Happy Spooky Szn, Stargazers! Get ready: your October horoscopes are a month of relentless retrogrades. Check out your strain to help you through.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: October 2026 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
On September 28, 2026, three participants in the ALJ marijuana rescheduling hearing filed a “Joint Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing, for Admission of Supplemental Exhibit, and for Stay of Proceedings.” The motion was submitted by DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, M.D., and the National Drug and Alcohol Association (collectively, the “Interested Parties”).
The motion asks the ALJ to “allow the admission of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (“GAO”) report entitled “Drug Scheduling: While DEA Decisions Have Aligned with Recent HHS Recommendations, Both Need Comprehensive Policies” (the GAO Report), published on September 23, 2026, into the record. . .”. It also “requests an additional briefing period on the contents of the GAO Report and how it impacts these proceedings, if at all.” Finally, the Interested Parties requested a brief stay while those issues are resolved.
On September 29, the ALJ granted the stay. The order does not grant the request to admit the GAO Report or authorize supplemental briefing. Instead, it stays the proceeding while the ALJ considers those requests.
Based on where we are in the ALJ hearing, the practical effect of the stay could be significant. We were at the end of this process, awaiting the ALJ’s certified recommendation to DEA as to the Schedule 3 rule. Instead, the Interested Parties asked the ALJ to “'hold its recommended decision and certification of the record’ if and until briefing is completed on the GAO Report.”
The ALJ found sufficient merit to stay the proceeding while the motion is resolved. DEA has been ordered to respond no later than October 13, 2026. The remaining interested parties (those that participated in the ALJ hearing) may also file responses by that deadline.
All of this means that a proceeding that appeared to be approaching its conclusion is now on hold. How long it remains on hold, and whether the GAO Report ultimately has any impact on the ALJ's recommendation, are entirely different questions.
On September 23, 2026, GAO published the GAO Report. I have not yet had time to read all 31 pages, but I have reviewed GAO’s summary and recommendations.
The report basically concludes that both DEA and FDA have gaps in their policies and procedures governing controlled substance scheduling. GAO found that DEA lacks comprehensive policies identifying roles, responsibilities, and procedures for scheduling decisions. It similarly found that FDA lacks policies specifying how staff should conduct evaluations and develop scheduling recommendations.
For DEA, GAO recommended that DEA “develop policies and procedures that identify DEA’s roles, responsibilities, and procedures for evaluating and scheduling substances through administrative scheduling, new drug application scheduling, temporary scheduling, and international treaty scheduling under relevant statutes.”
For FDA, GAO recommended that FDA “develop policies and procedures that Center for Drug Evaluation and Research staff are to use to when completing eight-factor evaluations and developing scheduling recommendations, including the criteria and process for determining a substance's "potential for abuse," including abuse potential relative to other substances.”
GAO made a third recommendation concerning the FDA and NIH memorandum of understanding governing drug scheduling recommendations, but I won’t get into that right now.
One important point is that the GAO Report does not conclude that marijuana should remain in Schedule I or that Schedule II is more appropriate than Schedule III. Nor does it conclude that HHA or DEA's prior scheduling recommendations were incorrect. In fact, GAO found that DEA's final scheduling decisions aligned with HHS recommendations in all 84 applicable cases it reviewed for which DEA had published a final rule.
The report identifies deficiencies in agency procedures. Whether those deficiencies have any meaningful bearing on the marijuana rescheduling proceeding remains to be seen.
Before discussing what the stay could mean, it is important to understand why I believe the outcome of this particular proceeding is so consequential for the cannabis industry.
There are currently two separate paths that could result in marijuana being moved to Schedule III. One is the medical marijuana final order, which established a separate regulatory framework for certain state-licensed medical marijuana activities. The other is the ALJ proceeding, which concerns the broader rescheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.
The separate medical marijuana Schedule III final order is already being challenged in the D.C. Circuit. As I have discussed many times before, I believe that order faces serious legal vulnerabilities and that it is more likely than not that the D.C. Circuit will overturn it. My concerns center on the statutory authority relied upon to issue the order and the procedural approach used to establish its regulatory framework.
That leaves the ALJ proceeding as what I consider the industry's most important remaining opportunity to achieve Schedule III.
There is an important distinction between the two approaches. A successful outcome in the ALJ rescheduling effort would not create or preserve the special regulatory framework created by the medical marijuana final order. State-licensed operators would not receive the same federal regulatory treatment contemplated under that separate framework merely because marijuana was moved to Schedule III.
But broader rescheduling would still accomplish something enormously important. The immediate and primary benefit would be Section 280E relief. That alone makes this proceeding critically important, even though Schedule III would not resolve the numerous other federal legal problems facing state-licensed cannabis operators.
As I believe the industry is facing the possibility that the medical marijuana order will be overturned, which leaves the ALJ proceeding as the remaining path to obtaining the tax relief associated with Schedule III.
Which brings us back to the stay.
I have two main takeaways from this ruling, although I want to emphasize that the stay could ultimately mean very little.
First, the ALJ recommendation is going to be delayed. We had been expecting the ALJ certified recommendation any day. Now, the proceeding is stayed pending resolution of the motion, and DEA has until October 13 to respond.
If the ALJ denies the motion after reviewing the responses, the proceeding could resume relatively quickly. If supplemental briefing is allowed, however, the delay could extend well beyond October. Depending on the briefing schedule, I would not be surprised if the certified recommendation were pushed until after the midterm elections.
That timing could matter. We do not know what the political landscape will look like after the midterms. Significant Republican losses could change the Administration's political priorities, its relationship with Congress, and its influence over agency actions. There is also the broader question of how much attention Trump will devote to marijuana rescheduling once the final midterm elections of his presidency are behind him.
Will marijuana rescheduling remain something the Administration cares enough about to actively pursue? Or will DEA largely be left to run the process on its own? We saw what happened when the Biden Administration left DEA to control the administrative process. The result of that strategy is what lead us to where we are now with the ALJ.
Of course, the midterms could have absolutely no effect on this proceeding. DEA may still have a mandate to publish a final rule moving marijuana into schedule III. And there is no reason to assume that the GAO will necessarily influence the ALJ's recommendation. My concern is that an extended delay introduces additional uncertainty into a process that has already experienced more than its share.
This leads me to my second takeaway. I do not view the stay as a particularly encouraging development for Schedule III through the ALJ hearing process. But I also recognize that I may be reading too much into what is, at least for now, a procedural order.
The ALJ has not admitted the GAO Report into evidence. He has not authorized supplemental briefing. He has not indicated that the report undermines HHS's recommendation or DEA’s proposed order. He has simply stayed the proceeding while deciding whether the report should become part of the record.
In fact, the ALJ's explanation for the stay is relatively straightforward. The stay may simply reflect nothing more than an effort to preserve the integrity of the administrative record and avoid future procedural and judicial complications.
The ALJ could deny the motion, lift the stay and issue the same recommendation he was already preparing to issue. Even if he allows supplemental briefing, there is no reason to assume that the additional submissions will change his ultimate recommendation.
The GAO Report itself may also prove largely irrelevant to the substantive scheduling determination. Its focus is on agency policies and procedures, not on whether marijuana satisfies the statutory criteria for Schedule III. Nevertheless, given the history of this proceeding, I find it difficult to dismiss the development entirely.
As I have discussed before (here and here), the structure of this hearing has concerned me from the beginning. Schedule III proponents, other than DEA, were absent from the hearing, while opponents were given the opportunity to build a record against rescheduling.
For all of the industry experts who thought this was a foregone conclusion because the industry paid $11.5 million for rescheduling, I counter once again with a simple point: procedure matters.
As I have said time and time again, I question why the Administration chose to proceed with the ALJ hearing at all if it believed there was another legally defensible path to achieving its stated objective. If the result was predetermined, why expose the process to additional procedural challenges? And why pursue a separate medical marijuana framework under 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1)--an approach I have been discussing for years--rather than focus on completing broader rescheduling?
Instead, the Attorney General used § 811(d)(1) to create the separate medical marijuana framework, which is now being challenged in the D.C. Circuit, while DEA proceeded with an ALJ hearing in which the participating Interested Parties were opponents of rescheduling. In my view, those decisions created unnecessary procedural vulnerabilities in the Administration's efforts to move marijuana to Schedule III.
Recently, I became more optimistic that the ALJ hearing would ultimately produce a Schedule III recommendation. I had discussions about the ALJ being a young up-and-comer who was unlikely to go against the direction of the President and, by extension, DEA. Under that theory, the anticipated outcome was either a recommendation for Schedule III or a recommendation simply concluding that marijuana should not remain in Schedule I.
To be fair, that still could be the outcome. And nothing in this stay order necessarily suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, the fact that the proceeding has been interrupted by a report addressing agency scheduling procedures, rather than marijuana's medical efficacy or potential for abuse, raises additional questions about how and when this process will conclude.
Schedule II remains the alternative outcome that concerns me most. As I discussed during the hearing, the evidence presented made Schedule I difficult to reconcile with marijuana's accepted medical use. But that does not mean the ALJ must recommend Schedule III. Schedule II remains a legally available and realistic alternative.
For state-legal operators, Schedule II would be particularly damaging from a tax perspective because it would not eliminate Section 280E. This is precisely why I believe the ALJ proceeding is so important. If the separate medical marijuana final order is overturned and the ALJ recommends Schedule II, the industry's anticipated path to Schedule III becomes considerably more complicated.
If the ALJ recommends Schedule II, but DEA nevertheless moves forward with Schedule III, opponents will use the ALJ's recommendation as part of a subsequent challenge to DEA's final order. That would not automatically invalidate a Schedule III determination. The ALJ's recommendation is not binding on DEA, and DEA has, and may, reach a different conclusion. Nevertheless, a Schedule II recommendation creates yet another issue for DEA to address and defend during judicial review. That is the scenario I am concerned about.
None of those outcomes is inevitable. But the possibility illustrates why the procedural decisions being made now deserve attention.
Finally, this stay order raises a broader question about the Trump Administration's continued attention to marijuana rescheduling. There are plenty of other issues competing for the Administration's attention. And after the midterms, will the President still prioritize marijuana rescheduling?
I do not assume that DEA, left entirely to its own institutional preferences, will aggressively push this process toward Schedule III. Nor would I assume that Administrator Terrance Cole necessarily shares the Administration's stated policy objective.
If the Administration wants broader marijuana rescheduling to succeed, its continued attention to the administrative process matters. Several months ago, I wrote that I could envision a scenario in which the industry finds itself six months down the road with the medical marijuana Schedule III order rejected by the D.C. Circuit and the separate ALJ rescheduling proceeding ending with a recommendation for Schedule II.
That scenario remains possible.
I want to end by returning to an important distinction. This stay order does not establish that the ALJ is against Schedule III, that the GAO Report will influence his recommendation, or that the Administration's rescheduling efforts are headed toward failure. It could mean absolutely nothing beyond a few additional weeks of procedural delay.
My concern is not that the stay itself is particularly damaging. It is that the industry has two potential paths to Schedule III, one of which I believe faces serious problems in the D.C. Circuit, while the other continues to encounter procedural uncertainty.
And if the ALJ proceeding is ultimately the industry's remaining opportunity to obtain meaningful federal tax relief through Schedule III, every additional complication deserves attention.
The post DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Delayed, Again. What It Could Mean, and What Comes Next appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Join us on October 8, 2026, for DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next, a free webinar examining what the evolving federal cannabis landscape could mean for cannabis and hemp businesses.
The discussion will feature: Jason Adelstone, Partner at Harris Sliwoski LLP; Matthew John Strait, former Deputy Assistant Administrator in the DEA’s Diversion Control Division; Mark Caplin, Founder and CEO of CannaGen; and Dr. Gillian Schauer, Executive Director of the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA). Together, they will bring legal, federal enforcement, state regulatory, and industry perspectives to the conversation.
The panel will explore how a move to Schedule III could reshape the federal regulatory and enforcement landscape, what businesses may encounter during DEA inspections, and how federal oversight could interact with existing state cannabis programs. Topics will include registration, recordkeeping, security, diversion control, and other potential areas of federal scrutiny.
The conversation will also examine the increasingly complex intersection of marijuana and hemp, including product classification, testing, supply-chain tracing, and the practical challenges of distinguishing lawful hemp from federally controlled marijuana. Panelists will discuss where federal and state enforcement priorities may intersect or conflict and what cannabis and hemp businesses can be doing now to assess enforcement risk.
October 8, 2026
1:00 p.m. MT | 2:00 p.m. CT | 3:00 p.m. ET
Registration is free and open to all. Register today to join the conversation and hear directly from our panel about the regulatory and enforcement issues cannabis and hemp businesses should be watching.
The post DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
We have been waiting for this.
On September 10th, a Michigan man asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split on whether states can discriminate against non-residents in their cannabis licensing programs. This is a fascinating legal question we’ve been mulling on the blog since at least 2015. It’s pure law, and it warrants final resolution.
The petitioning Michigander, Kenneth Gay, and his company, Peridot Tree, were denied access to Washington State’s cannabis program, second oldest in the country. Peridot was also denied access to licensure in Sacramento, California. Both denials were based upon Gay’s non-resident status. So he sued.
Peridot’s argument is that these denials were unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause. The California litigation was filed in 2022, and the Washington litigation in 2023. In the interim, other cases were filed by other plaintiffs in other jurisdictions, also challenging residency requirements for cannabis licensure.
Peridot lost both of his cases. Federl district courts in Washington and California each held that the dormant commerce clause does not apply to marijuana-related commerce, due to the plant’s Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act. In January of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed those decisions. My colleague Elijah Hartman covered that ruling here. He explained:
The Ninth Circuit parted ways with a First Circuit decision and a Second Circuit decision, both of which held that state cannabis residency requirements violate the dormant commerce clause, despite the federal illegality of marijuana. The Ninth Circuit instead aligned itself with a growing body of district court decisions (and with dissents from other circuits) emphasizing that illegal markets are constitutionally different in kind.
Put differently: there is no implied constitutional right to engage in illegal interstate commerce according to the Ninth Circuit.
The dormant commerce clause is a Constitutional doctrine, judicially derived. It prohibits states from enacting protectionist policies to favor in-state businesses, or which “unduly burden” interstate commerce. Although the dormant commerce clause is a Constitutional doctrine, you won’t find it printed anywhere on the actual parchment. As Elijah explained:
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. From that affirmative grant, the Supreme Court has long inferred a negative corollary: states generally may not enact laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce, even when Congress is silent….
At its core, the doctrine is anti‑protectionist. States may not tilt the economic playing field to favor in‑state actors over out‑of‑state competitors. Laws that explicitly discriminate against interstate commerce are frequently per se invalid.
But the Dormant Commerce Clause is also controversial. It is judge‑made, not textually explicit, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that courts must exercise “extreme caution” before using it to invalidate democratically enacted state laws.
It might. The Supreme Court only grants about 1% of all petitions for certiorari in a given term… but it might.
The current Court is actively engaged with the dormant commerce clause. The most recent case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023) addressed the dormant commerce clause in the context of another California law, requiring out-of-state sellers to comply with California standards to sell pork within the state. The Court declined to invalidate California’s law. This is arguably not a great precedent, but these are also very different facts, with no federal illegality overlay, and the Court issued a splintered, 5-4 ruling.
One thing that bodes very well for Peridot is the fact that Erwin Chemerinsky submitted the petition. Chemerinsky is widely regarded as one of the most prominent Constitutional law scholars in the U.S. Among his prolific output is, in my opinion, the most important law review article ever on state-legal marijuana programs. That piece was written in 2015 but is relevant today.
(Note: Chemerinsky is joined by two other attorneys on the Peridot Tree petition. I don’t mean to shortchange them and I’m sure they are also brilliant; I just don’t recognize those names.)
A lot. Marijuana-related residency requirements remain the law in many states, including Oklahoma, New Jersey, Washington, Montana, Massachusetts, and probably more. They also apply in various cities and counties—sometimes in specialized contexts such as social equity programs. If Peridot wins, all of these jurisdictions would be forced to tear down the walls.
It’s not just cannabis programs at issue, either. Many states have consumer and patient rules regarding who is allowed to purchase medical marijuana, or grow plants at home. A Peridot victory would presumably upend those restrictions as well. (Schedule III for state-legal medical marijuana does nothing to change this analysis, regardless of the Peridot outcome.)
___________
Watch this space. For more on cannabis and the dormant commerce clause, check out the following:
The post The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
A Michigan cannabis grower proved its case. A jury found that the buyer breached its supply agreement and awarded the grower $31.8 million in damages. But the grower still walked away without an enforceable verdict.
In Hello Farms Licensing MI, LLC v. GR Vending MI, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment because the contract required the parties to engage in conduct prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The court held that a federal court could not enforce the agreement, despite Michigan law authorized the underlying cannabis activity.
The September 10, 2026, decision is not binding on California state courts or federal courts in the Ninth Circuit. Nevertheless, it offers an important warning for cannabis operators nationwide: A contract that is valid under state law may still be unenforceable in federal court.
Hello Farms is a licensed Michigan cannabis cultivator. In November 2020, it entered into an output contract with GR Vending MI, LLC and CURA MI, LLC, both subsidiaries of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. GR Vending agreed to purchase all cannabis grown by Hello Farms during its 2020 and 2021 harvests, while CURA MI guaranteed GR Vending’s obligations.
When the parties signed the agreement, Hello Farms held licenses to grow medical cannabis. GR Vending held both medical and adult-use retailer licenses.
The parties expected Hello Farms’ 2020 harvest to yield between 12,000 and 15,000 pounds of cannabis. GR Vending also agreed to pay a $2.2 million deposit, subject to refund under specified circumstances.
The agreement contained detailed testing requirements. Hello Farms had to test each 50-pound batch for THC potency and contaminants such as pesticides and heavy metals. Importantly, the contract required the marijuana to satisfy state and local recreational cannabis testing requirements.
Hello Farms ultimately produced approximately 16,300 pounds in 2020. The cannabis passed the required testing, and GR Vending accepted an initial shipment of roughly 2,000 pounds.
Then market prices fell.
GR Vending refused to accept additional deliveries. Hello Farms sold the remaining 2020 harvest to another buyer at lower prices. It also expanded its cultivation operation for 2021, obtained adult-use cultivation licenses, and sold that year’s production to the same alternative buyer.
Hello Farms sued for breach of contract in Michigan state court in February 2021. The defendants were able to move the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan based on diversity jurisdiction.
That procedural move would become critical.
The defendants asserted that the agreement was illegal under federal law and therefore unenforceable. The district court rejected that defense at summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial.
The jury found that the defendants breached the contract and awarded Hello Farms $31.8 million. The defendants renewed their request for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court again rejected the federal-illegality defense.
The district court reasoned that the agreement concerned medical cannabis and that the Rohrabacher-Farr appropriations rider reflected a federal policy of tolerating state-compliant medical cannabis activity. The defendants appealed.
The Sixth Circuit reversed.
As the court explained, federal courts generally apply state substantive law when exercising diversity jurisdiction. But the effect of illegality under a federal statute is a question of federal law. A federal court must therefore determine whether enforcing an agreement would enforce the precise conduct that Congress made unlawful.
That principle proved fatal to Hello Farms.
In the Court’s view, the agreement required Hello Farms to possess cannabis with the intent to distribute that cannabis to GR Vending and enable GR Vending to possess it for further distribution or sale. Each step implicated conduct prohibited by the CSA unless federally authorized.
The court distinguished between a lawful economic transaction that contains an incidental illegal provision and a contract whose central performance is itself federally prohibited. Hello Farms’ agreement fell into the second category because the purchase and distribution of cannabis were the core of the bargain.
The court consequently refused to enforce the defendants’ promise to pay for that performance. It reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law, eliminating the prior verdict and Hello Farms’ recovery.
Hello Farms argued that it was not asking the court to order anyone to grow, deliver, or purchase cannabis. The company sought money damages for a transaction that should have occurred years earlier.
The Sixth Circuit found that distinction unpersuasive.
Hello Farms’ lost profits arose from, and were measured by, the defendants’ promise to purchase cannabis. Awarding damages would therefore give Hello Farms the economic benefit it expected from the federally prohibited transaction.
According to the court, federal illegality is not limited to cases seeking specific performance. A court also may refuse to award expectation damages when the plaintiff’s claimed recovery depends on enforcement of the unlawful bargain itself.
This is one of the decision’s most significant lessons. Simply drafting a monetary remedy does not necessarily insulate a cannabis agreement from federal illegality. If the damages represent the profits expected from cannabis cultivation or sales, a federal court may conclude that awarding those damages would indirectly enforce the prohibited performance.
The opinion does not, however, resolve every potential claim involving a cannabis business. It does not hold that federal courts must reject every dispute involving consulting services, intellectual property, real estate, equipment, loans, restitution, or other obligations connected to the industry. The closer the claim is to direct cultivation, possession, purchase, or distribution, the greater the apparent risk under the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning.
The fact the federal government moved state-legal medical marijuana to Schedule III earlier this year also failed to rescue Hello Farms’ verdict.
The Sixth Circuit explained that the federal change occurred years after the parties entered the contract. Nothing in the rescheduling rule made the change retroactive or transformed the parties’ 2020 agreement into a federally lawful transaction.
The court also noted that Schedule III does not eliminate federal regulatory requirements. State-licensed medical-cannabis businesses may still need DEA registration and applicable FDA approval to cultivate, distribute, or introduce cannabis products into interstate commerce lawfully.
Rescheduling therefore does not mean that every state-licensed cannabis transaction is now federally legal. Whether a particular agreement is enforceable may still depend on when it was executed, the products and markets it covers, the parties’ registrations, and the federal rules applicable to performance.
The Sixth Circuit’s opinion is not controlling precedent in California or the Ninth Circuit. California courts may analyze contract illegality and public policy differently, and the enforceability of any agreement will depend on its terms, claims, remedy, and forum.
Still, the decision relies heavily on U.S. Supreme Court authority governing the power of federal courts to enforce federally prohibited agreements. California operators should not assume the risk stops at the Sixth Circuit’s boundaries.
Hello Farms convinced a jury that the defendants breached their agreement. It proved substantial damages and obtained a $31.8 million verdict. None of that was enough once the federal appellate court concluded that enforcing the verdict would enforce a federally illegal bargain.
The case does not establish that every cannabis-related agreement is unenforceable. But it does reinforce a basic reality that cannabis contracts must be drafted not only for commercial performance and state regulatory compliance, but also for the court or tribunal that may eventually be asked to enforce them.
In cannabis contracting, a strong damages provision matters, but only if the chosen forum is willing and legally able to enforce the underlying bargain.
_____________
For more updates on recent marijuana legislation, including rescheduling and the DEA rulemaking process, please check out these recent posts:
The post A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
We head to Canna Country Farms in Humboldt for Legendary Strains to discover the Ocimene Queen herself, Canna Country #26.
The post Canna Country #26 in Southern Humboldt: The Ocimene Queen of Canna Country Farms appeared first on Leafly.
The federal conversation around hemp and cannabis is entering a pivotal new phase. On September 18 in Denver, Harris Sliwoski partner Jason Adelstone will moderate One Plant, One Policy, a fireside discussion at IgniteIt Denver Spotlight focused on the future of federal hemp regulation.
From cannabinoids and product standards to enforcement and consumer safety, policymakers are weighing how a single plant should be regulated in the years ahead. The decisions made at the federal level could significantly reshape the regulatory landscape for hemp and the businesses operating within it.
Jason will lead a discussion with Howard Lee, CEO of SōRSE Technology; Jordan Wellington, Managing Partner at Strategies 64; and Priyanka Sharma, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Kazmira Therapeutics about the path toward a more coherent federal framework. The conversation will explore what meaningful reform could look like, where federal policy may be headed, and what a more unified approach could mean for the industry.
The panel will also consider the practical implications for operators. As federal policy evolves, businesses may face new compliance requirements and regulatory challenges, along with new opportunities. Understanding the direction of the conversation will be increasingly important for companies preparing for what comes next.
The post Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
