We asked Snoop three burning questions. Find out Snoop Dogg's favorite strain, and 2 more hot takes from the legend.
The post Snoop Dogg’s favorite strain, and 2 more essential takes from our interview appeared first on Leafly.
Yesterday afternoon, the Washington Post and other sources reported that President Trump is expected to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to reclassify marijuana, to Schedule III. That’s some sexy reportage, although WaPo’s sources cautioned that “Trump could still change his mind” and “[a] White House official said no final decisions have been made on rescheduling of marijuana.”
Still, it’s a story with legs and I want to revisit some important considerations—beyond my usual refrain that marijuana shouldn’t be scheduled at all. Here are some critical things to understand about a potential Schedule III move.
The WaPo story reports that an executive order may be in the cards. Most likely—and depending on the order’s contents—this would make for a more direct, decisive approach than the formal “statement” and “request” issued by President Biden in October of 2022, which led to a stymied rescheduling process.
This August, when Trump told reporters that his administration was considering rescheduling marijuana, I laid out the following options:
I noted:
One thing to address at the outset, though, is the oft-repeated fiction that Trump could simply re- or deschedule marijuana on his own, via executive order. He cannot. He could, however, direct the process much like Biden did, when Biden issued a 2022 executive order directing HHS to revisit the control status of marijuana. Essentially, Trump could say what he’d like to see, and it will probably happen—especially given the strict fealty shown to him by DOJ.
To that point, my colleague Jason Adelstone has made a compelling argument for a fifth option, which is that Trump could lean on Attorney General Pam Bondi to reschedule marijuana on her own, even without rulemaking, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1). Jason concluded that “all it would take is a press release and a pen.”
Given the novelty of that approach, and given the novelty of Bondi’s prohibitionist record, that outcome would surprise me. In my previous post I advocated for option #3, which is the publication of a final rule by DOJ. I explained:
Marijuana could then go to Schedule III (or wherever) within 30 or 60 days of rule publication. People could litigate that rule, sure. Given the strength of the HHS findings, though, and the clear statutory authority behind DOJ, it seems like an uphill battle.
Hopefully, this is the chosen path and the administration learns from the numerous, foreseeable errors of former President Biden, the Merrick Garland DOJ and Anne Milgram’s DEA, as that administration made its half-assed foray into Schedule III.
Schedule III has been a holy grail of sorts for the cannabis industry, primarily because marijuana businesses would finally be taxed like other businesses. I’ve explained:
If marijuana goes to Schedule III, the margins-crushing statute known as IRC § 280E would not apply, and the cannabis industry would change forever. That said, state-level taxation of cannabis will not change. Or, it may change for the worse, as states feel emboldened to raise cannabis-related taxes in the absence of § 280E.
. . . .
Still, I cannot emphasize enough that removal of § 280E would change the industry forever. Having worked with cannabis businesses for 13 years, I view taxation as the largest affront to marijuana businesses—more than banking access, intellectual property coverage, lack of bankruptcy, you name it. This would be HUGE.
We like to remind people that marijuana on Schedule III is not a universal solve. Here are the five most persistent issues, in my view:
Criminal penalties for individuals. The possession, distribution and sale of non-FDA, non-hemp cannabis would still be criminal acts. State and local laws would not be preempted in any respect. We could see another 200,000 local arrests, annually, in a Schedule III milieu.
Business headaches. Like end users, state-licensed cannabis businesses wouldn’t be immunized from theoretical federal prosecution. In addition, they would remain embargoed from bankruptcy courts, they would continue to struggle with trademarks, they would still pay a premium for many general services, and the intensive, state-level regulation to which they are subject would hardly abate.
Research headaches. Contrary to popular belief, federal research will not become easier without significant Congressional and administrative intervention. That one is a real head-scratcher, but it’s our forecast.
Banking issues. Although banking isn’t the headache it once was, it’s still a pain. At Schedule III, marijuana would still be a controlled substance and state-licensed businesses would still be “trafficking” in that controlled substance, contrary to federal law. Banks would continue to struggle with this dynamic.
Hemp. The intoxicating hemp products industry took a huge kick in the shorts last month, when Congress passed P.L. 119-37. Most of these products won’t survive the new law. The state-legal marijuana industry stands to benefit from less competition, and if marijuana goes to Schedule III, those operators will be less inclined to work with the hemp crowd on a “universal solve” for federal cannabis policy.
I hope it happens, and Christmas comes early for all of our industry clients. That said, I’m cautious after watching and writing about marijuana rescheduling rumors for the better part of a decade.
If we do get confirmation on this WaPo reporting, though, rest assured— we’ll be all over it. In the meantime, check out the following posts:
The post Is Marijuana Rescheduling Finally Happening? What to Know, Now. appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Last month, I gave my big-picture thoughts on the intoxicating hemp products ban under P.L. 119-37, concluding that enforcement was an open question. That question has started to pick up steam, particularly following a Congressional Research Service report published on December 3rd.
The CRS report provides:
…it remains unclear if and how federal law enforcement will enforce the new prohibitions when the new definition goes into effect. In marijuana’s case, the federal response has largely been to allow states to implement their own marijuana laws despite the fact that state-regulated activities may violate the CSA. If intoxicating hemp products persist on the market after the change to their legal status, it is possible they could be subject to the same criminal and collateral issues as marijuana. It also remains to be seen whether FDA will pursue additional options to remove these items from the market. Both FDA and DEA may lack the resources to broadly enforce the laws prohibiting intoxicating hemp products on the market.
It concludes:
Congress may choose to exercise oversight over federal enforcement priorities regarding state-regulated cannabis activities. FDA (under the FDCA) and DEA (under the CSA), in coordination with the Department of Justice, have a range of civil and criminal remedies they may use in efforts to exercise control over these activities.
I’ve promoted CRS reports in the past, and this one is certainly timely. Enforcement considerations are paramount now, just as they were in the early days of state-legal marijuana programs.
P.L. 119-37 doesn’t take effect until November 12, 2026, but its effects are already being felt. I’ve spoken with service providers to the cannabis industry — most notably financial institution clients — who are reigning in their offerings to the hemp industry in response to the new law. This follows on actual federal government programs, such as the Small Business Administration, which already views many hemp businesses as non grata.
But there is a disconnect between the outlook of service providers, in some cases, and what many seed sellers and vendors of intoxicating hemp products are saying. Many operators display high confidence that P.L. 119-37 will somehow be reversed prior to taking effect; or that if it isn’t, it won’t be enforced. It’s a ballsy gambit– one step further than exploiting the 2018 Farm Bill’s suspect “loophole.”
It’s true that the feds have generally let state-legal cannabis actors alone; and it’s true that the feds never really enforced the 2018 Farm Bill. That’s been the case in respect of purported “loophole” products, and also with hemp-CBD food and beverages— which FDA has maintained violate the FDCA Act since day one.
P.L. 119-37 is different in a few respects, though. First, unlike state-legal marijuana, many intoxicating hemp products are sold in states that do not expressly allow their sale. Sellers are simply operating in a “vacuum” of sorts, citing a federal law loophole, without state law prohibitions. Second, as to marijuana plant seeds, DEA had opined that sales were legal, because those seeds had not yet expressed THC and were still statutory “hemp.” That’s no longer the case.
Let’s consider a scenario (which is the mostly likely scenario, in my opinion) that P.L. 119-37 remains on the books come November 12, 2026. The $20 billion question, as I mentioned last month, is whether there will be enforcement. I think it’s possible at the state level, and also at the federal level.
At the federal level, I wouldn’t expect a coordinated crackdown by DEA and U.S. attorneys. That would be too expensive, too unwieldy. Instead, I think targeted enforcement of select larger players — perhaps including warning letters next summer — is the most likely path. In that scenario, the chilling effect I mentioned for service providers would be magnified, and it’s likely that many operators would also stand down.
I also think states will continue to get on the prohibition bandwagon, as I explained to MJ BizDaily last month. Some already are, but you’d see more of this in an environment where the feds throw their backs into it, enforcement-wise, and where de jure prohibition is not the whole picture.
Next November seems far away, but nearly a month has come and gone since P.L. 119-37 passed. For the next 11 months, enforcement is going to be the biggest question of all. That will be true whether or not P.L. 119-37 stays on the books as written, or whether the put-upon industry claws back some of its “loophole.” If so, it will need to overcome resistance from various sources: the state-legal marijuana industry, prohibitionists at large, and legislators who either don’t understand the issues, or are offended by ideas like sales of “gas station weed” and sales to minors.
One thing is for certain: 2026 will be another interesting year for cannabis.
For more on this topic, check out the following posts:
The post Will the Feds Enforce the Ban on Intoxicating Hemp Products, and Seed Sales? appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
This holiday season will be a cold one, but AmeriCannaRx is helping you and yours stay warm with hot deals all December long. They are offering a gigantic 60% off discount on select products throughout the end of the year, so you’ll have more than enough to stuff your stocking. They’ll even price match any […]
The post Stay warm with hot holiday deals at AmeriCannaRx appeared first on Leafly.
Medical cannabis is available from Greenlight at locations all across West Virginia. Their locations all feature a wide selection of brands and knowledgeable staff. Patients with a medical card are welcome between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. every day of the week. Do not operate a vehicle or machinery under the influence of this drug. […]
The post West Virginia medical cannabis is available at Greenlight appeared first on Leafly.
We’re excited to announce that Harris Sliwoski attorney Jason Adelstone will speak at MJBizCon in Las Vegas this Wednesday, December 3, joining the industry’s largest global gathering of cannabis entrepreneurs, investors, operators, and policymakers.
Jason is widely regarded for his expertise in the complex interplay between international drug treaties and domestic cannabis legalization. At MJBizCon, he’ll serve as a panelist for Global Cannabis Outlook: Trends, Policy Shifts & Market Opportunities Around the World on December 3 at 2:50 PM.
This session brings together international experts to examine how regulatory frameworks, treaty interpretations, capital movement, and evolving laws are shaping the global cannabis economy. Jason will contribute his perspective on international compliance pathways, regulatory strategy, and how U.S. policy interacts with international law.
If you’ll be attending and would like to meet Jason during the conference, we’d love to hear from you. Feel free to reach out ahead of time and we’ll help coordinate.
Stay tuned — we’ll be sharing key takeaways from Jason’s MJBizCon presentation after the event.
The post Jason Adelstone Presents at MJBizCon This Wednesday appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Your December 2025 horoscopes are here! The holiday season always kicks off with the sun in Sagittarius and it just makes sense.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: December 2025 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
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.
Find out why vintage cultivars like Chemdawg thrive in living soil as Lindsay MaHarry takes us to Down Om Farms.
The post Chemdawg from Grass Valley: How Down OM Farms does it different appeared first on Leafly.
That chill in the air means that it’s time to get cozy and prepare for winter, and Zen Leaf is helping you stock up for all the sweater weather on the horizon. They’re offering up to 30% off storewide at their Ohio locations so you can bundle up with all your favorites for less. Zen […]
The post Stock up for sweater weather with up to 30% off from Zen Leaf appeared first on Leafly.
Introducing Leafly Direct, the easiest way to buy premium cannabis products that you can ship straight to your door. Leafly Direct makes the process of buying delta-9 or THCA products much easier by giving you a one-stop shop to browse products that have been hand-picked by Leafly for quality and consistency. We cut straight through […]
The post Meet Leafly Direct: Products selected by Leafly, delivered straight to you appeared first on Leafly.
Find the best Black Friday weed deals of 2025. We found the best sales on cannabis products so you can see the top discounts in one place.
The post The best Black Friday weed deals of 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
Open to customers 21+ with a valid government-issued photographic ID. Greenlight is a licensed Ohio dispensary providing access to medical and non-medical cannabis. Visit Greenlight in Columbus, Marengo, Wintersville, and their upcoming location in Marietta to explore a wide selection of products with guidance from their knowledgeable team. Licensed by the Division of Cannabis Control. […]
The post Ohio non-medical cannabis is available at Greenlight appeared first on Leafly.
Get ready for Flora Farms’ biggest savings of the season! They’re pulling out all the stops this year in order to make sure your holiday season is more green than white. All Flora Farms dispensaries are celebrating Green Wednesday, Black Friday, and Cyber Monday with a full weekend of deals with special offers you won’t […]
The post Enjoy the harvest with Flora Farms appeared first on Leafly.
The holiday season is here and so are some of the best CBD and delta-9 THC Black Friday deals of the year. Whether you’re looking to stay calm through family chaos, spark a little extra cheer, or sleep like you actually have time off, this year’s lineup has something for every vibe. From small-batch edibles […]
The post Black Friday CBD & delta-9 THC deals to make the season bright appeared first on Leafly.
What you need to know about the impending federal hemp ban. Hemp access isn't done yet & here's what you can do!
The post Hemp access isn’t done yet: What you need to know about the federal government’s impending ban appeared first on Leafly.
The post Hemp products we love appeared first on Leafly.
This Green Wednesday, roll up before your relatives roll in with Greenlight. They’re celebrating the season by offering big discounts and deals at all of their locations across Nevada, so you can stock up to make it through the holiday rush in style. Each store will have discounts on offer, so head to your local […]
The post Light up the holidays with Greenlight, Nevada appeared first on Leafly.
Federal cannabis policy has always been a mess. When I say “always”, I’m looking back 90 years or so, beginning with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, then skipping ahead to the Controlled Substances Act, the Rohrbacher-Farr Amendment, the 2014 Farm Bill, and the 2018 Farm Bill—not to mention the various awkward and occasionally incoherent positions the feds have taken and abandoned, formally and informally, in response to state-led cannabis efforts.
All of that said, today’s iteration of federal cannabis policy — if you can call it that — is the weirdest, most confusing iteration we have seen.
Last week, Congress banned intoxicating hemp products by redefining “hemp”, effective November 2026. This caught a lot of people by surprise. That said, the purported “loophole” that triggered proliferation of these products was more an article of faith than a fair reading of the law, in my opinion, and proposals like the Miller Amendment had been batted around for a while. In addition, many of these products weren’t legal under the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act, regardless.
Did Congress do a good job with this, though? The early verdict is no, it didn’t. We now have a convoluted regime of exclusions to exclusions, definitions forthcoming, and potential workarounds spotted. The one-year runway associated with the new law is also being viewed by many, idealistically, as a reprieve where this hempnoids ban can somehow be negotiated and reversed, via a Farm Bill renewal, extension, or in some other manner. Mess.
This is apparently on ice, although Trump himself claimed in August that a decision would be made in “the next few weeks.” Last week, we were told review is still “ongoing.” (Trump endorsed rescheduling on the 2024 campaign trail, for what it’s worth.) In any case, the stalled rescheduling process was misguided, as we’ve said so many times here on the blog, and it was going poorly when things petered out. As it stands, marijuana remains in Schedule I.
We hear a lot of scuttlebutt from larger clients, and from folks in the unsavory business of government affairs. These include players “paying homage” as they say, down at Mar-a-Lago, funneling money into PACs, and any number of things. As with the hempnoids ban, though, if anyone says they know what is happening next on marijuana rescheduling, I’m inclined to doubt them. Nobody knows. Not even the people driving the bus.
Nobody knows what’s going on with this either. The Justice Department (DOJ) isn’t enforcing federal cannabis prohibition in the context of state marijuana programs, and never really has. The FDA isn’t enforcing the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act with respect to hemp-CBD products, and never really has. Really, the main thrust of U.S. drug policy these days seems to be blowing up boats in the Caribbean Sea (20 boats and counting).
Back to cannabis, one federal prosecutor, Darin Smith, just announced that his office would ramp up prosecution of misdemeanor marijuana offenses on federal lands — which sounds like a great use of resources — pursuant to a new Justice Department policy issued in September. Most of us haven’t seen that policy, although I’m sure Mr. Smith’s announcement has prompted a handful of FOIA requests. Other DOJ prosecutors have remained silent.
As far as the intoxicating hemp products ban, it’s too early to tell if there will be any enforcement, assuming the prohibition sticks. That may well be another area where states are left in a limbo of sorts.
Yesterday, the DOJ declined to file a Supreme Court brief in the Canna Provisions case, which I’ve called “the lawsuit to end federal cannabis prohibition that wouldn’t really end federal cannabis prohibition.” In other words, the Trump administration isn’t taking a position on whether it should be allowed to enforce its laws against intrastate — and not interstate – cannabis activity. (The First Circuit held that it should be allowed to enforce those laws.)
The DOJ’s position is curious, given that 1) the case strikes at the heart of the federal government’s ability to enforce federal laws, and 2) the federal government has been keen to weigh in on Supreme Court cannabis litigation, in the context of gun rights. As it stands, the Court will now decide whether to hear this case without executive branch input. Whatever…
The state of federal cannabis policy is as contradictory, confusing and dynamic as ever. The legal-political environment arises from a century-long mashup of prejudice and incompetence, without credible regard to science, public health or economic considerations.
Will things improve headed into 2026? Nobody knows. By way of example, here are three momentous questions that no one can answer:
The answer to each of those questions has profound commercial and public health implications. It is difficult, maybe impossible, to imagine another commodity subject to such uncertainty. For that reason, my guess is that most of the cannabis industry will continue to do what it always has: ignore the federal regime and simply carry on.
The post Federal Cannabis Policy is More Confusing Than Ever appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Green Wednesday is almost here once again, and AmeriCanna RX is ready to help you light up the holiday season with deals and discounts that will make your season bright. Not only will they price match any other Oregon dispensary, they’ve got a bevy of sales on offer, including 35-50% off select products every single […]
The post Ring in the holidays with month long deals at AmeriCanna RX appeared first on Leafly.
Effective November 13, 2025, Congress fundamentally rewrote the laws governing hemp in America. Buried within the government funding bill (starting at pg. 64) is language that will reshape the entire hemp industry, including a critical shift in how marijuana seeds are treated under federal law. See our overview from last week, here.
For years, the hemp industry operated under a simple rule established by the 2018 Farm Bill: if a cannabis plant contained no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight, it was legal hemp. This created what many lawmakers now call a “loophole”—one that allowed high-THC genetics, THCA flower, and intoxicating consumable products, to flourish in the legal hemp market (they still remained illegal under the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act).
Here’s what changed: The new legislation explicitly excludes from the federal definition of “hemp” viable seeds from plants that exceed 0.3% total THC (including THCA). This means seeds from plants that can grow into high-THC cannabis, or produce high THCA flower, are no longer considered legal hemp. They’re now classified as “marijuana” under federal law.
This is a seismic shift that will affect countless operators around the country. Previously, the seeds themselves weren’t considered marijuana by DEA and others, simply based on the genetics they carried. Now, if those seeds will produce plants exceeding the total 0.3% THC threshold, they’re federally illegal. Companies like Royal Queen Seeds, will now find itself in violation of both federal and state law starting November 13, 2026 (somehow they are operating in Oregon, despite Oregon excluding marijuana seeds from its definition of hemp).
The implications for international seed trade are immediate and severe:
Under the 2018 Farm Bill framework, seeds could be imported and exported throughout the US and internationally as long as the parent plant met the 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold and the importing jurisdiction permitted the seeds.
The new law redefines what qualifies as hemp seed. Any viable seeds from cannabis genetics that would produce plants exceeding 0.3% total THC (including THCA) are now classified as marijuana, making their import, export, and interstate transport a federal crime.
Interestingly, the new legislation specifically targets “viable seeds” from marijuana plants, but appears to remain silent on tissue cultures and clones that test at or below 0.3% total THC.
This potential gap in the law could be significant. While seeds carrying high-THC genetics are now explicitly excluded from the hemp definition, vegetative propagation methods like tissue culture and clones that themselves test below the threshold may still technically qualify as hemp under the statute.
Assume that any propagation method (i.e. seeds, clones, or tissue cultures) from genetics that would produce non-compliant plants could face scrutiny. Don’t bet your business on a technicality that could be closed with a simple regulatory clarification.
The legislation includes a 365-day grace period from the date of enactment for the industry to come into compliance. This grace period applies to the entire hemp industry, including seed producers, importers, and exporters.
Once that 365-day window closes, any seeds that don’t meet the new definition of hemp will be subject to the Controlled Substances Act.
This isn’t just about seeds—it’s about the entire genetic foundation of the modern hemp industry. Many cultivators have spent years developing and importing high-THC varieties that technically met the old delta-9 standard but will fail under total THC testing.
According to industry estimates, this change could affect:
The federal government has closed the genetics loophole that allowed marijuana seeds to be traded as hemp. Anyone involved in the import or export of cannabis seeds needs to act now—you have roughly 12 months before these seeds become unambiguously illegal under federal law.
This isn’t fear-mongering; it’s the new reality of federal hemp policy. The grace period is your opportunity to pivot, comply, or exit the market. After that window closes, the legal risks become substantially greater.
The hemp industry as we knew it is changing forever. Make sure you’re on the right side of these new rules before it’s too late.
The post Hemp Companies Have One Year to Get Marijuana Genetics Into or Out of the US. . . But a Loophole May Still Exist appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
The U.S. government reopened on Wednesday and promptly “closed the loophole” on intoxicating hemp products. I use those tacky quotes because I don’t believe there ever was a loophole. But now we can stop having those debates, I suppose, because Congress has sealed the deal.
The ban on intoxicating hemp items comes via a continuing appropriations bill called H.R. 5371. The ban takes effect a year from now, on November 12, 2026. Everyone has 12 months to lobby for rules, sell off products, untangle business relationships, and otherwise prepare.
H.R. 5371 gives the term “hemp” a new legal definition, effective November 10, 2026. Section 781 now provides that hemp is “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant… with a total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration (including THCA) of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis.” The term “hemp” also includes “industrial hemp” (which also gets a new definition), but excludes several notable things.
The first notable exclusion is seeds of cannabis plants that exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis; viz. marijuana seeds. The DEA opined previously that these seeds are “hemp” and not “marijuana.” That’s going to be the case, undisputedly, under the new definition.
The second notable exclusion is for “intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products.” These are products that contain cannabinoids that cannot be produced naturally in the cannabis plant. In other words, they are synthesized or manufactured outside of the cannabis plant.
The third exclusion is for “final hemp-derived cannabinoid products.” These again are products that contain cannabinoids that cannot be produced naturally in the cannabis plant, and are synthesized or manufactured outside the plant.
Within 90 days, the FDA must publish a series of lists:
FDA also must give “additional information and specificity” about the term “container”, which is currently defined as:
“the innermost wrapping, packaging, or vessel in direct contact with a final hemp-derived cannabinoid product in which the final hemp-derived cannabinoid product is enclosed for retail sale to consumers, such as a jar, bottle, bag, box, packet, can, carton, or cartridge.”
The definition excludes bulk shipping containers or outer wrappings that are “not essentially for the final retail deliver or sale to an end consumer for personal or household use.” There is also an exclusion for drugs under FDA review.
Beyond these missives for FDA, it’s possible we’ll see some litigation, perhaps on due process grounds or other theories, none of which look promising at the moment. Additionally, we should expect some lawmaking at the state and local levels. Intoxicating hemp products are permitted in some states, expressly or otherwise, and some of those states may choose to toe the federal line.
I mentioned seeds, above. And industrial hemp. Beyond that, most finished “hemp” products currently on the market will not survive H.R. 5371. This is because most contain more than 0.3% delta-9 THC or THCA, or some combination thereof, and are designed to get you high.
Still, not everything is banned. CBD products, and presumably other “known cannabinoids” that don’t wind up on FDA’s “similar effects to THC” list, should be safe. There is a giant caveat here: these products cannot: 1) be added to human or animal foods; 2) be labeled as dietary supplements; or 3) make unapproved health claims.
Of course, people are making and selling all sorts of CBD food and beverage products now, and the question will be whether the feds continue to tolerate that. A year from today, we may also have a similar, $20 billion question for all of these intoxicating hemp products, should they remain on offer.
I’ve written a lot about hemp since 2018. I’m not surprised by H.R. 5371. I think the ban, if enforced, will be good for state-licensed cannabis businesses and also consumers. I’m sure a lot of people disagree, especially anyone creating cannabinoids in a lab; anyone buying isolate from marijuana farms and calling it “hemp”; or anyone living in a prohibition state.
All of that said, I’m not celebrating this one either. I view H.R. 5371 as another ad hoc attempt to regulate the cannabis plant within a reactionary, “slice and dice” framework. It’s not the way I would have gone about it, and it’s not wholistic policy– especially with marijuana rescheduling stalled out. But that’s cannabis for you. Let’s see what happens next.
_____________
Related posts:
The post Notes on the Federal Prohibition of Intoxicating Hemp appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Last week at the International Asian Hemp Expo in Thailand, I witnessed the remarkable energy and potential of a country that has boldly positioned itself at the forefront of cannabis reform in Asia. The conversations I had with operators, policymakers, and international stakeholders revealed extraordinary innovation and entrepreneurship, while also highlighting opportunities to strengthen Thailand’s position as the region’s undisputed cannabis leader.
Thailand’s decision to remove cannabis from its controlled substances list in 2022 catalyzed explosive industry growth and demonstrated Asia’s appetite for reform. The thriving market has created jobs, attracted investment, and established Thailand as the region’s cannabis hub. This bold move showed the world what’s possible when governments trust innovation over prohibition.
However, the absence of comprehensive regulations has created challenges. Unregulated and untested products are widely available, and the lack of clear standards has created a fragmented market that provides opponents with ammunition to reverse reform entirely. Until Thailand implements robust regulatory frameworks for its domestic cannabis industry, these vulnerabilities will persist.
In June, the Ministry of Health attempted to address these concerns by issuing an order establishing a medical-only framework. Despite this directive, a vibrant adult-use market continues to flourish, creating a disconnect between official policy and market reality. This gap represents both a challenge and an opportunity as upcoming elections approach.
Progress is emerging in the medical manufacturing and cultivation sectors, where GMP, GACP, and Thai FDA requirements are being implemented. These standards signal Thailand’s commitment to quality and safety, providing a foundation upon which more comprehensive regulations could be built. The question now is whether Thailand will seize this moment to create a truly sustainable regulatory framework.
Thailand’s opportunity lies in comprehensive regulation that balances innovation with responsibility. With clear rules creating a medical framework accessible to tourists—combined with designated social consumption areas and tourist prescription pathways—Thailand could pioneer cannabis health tourism as an economic driver. This approach would respect both participants and those who choose not to engage, while establishing a replicable model for the region.
Such a framework would also need to address Thailand’s international treaty obligations at some point. We’ve seen this pattern across Europe, where Luxembourg, Malta, Germany, and the Czech Republic made ambitious commitments only to scale back after confronting how the three international drug treaties constrain commercialization.
Thailand has already demonstrated remarkable leadership by liberalizing first. Now it’s positioned to build something truly enduring by regulating thoughtfully. The next chapter will determine whether Thailand becomes a model for sustainable cannabis policy or a cautionary tale about reform without a regulatory structure. Thailand’s potential is extraordinary—the foundation just needs finishing.
The post Thailand’s Cannabis Leadership: The Path from Innovation to Sustainable Reform appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
See the Harvest strains 2025 that are lighting up the year and forecasting the future of cannabis. Find cutting edge cultivars to watch.
The post Harvest strains 2025: The genetics shaping the future of cannabis appeared first on Leafly.
We've been smoking the cream of the crop, talking to budtenders & digging into data to put together a list of the best strains in Washington.
The post The best strains in Washington appeared first on Leafly.
Learn about Jenny Kush in Chicago and find out why this legendary strain is named after a real legend and cannabis activist, Jennifer Monson.
The post Jenny Kush in Chicago: Learn why Illinois loves Jenny with Aeriz appeared first on Leafly.
This Wednesday, November 5, Harris Sliwoski attorney Jason Adelstone will present at AIHEF 2025 on the future of Thailand’s cannabis industry.
Jason will discuss how a well-regulated Thai cannabis sector could become a leading medical supplier and a major catalyst for reform across Asia. At the same time, Thailand’s current approach of rescheduling cannabis without a strong regulatory framework creates barriers to accessing global medical markets. It also increases the risk that Thailand becomes a cautionary example used by prohibitionists to slow reform throughout the region.
As more nations move toward cannabis liberalization, evolving interpretations of international law may open new opportunities. These shifts could allow Thailand to participate in medical and scientific markets, as well as emerging adult-use and wellness markets that go beyond the narrow limitations of existing UN drug control conventions.
Join Jason at AIHEF 2025 to learn how smart regulation can unlock Thailand’s global potential and shape the future of cannabis policy across Asia. And give us a call if you have any interest in the Thai cannabis market. In the meantime, please also check out the following:
The post Jason Adelstone to Speak at AIHEF 2025 in Thailand appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Find the best kitchen picks of 2025 for people who love weed, food & weed food. Find reviews of cooking tools & decor picks.
The post The best kitchen picks for a cannabis friendly home 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
Your November 2025 horoscopes are here! The Scorpio vibe is bringing the usual intensity with a few extra cosmic twists.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: November 2025 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
The definitive list of the best munchies in Seattle. Written & sourced by local Seattle stoners. Find our fave feast-ready classics & gems.
The post The best munchies in Seattle appeared first on Leafly.
Sometimes hitting pause means staying present, not zoning out — and that’s where Urmawm comes in. Life can feel relentless, but finding balance doesn’t have to mean losing focus. Enter Urmawm (pronounced “Your Mom”), a brand of low-dose gummies, balms, and tinctures formulated with hemp-derived CBD, THC, and supportive botanicals for those looking for functional […]
The post Urmawm’s wellness: Low-dose cannabis for life on the go appeared first on Leafly.
Find the best grow tents of 2025. Leafly reviewed popular grow tents and chose the top picks for different size needs and budgets.
The post Leafly’s top 5 grow tents of 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
Check out our picks for the best places to be high in Seattle, complete with a recommended strain to perfectly match the vibe.
The post The best places to be high in Seattle: A cannasseur’s guide to the Emerald City appeared first on Leafly.
We continue to represent myriad buyers and sellers of OLCC marijuana licenses. At any given time, we are running 10-12 of these transactions, and sometimes more, as we have for many years. Recently, there have been a few changes worth noting, particularly as to the OLCC protocols. I’ll touch briefly on other market dynamics, too.
Gone are the days of buyers and sellers waiting months to hear from an OLCC investigator, following submission of a change-of-ownership application. The OLCC’s “processing dates” page reports that change-of-ownership applications are now being assigned and processed through September 3, 2025 submissions. That’s not accurate. For the past month or so, we’ve seen a series of applications assigned within a week or two of submissions. These are moving fast.
OLCC licensing staff have begun to pre-screen submissions, and they are returning applications that lack required documents. The old practice of uploading placeholder documents will no longer be accepted. The idea here is to ensure organized applicants aren’t forced to wait in line behind their disorganized counterparts, causing a bottleneck. Going forward, incomplete applications will only be placed into the assignment queue once all missing documents are provided.
In case you missed it, OLCC filed a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on September 25, 2025. The chief purpose was to implement 2025 legislation, but some technical updates made their way in, as well. One of these is proposed rules is OAR 845-025-1135(2)(A)-(B) which provide that applicants:
“… must complete the application process within 60 calendar days of the Commission notifying the applicant that the application has been assigned” and that “if the applicant does not complete the application process within 60 calendar days, the application will be unassigned and place on hold.”
Getting booted into this kind of purgatory is a dangerous game. Most purchase agreements have drop-dead dates, escrow forfeiture provisions, and other adverse consequences for buyers in particular who fail to adequately move things forward. On the seller side, a booted application can be devastating where there are landlord issues, or where a seller has given over the keys under a management agreement—something people are still doing regularly, often against advice.
We’ve seen some delays recently regarding OLCC inspector availability. There probably aren’t enough of them. Several are also assigned to broad territories, making scheduling a challenge. Things tend to slow down over year-end holidays, too. With changes-in-ownership, final inspections are typically required on both the buyer and seller side, and parties need to be flexible here.
Many OLCC license and business sales are “fire sales” nowadays. Many sellers are failing businesses looking to salvage some value, under duress, and make a hasty exit. This gives buyers significant leverage, which should continue unabated despite OLCC improving its processes, and despite the ongoing moratorium on new license issuances. This market dynamic is the new normal, and has been for a while.
Oregon cannabis transactions continue to be plagued by unscrupulous or incompetent cannabis brokers, with a few exceptions. Every week, buyers and sellers come to us with confusing LOIs, hazardous purchase agreements, wacky leases and other contracts drafted by brokers, some of whom also purport to serve as escrows, application advisors and general deal consiglieres. We’ve talked to these brokers and even filed some unauthorized practice of law complaints; but ultimately it’s up to buyers and sellers to use common sense here.
We are seeing a large number of Chinese buyers in the last year or so, following the eastern European wave of purchasers a few years back. Existing chain operators also continue to scoop up licenses here and there. There is very little multi-state operator (MSO) action at this point, or Canadian public company interest.
I’ll touch on all of this again at the end of the year, in my annual Oregon “State of the State” post. Until then, take care and please give us a call if you need assistance liquidating, or acquiring, an Oregon cannabis license.
The post Oregon Cannabis: OLCC Licensing and Market Updates appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
To celebrate 17 years of legal cannabis, here are seven reasons why you should buy your cannabis from the NSLC!
The post Seven reasons to buy your cannabis from the NSLC appeared first on Leafly.
As part of our Local Stories, Legendary Strains series, Lindsay MaHarry visits Sol Spirit Farm in the Emerald Triangle to see their special take on Blue Dream.
The post Blue Dream from Trinity County: See how Sol Spirit Farm uses innovative techniques to bring the legendary strain to life appeared first on Leafly.
Snag the best weed products for halloween 2025 for a hazy spooky season. Costumes aren’t required, but they are encouraged.
The post The best weed products for Halloween 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
Last month, I gave a big picture status update on cannabis licensing in Minnesota, highlighting the application window for lower-potency hemp edible (LPHE) licensing. LPHE products are a very hot market in Minnesota, and have been for a while. The LPHE application window opened on October 1st, as advertised, and is set to close on October 31st.
Under Minnesota law, LPHE’s are products intended for eating or consuming as a beverage. These products contain hemp concentrate or artificially derived delta-9 THC, combined with food ingredients. The full definition is available at 342.01(50).
Of note, LPHEs cannot:
It’s important to note that manufacturing and selling LPHEs and hemp-derived consumer products is limited to cannabis business license holders. Many of these cannabis licensees are hemp businesses that registered with the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) under a conversion protocol prior to August 31st. Other hemp licensees cannot manufacture and sell these products. Related, OCM has been clear that:
“At the close of the LPHE application period, OCM will begin enforcement actions against unlicensed sellers of lower-potency hemp edible products, who have not submitted an LPHE license application, are not in the application process for a cannabis business license or have not successfully obtained a cannabis business license.”
A variety of endorsements are available to LPHE retailers (LPHE-R), manufacturers (LPHE-M), and wholesalers (LPHE-W). These endorsements carry no additional costs beyond the baseline, license application fees.
Below is a breakdown of endorsements by type, lifted directly from the relevant OCM guidance.
This is required to manufacture, process, sell, handle, or store LPHEs (unless the LPHE is in final packaging). This endorsement is required for all LPHE-M license holders. This endorsement also allows LPHEs to be manufactured at the same premises where food is manufactured.
This is required to manufacture hemp concentrate or artificially derived cannabinoid products. All methods of extraction, concentration, and conversion, and all volatile chemicals intended to be used must be disclosed to OCM prior to receiving this endorsement.
For LPHE-M license holders who are performing extraction or concentration of cannabinoids, or conversion of artificially derived cannabinoids, additional certifications are also required before beginning operations. Such LPHE-M license holders must obtain third-party certifications from an independent industrial hygienist or a professional engineer for the following: (a) all electrical, gas, fire suppression, (b) exhaust systems; and (c) plans for the safe storage and disposal of hazardous substances, including but not limited to any volatile chemicals.
This is required for an LPHE-R license holder to allow on-site consumption at their establishment. This endorsement is only available to LPHE-R license holders. This endorsement also authorizes the business’s participation at an off-site hemp-derived/related event subject to compliance with any applicable local regulations.
This is required for an LPHE-R license holder intending to operate a retail establishment to sell LPHE products to customers who are 21 years of age and older. There are no additional application requirements necessary beyond the application requirements for an LPHE-R license.
This is required for an LPHE-R license holder intending to deliver LPHE products directly to customers aged 21 years and older. The endorsement requires the applicant to submit: (a) proof of insurance for each vehicle or general liability insurance with a limit of at least $1,000,000 for each occurrence; (b) a business plan demonstrating policies to avoid sales of LPHE products to individuals who are under 21 years of age; and (c) evidence the business will comply with applicable requirements.
Additionally, an LPHE-R license holder with a delivery endorsement must: (x) ensure LPHE products are not visible from outside the delivery vehicle; and (y) ensure a vehicle that contains LPHE products is either attended by an employee or secured by turning off the ignition, locking all doors and storage compartments, and removing operating keys or device.
This is required for a LPHE-W license holder intending to import LPHEs that are manufactured outside of the state with the intent to resell the products. This endorsement is only available to LPHE-W license holders and cannabis wholesaler license holders.
This is required for a LPHE-W license holder intending to transport LPHE products to other businesses. The endorsement requires the applicant to submit additional application materials. Transportation of LPHE products is otherwise authorized for LPHE-M and LPHE-R license holders and does not require a specific endorsement for these two licenses
This endorsement is available to LPHE-M and LPHE-W license holders and is required if the license holder intends to manufacture or purchase, store, transport, or sell products containing cannabinoids that do not qualify as LPHE products and are intended for sale outside of Minnesota. License holders seeking this endorsement must abide by requirements for manufacturing, storage, and transport.
The OCM guidance also contains detailed information on the supply chain overview, registration requirements (including application fees), licensing timelines, local government considerations, how to begin business operations, allowable business activities, and product requirements. If you are in the LPHE game, I’d strongly suggest you check it out.
For now, all eligible applicants should focus on getting those LPHE applications in prior to the October 31st deadline.
Please contact us if you have any questions on this process, or Minnesota cannabis more generally.
The post Minnesota Cannabis: Apply for Your Lower-Potency Hemp Edible License by October 31st appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Local Stories, Legendary Strains: Jay Gans takes a tour through Holistic Industries' Motor City facility to learn about Cap Junky
The post Cap Junky from Madison Heights: Take a look at Holistic Industries’ take on the iconic strain appeared first on Leafly.
Deep breathe in… now exhale. Let’s go win the whole f*cking thing. When the Seattle Mariners won their first home playoff game in twenty-four years under a crisp October sky Sunday night, how did you feel? How about when we watched that lead slip to a tie in the top of the 8th? When Cal […]
The post The 3 strains you need for the Mariners’ playoff run appeared first on Leafly.
One of the most exciting releases in the cannabis world this year, STORZ & BICKEL’s new VEAZY vaporizer has finally arrived.
The post We go hands-on with the VEAZY appeared first on Leafly.
Cannabis is legal for recreational and medicinal use in Minnesota. Understanding the state’s legislation is important for any individual or business in the state.
The Office of Cannabis Management establishes the regulatory framework for all commercial matters, barring exemptions for tribal nations that maintain sovereignty over the issue.
Medical cannabis use became legal for adults and children under the supervision of a guardian in 2014. Today, there are 19 conditions that qualify patients for medical cannabis in Minnesota. Patients with any other condition can receive approval for medical cannabis from the state’s Commissioner of Health. Veterans follow separate certification processes to qualify for medical cannabis.
The state sanctions two medical cannabis manufacturers that may each operate one manufacturing facility and eight distribution sites. Patients may purchase cannabis from these distribution sites or any Tribal medical cannabis program manufacturer.
Governor Tim Walz legalized recreational cannabis in Minnesota in 2023. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 342 legalizes possession, transportation, use and cultivation in the state. Adults ages 21 and older may possess or transport cannabis, use it in a private residence, cultivate the plant at home or gift legal quantities to other adults ages 21 and older.
The following recreational cannabis limitations apply to individuals in Minnesota:
Minnesota’s businesses must follow state requirements regarding the use and sale of cannabis products.
Minnesota prohibits public cannabis consumption. However, businesses may request a license to host a cannabis event permitting on-site consumption. Consumers may not smoke or vaporize cannabis indoors on business or public property.
Minnesota offers 13 types of licenses for cannabis businesses. Retailers may operate out of a maximum of five locations in the state. Various laws apply to the design, manufacturing, packaging and marketing of cannabis and hemp-derived products.
Businesses in Minnesota and those outside of Minnesota who sell to Minnesota residents may sell hemp-derived cannabinoid products after registering with the state. Such products include THC beverages, edibles and topicals. Bars and restaurants with an on-sale alcohol license may sell low-potency hemp products, such as THC seltzers and edibles.
There is no tax on the sale of medical cannabis products. A 10% sales tax applies to recreational cannabis products in addition to state and local taxes.
Consider answers to these questions as an overview of Minnesota cannabis law:
Harris Sliwoski is a legal firm that holds cannabis law as a primary focal point. The attorneys at our Minneapolis offices can help you understand your rights under new and evolving cannabis laws. Please contact us online to schedule a consultation.
The post Is Cannabis Legal in Minnesota? appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
Yesterday late afternoon, Oregon cannabis wholesaler Jefferson Packing House (JPC) filed another dormant commerce clause (DCC) challenge to protectionist state cannabis laws. You can view the complaint here. I say “another” DCC challenge because JPC prosecuted DCC litigation in late 2022; and also because several DCC cannabis lawsuits have been filed in recent years, with some succeeding as of late.
The DCC is an implied constitutional principle, derived from the commerce clause. It prohibits states from enacting laws that discriminate against, or unduly burden, interstate commerce. The DCC applies even where Congress hasn’t passed a law regulating a zone of commerce.
The policy here is to bar state protectionism, and to maintain competitive, open markets. If a statute is discriminatory, the state has the legal burden to justify the local benefits flowing from the law, and to show that the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose. If the state can’t make that showing when held to account (sued by injured parties), its law will be struck down.
State marijuana programs uniformly prohibit trafficking of cannabis in- and out-of-state. They also contain other exclusionary rules in many cases. Chief among these are rules that prohibit nonresidents from owning local cannabis businesses. But really, interstate marijuana sales are the big kahuna.
Ultimately, the fundamental question is this: does the DCC protect interstate commerce of a controlled substance, even where Congress has legislated against the activity?
It’s been a mixed bag. Looking through the cases, though, I’d argue for an emerging view that the DCC applies to state marijuana programs, and that states cannot enact protectionist laws. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just said that in a New York case, as did the First Circuit a few years back, as to Maine. Federal district courts in Maryland and Michigan have likewise found that the DCC applies to state and local marijuana programs.
Other courts, such as the Western District of Washington have held to the contrary, writing in one case that “citizens do not have a legal interest in participating in a federally illegal market”; and explaining in another that declaratory relief wasn’t available for that same reason.
A final category of case is still pending: the most compelling here is Peridot Tree Inc. v. City of Sacramento. In short, the plaintiffs lost at district court, but filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit in November 2024. A ruling there could have serious implications for the JPC case filed yesterday evening.
All of the cases mentioned above are challenges to state or local laws that require cannabis business owners to be residents. None have taken a bead on state rules that prohibit selling marijuana across state lines. The JPC case does exactly that, for both marijuana and hemp products that fall within the definition of “marijuana items” under Oregon state law.
JPC’s rationale for overturning the ban on interstate sales is similar to DCC arguments made in the cases discussed above. That said, JPC is really going for it here. A ruling that interstate sales of state-legal marijuana must be allowed per the DCC, would be extraordinary.
The first JPC case was filed in late 2022 and dismissed a little over one year later. It was dismissed by JPC voluntarily, and essentially for political reasons. I have a bit more information than that, but should probably say less. For now, suffice it to say that JPC is free to file again, and I don’t expect issues on procedural or standing grounds.
This question is supremely interesting and I haven’t considered it fully. Oregon would have the right to appeal, of course, and likely would; and it’s possible the Ninth Circuit would take up the case. The final stop would be the U.S. Supreme Court, though a very small percentage of federal cases get that far.
If Oregon laws banning interstate cannabis sales are overturned, some important questions include:
As mentioned above, JPC is a licensed cannabis wholesaler in Oregon. The company’s attorney is a talented litigator, Andrew DeWeese. Andrew is a friend of the law firm and my former, across-the-street neighbor. A big thanks to Andrew for sharing an advance copy of this well-drafted complaint with me last week. And best of luck.
We will continue to track this case and other DCC litigation, and follow up here with any important updates. In the meantime, check out the following posts:
The post Oregon Federal Court Lawsuit Filed, Seeking Interstate Cannabis Sales appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
