjoin the NMCC from doing anything,” Greim said, “then the harms will never flow down to the other defendants.”

Some of the records received include fiscal or lobbying requests related to pending legislation just down the street from the courthouse at the Nebraska State Capitol, which Greim said show regulatory steps being taken. Grams said the records are “utterly irrelevant” to the lawsuit.

Grams also filed affidavits from each of the three commissioners on the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission stating that the commissioners had taken no regulatory action as of Jan. 10, when the commissioners were added to the lawsuit.

Greim objected to that evidence, saying he needed to be able to “look behind the veil” and challenge the commissioners’ statements.

Strong said she would take the evidence challenges and the motions to dismiss from all defendants under advisement and rule at a future date.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

LINCOLN — A Lancaster County district judge is reviewing whether to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Nebraska’s voter-approved medical cannabis laws violate federal law after in-person arguments Tuesday.

This is the second medical cannabis case to reach District Judge Susan Strong, who in late November ruled against a preelection lawsuit challenging that the ballot measures shouldn’t have been placed on the ballot because of allegedly fraudulent notarizations. Strong rejected those arguments. In the latest case, Strong must first decide whether to let the federal preemption case proceed based on whether a longtime marijuana opponent, John Kuehn, has the necessary “standing” to sue.

That’s the legal term of art required for cases to proceed, meaning that Kuehn, a former state senator and former member of the State Board of Health, must show injury as a result of the new medical cannabis laws legalizing and regulating the drug.

The ballot measures overwhelmingly passed in November, with 71% approval for legalization and 67% approval for a regulatory law. Tuesday’s arguments came on the same day state lawmakers are considering Legislative Bill 677, a separate effort to create a clearer regulatory scheme around medical cannabis to assist in the program’s implementation.

‘He couldn’t wait’

Many of the arguments in court Tuesday mirrored legal briefs filed earlier. Largely, they argue that Kuehn is not the right party to challenge the measures under “taxpayer standing,” or that, as a taxpayer, he should get to challenge “illegal” taxpayer spending.

All 11 defendants named in the case from Kuehn have filed to dismiss the case. Attorney Jason Grams, for the three members of the new Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission that voters’ regulatory law established, told Strong no taxpayer funds had been spent by Jan. 10, when Kuehn amended his lawsuit to include the commissioners.

“He couldn’t wait to take the time to meet the demand requirement for taxpayer standing,” Grams said.

Grams represented the Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana campaign in 2020 against a lawsuit brought by Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled against the campaign and removed the measure from the 2020 ballot.

A ‘recycled argument’

Attorney Daniel Gutman, who is now representing the three sponsors of the 2024 cannabis ballot measures, said the “ship has long sailed” for election-related challenges against his clients. Gutman continues to defend the sponsors as Kuehn and the Attorney General’s Office appeal the earlier notarization case, also from Kuehn, to the Nebraska Supreme Court. 

Gutman said the sponsors didn’t agree to be “sued in perpetuity” for any challenge from Kuehn.

Of the dozens of states that have legalized medical cannabis, Gutman and Grams said no court has tossed the laws.

Gutman said states are meant to be “labs of democracy” and that the federal government and Congress do not preempt the Nebraska laws. He also noted a provision in annual federal spending bills prohibiting the U.S. Department of Justice from spending federal money to prosecute people following state medical cannabis laws.

“We would literally be here all day if I cited all the cases rejecting this recycled argument,” said Gutman.

Deputy Solicitor General Zach Pohlman, defending Gov. Jim Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen, Treasurer Tom Briese and two other state defendants in the case, summed up morning arguments that someone should challenge the laws, but Pohlman said it shouldn’t be Kuehn.

“Just because that statute is on the books doesn’t mean that Kuehn can run around the normal standing requirements,” Pohlman said.

Instead, the AG’s staff has said Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and his staff should be the ones to challenge the law, which they’ve pledged to do if and when the Medical Cannabis Commission issues any dispensary licenses under the new laws.

‘Snip this off at the bud’

Attorney Eddie Greim of Kansas City, representing Kuehn, said the challenge should proceed in part because public records requests indicate that staff for the Liquor Control Commission, which the regulatory law voters passed and tied closely to the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, have discussed how to implement the laws and estimated possible costs.

“If we can snip this off at the bud, and we can enjoin the NMCC from doing anything,” Greim said, “then the harms will never flow down to the other defendants.”

Some of the records received include fiscal or lobbying requests related to pending legislation just down the street from the courthouse at the Nebraska State Capitol, which Greim said show regulatory steps being taken. Grams said the records are “utterly irrelevant” to the lawsuit.

Grams also filed affidavits from each of the three commissioners on the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission stating that the commissioners had taken no regulatory action as of Jan. 10, when the commissioners were added to the lawsuit.

Greim objected to that evidence, saying he needed to be able to “look behind the veil” and challenge the commissioners’ statements.

Strong said she would take the evidence challenges and the motions to dismiss from all defendants under advisement and rule at a future date.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE