Learn more about Happy Eddie, a multi-state, Black-owned cannabis lifestyle brand bringing authentic representation to cannabis.
The post Happy Eddie: From reality TV to real-life cannabis reform appeared first on Leafly.
On Friday, August 1st, 2025, adult-use cannabis sales officially begin across the First State. Here's where to buy weed in Delaware.
The post Delaware’s first day of legal weed: Here’s where to buy cannabis on August 1 appeared first on Leafly.
A big congratulations to our own Matt Goldberg, who was recognized by Super Lawyers for the fourth consecutive year. Super Lawyers is a designation of top-rated practicing attorneys, selected through extensive evaluation. It’s a real award, and it’s an honor to be selected. Here at Canna Law Blog, we can attest that Matt’s annual inclusion is well-deserved.
Matt has advised cannabis businesses, investors and related parties on a daily basis for over a decade. He’s a talented commercial litigator, with extensive debtor/creditor experience. Matt is also a well-rounded business attorney, licensed in Oregon, Washington and New York. To top it off, he serves as General Counsel to Harris Sliwoski LLP.
You can read more about Matt at his law firm bio, or email him here. Mazel tov!
With so much discussion around the potential rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), we must have an honest conversation about what such a move will—and more importantly, won’t—accomplish.
Let me be clear: marijuana absolutely needs to be removed from Schedule I. In fact, it should not be scheduled at all—like tobacco and alcohol. This post, however, is not about defending its place on Schedule III. Instead, it’s about clarifying some illusions being presented to policymakers and the public that Schedule III is a silver bullet for research and criminal reform. It isn’t.
Some may criticize this post, arguing that pointing out these shortcomings is unhelpful or politically inconvenient. But if we want meaningful, lasting change—and, ultimately, legalization—we can’t afford to mislead lawmakers and supporters about what Schedule III will actually achieve. Misleading supporters may win short-term battles, but marijuana reform requires strategies that will win the long-term war.
Rescheduling marijuana doesn’t need strawmen or false promises. The rationale for rescheduling can rest on accurate merits: marijuana has medical efficacy in treatment, is less harmful and has lower abuse potential than Schedule I and II substances. It is safer than alcohol, tobacco, and even acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol). And according to DEA, no one has died from a marijuana overdose.
One of the most commonly touted benefits of moving marijuana to Schedule III is that it will bust open research restrictions. Unfortunately, due to existing legislation—specifically the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (Research Act)—this benefit is largely illusory.
Passed in 2022, the Research Act was hailed by policymakers as a breakthrough for marijuana research. In reality, it codified Schedule I-level restrictions on marijuana manufacturing and research, regardless of the plant’s scheduling status. This is a concern many of us raised during the legislative process, but we were largely ignored. The Research Act defines “marijuana” separately from its schedule and permanently locks in certain Schedule I-level requirements for researching, manufacturing, storing, and transferring marijuana by DEA registrants.
Under 21 U.S.C. § 823(g)(2)(B)(i), the Attorney General must register a marijuana researcher only if the applicant’s research protocol has been reviewed and approved by:
The applicant must also demonstrate that effective Schedule I security procedures are in place to adequately safeguard against diversion from legitimate medical or scientific use.
Under 21 U.S.C. § 823(c)(1), DEA-registered bulk manufacturers can provide marijuana only to researchers with Schedule I registration. This creates an interesting situation because if marijuana is rescheduled, then Schedule II and III researchers will be unable to obtain marijuana from DEA-registered sources, as those sources are legally restricted to supplying only Schedule I researchers.
This means that if marijuana moves to Schedule III, under current law, Schedule II and III researchers could only obtain marijuana from a non-federally legal source– namely, the state-legal market. Despite such research being desperately needed, DEA is known for opposing state-legal marijuana. Therefore, it is likely that even if a Schedule II or III researcher receives federal agency funding to test state-legal marijuana, DEA would still deny the application as not being in the public interest. Yeah, makes no sense; but neither does DEA when it comes to marijuana. As such, Schedule I researchers would likely remain the only researchers able to legally study marijuana if marijuana is rescheduled.
If marijuana were treated like other Schedule III substances, less restrictive Schedule III requirements would apply—including expanded research opportunities for those without Schedule I research registrations. But the Research Act ensures that Schedule I burdens will persist regardless of rescheduling. Only Congress, not administrative rescheduling, can change this framework.
In July 2025, Congress passed the Fentanyl Act, which includes provisions aimed at easing research restrictions on all scheduled substances, including Schedule I substances. While this is a badly needed step forward in expanding research pathways for other Schedule I substances, it explicitly excludes marijuana from a key reform in the bill (for a great discussion on the benefits in the Fentanyl Act, I suggest watching this TDR interview with Shane Pennington).
The Fentanyl Act allows researchers to manufacture small amounts of scheduled substances (including Schedule I substances) but explicitly excludes marijuana from this provision. The Act also opens pathways for researchers (both registered with DEA an not) to research Schedule I substances through partnerships with federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
While such partnerships could theoretically facilitate marijuana research, the Fentanyl Act does not modify the Research Act’s restrictions, meaning non-Schedule I researchers would be required to obtain marijuana from non-DEA registered sources. This seems counterintuitive, but under the Research Act, DEA bulk manufacturers can transfer marijuana only to Schedule I researchers using it for “preclinical research or in a clinical investigation pursuant to an investigational new drug application.” Any transfer to non-Schedule I researchers would violate the Research Act.
This dynamic creates a significant practical limitation. The only pathway for non-Schedule I researchers to access legal marijuana under the Fentanyl Act is outside the DEA-registered supply chain. As discussed above, this would include state-legal operators—a source DEA considers to be diverted/illegal. While this is certainly the marijuana products we should be testing, many universities are reluctant to pursue such arrangements due to legal and institutional risks.
This reluctance isn’t new. Even before the Fentanyl Act, federal law provided potential avenues for state-legal marijuana research. The Research Act already includes an approval pathway for researchers working with federal agency funding scientific research. Further, 21 USC 822(d) allows the Attorney General to waive registration requirements for certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if consistent with public health or safety, and 21 USC 872(e), allows the Attorney General, at its own discretion, to authorize the “possession, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances by persons engaged in research.”
These provisions give the Attorney General clear authority to approve research partnerships between universities, states, and federal agencies involving state-legal marijuana. Despite the existing legal framework, researchers and institutions have been hesitant to test the waters, and it is yet to be seen whether the Fentanyl Act will change that fundamental reluctance. The good news is that while the above referenced law requires approval from the Attorney General, no such approval is required under the Fentanyl Act for Schedule I and II researchers—only notice of the research to the Attorney General is required.
The bad news is that if marijuana is moved to Schedule III, it will fall outside the scope of the Fentanyl Act altogether, meaning those limited flexibilities won’t apply, and the more restrictive Research Act framework will govern.
The Attorney General can issue exceptions to all of these restrictions pursuant to the statutes discussed above. It is hard to believe that the Attorney General would do this, but it’s possible. Unfortunately, since the reversal of the Chevron Doctrine, whether such authority is preempted by certain statutory requirements created by Congress would be up to the courts.
Another common misconception is that moving marijuana to Schedule III will eliminate harsh federal criminal penalties for marijuana convictions. That’s not the case.
The Controlled Substances Act contains several criminal provisions—such as 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 842, and 843—that includes enhanced penalties directly tied to the term “marihuana” no matter its schedule. This distinction is critical.
Trafficking penalties in § 841 contain thresholds specific to marijuana. Sections 842 and 843 include language increasing possible penalties for persons convicted of marijuana crimes. Unless Congress updates the language, individuals could still face harsh penalties tied to marijuana itself, regardless of its schedule. Such penalties will be at the discretion of judges, which we know can very from court to court.
One positive change is that moving marijuana to Schedule III would eliminate criminal penalties related to Section 280E tax violations and marketing a schedule I controlled substance.
While this analysis may seem heavy on criticism, there are real benefits to rescheduling.
If marijuana is moved to Schedule III, it will be in large part to state level research. At the state level, rescheduling could open doors. Many universities are still hesitant to engage in marijuana research due to Schedule I classification—even when approved by the state, DEA, and U.S. Attorney General. The fear of losing federal funding is too great. Moving marijuana to Schedule III would likely reduce that fear. While controlled substance requirements would still apply, the stigma and bureaucratic hurdles tied to Schedule I would ease. This shift in perception could lead to new waves of university-led research.
If academic institutions begin partnering with federal agencies like HHS, DOD, or the VA, they could potentially conduct meaningful studies using marijuana products currently available in legal markets. That would be a significant win.
Many states automatically align their drug schedules with federal law. If marijuana moves to Schedule III, and if those states tie criminal penalties to scheduling (rather than the term “marijuana” itself), we could see reduced penalties or decriminalization ripple through state statutes.
Additionally, the psychological and legal shift away from marijuana as a Schedule I substance may encourage prosecutors and law enforcement—even in prohibitionist states—to deprioritize marijuana enforcement and focus on more harmful drugs like fentanyl.
In the long term, removing marijuana from Schedule I would dramatically impact how marijuana is viewed in the US. Propaganda such as “Reefer Madness“, released almost 90 years ago, has been the greatest tool used against the marijuana liberalization movement. Keeping marijuana on Schedule I only reinforces the lies perpetrated by “Reefer Madness.” With marijuana in Schedule III, or even Schedule II, that stigma will begin to diminish.
The move to Schedule III, if and when it happens, will be a positive but limited step forward. It will not fix marijuana research access, in and of itself. And it will not eliminate federal criminal penalties tied to marijuana. Those log-term outcomes will require congressional action.
But we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Removing marijuana from Schedule I is long overdue, and Schedule III will reduce stigma, improve some state-level policy dynamics, and eliminate 280E—a huge burden on legal marijuana businesses.
Still, we must resist the urge to oversell Schedule III as a sweeping solution to research and criminal reform. That kind of narrative may win short-term political points, but it will ultimately undermine the credibility of marijuana reform advocates. We owe it to the public, policymakers, and especially those harmed by prohibition to be honest about the hurdles that will still remain.
As far as I know, the OLCC is a party to two, separate litigations surrounding its administrative rules. The first lawsuit relates to Ballot Measure 119, which is a unionization measure applicable to most classes of Oregon marijuana licensees. The second lawsuit concerns rules that require retail applicants to acquire a certificate of tax compliance (or enter into an approved payment plan) at license renewal.
Both cases have been decided, subject to appeal. OLCC is batting .500 so far, with a loss in the unionization case and a win in the tax compliance case. Today, I’ll tour your briefly through each litigation.
BM 119 required most Oregon cannabis businesses to enter into labor peace agreements with approved unions, in order to renew or obtain licensure. On May 20th, the Oregon District Court ruled against OLCC. (Technically, the defendants are the OLCC Chair and its former Executive Director, along with other state actors). You can view my May 20th post explaining the ruling here.
On June 11th, OLCC et al. paid $605 and submitted a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. That august body then set a September 3rd deadline for the state to provide an opening brief. The plaintiffs (who are OLCC licensees) must file a reply brief by October 3rd. With luck, we’ll have a ruling around a year from now. As the Court’s website notes, oral argument usually follows “approximately four months from completion of briefing.” Most cases are then decided “within 3 months to a year after submission [of all arguments, including oral argument].”
I don’t plan to follow the briefing or argument on this case closely, but will update once the court reaches a decision— or on the off chance there is a settlement prior. In keeping with everything I’ve written before, I don’t think the state has a great case, and I think BM 119 was a big waste of taxpayer money. But, as my law partner recently said, “the executive branch is on the rise conceptually.” So let’s see if these unionization rules can be resuscitated.
This case was decided a couple of weeks ago in the Oregon Court of Appeals. Sophie Peel of the Willamette Week published a summary earlier this week here. If you’d like to read the actual opinion, I’ve got it here.
In short, a couple of cannabis businesses sued the OLCC to invalidate its rules requiring all retailer applicants to provide a certificate of tax compliance, to receive a license renewal. The petitioners argued that the rules “exceed the statutory authority of the agency” under ORS 183.400 review. The Court disagreed.
The court’s analysis is concise, harkening back to Measure 91 of 2014 which mandated that the legislature and OLCC “establish a comprehensive regulatory framework concerning marijuana under existing state law.” The opinion then looks at the statutory and rules-based prongs under which OLCC can refuse to grant a license, including for want of “financial responsibility”, “good repute and moral character”, etc., and finds that OLCC acted comfortably within its authority here.
I know the attorneys who argued this case on both sides, and my law firm has had certain dealings with the petitioners, so I’ll reserve further commentary– except to say that the ruling seems to adopt much of the State’s briefing, which is an easy out if the Court is simply thinking “pay your damn taxes.” To wit, the opinion gives little consideration to the petitioners’ arguments that cannabis businesses are treated differently than any other type of business—including heavily regulated businesses—with these rules.
In the Willamette Week story, the petitioner’s attorney is quoted as saying that “he is still considering whether to advise his clients to appeal the July 9 ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court.” So let’s see.
Bottom line for now is that OLCC licensees: 1) don’t have to sign labor peace agreements or stay silent during unionization efforts, but 2) do have to pay their taxes. If any of that changes, or becomes irreversibly settled law, we’ll let you know.
Find the best grow lights of 2025. Leafly reviewed popular grow lights & chose the top picks for different needs and budgets.
The post Leafly’s top 6 grow lights of 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
Get ready to soak up the sun with the best weed products of summer 2025. Find the flower & gummies we're giddy about & hot accessories.
The post The best weed products of summer 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
Beat the heat with a Bong Island Iced Tea, a fizzy, lifted twist on the classic Long Island for an energetic cannabis buzz.
The post Beat the heat with a Bong Island Iced Tea appeared first on Leafly.
Green Blazer is one of the top national suppliers of bulk RAW cones, and a reliable partner to over 100 licensed pre-roll manufacturers
The post Level up your pre-rolls with RAW cones from Green Blazer appeared first on Leafly.
Galactic may be some truly out-of-this-world cannabis, but don’t worry—they come in peace. Their top-quality flower, gummies, concentrates, pre-rolls, and vapes are all made using space-age tech to help you achieve liftoff and explore a whole new world of high. No need to fire up the hyperdrive for a long voyage either; you can snag […]
The post Blast off with Galactic—no rocket required appeared first on Leafly.
A lot of people want to save a buck during contract negotiations. These folks usually do not not use a lawyer for drafting term sheets or other initial matters. Sometimes, this can work out well. For bigger or more complicated deals, or for deals with a difficult opponent, this can be a bad idea. Let’s look at why.
A term sheet (also referred to as a letter of intent or LOI) is an outline of key deal points that the parties sign before negotiating a final contract. You won’t see them in all deals. They are used frequently in bigger, more complex deals like M&A or finance transactions. They can be binding contracts, but this is usually a very bad idea. A non-binding document can be very useful, as the parties will have a roadmap for the deal and will have hammered out key points before undertaking the expense of diligence and drafting.
Money is the #1 answer. Lawyers don’t work for free, and many folks think “what’s the point of paying my lawyer to draft a non-binding term sheet?” (I will answer this in the next subpart.) Another common concern is strategy. Getting the wrong lawyer involved could just lead to endless negotiations of a term sheet which could hurt a deal. The purpose of term sheets is to get something on paper quickly and not go back and forth 20 times. Good lawyers can avoid this issue, but we’ve seen plenty of cases where this isn’t the case.
A good lawyer who has done a certain kind of deal many times will be able to spot many legal (and even non-legal) issues that many clients might miss. They may also be able to help the client clarify how things are written and defined. This can all save a TON of time and money in the long run. By flagging issues early on, a lawyer’s client can take those issues to the other side early on and see whether they are agreeable. Our corporate cannabis lawyers have seen deals fall apart over disagreements about what was in a term sheet.
Another point that can be a huge time suck in a deal is where one party wants to add a key term that wasn’t in the term sheet. The other side may refuse to add it on the grounds that it was not in the term sheet– despite the fact that the term sheet wasn’t binding, or contained language expressly stating that the term sheet did not include all material deal terms. This too is another place where deals can easily fall apart. Even where a deal won’t fall apart, if the parties disagree about what a term sheet says, costs will skyrocket.
Getting a bona fide, cannabis business lawyer involved in the term sheet process can be key. This is especially true on complicated or expensive deals, or where one party knows it has less leverage in a deal to request changes at a later date. It’s even more true where the other side or their lawyers are going to be tough negotiators. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more corporate cannabis law updates.
New York's best concentrate, edible, and pre-roll brands to check out on your next dispensary visit.
The post Discover New York’s top cannabis brands [July 2025] appeared first on Leafly.
I have spent a lot of time engaging with clients who are dealing with cannabis investors on the front and back end of investments. I work with companies and investors– from idea inception to litigation.
The suite of investors runs the gamut from friends and family, to key employees, executives, and board members with equity and synthetic equity grants; and to single and group angel investors, through venture capital and into private equity. Even early stage cannabis companies’ cap tables can get convoluted.
Any time a cannabis company or an individual takes money from outside sources, the company has issued securities. The legal work required for normal securities transactions is significant, even if you are raising only a modest amount of money from friends and family.
Add a multistate patchwork of cannabis regulations over that, and the complexity increases. Then add international cannabis companies that are engaging cross-border transactions and potentially listing on public U.S. exchanges, and you’re at an entirely different level.
The answer to what investors are looking for depends significantly on the sophistication of your prospective investors. Friends and family investors are (depending on the amount) generally fine trusting you with their money, because they know you and trust you and your business acumen. They often do not worry about things like extensive due diligence; instead they may opt to discuss your business plans and accomplishments without asking for any company records or investment contracts. Taking such a light approach to your cannabis investors, even if they are friends and family, is not a good idea. You need more.
Securities-related contracts for both private and public cannabis companies and their investors can seem daunting. These include foundational company documents like articles of incorporation and certificates of formation.
Bylaws, shareholder agreements, and operating agreements come next. These documents govern how cannabis company owners deal among themselves, their investors, and key employees.
Finally, you may see additional parallel shareholder agreements (or investor rights agreements) for different classes of ownership, including non-voting common interests, preferred interests, and ownership derivatives like synthetic equity, options, and SAFEs (simple agreements for future equity).
Companies that have been around for more than a few years may have amendments and permutations of these core entity agreements and a slew of the ancillary agreements, depending on the company’s history.
A typical due diligence request list from any securities attorney worth their salt will probably run 5-10 pages (our longest is 22 pages) and be more than you want to deal with. Rather than ask for “everything,” the investor’s counsel will ask for everything in a very detailed way. Categories typically include:
Even if you are only dealing with a small group of investors, save yourself the time by organizing your files and uploading everything to a cloud-based data room for the investors and their attorneys to wade through. All investors will be interested in seeing your financials. Many will want to meet you and your team and visit with your key people. Many will want to visit your business site, especially if you have any type of physical operations (growing, manufacturing, and retail).
Relatively new companies may not even know where signed versions of their key agreements are, or whether they have fully executed versions. (Some companies never even took the time to draft them in the first place, always intending to do it later.) These hiccups are often fine, but your investors will demand fully signed agreements, so you may have some significant clean-up to do before you are ready to open your due diligence locker to your prospective investors.
Not everyone enjoys dealing with cannabis investors, but you should be prepared to interact with investors ranging from very “hands off” to very “hands on.” Their lawyers will all be involved and ensuring their clients are treated fairly and get every advantage possible in their investment relationship.
The worst thing you can do is take the money and not document anything. The best thing you can do is earmark some of those investment funds for dealing with your cannabis investors fairly, while ensuring the underlying company owners are protected from claims of investment fraud. You do not want to end up on the wrong side of an SEC enforcement action or in the headlines.
The 2025 Oregon legislative session adjourned on June 27, 2025. Six bills passed with respect to cannabis. Of these, I covered SB 162 and SB 558 last month in Oregon Cannabis Roundup: June 2025, so please head over to that post if you’d like a full recap. Today I’ll give an extremely brief summary of each of those keys bills, and better explain the other four.
This one contains myriad law enforcement provisions, as detailed in last month’s post. It also allows OLCC to extend marijuana license terms from one year to five, which would be great. Finally, it has a “grandfather” provision for retailers that were legislated out of viability by the 1,000 foot radius rule.
This is another bill related to law enforcement. It doesn’t appear that Governor Kotek signed (or vetoed) it, but both the Senate President and House Speaker signed, so it’s law at this point.
SB 347 disqualifies land from farm use special assessments (tax incentives), following a final civil penalty or conviction for illegal marijuana growing. The penalty lasts ten years, and there is an exemption if the land owner “reasonably lacked knowledge of the illegal growing of marijuana on the land” or notified law enforcement “as soon as practicable” or “acquired the land in an arms-length transaction in a certain pre-conviction interval.
This bill takes effect 91 days from the end of the session, which is September 26, 2025 by my count.
This is the bill industry mostly rallied behind. It loosens sample and seed-sharing restrictions, opens up producer-to-producer marijuana transfers, and a few other things. Check out my fulsome recap in last month’s post.
This one is a technical fix, of sorts. Advertisements that are “appealing to minors” were prohibited for years under the statute and OLCC rules. Now, that problematic legal standard has been revised to prohibit ads and packaging that are “likely to cause minors to unlawfully possess or consume” marijuana items.
OLCC is also now required to create objective criteria for evaluating marketing materials, which should be useful. There’s no perfect solution here—especially given the intersection with Oregon’s robust protections on speech—but the goal is to bring marketing restrictions closer to what we see in the OLCC’s alcohol regime; and to give cannabis operators more latitude on branding.
This bill allows certain exempt well users, including ODA hemp growers and handlers, to use up to 3,000 gallons of groundwater per day to water lawn or gardens up to a half-acre in size. It permits water for growing industrial hemp as per ORS 571.281, but no other cannabis plants. This may help certain small hemp grows.
This new law is not related to the OLCC or ODA milieu. Instead, the tiny bill deals with former criminal convictions for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Under Oregon law generally, remedies for a judgment in a criminal action expire 20 years after the judgment expires. If someone fully complies with and performs a court sentence, they may apply for an order to set aside certain convictions.
HB 3825 provides that any remedies in a judgment of conviction for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, that have not yet expired, will expire on the effective date of HB 3825 (which looks to be September 26, 2025). Hopefully that makes a difference for at least a few folks.
HB 3825 also states that if the judgment remedies for any monetary obligations in the judgment of criminal conviction have expired, the person shall be considered to have fully complied with, or performed, the sentence of the court with respect to those monetary obligations.
____________
So that’s it for 2025. If you want a rundown of all the bills and concepts that didn’t make it through—which are quite a few, on everything from marijuana sales tax increases, to required placement of a marijuana business owner as an OLCC commissioner—I’ll direct you back to my preview post at the start of the session, back in January.
Looking ahead, the next stop for SB 162, SB 558 and HB 3274 should be OLCC rulemaking. Customarily, that kicks off in the fall.
Find the best THCA concentrates of 2025. Leafly reviewed popular THCA dabs and chose the top picks for different needs and budgets.
The post Leafly’s top 10 THCA concentrates of 2025 appeared first on Leafly.
It’s common for companies in all industries to use social media “influencers” to promote their goods and services online. Influencer advertising in the cannabis industry is a particularly risky idea, because paid advertisers need to comply with all cannabis marketing and advertising rules. These rules are beasts of the applicable state regulations on cannabis products and advertising.
It goes without saying that social media influencers generally don’t spend a great amount of time learning complicated cannabis regulations and Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) guidelines, so without solid contracts in place that dictate what an influencer can say and how they can say it, cannabis companies could risk penalties, false advertisement lawsuits, or potentially even face licensing fines or worse.
For starters, the FTC issued guidelines for using endorsements or testimonials in advertising. The guidelines are complicated, but some of the key points are that (1) testimonials and endorsements can’t be false or misleading, and if they are, the advertiser (the cannabis company) can itself be responsible; and (2) in most cases, the nature of the paid relationship between endorser and advertiser needs to be disclosed. The gist is that companies can’t just pay people to pretend that they are unaffiliated third parties to hype up their products. The relationship typically needs to be disclosed.
Even if an influencer does disclose the nature of the relationship, licensees could be sued for false advertising under state or federal law—by consumers, competitors, or even the government. Penalties in false advertising lawsuits can be massive.
Cannabis companies also face a host of particularized regulatory advertising and marketing prohibitions and restrictions, in each state of operation. Most cannabis licensing authorities will explicitly state that the acts of an agent of a cannabis company (the influencer) are imputed to the cannabis company. In plain English, that means that if your cannabis company hires an influencer who advertises unlawfully, you’re on the hook.
Cannabis companies obviously can’t advertise things that they are not allowed to do, so anyone advertising for them must follow all actual laws when advertising. The problem though is that it’s not always clear what companies can and can’t say in advertising. Each state may have different requirements, which are not always easy to figure out even for companies who are professionally acquainted with the regulations.
In the event that an influencer does break the rules, there’s not much a cannabis company can do, which is why it’s so important to educate influencers in advance. It’s also important to keep in mind that online advertising is inherently public. Advertisement rule violations are much more apparent to the regulators than many other violations, because they are disseminated to the public at large in media that can last forever.
All of this means that cannabis companies who want to work with influencers must use detailed contracts, training, and/or guidelines to educate their influencer partners. And this is not something that cannabis companies should gloss over. Generic provisions that require all parties to follow all applicable legal requirements may be sufficient in some contexts, but again, influencers are probably not aware of the specifics in cannabis regulations, so spelling things out more robustly is incredibly important. Become familiar with your state’s rules on cannabis advertising before you use an influencer so that you can properly protect your business and your brand from unintentional violations.
If the cannabis industry wants to truly normalize cannabis use in American culture, it’s time to start shaping public perception through entertainment, not just policy. For decades, alcohol and tobacco didn’t just grow their markets through lobbying; they embedded their products into the cultural fabric through Hollywood. From James Bond’s vodka martinis to Marlboro’s cowboy cool, these industries understood that the story matters as much as the statute.
Cannabis, by contrast, is still largely stuck in the shadow of the “stoner” trope—flat, juvenile characters who reinforce outdated stereotypes rather than reflect the diversity of real cannabis users today. That must change. Despite legalization expanding, the stigma is not fading quickly enough. The industry has an opportunity to change that. That means investing in content and partnerships that show responsible use by professionals, elderly patients, veterans, parents, and everyone in between. If we want cannabis to be treated like a mainstream wellness, lifestyle product, or a substitute for alcohol, it needs to look like one on screen.
Since the golden age of cinema, alcohol and tobacco have shaped culture onscreen. James Bond made drinking a performance and the Rat Pack made cigarettes cool. The ‘mad men’ of the 60’s turned chain-smoking and drinking into symbols of masculinity and ambition. These industries didn’t rely solely on product placement—they understood the value of subtle normalization: embedding their products in aspirational lifestyles. While tobacco’s marketing success came at an enormous public health cost that should not be repeated, the cultural strategy itself was undeniably effective—and cannabis, unlike tobacco, doesn’t carry the same inherent health risks.
Cannabis has entered the mainstream economy, but not the mainstream imagination. Most portrayals still lean on stale caricatures: the forgetful stoner, the burnout couch surfer, the dazed teenager. What’s missing are the real faces of modern cannabis use—doctors managing chronic pain, veterans using cannabis to treat PTSD, working parents choosing a tincture over a cocktail, or elderly patients managing arthritis with topicals.
Unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis doesn’t need Hollywood to make it cool or aspirational. The goal isn’t to glorify cannabis use, but to normalize it through quiet integration into everyday life. When characters casually use cannabis the same way they might drink coffee or take vitamins—without fanfare or commentary—it becomes simply another part of ordinary adult behavior.
If cannabis wants to be taken seriously—as a wellness product, a safer alternative to alcohol, or simply another adult-use product, it must take control of the narrative. That means funding and supporting films, shows, and digital content that showcase everyday, responsible use across demographics. I am not talking about standalone shows about cannabis use. Those aren’t enough and generally end up disappointing (i.e., Netflix’s Disjointed). What the cannabis industry needs is for regulated and responsible cannabis use to infiltrate everyday activities on the shows non-users are watching. It shouldn’t be the story line; it should just be a line in the story.
Brand-neutral storytelling can still be powerful. The key is creating characters that reflect the reality of the 21st-century cannabis consumer.
Yes, cannabis brands face steep limitations in traditional advertising. State-by-state patchworks, federal illegality, and content restrictions prevent companies from running national campaigns, advertise via product placement, and openly sponsoring shows the way alcohol brands can.
This is why the industry should partner with screenwriters, producers, and content creators to work around these limitations. Instead of traditional product specific advertising, the focus should be on authentic storytelling that advances the industry as a whole. Highlight a retired veteran using cannabis to alleviate PTSD symptoms, a doctor recommending cannabis in a clinical setting, or a professional using a discreet vaporizer after a stressful day—instead of reaching for a whiskey glass.
The key is showcasing consumption methods that reinforce cannabis as a wellness product rather than feeding into old stereotypes. While all forms of legal consumption deserve respect, the industry should prioritize showcasing methods that appear medical, professional, and approachable—tinctures, edibles, vaporizers—rather than consumption methods involving torches and glass rigs that might inadvertently reinforce “reefer madness” imagery for skeptical audiences.
The cannabis industry has public support, consumer demand, and decades of grassroots credibility. What it lacks is consistent, aspirational storytelling that matches its economic reality.
Here’s how industry leaders can start changing the narrative today: sponsor independent filmmakers and support cannabis-positive scripts in development; fund media literacy initiatives that showcase real consumer stories; create screenwriter fellowship programs and partner with film schools to develop the next generation of cannabis-aware storytellers; and establish content development funds specifically for cannabis-positive storytelling—not stoner comedies, but dramas, thrillers, and documentaries where cannabis use appears as naturally as a glass of wine.
The goal isn’t to hide cannabis use—it’s to show it honestly, responsibly, and across the full spectrum of American life. Hollywood helped normalize alcohol after Prohibition. With strategic investment and authentic storytelling, it can do the same for cannabis. The question now is: will the industry begin leading the narrative? Or will it continue to sit on the sideline and let others write it for them?
Find the best products for Oil Day 2025. Leafly reviewed hot products to celebrate 710 with & chose the best picks from around the nation.
The post The best products for Oil Day 2025 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.
Ready to level up your joint game? A hash hole is the next-gen concentrate experience—a king-size paper loaded with premium rosin down the center so that as you burn it, a hole of hash forms in the ash. Let’s roll one together. Video: Lindsay Maharry What is a hash hole? A hash hole—also called a […]
The post How to roll a hash hole appeared first on Leafly.
Let’s get sticky. This homemade finger hash tutorial walks through one of the simplest, most hands-on ways to make your own cannabis concentrate—no grinder, no press, no problem. Just your fingers, some flower, and a little time. Video: Lindsay Maharry What is finger hash? Finger hash—also known as charas—is a traditional, solventless cannabis concentrate made […]
The post The easiest hash to make at home appeared first on Leafly.
Cannabis intellectual property (IP) licensing deals can be complicated, presenting unique issues. Many companies expect the biggest hurdle to be state cannabis law compliance. Although this is certainly a major concern, it’s important to start with the brand licensing fundamentals by analyzing the validity and strength of the IP itself. With any licensing deal, the first step should be determining who actually owns what IP. This is especially true when it comes to the cannabis industry, where information, strain names, and industry terminology have been shared freely since long before state-level legalization.
Ownership of IP in the cannabis industry is a tricky issue. Far too regularly, cannabis companies come to us with proposed licensing deals where basic due diligence quickly reveals the licensor simply does not own what it claims to own. A little bit of high-level IP due diligence can save a lot of money.
If you are looking to get a license for another company’s IP, here are the most basic questions you should be able to answer about that other company and its IP:
This is a substantial list, but it only scratches the surface of the issues you and your cannabis IP counsel must consider before you enter into any IP licensing deal. Cannabis companies are often too quick to skip straight to negotiating commercial terms for a deal, without ever assessing whether the rights they are licensing actually exist. Just like with any other type of property — such as a house or a car — a licensor of intellectual property must actually own the rights to that property to be able to confer all or some portion of those rights to another party. Seems basic, but we’ve seen fatally flawed deals drawn up by attorneys who either do not understand the cannabis industry or, more often than not, do not know the intricacies (or even the basics) of intellectual property law.
Though these licensing deals can be complicated, there are creative and effective solutions to many of these problems. To implement those solutions, an understanding of both IP and state and federal laws governing marijuana is required.
