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

Marijuana Rescheduling: Delays, Adverse Participants… It’s All Good

Last Thursday, we learned that the DEA’s marijuana rescheduling hearings are delayed until early next year. We also saw the list of 25 participants invited by the DEA to testify at those hearings. The takeaways here are: a) we will not have a substantive hearing on marijuana rescheduling until a new President takes office, and b) most of the hearing participants “represent law enforcement and anti-marijuana lobbies” as stated by MJBizDaily. Many people online didn’t like this at all, but I’ll humbly submit that it’s closer to a nothingburger.

The sky is not falling; delays are normal (and expected)

Anyone who has been around litigation or other court proceedings knows that delays are typical. You don’t have to be an administrative law expert (I’m not) to appreciate that. In this respect, it is puzzling why some of the industry folks, including cannabis lawyers, were howling at last Thursday’s news. It’s like complaining about the color of the sky.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney’s Preliminary Order (“Order”) strikes me as a typical housekeeping exercise. He notes that the DEA hasn’t clarified which of the rescheduling hearing’s 25 participants support rescheduling, and which don’t. The Order gives a November 12 deadline (pretty tight!) for clarification on this point, and on related important issues– including disclosures of any known participant or DEA conflicts of interest. The Order also gives the DEA until November 12^th to designate its counsel of record.

The Order is also clear that the previously scheduled December 2^nd hearing remains on the docket. Participants must come prepared with “January-February 2025” dates for the big show. Lest you believe that the question of cannabis rescheduling will be fully and finally resolved at that time, I’m here to tell you otherwise. The hearings may drag on for any number of reasons, and once concluded, the ALJ will likely take his time arriving at a decision. Moreover, that decision could be litigated.

In short, people need to take a breather and understand that things are going as expected. Back on May 1, the day after the DEA agreed to initiate Schedule III rulemaking, I wrote that “I doubt cannabis will be on Schedule III” by Election Day. In the bigger picture, and long before that, I highlighted how Biden “passed the buck, putting us on an uncertain, circuitous path” by kicking off this rescheduling inquiry. For the 1,000^th time, Congress needs to act.

The participant list isn’t a huge deal; could even be helpful

The ALJ is presiding over a rulemaking process and making a record. A “record” in judicial proceedings is a technical term: it means the written account of all documents, evidence and proceedings in a matter. The record has already begun to accrete in this one, by way of the 42,925 comments on marijuana rescheduling submitted prior to the July 22 deadline (69.3% of them in support of rescheduling). The early 2025 hearings will continue to build out the record.

I mentioned above that the ALJ’s rulings may be litigated. If I were in the Judge’s chair, I’d make every possible effort to hear, on the record, from participants opposed to rescheduling. This is a useful way to insulate the Judge’s likely decision to follow the DEA’s Schedule III recommendation: all are fully and fairly heard.

No matter how much “evidence” or persuasive testimony opponents may conjure and enter into the record, it should not be enough to unseat the findings from FDA/HHS. That 250 page script considers the eight factors that determine control of a substance under 21 U.S.C. 811(c)– including that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). The report also contains favorable relative findings on abuse liability, with respect to other scheduled and unscheduled drugs (fentanyl, ketamine, alcohol, etc.). I just don’t see the naysayers getting there.

What’s next for marijuana rescheduling

Obviously, tomorrow’s elections are a pretty big deal. They don’t bear directly on these proceedings, but the composition of Congress and the Presidency for the next few years could potentially obviate the need for this rulemaking, or lessen its impact. Beyond that, a few interesting breadcrumbs may fall from the December 2^nd hearing, including which witnesses will testify on behalf of the 25 selected participants (a few are associations with yet-undesignated reps), whether any conflicts of interest arise, and anything else.

Stay tuned for December 2^nd if you’re a very process-oriented person. Everyone else can probably take a breather. This is what Biden signed us up for, after all, instead of following through with his campaign promises to decriminalize marijuana. (I couldn’t resist.)

For more on this topic, check out the following posts:

• Thoughts on DEA’s Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Announcement (Dec. 2)
• BREAKING NEWS: DEA Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Move Marijuana to Schedule III
• What Rescheduling Marijuana Means for California’s Cannabis Industry
• Yesterday’s Marijuana Rescheduling News, Explained
• F*** the Treaties: Rescheduling and “Marijuana-Specific Controls“
• Three Myths and Three Facts on the HUGE Marijuana Rescheduling Recommendation
• What Rescheduling Means for Cannabis Investments
• Cannabis Rescheduling and Trademarks
• Heads Up! DEA Wants to Hear from You on Marijuana Rescheduling by July 22

The post Marijuana Rescheduling: Delays, Adverse Participants… It’s All Good appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

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

Grand Openings: New weed shops of America for November 2024

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

The post Grand Openings: New weed shops of America for November 2024 appeared first on Leafly.

from Leafly https://ift.tt/hYjgQ81
via IFTTT

Star signs and cannabis strains: November 2024 horoscopes

Welcome all Stargazers! November promises a month of celestial buoyancy even as the days and temperatures wane. Scorpio season dominates the first three weeks of the month, full of the water sign’s signature intense energy that compels us to dig deep and reflect on what we truly want in life. The new moon in Scorpio […]

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

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