Muha Meds started as a passion project between two brothers, growing into one of cannabis' premier brands. See what we're most excited about.
The post How Muha Meds made their mark appeared first on Leafly.
Whether you support them or not, intoxicating hemp products are probably not going to be around for much longer in their current form. States, municipalities, and even the federal government have begun a clampdown on these products. In no particular order, I’ll address a few reasons why the back half of 2024 will be a bad stretch for intoxicating hemp products.
First, let’s talk about Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a 2024 US Supreme Court decision. Loper ended what’s often referred to as “Chevron deference.” To vastly oversimplify, Chevron deference required federal courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, even if courts did not agree with those interpretations. With Chevron dead, courts will not be required to defer to agencies and courts can decide, on their own, whether an agency’s interpretation was within its statutory authority.
Ever since Loper was decided, there have been a million different theories on how it could affect the cannabis and hemp industries. [For the record, I agree with folks like Shane Pennington who argue that Loper will not affect rescheduling.]
When it comes to hemp though, Loper may in theory have more of an impact, as my colleague, Vince Sliwoski, argued prior to Loper‘s publication. That’s because the DEA routinely issues what amount to opinion letters as to whether this or that cannabinoid is or is not a schedule I narcotic. Under Loper, if there were any statutory ambiguity, the DEA’s interpretation would no longer be given deference. That’s not to say that the DEA might not prevail, but it means the deck would be less stacked in DEA’s favor.
That all said, all of this is almost certainly academic – at least if Congress passes the Farm Bill with proposed amendments that would ban intoxicating hemp products. If that happens, the DEA won’t need to opine on the legality of many (if not most or all) intoxicating hemp products. The law would have already changed to prohibit them expressly.
But what happens if the upcoming Farm Bill doesn’t contain bans on intoxicating hemp products? Things will almost certainly not end there. The FDA, which has been hostile to many hemp products since the day the 2018 Farm Bill was passed, could simply claim products are adulterated or misbranded and seek to pull them from the market. It does this with kratom, which is an unscheduled plant, and there’s no reason why it could not do it here (subject again to FDA having to prove its case in a post-Loper court challenge).
Things are also not looking great for intoxicating hemp products at the state and local levels. The State of Virginia, for example, just levied nearly $11 million in fines against more than 300 retailers allegedly selling state-prohibited intoxicating hemp products. Out west, the Colorado attorney general sued a business in June for allegedly selling super-high THC products marketed as federally legal hemp.
We also assume that there is a lot of local enforcement actions that go under the radar – things like state or local public health officials pulling products from shelves or warning stores. That can be harder to track if for no other reason than it doesn’t often make the news. We also assume that a lot of the reports concerning enforcement against alleged illegal marijuana stores or operators, including in places like New York, may miss the legal nuances between intoxicating hemp products and illegal cannabis products.
All in all, it’s hard to say how widespread enforcement is against intoxicating hemp products. But it is happening, and with increasing frequency. Even if the federal government doesn’t step in and end intoxicating hemp products via a new Farm Bill – which seems to be what will happen – we expect that state-level efforts to restrict or ban these products will continue.
As always, stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for additional updates on hemp and intoxicating hemp products.
The post Intoxicating Hemp Products: The Future Isn’t Bright appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Find the best CBD creams of 2024. Leafly reviewed popular topicals and chose what we think are the top picks for different needs and budgets.
The post Leafly’s top 6 CBD creams of 2024 appeared first on Leafly.
Floridians get to free the weed at the ballot box Nov. 5. What’s at stake? Scores of weed arrests, and at least $200 million per year in tax revenue for a massive, newly legal economy. Also, tens of millions of dollars more in criminal justice savings from fewer arrests, and prison sentences. That $200 million […]
The post Pot prohibition costs Florida at least $200 million per year appeared first on Leafly.
In case you’ve just fallen out of a coconut tree.
The post Coconut weed strains are a thing—Here’s America’s best appeared first on Leafly.
Kamala Harris is a heavy favorite for Democratic Presidential nominee, now that Joe Biden has dropped out of the race and endorsed her. This means we should re-open our short series on the 2024 Presidential candidates and marijuana. I thought we were done with this stuff.
We can trot out some deep cuts with Kamala Harris here on the blog. In January 2018, I picked her out of the pile as an example of a politician who talks a big game on cannabis while doing nothing helpful. I also surveyed her record on marijuana, which was pretty miserable at the time. In that post, I noted:
As California Attorney General, Ms. Harris did little to advance her state’s interest as to cannabis. In 2014, when she was asked for her opinion on legalizing adult-use cannabis, her response was dismissive laughter. As a state Senator, she has failed to sponsor or even co-sign any bill to re- or deschedule marijuana (and there are some good ones). Aside from lots of talking, Harris’ one big move has been to put together a petition to decriminalize marijuana nationwide (but not to revise the CSA). My eight-year-old niece could do that.
Ms. Harris was a California Senator at the time I wrote those words. She later threw her hat in the ring as a Presidential candidate in the 2020 election. The national sentiment on cannabis policy, along with the Democratic Party’s, was fluid at the time. Harris seemed to evolve along with it. She began to call for legalizing marijuana on social media in 2019, and, as we pointed out in another blog post, her campaign website advertised:
Kamala will take action to legalize marijuana, further reform federal sentencing laws, end private prisons and the profiting off of people in prison, and push states to prioritize treatment and rehabilitation for drug offenses.
We commented:
As a Senator, Harris’ rhetoric has become increasingly pro-legalization. Most recently, in 2018 Harris co-sponsored the Marijuana Justice Act which would legalize marijuana if passed. Her apparent pro-legalization stance, however, hasn’t always translated into legislative action. Her recent co-sponsorship of the Marijuana Justice Act comes only after she passed up many opportunities to co-sponsor or sign bills which would have legalized or rescheduled marijuana. The timing of her co-sponsorship of the bill — just over half a year before her official announcement of her presidential candidacy — suggests her sponsorship was a political move. Harris knows she must visibly adopt the pro-legalization platform to have a shot at the presidency as the majority of Americans support legalization. But we wonder how much priority she would actually give the issue if elected into office.
Harris didn’t win the Party’s nomination that year. Interestingly, a searing, cannabis-related takedown by Tulsi Gabbard helped submarine Harris’s candidacy. Gabbard led her indictment in that viral debate moment by saying: “She [Harris] put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.” Gabbard then assailed Harris on criminal justice more broadly. Harris’s candidacy never recovered.
Still, Biden picked Harris for his running mate, and most of us were fine with that. I put together another post in August of 2020 titled “Kamala Harris Will Help With Cannabis Reform (and That’s Good Enough for Me).” In that post, I summarized:
… It’s not how you start, but how you finish. Harris has really picked up the charge on cannabis issues lately, including in her role as Senate sponsor of the MORE Act. As drafted, the MORE Act removes marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act and provides expungement for certain cannabis offenses (and has a 3% chance of actually becoming law someday).
Still, if Harris keeps at it her advocacy will be a real boon, especially given Biden’s perplexing unwillingness to support cannabis legalization (we gave Biden a “D”), and especially given the Democrats’ failure at large to add marijuana legalization to the party platform once again this year. (Pretty disappointing, especially considering where the party was at in the run-up to the 2016 convention).
So we should credit Harris for coming around on cannabis, especially where the center of her party is still a half step behind. It is true that the Biden-Harris ticket is not the best that legalization advocates could have hoped for; but, like the U.S. at large, the Democratic party continues to float toward inevitably ending prohibition. Harris is going to help with that, even if it doesn’t happen as quickly as we had once hoped.
You know the rest. Biden and Harris were elected into office, with Harris supporting cannabis legalization and Biden pledging to “decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior cannabis use convictions.” None of this happened, or will happen by November.
Instead, Biden ordered some overhyped federal pardons, and eventually, an administrative review of marijuana’s CSA placement. The latter directive resulted in a recommendation to move marijuana to schedule III. In the big picture, I offered that “what Biden did here may ultimately be helpful, but certainly not as helpful as possible. Biden passed the buck, putting us on an uncertain, circuitous path.”
Which is where we stand today. Kamala Harris, as Vice President, has mostly been silent thought all of it.
So what would Harris do as President, with respect to marijuana? I think the right answer is: “Kamala Harris would do whatever is politically expedient, but she would not otherwise prioritize cannabis reform.”
Today I am giving Kamala Harris a “B” grade, if only because she is a Presidential candidate who has called for cannabis legalization. And I think she would likely make that happen– provided she doesn’t have to work for it.
For prior posts in this series, check out the following:
The post Grading the Presidential Candidates on Marijuana: Kamala Harris appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Here's this week's Good Grades review of Eureka vapes.
The post Good Grades Dispensary: Weekly Report Card [July 15, 2024] appeared first on Leafly.
Leafly Trends shows the top 10 strains in New York cannabis in 2024.
The post Trends top 10 cannabis strains in New York [2024] appeared first on Leafly.
At our firm, we’ve helped numerous cannabis startups navigate the complexities of choosing the right business entity. Because every startup is unique and has different goals and needs, a one-size-fits-all approach just won’t work. Below, I’ll explore some of the key considerations we focus on when finding the optimal entity type and structure for a cannabis venture.
Laypeople often mistakenly think that a business owned by a single person and a sole proprietorship are the same thing. Sole proprietorships, however, are generally unincorporated businesses. Imagine John Smith opens a lemonade stand and calls it John Smith Lemonade. It won’t be a separate legal entity unless he files a document with his state’s secretary of state.
Sole proprietorships like this completely miss out on “limited liability,” the hallmark of entities like corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), limited liability partnerships (LLPs), and some other business types. Limited liability shields the owners of a business from the debts and liabilities of the business. In other words, an owner can’t be sued if the business breaches a contract or incurs another liability to a third party.
Without limited liability, a sole proprietor can be sued individually for the business’s conduct. In my sole proprietorship example above, that would be the case whether John Smith or one of his employees sold spoiled lemonade that made someone sick. Generally speaking, all of that goes away for business owners who form an entity offering limited liability (yes there are some exceptions for fraud and wrongful conduct, but those are the exceptions, not the norm).
With that in mind, I’ll talk about the two most common entity types we see in the cannabis space.
Corporations have shareholders (owners) who elect directors to manage the big picture operations of the company. Directors hire officers to run the day-to-day affairs of the corporation. Depending on the state, there may be many different kinds of corporations. For example, California has general stock corporations, close corporations, and a host of non-profit corporations. All of them are different and may have different benefits for specific business types.
LLCs are much simpler. Where corporations have shareholders, directors, and officers, LLCs only have members (owners). They can (but don’t have to) appoint managers or even officers to run the business. But otherwise, LLC governance requirements are much simpler.
So the first big question for cannabis startups is how much governance they are prepared to deal with. Corporations can have a lot of benefits, but owners have to understand that they come with more governance baggage.
Corporations are taxed on their income at the federal corporate tax rate is 21%. Shareholders are then taxed on their dividends, if any are paid. This is known as “double taxation” and the “C-corporation” model. Corporations can also elect to be treated as “S-corporations” for tax purposes by making an election with the IRS within a certain timeframe. S-corporation taxation is similar to partnership taxation in many ways. However, S-corporations have many restrictions that make them impractical for some businesses.
Single member LLCs are “disregarded” for tax purposes. Multi-member LLCs are taxed on a pass-through basis (“partnership” taxation). This means that profits and losses of an LLC are treated as profits and losses of its members for tax purposes unless the LLC timely elects to have C-corporation taxation. [Note, there is also something called S-corporation taxation, which is similar to partnership taxation but outside the scope of this post.]
Despite “double taxation,” corporations may be the right entity for a cannabis business in some contexts. Here is an example of ours from a few years ago:
For example, a C corporation that earns $100,000 will pay tax of $21,000 ($100,000 *21%). If that same corporation dividends 100% of its earnings to shareholders, the maximum tax at the individual level is $23,800 ($100,000*23.8%). So the combined amount of tax is $44,800 ($21,000 + $23,800). In comparison, a partnership (or S corporation) results in less overall tax to the owners $37,000 ($100,000 *37%).
However, a C corporation is the preferred structure if the plan is to limit the amount of dividends paid to shareholders. For example the total tax hit to a C corporation and its shareholders that paid out dividends of $50,000 is: $32,900 [$21,000+ $11,900($50,000 * 23.8%)]. In this case, a C Corporation saves $4,100 of taxes compared to operating as a partnership. The C Corporation has the additional benefit of insulating shareholders/owners from personal liability for federal income tax.
On the other hand, partnership taxation can be ideal in some circumstances, such as:
None of this is meant to be tax advice, but highlights some of the key challenges businesses face in making tax and entity type decisions.
Many cannabis ventures are structured with separate operating companies owned by a single company. Generally speaking, the operating companies are LLCs due to simplicity of operation and pass-through taxation, whereas the “parent” is a C-corporation.
Corporations tend to be the better choice for raising equity and investments, which usually happens at the parent level. Institutional investors are more comfortable investing into corporations than LLCs, where they can secure director seats, define the classes of preferred or other equity they will get, etc. Not to say this can’t be done in an LLC, but the traditional C-corporation parent model tends to be the choice of most cannabis businesses.
The post What Entity Type is Best for a Cannabis Startup? appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
In case you haven’t heard, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wants to hear from you on marijuana rescheduling. Specifically, DEA invites your comments on its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to move both marijuana and marijuana extract from schedule I to schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The comment submission deadline is July 22, 2024.
There are actually two deadlines at play here. All comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before 11:59 ET on July 22, 2024. All hearing requests must be postmarked on or before July 20, 2024. It’s always possible that DEA will extend the deadlines past July 20 and 22, but it seems unlikely at this point. Therefore, you should comply with the July 22 deadline to make it into the administrative record, and the July 20 deadline if you’d also like to request a hearing.
DOJ encourages submission of comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Here is the link. The interface provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page, or to attach a file for lengthier comments.
Yes, there are a couple of good ones online. Marijuana Policy Project, for example, has a template letter you can edit and submit here. NORML has one here. I’m sure there are others floating around as well.
Looks like over 30,000 at the time of this writing. I initially guessed we would see over 100,000 comments. I may have overshot, but I still expect a significant uptick by next Monday.
You can certainly do that! I and many others have always argued that de- and not re-scheduling is the correct policy choice for marijuana. I expect that a significant portion of the comments will advocate for de-scheduling. Others will make arguments on the other end of the policy spectrum: marijuana should remain in schedule I with fentanyl and other dangerous drugs.
Wherever you land on the topic, it’s worth pointing out that DEA advised at page 13 of the NPRM that it “has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana.” This is yet another reason the comment opportunity is so compelling.
Yes. I explained in a prior post that the NPRM contemplates “marijuana-specific controls” at schedule III, although the NPRM itself doesn’t outline what those specific controls may be. It’s unclear (at least to me) whether DOJ and DEA could proceed with rescheduling marijuana prior to these controls being in place. Thus, I believe it’s fair game to comment on what controls should look like, and/or whether we even need them in the first place.
Once comments are in, the Administrative Procedure Act requires that rulemaking be conducted on the record after the opportunity for a hearing in front of an administrative law judge. It seems likely that the DEA administrator will grant a request for a hearing in this case, in order to review factual evidence and expert opinion on the NPRM.
Beyond that, you can expect this process to be ongoing at the time of the November elections. Whatever happens in those elections could also affect the outcome. But that is a topic for another day.
Until then, please keep next week’s deadlines in place, and check out the following posts on marijuana and schedule III:
The post Heads Up! DEA Wants to Hear from You on Marijuana Rescheduling by July 22 appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Celebrates with limited-edition 2Pac cannabis line.
The post Photos: Snoop Dogg opens his first weed shop ‘S.W.E.D.’ appeared first on Leafly.
Here are the top weed shops to add to your itinerary in the Land of Enchantment.
The post The best-rated weed dispensaries in Albuquerque for 2024 appeared first on Leafly.
Meet me in St Louis, where the cannabis industry thrives. With around 60 medical and adult-use dispensaries to choose from since Missouri launched their adult-use cannabis program in 2023, both locals and visitors of the Show Me State can shop around to find their favorite cannabis products with the best deals. To help narrow your […]
The post The best-rated weed dispensaries in St Louis for 2024 appeared first on Leafly.
Colorado is known as The Centennial State, Denver is the Mile High City, and Fort Collins is the door to the gate to the Rocky Mountains. This cozy city is home to 20 dispensaries that cater to both adult-use consumers and medical patients, with the range and quality control cannabis lovers have come to expect […]
The post The best-rated weed dispensaries in Fort Collins for 2024 appeared first on Leafly.
THC edibles eaters don't want to drive, but they perform normally.
The post Drivers high on edibles stayed in the slow lane, study finds appeared first on Leafly.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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).
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.
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 What Does the Corporate Transparency Act Mean (CTA) for the Cannabis Industry? appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Greentank's all-new vape tech, the Quantum Vape, is a massive stride forward for the cannabis industry. Find out how it works.
The post Meet Quantum Vape: A revolution in heating technology appeared first on Leafly.
Discover New York’s best cannabis info and culture today, including strains, dispensaries, events, education and more. See all Discover Manhattan’s newest legal dispensaries: Discover Queens newest legal dispensaries
The post What are you smoking? New York’s best bud appeared first on Leafly.
When California opened up for recreational cannabis licensing in 2018, cannabis businesses began sprouting up like wildflowers. This growth has been exciting but due to market volatility and the decline in the state’s cannabis market, legal disputes are also on the rise. California courts are now jam-packed with cannabis-related disputes to the consternation of many judges. Thankfully, there may be a solution to this problem: arbitration. Let’s delve into how the cannabis industry got here and how arbitration can help it continue to bloom.
When California gave the green light to recreational cannabis, the industry exploded. Dispensaries, growers, and related businesses began to bring in billions of dollars. This boom created thousands of jobs and boosted the state’s economy, generating substantial tax revenue. However, the market began to spiral out of control due to things like regulatory overload, competition with the illegal market, high taxes, and more.
With the decline in California’s cannabis market came many lawsuits – from partnership disputes, to contract breaches, to intellectual property infringement cases, and everything in between. These cases are clogging up the courts, making it hard for businesses to get timely resolutions in an industry where time is money. Additionally, companies must navigate a complex web of local and federal laws, as cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, creating further complications and uncertainties for business owners and investors.
The courts have noticed the surge in cannabis litigation. Before a recent bench trial, my judge expressed concern about the significant diversion of judicial resources to cannabis cases. She voiced that the unique history of cannabis combined with the informal business practices, and evolving laws, were resulting in a high volume of bench trials. The judge pointed out that contrary to cannabis disputes, non-cannabis cases with similar claims routinely settled.
Due to the strain caused by cannabis disputes, the judiciary started a grassroots campaign for change. Specifically, judges in Los Angeles are advocating for the cannabis industry to include arbitration clauses in future contracts and develop a specialized cannabis arbitration panel to ease the burden on the courts. These judges believe arbitration, faster and more cost-effective than traditional litigation, is an ideal solution for both the cannabis industry and the overburdened courts.
Arbitration may be a lifesaver for both the California courts and the cannabis industry. It offers a much quicker way to resolve disputes compared to traditional court cases. Instead of dragging on for years, arbitration can wrap up in just a few months. This means businesses can focus on what they do best-growing, selling, and innovating and the courts can utilize judicial resources to resolve disputes as opposed to learning the intricacies of cannabis.
Additionally, because cannabis law is complex and ever-changing, arbitrators with expertise in this field are better equipped to understand and navigate challenges unique to the industry. The development of a cannabis panel to resolve disputes would be a game changer. Arbitrators on such a panel would possess specialized knowledge and skill resulting in fair and informed decisions.
However, arbitration does have downsides. Arbitration is by definition more expensive as the parties must pay the arbitrator’s costs. Additionally, there are very limited appeal rights, which means that a losing party will often be stuck with the arbitrator’s decision.
As California’s cannabis industry blossoms, so too do its legal challenges. Arbitration is swift and expert-driven t disputes under control, ensuring businesses stay on track and courts remain unclogged. As the cannabis market surges, the embrace of arbitration must grow with it. This approach guarantees that the cannabis industry won’t fizzle but will remain hot into the future.
The post Lighting Up the Legal Scene: How Cannabis Arbitration Can Ease the Burden on California Courts appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
The internet is a badlands of misinformation on cannabis law and policy. Less than stellar takes may be amplified on news sites, giving them a veneer of authority. Social media platforms, from X to LinkedIn (where all the pros are said to be) don’t have nonsense filters. This dynamic is not new! However, things reached a fever pitch this year with the ruckus around schedule III, and most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court gutting Chevron deference.
Life is short, so I don’t plan to triage bad online takes today. Instead, I’d like to highlight a few reliable sources for you, a discerning consumer of cannabis legal news and analysis. I’m sure I’ll miss a few deserving sources as we go; if you find yourself in that camp, I promise it wasn’t intentional.
CRS serves as a “nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and members of Congress.” Its reports are usually five to ten pages. These tidy summaries cover cannabis law and policy topics, and related effects. CRS writes in plain language, so that every last member of Congress can hopefully understand them. Relevant reports are also updated from time to time. Here are some recent examples:
CRS reports are a good primer on “what the law is” and related policy considerations. Thus I recommend them.
Don’t trust the government? Perfectly understandable with cannabis. Fortunately, a number of think tanks exist with strong output on the topic. If you like, you can probably find one aligned with your politics. Here are a couple that have done notable work in the space for years:
RAND is a nonprofit, nonpartisan global policy think tank. Their cannabis archive goes back over 20 years. RAND has taken the deepest of dives on just about everything cannabis, including challenging issues like state program architecture and tax policy.
Brookings is another nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank. John Hudak and others have contributed a robust archive going back to 2015, including a slender history book of sorts that I used to assign to law students. Brookings’ longer-form content tends to be more approachable, but less comprehensive, than RAND’s.
This is a nonprofit, libertarian think tank. I’m listing CATO because it has a strong, anti-prohibition stance which should appeal to readers of this blog. CATO’s cannabis offerings are pretty diverse – you’ll find think pieces mixed in with op-eds and newsy offerings.
Don’t want to read wonky things either? In that case, there are a handful of good legal blogs out there on cannabis law and policy.
We have published thousands of articles on this blog since July of 2011. As its editor, I will stand by anything you find on these pages. Our goal is to provide thought leadership and practical analysis for cannabis industry stakeholders – often in real time.
This blog kicked off about three years ago. It was originally authored by whiz kids Matt Zorn and Shane Pennington. Now it’s just Matt, but it’s certainly still worth following. On Drugs skews toward administrative law concepts and suing the federal government. Some of the content here will be less approachable for laypeople, but it can be a real treat.
If you are interested in hemp law and policy, this may be the blog for you. Rod has written on these topics for many years as a strong advocate for hemp growers. Rod also takes clear positions on legally problematic topics– which is basically the whole of hemp. You don’t have to agree with Rod to give him his due for thought leadership.
These days, there are many other law firm blogs scattered about the internet. Some publish more frequently than others, and to be honest I’m not familiar with most of them. Generally speaking, these blogs post cautious, reliable analysis. That said, I’ve seen problematic output from lawyers as well. To that point, remember: law blogs are not legal advice.
News sites dedicated to cannabis tend to come and go. By and large, these are pro-cannabis outlets and they do a better job covering non-business issues than most of the cannabis law blogs. Other news operations like Forbes and Politico cover cannabis closely, but not exclusively.
Below are a few of the heavyweights dedicated to cannabis, only.
The National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws has published on the NORML Blog going back to February of 2008. Output has dipped a bit in the past year or so, but these old heads still run a dozen or more news pieces monthly. The NORML Blog also runs advocacy op-eds from its directors.
This is the best website for beat reporting and breaking cannabis news. Tom Angell, Kyle Jaeger and others have done yeoman’s work, including bill tracking, for over a decade. The site also publishes the occasional op-ed piece, but please use discernment here – last week featured one strong piece and one wild take on the very same topic, for example.
Sites like Cannabis Business Executive and Marijuana Business Daily tend to run a mix of news and opinion pieces. They may also republish other media (like the Canna Law Blog, with permission). These sites aren’t perfect; but then again, even mainstream media sometimes struggle in this space. Again, please use discernment when reading opinion and advocacy work on cannabis news sites.
This is where you need to be so very careful. Sites like X can be great for following cannabis reporters like Tom Angell or Politico’s Nathalie Fertig, to name a few. As with lawyers, some of the reporters are more focused on cannabis than others, and some are just better than others.
On the legal side of social media, some of what gets amplified across the networks isn’t worth your time. Much of it doesn’t even come from lawyers, to start. So for every Marc Hauser or Shane Pennington or Hilary Bricken posting or curating useful information, ten people (and twenty bots) are doing the opposite. Fortunately, it is easy to find good information on cannabis law outside of social media. I recommend it.
The post Cannabis Law is Chaotic: Avoiding Misinformation Online appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Here's this week's Good Grades review of Eaton Botanicals new flavors: Gal Pal and Daily Elevation edibles!
The post Good Grades Dispensary: Weekly Report Card appeared first on Leafly.
Here’s how you can support New York’s new legal cannabis dispensaries.
The post New York’s 500 first legal dispensaries need your support appeared first on Leafly.
Happy 4th of July from all of us here at the Canna Law Blog!
We hope you have a fun, safe and not-too-hot holiday celebrating with family and friends.
We’ll be back tomorrow with our regular programming.
The post Happy 4th of July! appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Find the best delta-9 THC gummies of 2024. Leafly reviewed popular delta-9 THC gummies & chose the top picks for different needs and budgets.
The post Leafly’s top 5 delta-9 THC gummies of 2024 appeared first on Leafly.
On Wednesday, June 26, Hirsh Jain of Ananda Strategy and I did an hourlong presentation where we examined a laundry list of problems facing the California cannabis industry. We had a lot of questions about whether a replay would be available and are happy to report that you can watch it here.
During the webinar, Hirsh and I talked about a host of problems facing the industry, including:
This was a lot to unpack in an hour and, unfortunately, we didn’t get too much time to address potential solutions we think could fix things. So I wanted to do that here, after speaking with Hirsh.
Below are a few ideas we each have, which we think might be a good start towards improving the California cannabis industry. We both appreciate that a lot of these changes may not be feasible without another voter initiative, but are listing some anyway.
California has a choice to make. It can either make participation in the legal market easier by dropping unnecessary and burdensome laws and rules, or make participation in the illegal market harder (i.e., enforcement). Right now the state is not doing either of those things very well.
We’ll keep you updated on changes that may impact the industry. So stay tuned.
The post Can the California Cannabis Industry be Saved? An Update appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Curio Wellness is now available for the first time in stores across Missouri. Find the brand's award-winning products near you.
The post Award-winning Curio Wellness cannabis products come to Missouri appeared first on Leafly.
As summer sun shines down, so do the stars. July holds many promising opportunities for each astrology sign; these are the perfect strains to make them happen.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: July 2024 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
Move aside deep-fried Oreos—this year’s California State Fair is making history with the introduction of cannabis! For the first time in its 170-year history, California is inviting fair-goers to purchase and enjoy cannabis products directly on site. The decision celebrates the state’s vibrant agricultural and cannabis heritage, and showcases winners of the 2024 California State Cannabis Awards. Let’s delve into the backstory of this development and what attendees can expect at the fair this year.
In 2022, the California State Fair debuted an exhibit and awards program dedicated to the cannabis plant. Fast forward to 2024, and the fair is expanding its cannabis offerings again. This year visitors aged 21 and older can use interactive QR codes next to displays of award-winning cannabis items to add products to their online shopping carts. Next, these purchases can be finalized at a dispensary located conveniently just outside the exhibit hall. For those looking to enjoy their purchases, an outdoor “Oasis” steps away provides a relaxing escape from the Sacramento heat.
Lauren Carpenter, co-founder of Embarc and the fair’s partner in this initiative, underscores the significance of integrating cannabis into the fair experience: “Hosting cannabis sales and consumption marks a pivotal step in destigmatization, fostering deeper connections between consumers and the dedicated farmers who cultivate these products with meticulous care.” This progressive approach aims to enhance public understanding and appreciation for the cannabis industry’s integral role in California’s agricultural landscape.
The highly anticipated 2024 California State Cannabis Awards will also be announced at the fair. Similar to the traditional canning and baking competition at the state fair, these awards are a way for California cultivators and manufacturers to show off their skills and earn recognition in the cannabis industry. This year outstanding products across categories such as sun-grown, mixed-light, indoor flowers, edibles, pre-rolls and concentrates will all receive awards. Adding to the excitement is the presentation of the prestigious “Best of California” Golden Bear awards during a grand ceremony on July 27, resembling the glamour of an Oscar-style event.
The addition of cannabis at the 2024 California State Fair is a major milestone in its evolution. It celebrates California’s diverse agricultural products, including cannabis, and lets attendees explore, learn, and engage with the cannabis industry. Like deep fried Oreos, cannabis could become a staple at the fair, showing its lasting presence in California.
The post Breaking New Ground: Cannabis at the 2024 California State Fair appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
