Cannabis Concentrates in Washington State: Production, Types, Techniques, and Legality

Cannabis concentrates have become a cornerstone of modern cannabis consumption, offering a potent, clean, and diverse way to experience cannabinoids and terpenes. These products, ranging from shatter to wax and live resin, are derived through sophisticated extraction methods that deliver enhanced flavors and intensities for consumers. For both seasoned cannabis users and industry professionals, understanding the nuances of concentrations is essential.

However, questions are frequently entertained as to whether high potency concentrates are safe for consumers, and what if any action Washington lawmakers (as well as lawmakers in other states) will take. Until then, it is business as usual for cannabis concentrate producers, and business is booming. So, let’s take a look at what concentrates are, how they are made, and what products consumers enjoy as a result of this innovative technique for cannabis enjoyment.

What are cannabis concentrates?

Cannabis concentrates are products derived from the cannabis plant that are rich in cannabinoids (such as THC or CBD) and terpenes. These are the components that have psychoactive qualities and make you feel good. By extracting and isolating these compounds from plant material, producers create a variety of potent and flavorful products seen in retail stores in many states where cannabis is legal. Concentrates can vary in consistency, potency, and usage, providing a tailored enjoyment for consumers.

How are cannabis concentrates made?

The production of cannabis concentrates involves either solvent-based or solventless methods, each offering unique advantages to increase potency and resulting in distinct types of concentrates.

Solvent-based extraction

Solvent-based methods use chemicals like hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, or alcohol to dissolve and isolate cannabinoids and terpenes from plant material. This process requires precise handling and technology to ensure safety and quality. Common solvent-based techniques include:

• Hydrocarbon Extraction: Butane and propane are often used to create products like shatter, wax, and crumble. Hydrocarbons effectively strip cannabinoids and terpenes from the plant but require a closed-loop system for safety due to their flammable nature. Open-loop systems are exposed to the external environment, and when flammable materials are used there is the possibility of unintended combustion. Closed-look systems limit external exposure and are safer, though much more expensive.
• CO2 Extraction: Supercritical CO2 extraction employs carbon dioxide under high pressure to separate compounds. During this process the carbon dioxide changes between a gas, liquid, and solid states. This clean and eco-friendly method is favored for creating versatile products free from residual solvents.
• Ethanol Extraction: Ethanol is used to produce super-concentrates. While effective, ethanol’s polarity may introduce impurities like chlorophyll from the plant, impacting the final product’s quality.

Solventless extraction

Solventless techniques avoid chemicals altogether, relying instead on mechanical processes like heat, pressure, or agitation. These methods are often considered safer and more natural, resulting in products like:

• Rosin: Made by pressing cannabis flower or hash with heat and pressure, rosin is a pure concentrate that retains much of the plant’s natural profile.
• Kief: A simple extraction involving sifting trichomes through a fine mesh to produce a powdery concentrate.
• Bubble Hash: Using ice water and agitation, bubble hash separates trichomes mechanically, creating a high-quality concentrate without solvents.

Types of cannabis concentrates

The result of these extraction processes is an array of products, each with unique characteristics:

• Shatter: A glass-like, brittle concentrate with high potency and a translucent appearance. The main extraction methods for producing shatter are butane and propane, which makes it incredibly potent.
• Wax/Budder: Creamy and pliable, wax offers a smooth texture, making it easy to handle and use as a dab.
• Live Resin: Made from flash-frozen cannabis, live resin preserves the plant’s terpene profile, delivering enhanced flavor and aroma.
• Oil: A versatile concentrate often used in vaping or edibles, cannabis oil can vary in thickness depending on its intended use.
• Caviar/Moonrocks: Buds coated in high-quality resin and rolled in kief, offering an ultra-potent experience.

The evolution of cannabis concentrates

The cannabis industry has come a long way from the rudimentary and sometimes dangerous backyard methods of the past. Modern advancements in extraction technology have led to safer, more efficient, and higher-quality products. From closed-loop hydrocarbon systems to innovations in solventless techniques, producers continue to innovate and elevate the quality and quantity of new cannabis products.

Potency and legality of cannabis concentrates in Washington State

Washington State does not limit the THC concentration in flower and concentrates. In 2022, the average THC concentration for concentrates was 69%. Today, cannabis concentrates generally have a THC range of between 60-90%. According to the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, Kief and hash tend to range from 50-80% THC. These high concentrates allow the effects of cannabis to be felt much more quickly and intensely.

Many have raised concerns that these high concentrations can cause negative metal health impacts, though many consumers feel the benefits outweigh any potential risks. And the consumption of cannabis concentrates has increased dramatically since legalization. Other states limit the potency of THC by product or category or tax them differently, but Washington State does not.

While there has been some call in Washington State to take action on the potency of these products, little has happened. This is partially out of concern that regulating these products would push them into black market territory and do little to remove them from the reach of consumers. Some, including the Washington State Health Care Authority have called for higher taxes on high potency products.

Bills have been proposed in Washington to regulate cannabis concentrates differently than cannabis flower, including one bill that would cap the potency of cannabis concentrates at 30%, and even raise the age for purchasing them. Though this was a bipartisan bill that has been proposed twice over the last two years, it did not gain sufficient traction to pass in 2024.

In support of the bill, lawmakers cite a group of cannabis researchers that concluded “use of cannabis with high THC concentrations increase the chances of developing cannabis use disorder or addiction to cannabis, particularly among adolescents.” And that “high-potency cannabis use can have lifelong mental health consequences.” Despite these concerns cannabis advocates are unpersuaded.

Other earlier research conducted on Washington recreational smokers included cognitive tests after consumers used vaped concentrates, and these results painted a different picture. The researchers found no impact on the users’ decision making compared to the sober group. Nor did they note any substantial metal health consequences in their study. Though there was some indication that memory was altered during and after consumption on some tests, on others there were no significant differences between the cannabis users and the sober control group. The study organizer noted optimism on the widely available concentrates and concluded that it was “encouraging to see that the concentrates did not increase harms.”

Opponents of such regulations proposed in Washington in 2024 aver that such restrictions would create arbitrary differences in cannabis treatment that ultimately hurt consumers, the industry, and medical users.

Conclusion

Cannabis concentrates are at the forefront of the industry’s innovation, blending science, technology, and artistry to create diverse and potent products. For consumers, these products offer a new level of customization and intensity, and cannabis producers are becoming more inventive in their push to increase cannabis potency and reach consumers with products they can enjoy. For the time being, there is little indication that Washington State will actually implement any restrictions on cannabis concentrates, so consumers can keep enjoying this advancement in cannabis science for the time being.

The post Cannabis Concentrates in Washington State: Production, Types, Techniques, and Legality appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/fs0Hwno
via IFTTT

Cannabis Paraphernalia: Protecting Your Brand Amid Federal Prohibition

The days of smoking cannabis out of apples is over. Smoking devices are readily accessible in tobacco shops and cannabis retailers, and their production and sale are big business. Creative shapes and sizes impress and create unique smoking experiences. However, as states across the U.S. continue to legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, the legal status of cannabis paraphernalia—such as bongs, pipes, and rolling papers—remains a gray area due to ongoing federal prohibition of these devices. However, that does not mean that companies producing these products cannot seek protection of their intellectual property on the state and federal levels. And with a little creative tact, companies can find ways to federally protect their brands.

What are drug paraphernalia?

The term “drug paraphernalia” refers to any equipment used to produce, conceal, or consume illicit drugs. Under federal law, this encompasses:

“any equipment, product or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance.”

Examples of paraphernalia include:

• Pipes: Made from various materials such as metal, glass, wood, or ceramic.
• Water pipes and bongs: Often used for smoking cannabis or other substances.
• Roach clips: Small tools designed to hold the end of a marijuana joint.
• Chillums: Cone-shaped pipes often used for cannabis or hash.
• Cannabis rolling papers: Sometimes marketed for tobacco use but often employed for rolling cannabis joints.

The Federal stance on drug paraphernalia

Despite the widespread state-level legalization of cannabis, federal law continues to prohibit the sale, transport, and use of drug paraphernalia under the Controlled Substances Act. Specifically, U.S. Code Title 21 Section 863 makes it “unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia; to use the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to transport drug paraphernalia; or to import or export drug paraphernalia.”

Yet, cannabis smoking implements are readily available in stores and online, and there is little indication that the federal government intends to crack down anytime soon. Producers have skirted the prohibitions by labeling their products with disclaimers indicating that they are intended and designed for use with tobacco products. However, a quick review of the design and shape of these items reveals that they are not well suited for tobacco at all.

Retailers such as tobacco shops, gas stations, and novelty stores often display these items prominently. Additionally, online marketplaces and mail-order services facilitate access to paraphernalia, making enforcement of federal restrictions even more unlikely.

Drug paraphernalia in Washington State and beyond

Many states permit the sale and use of cannabis paraphernalia, recognizing their utility in consuming legal cannabis products. This includes Washington State, which has provided an exception to the prohibition of drug paraphernalia if it is intended for cannabis consumption.

Washington law only permits cannabis retailers to sell cannabis paraphernalia to persons over the age of 21. Likewise a new federal law prohibits selling tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21. That being said, exotic shapes and sizes, with creative designs, such as dragons, skulls, or mushrooms, appeal to younger cannabis users. And they range in price from mere dollars to the tune of hundreds or more.

Trademark protection for smoking devices

Since cannabis paraphernalia is big business, it raises the question of whether a manufacturer can trademark the name of their products and stop confusingly similar names from entering the marketplace. The short answer is yes, they can. Potentially, both on the state and federal level. And despite the conflict between state and federal law, some trademark classifications are available to protect a cannabis company’s intellectual property. A little creativity in the federal trademark application process can go a long way in securing some form of trademark protection for a brand name, logo, and trade dress for a wide variety of smoking devices.

Each trademark registration must be associated with one or more classes of goods or services. Since manufacturers disclaim that these implements are for tobacco, on the federal level Class 34 encompasses most products related to tobacco, including lighters and pipes. So federal trademark protection is available if in fact these products are advertised as intended for use with tobacco. Likewise, many states now offer trademark protection themselves even for cannabis products and in Washington State, “smokers articles” are a class available for trademark registration.

However, on the federal level, trademark examiners common use extrinsic evidence to deduce the actual purpose of the products seeking trademark registration. If it appears that the product is unlawful drug paraphernalia, they will refuse registration. Advertisements and articles featuring the products and highlighting their cannabis implications have been reviewed by trademark examiners—and as you might expect there are instances where the USPTO has deduced their true intent. So, it is not a sure thing to merely label your products as intended for use with tobacco. Particularly when they are more elaborate contraptions, for example vaporizers and dab smoking equipment.

Conclusion

Even though there is a federal prohibition on drug paraphernalia, this does not mean that producers need to wait in order to obtain protection of their intellectual property. However, it could mean that your application on the federal level is rejected if you have too much notoriety as a cannabis product.

For more on this topic, check out this webinar or any of the following posts:

• Tobacco Paraphernalia? Prove It.
• The U.S. Constitution and Drug Paraphernalia
• Can Businesses Import Drug Paraphernalia?

The post Cannabis Paraphernalia: Protecting Your Brand Amid Federal Prohibition appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/KCvrSAD
via IFTTT

Happy Holidays from The Canna Law Blog

Wishing all of our readers, along with friends and families, the very best this holiday season.

Whether you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, Festivus, or something else, we hope you can kick back and enjoy this wonderful time of the year.

The post Happy Holidays from The Canna Law Blog appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/c2axlhz
via IFTTT

Cannabis predictions for 2025: Low prices, high taxes, and hash

We looked into our crystal bong and this is what we saw.

The post Cannabis predictions for 2025: Low prices, high taxes, and hash appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/RlAKsCr
via IFTTT

Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2024)

Welcome the ninth annual “State of the State” post on Oregon cannabis. I feel like an old man. As compared to 2023, things this year were pretty mellow. That’s not to say, however, that we don’t have trends, intrigues, controversies, mysteries, etc., worth writing about. Let’s dive right in.

Sales and market data

According to OLCC data, retail sales between January 1, 2024 and November 30, 2024 clocked in at $881 million. That is remarkably consistent with 2023, where we saw $874 million over the same 11-month span. If things remain steady for the next couple of weeks, Oregon should avoid a third consecutive drop in annual sales.

Prices are also relatively static. The median price per gram in the extract/concentrate category was $15.83/gram in November, floating from $15.36 to $16.00 throughout the year. For “usable marijuana”, which includes dried flowers and leaves, prices fluctuated from $3.89/gram to $3.57/gram last month.

October saw Oregon’s largest METRC harvest, ever, with 5,733,288 pounds reported. I’m sure the illicit market had a bumper year too; weather is the same for everyone and the enforcement paradigm is static. Anyway, the October numbers equal 900,000 more pounds than the same month in 2023. Consumers may benefit, but that can’t be great for pricing.

As far as what people are actually buying at OLCC shops:

• 2% of purchases are for usable marijuana
• 25% are extracts/concentrates
• 7% are edibles/tinctures
• 10% are “inhalable product with non-cannabis additives”
• 4% is “other”; and
• 6% is industrial hemp commodity products.

Yes, that equals 100%. In 2023, I noted a “years-long trend of usable marijuana sales decreasing per capital in favor of other categories.” The trend continued in 2024 (usable marijuana sales dropped another 2.5% year over year). Last year, I wrote that “my impression is that near-term growth may be limited to select SKUs and product categories.” Still feel that way.

Licenses and licensing

Our years-long OLCC licensing moratorium was made permanent in 2024 (more on that below). Overall, license numbers declined marginally across the board. Here’s a table showing current numbers as compared to 2023, which I wrote “was the first year I saw license numbers fall since the 2016 roll-out of the adult use program.”

	2024	2023	Change
Producers	1,375	1,389	-14
Processors	288	312	-24
Wholesalers	257	269	-12
Retailers	789	818	-29
Labs	13	15	-2
Research	1	1	none

 

It’s good to see numbers dropping, I suppose. Most would agree that we have too many licenses across all categories– except perhaps for labs and research. Expect numbers to continue on a modest downward trend in 2025.

Industry limping along

In the last few State of the State posts, I’ve talked about businesses struggling. We’re still helping people sell or even walk away from things we helped them buy not long ago. In 2023, the big liquidation story was the Chalice receivership. In 2024, insolvency and cannabis receivership actions are still a regular occurrence. The largest of 2024 was the Tumalo receivership, which we structured here in the office, and which remains ongoing. We’re working on a few others as well: some are voluntary, and others, well, not so much.

Consolidation is still a fact of life in Oregon cannabis, with larger operators opportunistically picking up assets, mostly at retail. A majority of buy/sell transactions, however, seem to involve new market entrants and naked licenses. In these deals, a seller will relinquish its rights to an OLCC license in favor of a replacement license for the buyer— sometimes at the same location and sometimes in a new spot. Pricing on these transactions, which are styled as asset purchase agreements, has remained steady in each license class. That said, pricing can be negotiable.

Most of the bigger players are still around. A couple of people have asked me how that could be the case with a chain like La Mota, whose legal issues metastasized into a statewide controversy, and resulted in unwelcome tax compliance rules for OLCC retailers. The answer is simple: La Mota probably reached a deal on payment plan with the Department of Revenue. Elsewhere, we haven’t seen anything to convince us, one way or the other, that OLCC is making an effort to treat small businesses the same as the larger operators— a problem area we highlighted in 2023. That said, let’s see what happens with the labs.

OLCC chasing testing labs on THC inflation

On September 25^th, OLCC sent enforcement notices to seven testing laboratories. I explained at the time that OLCC had:

Propos[ed] license cancellation in some cases and suspension or fines in others. The notices center on alleged THC inflation, and extend back to instances identified in 2023. We only have eleven labs in Oregon accredited to do this mandatory work, so OLCC chasing seven of them is a big deal.

This saga is still ongoing, and none of these cases are resolved to my knowledge. For considered and lawyerly reasons, I’ll reserve further comment on this one, beyond all that I’ve already said.

New OLCC rules and legislative changes

Various rules took effect in 2024, due to legislative changes this spring and an initiative vote in the fall. Here are the four biggest developments for me, in chronological order:

Licensing Moratorium

Oregon finally made its licensing moratorium permanent, when Governor Kotek signed House Bill 4121 on March 20, 2024. This means the only way to acquire a cannabis license in Oregon is to find someone willing to sell. That will likely be the case forever, based on unreachable “new license triggers” in HB 4121, and the fact that the legislature won’t reverse this new law.

Hemp Vendor License Requirement

This one took effect July 1. At that time, I wrote that the rule was “very broad and likely to catch people off guard.” That proved to be the case in my experience, including with respect to OLCC— I ended up writing them on September 30 after stumbling across incorrect FAQs on the topic. My guess is that a large number of Oregon businesses are still unaware of the license requirement, and therefore not compliant, and that it doesn’t really matter because enforcement is sparse or nonexistent.

Labor Peace Agreements

This one has been a scramble, with many licensees having to find a way to comply on short notice. The short story is that due to Ballot Measure 119, which passed in November, all OLCC licensed retailers, processors and labs must provide a signed labor peace agreement (LPA) with a bona fide labor organization, to renew or apply for an OLCC license. I still believe BM 119 is legally problematic, but someone needs to challenge it to obviate the LPA requirement.

Presumptive Hemp Testing Rules

The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) issued a temporary administrative order following on HB 4121, which defines presumptive marijuana under its testing rules, outlines procedures for marijuana disposal, and outlines violations of ODA hemp licensure more generally.

__

We can expect to see more changes, as always, in 2025. OLCC is currently in rulemaking to implement HB 4121, to start. The 2025 legislative session next year is also a long one, lasting from January to June. I’ll write my usual session preview sometime in January, lest this post become extremely long. For now, the Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon (CIAO) has listed out is legislative priorities here.

Odds and ends

• 2024 must have been a welcome reprieve for OLCC, which remained mostly out of the spotlight after a trying year in 2023.
• Not much is going on with ODA and the hemp industry, beyond what I mentioned above.
• Shout-out to CIAO, which was organized and effective in its first full year as Oregon’s consolidated, cannabis trade group.
• Local cannabis banking is getting easier all the time. Most recently, we built out a cannabis banking program for Central Willamette Credit Union, the newest Oregon service provider.
• I’m still pessimistic about a federal cannabis banking bill, but I’m hopeful for federal rescheduling. A move for marijuana to Schedule III would do away with punitive tax code provision IRC § 280E – hopefully in calendar year 2024. That development would immediately increase margins for Oregon cannabis businesses, across the board.
• Also at the federal level, this was our last year with Earl Blumenauer, Congress’s greatest ever cannabis advocate.

Oregon cannabis: that’s a wrap

Let me know in the comments if you think I missed anything worth mentioning, or shoot me an email. There is always something. In the meantime, here’s hoping for smooth sailing for Oregon cannabis in 2025.

For previous posts in this series, check out the following:

• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2023)
• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2022)
• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2021)
• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2020)
• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2019)
• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2018)
• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2017)
• Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2016)

The post Oregon Cannabis: State of the State (2024) appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/BNy9eMf
via IFTTT

2024’s cannabis award-winners and where to buy them

Shop the winners near you.

The post 2024’s cannabis award-winners and where to buy them appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/ZecGKrE
via IFTTT

Want New York’s juiciest terps? Spritz has the recipe

Discover Queen Pee's recipe for Spritz' super-fruity flavors, coming soon to New York dispensaries.

The post Want New York’s juiciest terps? Spritz has the recipe appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/OIPvz1Y
via IFTTT

Torrwood Farm grows their cannabis in living, 200-year-old soil

From organic crops to legal cannabis, this family-owned New York farm carries centuries of history.

The post Torrwood Farm grows their cannabis in living, 200-year-old soil appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/pfQilGP
via IFTTT

Minnesota Drops the Social Equity License Lottery

Yesterday, in the grand American tradition of bungled, cannabis social equity programs, the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) canceled its social equity applicant lottery. In its announcement, OCM pivoted to an early 2025 lottery combining social equity and general applicants.

This development was no real surprise, following a court order delaying the preapproval lottery last month. It’s also no surprise in the very big picture: I’ve said since forever that cannabis lotteries are a bad proposition and states should knock it off. Here we are again, though. To all my fellow Minnesotans– welcome!

We have clients who were selected for the OCM preapproval lottery and others who were not. In all, two-thirds of applicants were denied. Grievances were roundly and rightly aired on social media and elsewhere. The loudest complaints came from applicants who had committed significant, time, energy and capital into a system designed to ameliorate harms caused by marijuana prohibition, but seemed to do the opposite.

Per OCM’s announcement, applicants in the “denial” camp will be allowed to withdraw their applications and request a refund of fees, provided they do so on or before January 10, 2025. These stymied applicants would still be allowed to apply in future licensing rounds. Alternatively, they can leave their applications in the pool for automatic entry in the “standard licensing cycle”, to use the OCM terminology. As to the 648 applicants who were preapproved, but are undoubtedly disappointed as well, they will be ushered automatically into the next licensing round.

OCM also announced today that it will request more information in February of 2025 to applicants who were denied in the preapproval round, but wish to continue to the next licensing cycle. OCM explained that applicants will have the opportunity to correct a “broader range of errors in their applications” than was available in the license pre-approval process.

The next social equity applicant verification round will open on January 15, 2025 and close on January 30, 2025. Then, OCM will open a new license application window for all applicants from February 18, 2025 to March 14, 2025. Finally, the lottery for “capped” license types for social-equity applicants is planned for May or June of 2025, followed by a lottery for “capped” license types for all applicants.

This sounds like a decent roadmap given the circumstances, but the schedule could also change– especially with litigation pending. That makes life difficult for anyone trying to do business planning, including the 648 social equity applicants who had qualified and were expecting to participate in the lottery. These applicants have lost the “early mover advantage” many had counted on– even if no cannabis sales can happen until final rules are adopted; and the lottery concludes; and Minnesota’s cannabis market officially opens. Whenever that is.

The post Minnesota Drops the Social Equity License Lottery appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/MQra3BF
via IFTTT

The 7 runners-up strains to Leafly Strain of the Year 2024

These strains helped set the bar for Leafly Strain of the Year 2024.

The post The 7 runners-up strains to Leafly Strain of the Year 2024 appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/FCH4y2h
via IFTTT

Spark joy with Super Boof—Leafly Strain of the Year 2024

Beauty is in the eye of the boof holder.

The post Spark joy with Super Boof—Leafly Strain of the Year 2024 appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/ZIz0FO8
via IFTTT

Poll: Which is better? Smoking weed before a shower, or after?

Let's stir the pot a bit.

The post Poll: Which is better? Smoking weed before a shower, or after? appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/rgdbMIk
via IFTTT

Grand Openings: Wu-Tang Clan opens shop in New Jersey

At least 10 states and Amsterdam have new stores for you.

The post Grand Openings: Wu-Tang Clan opens shop in New Jersey appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/CP72iqB
via IFTTT

Will hemp survive the new Farm Bill?

Plus, shifting state laws, and a 100 mg delta-8 gummy.

The post Will hemp survive the new Farm Bill? appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/EGoFpWS
via IFTTT

ADR’s Vital Role in Cannabis Industry Disputes

As a mediator specializing in cannabis-related conflicts, I’ve witnessed firsthand the increasing need for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in this rapidly evolving industry. With three-quarters of Americans now living in states where recreational or medical marijuana use is legal, the landscape of potential disputes has expanded dramatically. Currently, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, while 14 states permit its use for medicinal purposes. Yet cannabis with more than .3 percent THC by dry weight remains illegal under federal law. This has created a complex legal environment, ripe for controversy.

Participants in the cannabis industry deal with a wide array of legal disputes. These include conflicts over intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, and the ownership and management of cannabis farms, processing and distribution companies, and dispensaries. We’re seeing an increase in employee claims, personal injury cases, water rights disagreements, and land use and environmental regulation violations. Violations of the ADA and federal safety laws, local code enforcement targeting landlords, and conflicts between neighboring farmers over odors and pollen drift are all part of the growing list of legal issues in this sector.

The cannabis industry faces unique challenges when it comes to resolving disputes through traditional legal channels. Federal courts are generally unavailable due to cannabis’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. State laws are often evolving and conflicting. Lingering stigma can affect litigation outcomes with state court judges and juries. And the cost and outcome of litigation can destroy cannabis companies, which typically have tight cash flow, limited assets, and a lot of debt.

Recent high-profile cases among competitors highlight these challenges. We’ve seen lawsuits accusing state-licensed labs of providing false, favorable test certifications to attract business. Disputes over dispensary licensing processes have emerged, often halting the entire procedure for all applicants.

Given these circumstances, ADR has become not just an option, but a necessity for the cannabis industry. ADR typically costs less than traditional litigation, offering a more economical path to resolution. Unlike public court proceedings, ADR provides a degree of confidentiality that appeals to cannabis investors wary of public scrutiny. As regulations and market dynamics evolve, mediation’s adaptability allows it to address novel disputes effectively. Neutrals with specific expertise with cannabis industry can help parties develop solutions that address the needs of all involved, often preserving business relationships and even laying the groundwork for future collaboration. Even in competitive situations, dispute resolution can help stabilize market and regulatory issues, benefiting all industry participants.

The best mediators for cannabis disputes are neutrals who truly know the business, its products and customers, the regulatory and financial milieu, and the plant itself. As I write this, we are seeing growing tension between those in the highly regulated and taxed state marijuana markets and those in the federally legal hemp market. Many disputes involve subjective judgments, such as the rejection of cannabis flower or oil based on quality, while others stem from objective testing and cannabinoid profiles. Having to educate a neutral about the subject matter during mediation is inefficient and dramatically reduces the prospect of settlement.

Experienced neutrals can guide parties toward innovative resolutions that may not involve monetary settlements. These creative solutions can potentially avoid insolvency or unsatisfiable judgments that might result from years of litigation. This approach is particularly valuable in an industry where traditional financial remedies may be exceedingly complicated or completely unavailable because of the law or the difficulty enforcing contracts.

As we move forward, several factors may impact dispute resolution in the cannabis industry. The potential rescheduling of cannabis containing significant quantities of THC to Schedule III by the federal government could improve the financial situation for cannabis businesses by allowing them to write off most business costs. However, this would not fully align state recreational cannabis laws with federal regulations. The evolving landscape of hemp-based products with chemically derived psychotropic properties may lead to unfair business practices claims between the licensed high-THC cannabis industry and the hemp industry.

In conclusion, as the cannabis industry continues to grow and face complex legal challenges, ADR stands out as an indispensable tool for resolving disputes efficiently, creatively, and with an eye toward the unique needs of this dynamic sector. Its flexibility and ability to provide tailored solutions make it particularly well-suited to navigate the complex and rapidly changing landscape of cannabis law and business. Those who effectively utilize alternative dispute resolution methods will be better positioned to address legal challenges efficiently and successfully. For cannabis entrepreneurs, investors, and legal professionals, understanding and leveraging ADR may well be the key to successfully navigating the complex legal terrain of this burgeoning industry.

Note: This post was first published October 17, 2024 on the Alger ADR Blog.

The post ADR’s Vital Role in Cannabis Industry Disputes appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/D21Q39r
via IFTTT

Who is the cannabis breeder Barney’s Farm?

Learn about the notable Amsterdam breeder Barney's Farm.

The post Who is the cannabis breeder Barney’s Farm? appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/dB5WjhE
via IFTTT

Eat, drink, and be merry with Donny Burger—December 2024’s Leafly HighLight

Donny Burger supports appetite, relaxation, and fooling around.

The post Eat, drink, and be merry with Donny Burger—December 2024’s Leafly HighLight appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/zlGoJCn
via IFTTT

Oregon Cannabis: Get Your OLCC Renewal or New Application in Before December 5th

As of this Thursday, December 5^th, Ballot Measure 119 requires all OLCC licensed retailers, processors and labs to provide a signed labor peace agreement (LPA) with a bona fide labor organization, to renew or apply for an OLCC license.

In the totally avoidable, unduly compressed timeline since BM 119 passed, we have been advising our Oregon cannabis clients to renew their license applications ahead of the December 5^th deadline if possible. Same deal for new applicants– get everything in before the deadline. This will allow qualifying businesses to avoid the LPA issue for another year (or maybe forever, if the courts get ahold of BM 119).

OLCC marijuana licensees are required to renew their licenses annually. Licensees are notified 90 days prior to their license expiration date that it’s time for license renewal. According to my wizard paralegal, this notice automatically posts in CAMP, which is the OLCC’s online licensing software. Specifically, a licensee will receive an “Actions Required” notification on their dashboard.

OLCC has confirmed that licenses set to expire after December 5^th, will not require an LPA submission until the following year’s renewal, provided that the license has been renewed prior to the December 5^th deadline. Same deal with any new license applicant. To that point, OLCC’s most recent BM 119 Bulletin is here. It answers some basic questions and contains no surprises.

OLCC also recently published its Labor Peace Agreement Attestation Form. This is a form that applicants may submit in lieu of actually filing their LPA with the Commission. Somebody asked me what the repercussions might be if they were to submit this form without having a signed LPA in place. The short answer is “don’t do that.” The longer answer is that there are many administrative rules dealing with “false statements”, “material false statements” and the submission of “false or misleading information” to OLCC. License revocation or non-renewal is a real possibility there.

For more information on this topic, the Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon has a guide here, and has been sending out helpful emails on its listserv (you can sign up for those here). The relevant OLCC materials are linked above, and I’ll provide links to our previous posts on this topic just below. For now, get those license renewals and applications in!

See also:

• New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
• Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2024

The post Oregon Cannabis: Get Your OLCC Renewal or New Application in Before December 5th appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/765Aef4
via IFTTT

Attention, Canna Companies! CTA Filing Deadline this Month

For anyone that has not yet met their Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) filing requirements, now is the time! The deadline for entities created or registered before January 1, 2024, is less than a month away, on December 31, 2024.

In July, we published a blog post covering questions on the CTA. The full text of that post is included below.

____________________________

On January 1, 2024, the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) took effect. The CTA requires a host of both domestic and foreign entities to disclose their beneficial ownership to the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Compliance with the CTA is required for all businesses, including those in the cannabis industry. In this post, I’ll overview some (but not all) key requirements of the CTA, and some of the implications for the cannabis industry.

What is the CTA?

The purpose of the CTA is to combat illegal activities like money laundering by disclosure of information concerning “beneficial owners” to FinCEN. Beneficial ownership essentially means the individuals who own or control a company (more on that below). FinCEN and other domestic governmental authorities can use this beneficial ownership information in certain contexts for law enforcement purposes. Detailed FAQs on the CTA are available here.

Who must report?

Corporations, limited liability companies, and other business entities are considered reporting companies for purposes of the CTA. Certain sole proprietors may not count as reporting companies, and CTA exempts 23 classes of entities, such as governmental bodies, banks, and certain large operating companies.

Figuring out whether a business qualifies for an exemption can in some cases be complicated, and businesses can flow in and out of exemptions over time. So it’s a good idea for businesses to confer with counsel to determine whether they are compliant.

When must reporting happen?

Reporting is done by submitting an initial beneficial ownership report (BOIR) with FinCEN via an electronic portal called the Beneficial Ownership Secure System, located at FinCEN.gov, free of charge. There are some key reporting deadlines, which change based on when a company was formed (for domestic companies) or registered in the US (for foreign companies) as follows:

• Entities created or registered before January 1, 2024, must submit their initial BOIR by January 1, 2025.
• Entities registered in 2024 are required to file within 90 calendar days of their registration becoming effective.
• For registrations from January 1, 2025, onwards, the deadline is 30 calendar days post-registration notice.

CTA also has requirements to periodically update beneficial ownership information after changes occur. Failure to comply with CTA can lead to monetary penalties and even criminal liability.

What must be reported?

Reporting companies must disclose individuals with substantial control or those owning at least 25% of the entity. Substantial control includes abilities like appointing or removing directors, making significant business decisions, or other forms of major influence. For example, question D8 on FinCEN’s FAQs addresses how management companies could be considered beneficial owners of a reporting company. Sound familiar?

Disclosure itself is not dissimilar to state-level cannabis regulatory disclosures. Beneficial owners must provide their legal name, date of birth, address, and an identifying number (e.g., SSN).

How will this affect the cannabis industry?

In case you were wondering, CTA applies to cannabis businesses. There is no exemption for reporting by state-legal cannabis companies.

A lot of cannabis companies will probably get squeamish at the thought of making detailed beneficial ownership disclosures. That’s especially the case where CTA by its terms allows FinCEN to share beneficial ownership information with other federal agencies engaged in law enforcement activities, or federal agencies that supervise financial institutions.

So, expect to see owners of cannabis businesses engage in all kinds of corporate changes to obscure beneficial ownership or reduce equity and control rights to get out of disclosures. In some cases, this will not work and people will face penalties.

Also expect to see a lot of cannabis companies (and non-cannabis companies for that matter) make a good-faith effort to comply with CTA initially but fail to update information as required by law. This is just going to happen, the way CTA is set up. Whether or not people are actually penalized for late disclosures or updates absent some kind of misfeasance remains to be seen.

Conclusion

CTA is complicated and has already been a headache for many businesses – so much so that at least one group of businesses brought a challenge to its constitutionality and won. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) the court did not issue a nationwide injunction but only enjoined enforcement of CTA against the specific plaintiffs. It’s possible that in different litigation or future appeals, the law itself is enjoined on a nationwide level. But for the time being, it’s the law of the land.

The post Attention, Canna Companies! CTA Filing Deadline this Month appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/oIZdF1z
via IFTTT

Star signs and cannabis strains: December 2024 horoscopes

Happy December, Stargazers! The final month of the year harkens Sagittarius season and lights up the cosmos, bringing an adventurous and optimistic energy to guide us. The stars are full of celestial activity this month—let yourself reflect on the past year and dream big about the future. Lest we forget, we’re still in Mercury Retrograde […]

The post Star signs and cannabis strains: December 2024 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/fyZ2aYr
via IFTTT

Get a taste of the high life with Daylite & Bango

Meet Bango Bites, delectable bite-sized edibles that are now available at Daylite for just $18 for a pack of ten.

The post Get a taste of the high life with Daylite & Bango appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/nQI6lzS
via IFTTT

Happy Thanksgiving from The Canna Law Blog

From all of us at the Canna Law Blog, Happy Thanksgiving! May your day be filled with good food, great company, and the seeds of prosperity for the coming year.

The post Happy Thanksgiving from The Canna Law Blog appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/jzhOftN
via IFTTT

Leafly Buzz: 12 hot cannabis strains of November 2024

With Mandarin Cherry Tree, Piescream, and Novacane.

The post Leafly Buzz: 12 hot cannabis strains of November 2024 appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/MEdBGuQ
via IFTTT

Magnitude vapes help the UFC’s Matt Frevola roll with the punches

Matt has been puffing on the cream of the Magnitude vape crop for the past few weeks, and The SteamRolla has picked out a few of his favorite knockout strains.

The post Magnitude vapes help the UFC’s Matt Frevola roll with the punches appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/odNtA2I
via IFTTT

California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality

In a landmark decision that highlights the tension between state and federal cannabis laws, a California appellate court ruled on October 29th that property owners can refuse to allow the transportation of cannabis across their land via easements, even when the cannabis operation is approved by local authorities.

The Second District Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision draws attention to private property rights in a context where cannabis remains federally illegal, but state law allows licensed cultivation, distribution and sale. Presiding Justice Albert Gilbert stated, “No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.” JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, Case No. B333201, 2024 WL 4599304, Oct. 29, 2024.

Unless the California Supreme Court grants review – which I would not rule out – the decision empowers private property owners to refuse to contract with cannabis businesses, and restricts local government from approving cannabis operations that implicate the property rights of neighbors who object.

The case at hand

The dispute centered around a cannabis cultivation operation in Santa Barbara County, where JCCrandall LLC challenged a conditional use permit granted by the County to its neighbor, Santa Rita Holdings Inc. The critical issue was that Santa Rita Holdings could only access its 2.5-acre cannabis farm via an unpaved road crossing JCCrandall’s property through a pre-existing easement. JCCrandall grows oats and barley.

JCCrandall’s primary concern? It raised a number of complaints with the Santa Barbara County Supervisors about truck traffic and night operations, which did not gain traction, but in the Court of Appeal JCCrandall focused on what it claimed was potential liability associated with having federally illegal substances transported across its property, even though County regulators found that the Santa Rita operation was fully compliant with state and local laws.

Key legal findings

The appellate court’s decision hinged on several crucial points:

1. Property Rights: The court emphasized that “the right to exclude others is the essence of the right of property ownership” and classified it as a fundamental vested right.
2. Federal Supremacy: The panel determined that allowing cannabis transportation across private property “defies the Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
3. State vs. Federal Law: While cannabis might be legal under California law, the court ruled that federal law’s prohibition takes precedence in this context.

California cannabis industry implications

Legal experts suggest this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for California’s cannabis industry. Section 1550.5(b) of the California Civil Code makes contracts within California involving cannabis lawful and enforceable, and Santa Rita Holdings bet the ranch on that argument. But the Court of Appeal held that the statute could not compel a landowner to allow cannabis to travel across its property on a pre-existing easement. Licensed operators may find it harder to do business because neighbors who have property rights affected by a cannabis business can object, and, under the JCCrandall ruling, local government must yield to those objections.

An example might be a cannabis dispensary that depends on access to its parking lot via an easement or is located in a shopping center where other lessees have rights to object to tenants notwithstanding the approval of the landlord. In cultivation, many cannabis farms depend on vehicular access through easements because they are remote and do not always have direct access to public thoroughfares, or they depend on water sourced from other properties pursuant to agreements made by prior owners who grew traditional crops. These neighbors might not need to show any negative impact on their property, but can argue that they could be found complicit in federally illegal activities.

I think the most problematic language in the JCCrandall ruling is the following, which might draw the attention of the California Supreme Court and cause it to grant review: “For as long as an easement is enjoyed, its mode and manner of use shall remain substantially the same as it was at the time the easement was created. The County argues the easement was used for agricultural purposes. But there is a vast difference between legal and illegal agricultural purposes.” (Emphasis added.) If California has determined that cannabis cultivation is legal – as it has – and state courts routinely enforce contracts involving cannabis, it is a pretty bold step to declare the use of a lawful pre-existing easement illegal simply because the agricultural crop is cannabis and take away easement access from Santa Rita.

Looking ahead

This decision creates new challenges for cannabis businesses in California, and will result in more disputes among neighbors. While the Biden administration has shown signs of easing federal marijuana restrictions, this ruling demonstrates that the federal-state law conflict continues to create significant legal hurdles for the cannabis industry.

California court decisions also can be persuasive authority in other states, so we might see similar litigation (and decisions) elsewhere in the country where cannabis has been legalized.

The case serves as a reminder that despite California’s progressive stance on cannabis, federal prohibition continues to cast a long shadow over the industry’s operations and development. As the cannabis landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may prompt businesses to reassess their property arrangements and local governments will certainly have to reconsider their permitting processes to give more careful consideration to objections by neighbors who claim that their property rights are implicated by cannabis operations.

Note: This post was first published earlier this month on the Alger ADR Blog.

The post California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/IXTqDZ6
via IFTTT

Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill

The U.S. Senate’s version of the Farm Bill finally landed this week. They’re calling it the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024 (the “Senate bill”). The Senate bill follows on the House’s proposal, called the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (the “House bill”), offered in May. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill would preempt state or Indian law regarding hemp or the regulation of hemp products. This means states and tribes will retain a lot of latitude in regulating hemp and hemp-derived products– which gets people fired up.

Aside from giving states some runway, the Senate bill and the House bill differ in key respects regarding hemp. Therefore, these august bodies must confer and reconcile their sundry proposals. That could happen in 2024, but seems more likely in 2025 when the new Congress convenes. As of this week, though, we finally have a framework.

The Senate Bill re-defines “hemp” and defines “industrial hemp”

Section 10016 of the Senate bill (“Hemp Production”) amends the definition of “hemp.” Hemp was defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), taking us on a truly wild ride. See: What Happened to Hemp? (“What Happened”). The Senate bill also gives us a definition for “industrial hemp.” Here are those definitions, with points of emphasis in bold:

(1) Hemp. The term “hemp” means (A) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; and (B) industrial hemp.

(3) Industrial Hemp. The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. if the harvested material (A) is only (i) the stalks of that plant, fiber produced from those stalks, or any other manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of those stalks (except cannabinoid resin extracted from those stalks); (ii) whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other compound, manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the seeds of that plant (except cannabinoid resin extracted from the seeds of that plant); or (iii) viable seeds of that plant produced solely for production or manufacture of any material described in clause (i) or (ii); and (B) will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.

The new regime

Again, the definitional stuff in bold is what I want to emphasize.

First, the Senate bill keeps the THC threshold at 0.3 percent, which is an arbitrary number we’ve been advocating against for years. The Senate bill mirrors the House bill in this respect, though, so we are stuck with this, unless Ron Paul gets his way.

Second, the Senate bill keeps the 2018 Farm Bill’s total THC standard, including THCA. The House bill does this too. This was fairly predictable: in What Happened, I wrote that we could “expect the total THC standard to remain, which means that actual Delta-9 THC won’t be the only metric for calculating THC content.”

We’ve also explained on this blog that the 2018 Farm Bill and USDA rules mandate total THC testing on pre-harvest hemp batches, but do not mandate such testing on post-harvest hemp or hemp products. The Senate bill doesn’t change this paradigm, which means the “loophole” for gas station weed remains open. This proposal is a big win for opponents of the House bill’s “Miller Amendment,” which would narrow the definition of “hemp” to exclude intoxicating hemp-derived substances.

Third, the Senate bill introduces a new definition and framework for industrial hemp. The House bill does this too, albeit slightly differently. The idea here is to invite farmers to grow hemp for fiber and grain purposes, while freeing them from regulatory burdens with the Department of Agriculture and criminal exposure with the Department of Justice. More specifically, for “industrial hemp” growers, the Senate bill:

• removes background check requirements;
• instates “relaxed regulatory requirements” for sampling and inspection methodologies (which will need to be adopted by rule); and
• develops a certified seed program. 

The Senate bill also makes any hemp producer ineligible to grow hemp for five years if that producer, “with a culpable mental state greater than negligence, produces a crop of hemp that is inconsistent with that license.”(Hint: use the seed program.) The proof standard here seems like it could be an issue, and even if anyone has been adjudicated as growing marijuana under the guise of hemp, Farm Bill ineligibility seems like a far-off concern.

Bottom line

The big takeaway for me is that the Senate bill leaves the door open for intoxicating hemp products, whereas the Miller Amendment to the House bill does not. Something’s gotta give. And it needs to happen soon, because we’re already long overdue. As I explained in a webinar last week, the Farm Bill deals with the nation’s entire food supply, not just hemp. Therefore, this is not like with the SAFE Banking Act, where we have a proposed law specific to cannabis that may or may not ever pass. The Farm Bill must pass, and soon.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep you updated on any major happenings. For more on this topic, check out our massive hemp and CBD archive, or these specific, recent posts:

• More Bad News for Intoxicating Hemp (California, Missouri, New Jersey)
• Loper Comes for the DEA. Will it Matter, Though?
• Intoxicating Hemp Products: The Future Isn’t Bright
• So Long for THCA Products
• Bad News for Intoxicating Hemp Products
• Is it Legal, Or Not? What to Make of All These DEA “Position” Letters
• Thoughts on THCA, Interstate Sales… and Oregon
• What Happened to Hemp?
• FDA and FTC Target Delta-8 Products

The post Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/CFveqPk
via IFTTT

Find LivWell in Colorado

There are LivWell locations across The Centennial State with fire finds for you. Find the location nearest you to start saving.

The post Find LivWell in Colorado appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/UZ0MRAr
via IFTTT

American budtenders’ best strains of 2024

See American budtenders' top picks in more than a dozen states.

The post American budtenders’ best strains of 2024 appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/RfFp9da
via IFTTT

America’s best edibles for Thanksgiving 2024

Stock up for the holidays on Green Wednesday.

The post America’s best edibles for Thanksgiving 2024 appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/WUpXZ0Y
via IFTTT

PurLife is New Mexico’s home for the holidays

Save big with BOGO deals on premium flower and more at PurLife dispensaries this Green Wednesday and beyond.

The post PurLife is New Mexico’s home for the holidays appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/xpbsS3E
via IFTTT

Make the holidays EZ with Green Wednesday deals on BREEZE Canna in Illinois

Shop deals on BREEZE Canna near you and add some hassle-free goodness to your holiday.

The post Make the holidays EZ with Green Wednesday deals on BREEZE Canna in Illinois appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/7sH4q32
via IFTTT

Cannavita dispensary brings fine-dining hospitality to cannabis

Discover this posh new dispensary in Astoria, Queens.

The post Cannavita dispensary brings fine-dining hospitality to cannabis appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/CBFgVXS
via IFTTT

Webinar Replay: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em

On Thursday, November 7th, Vince Sliwoski, Aaron Pelley and Fred Rocafort held a post election discussion “Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em”. Watch the replay!

Key Takeaways from the “Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em – 2024 Post Election Cannabis Wrap” Webinar:

1. Panelists:
   • Vince Sliwoski: Oregon Business lawyer specializing in cannabis and commercial real estate.
   • Aaron Pelley: Experienced in cannabis law since Washington’s legalization in 2012.
   • Fred Rocafort: Trademark attorney working closely with the cannabis team.
2. Election Results Overview:
   • Most 2024 cannabis ballot measures did not pass.
   • Florida, South Dakota, and North Dakota saw failures.
   • Nebraska became the 39th state to legalize cannabis for medical use when it passed two cannabis initiatives, Initiatives 437 and 438.
3. Federal and State-Level Developments:
   • Medical use is currently legal in 38 states, and 24 states allow recreational use.
   • Republican support for marijuana legalization is growing.
4. Federal Policy Implications:
   • Schedule III Rescheduling: The process to move cannabis to Schedule III is ongoing, which could significantly impact the industry.
   • Importance of Federal Appointments: The future of cannabis policy depends heavily on who is appointed to key positions in the administration.
5. International and Domestic Trade:
   • Schedule III status could ease import/export restrictions on cannabis.
   • Unified control of House, Senate, and presidency might expedite legislative progress.
6. Economic and Industry Impact:
   • Cannabis stocks experienced volatility post-election, reflecting investor uncertainty.
   • Federal legalization and banking reforms are crucial for industry stability and growth.
7. Future Outlook:
   • The potential for federal rescheduling remains strong, with hearings scheduled for early 2025.
   • State-level initiatives and regulatory developments will continue to shape the industry.

Watch the replay!

The post Webinar Replay: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/hRaqOBN
via IFTTT

Sleep through it all with Modified Grapes—November’s Leafly HighLight

GMO x Purple Punch deliver a knockout.

The post Sleep through it all with Modified Grapes—November’s Leafly HighLight appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/VG4KT1N
via IFTTT

New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements

Oregon’s Measure 119 passed last week, as expected. This means that as of December 5^th, every OLCC licensed retailer, processor, researcher and testing lab must secure a labor peace agreement before OLCC will approve a new or renewal license application. The labor peace agreement must be with a “bona fide labor organization.”

I previewed M119 back in September, explaining:

Compulsory peace agreements aren’t anything new in cannabis, although it would be something different here in Oregon. California, for example, requires labor peace agreements for many of its cannabis licensees, and has for many years. We had clients struggle with the concept initially, and we saw some fumbled rollouts, but people eventually adjusted.

Measure 119 further provides that retailers and processors would be required to remain neutral, under the peace agreements, when labor organizations communicate with employees about collective bargaining rights “with any licensure or renewal application.”

M119 may be legally problematic

I’m not a First Amendment lawyer, but it’s not clear to me that an Oregon business can be constrained from speaking with employees– regardless of what M119 provides. Oregon’s speech protections are extremely broad, which is why we have a naked bike ride, tons of strip clubs and no campaign finance restrictions.

I’m also not a labor lawyer, but I’m told M119 could hit a snag on the National Labor Relations Act.

I’ve run these concepts by an Oregon First Amendment lawyer and a couple of labor lawyers, and all confirmed to me that M119 has real exposure. I found that feedback interesting, because M119 sponsors would have understood this when they set out signature gathering. Back in September, I wrote:

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555 spent a good deal of money to get Measure 119 on the ballot, rounding up some 163,000 signatures when only 117,173 were required. This follows on a stymied effort to get House Bill 3183 passed last year, which would have accomplished the same thing legislatively.

HB 3183 failed after a couple of advisory letters from the State of Oregon, Legislative Counsel Committee (see here and here). Those letters discussed preemption exposure for what is now M119 under the National Labor Relations Act, The Taft Hartley Act, and other federal laws. Oregon Business and Industry, the largest business group in the state, also submitted opposing testimony, highlighting legal exposure.

As to the First Amendment issues, anyone watching this is advised to follow litigation recently brought by Ctrl Alt Destroy, Inc., on a similar requirement in California.

So let’s see how that goes, and let’s see if anyone in the Oregon cannabis space wants to make a run at litigating M119. For now, credit to UFCW Local 555, I guess, for not giving up and for getting this thing on the ballot. And for having some fun by slipping a Rickroll into the voter pamphlet. I’m sure that won a few people over.

The OLCC process

I don’t have any information yet on what OLCC is going to do ahead of the December 5^th deadline. It’s worth noting that, in addition to California, other recreational cannabis states including New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware all have similar requirements. Most likely, OLCC will put out an FAQ page very soon that looks something like this and licensees will need to upload something or other to CAMP with respect to any post-December 5^th application or renewal.

As far as OLCC licensees negotiating these agreements, the best approach would be to speak with experienced labor counsel. Labor law is highly specialized, and negotiating a labor peace agreement with any outfit claiming to be a “bona fide labor organization” is not a typical exercise.

For now, this is just one more thing for licensed cannabis businesses to comply with. Please reach out to us if you have any questions or need a referral.

The post New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/kIGCQNb
via IFTTT

New York dispensary owners are collaborating for a better future

Meet the coalition of dispensary owners united and ready to thrive in New York's legal market.

The post New York dispensary owners are collaborating for a better future appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/uVjOhg5
via IFTTT

Amendment 3: Florida Legalization Fails

Amendment 3, which would have legalized recreational marijuana for adults in Florida, garnered 55.8% of the vote, falling short of the 60% threshold needed to pass. While the initiative had the support of President-elect Trump, the opposing forces led by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis carried the day. Supporters may draw some comfort from the fact that a clear majority of voters supported legalization, but the fact remains that adult-use cannabis will remain illegal in the Sunshine State for the foreseeable future.

Leaving aside the fact that getting 60% of voters to agree on anything these days appears to be a tall order, Amendment 3 faced active opposition from Florida’s leadership. While themselves driven by a fundamental dislike of cannabis, Gov. DeSantis and his team deftly tapped into concerns that came from different places altogether, such as the lack of provisions for home grow and related concerns over the entrenchment of “Big Weed”.

Looking at the big picture, it is remarkable to see how much Floridians’ attitudes toward cannabis have changed in the past decade. Back in 2014, it was a medical cannabis initiative that fell short of the 60% supermajority requirement. Ten years on, a legal medical marijuana industry is well established in Florida.

Despite the progress, the experience with Amendment 3 suggests that further reliance on the initiative process is not the path forward for legalization advocates. Just getting the proposed amendment on the ballot required overcoming legal challenges from the state government, before addressing the challenge of seeking 60% of votes in the nation’s third-most populated state.

A more sensible approach might be to focus on the fact that legalization is already supported by a majority of Florida voters. For elected officials in large swathes of the state, support for legalization could be a boon. And the fact that concerns over Big Weed control helped defeat opposition to Amendment 3 presents a political opportunity, not for those who double-down on prohibition, but for those who refine approaches to legalization.

We’ll discuss the Florida result on Thursday in a free webinar (register here), along with the disappointing results in North Dakota and South Dakota, the win (for now) in Nebraska, and a few other state and local measures on cannabis regulation. Hope to see you soon.

The post Amendment 3: Florida Legalization Fails appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/JI5ntgC
via IFTTT

Reminder: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em

Register Here

Join us tomorrow for a post-election breakdown: “Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if you’ve got ’em”

As the dust settles (hopefully) from the 2024 U.S. elections, the cannabis industry stands at the threshold of potentially transformative changes. Join us tomorrow November 7th at 12 PM Pacific for an engaging discussion on the ramifications of the legal landscape of cannabis, post-election. We will cover everything from the Presidential and Congressional races, to the handful of pending state ballot measure results in Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Oregon.

Post-election Q&A webinar details:

• Date: November 7th (tomorrow)
• Time: 12 PM Pacific
• Speakers: Vince Sliwoski (OR), Aaron Pelley (WA), and Fred Rocafort (FL)

Vince Sliwoski will guide the discussion with seasoned industry veterans Aaron Pelley and Fred Rocafort. Collectively, these experts bring a wealth of industry knowledge and experience, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of what lies ahead for the cannabis industry.

Whether you are a cannabis entrepreneur, investor, or simply keen on the future of cannabis legislation, this discussion is designed for you.

Prepare your best questions and join us for deep insights into:

• How the election outcomes are expected to reshape federal and state cannabis policies, including with pending Schedule III proposal.
• The potential for new market openings and business opportunities in onboarding states.
• Strategic advice on navigating the evolving regulatory environment.

Don’t miss this opportunity to gain expert post-election insights that could redefine your strategy and operations in the coming months and years.

Register Here

The post Reminder: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

from Canna Law Blog™ https://ift.tt/0qMgmrZ
via IFTTT

2024 election results for the cannabis voter: What you need to know

Florida legalization results as well as other states.

The post 2024 election results for the cannabis voter: What you need to know appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/quh4Kg1
via IFTTT

Poll: Which is better? Smoking weed before a meal, or after?

The election and holiday season is upon us. So it’s time to settle the toughest questions. Which is better? Smoking weed before a meal, or after? Let’s put this to rest once and for all. The eternal question When it comes to pairing weed with food, timing can be everything. So, what’s your move? Are […]

The post Poll: Which is better? Smoking weed before a meal, or after? appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/bW3ljw4
via IFTTT

Why you should shop early for cannabis deals

Save dough on the good-good without breaking a sweat.

The post Why you should shop early for cannabis deals appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/AfBUv7O
via IFTTT