Uncle Ned not required. Serves: 4 Time: 5 minutes Doseage: 3mg per glass Jump to the recipe Upgrade your hum-drum breakfast smoothie to Uncle Ned’s Wake and Shake, an energizing, citrus-forward a.m. favorite with creamy macadamian nuts and a twist of THC. This recipe comes to us from the eponymous Uncle Ned via his niece, […]
The post Brighten up your morning with Uncle Ned’s Wake and Shake appeared first on Leafly.
Welcome to the September 2025 horoscopes, Stargazers! September brings a mellow but meaningful energy as Virgo season helps us return to routines.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: September 2025 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
Catalyst is excited to announce the grand opening of their brand-new San Diego location. This new dispensary will be located on Convoy Street, just off the 52 Freeway.
The post Catalyst Dispensary San Diego is your new source for choice California Cannabis appeared first on Leafly.
A slew of industry-leading edible brands have all recently launched their own 100mg gummy giants, bringing the product into key markets.
The post The single 100mg gummy is on the rise appeared first on Leafly.
Despite the United States’ draconian federal policies towards marijuana—which more closely resemble prohibitionist countries like Russia, rather than our Canadian or German allies—the world is embracing cannabis reform at an unprecedented pace. As American entrepreneurs wrestle with complex state-federal conflicts, 280E tax burdens, and banking restrictions, international markets are opening new pathways for legal cannabis commerce.
Despite some setbacks, cannabis liberalization is expanding worldwide. Understanding where policies stand—and where they’re headed—can help cannabis entrepreneurs find their niche in international markets, even as the U.S. landscape remains relatively cumbersome.
Join us this Thursday, August 28, at 12:00 PM pacific for our webinar, Cannabis Without Borders: Navigating International Opportunities and Regulatory Trends, featuring Harris Sliwoski attorneys Jason Adelstone and Vince Sliwoski.
This session will take a strategic look at major global regions, highlighting emerging opportunities and potential pitfalls within different jurisdictions. Our panelists will offer practical insights for entrepreneurs, investors, and legal professionals hoping to understand the evolving global cannabis landscape. The discussion will cover current policy environments and the political dynamics influencing cannabis reform.
We’ll explore developments across major global regions:
Expect real-world examples of countries progressing with cannabis reform—and others that have stalled or backtracked.
International cannabis presents unique advantages and relief for U.S. investors:
• Federal Law Limitations – U.S. federal laws don’t apply abroad, allowing investment in legal foreign markets
• Tax Relief – Foreign cannabis operations aren’t subject to Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions
We’ll also explore how a simple DEA regulatory amendment could allow U.S. cannabis exports to medical markets worldwide—and potentially spark the growth of a similar domestic program.
The global cannabis industry is at an inflection point. While the U.S. clings to federal prohibition—even with potential Schedule III changes—international cannabis markets are rapidly evolving. For U.S. stakeholders, this presents opportunities to participate in regulated cannabis without the heavy domestic burdens.
This webinar will offer a practical overview of global cannabis trends and explain why international markets are increasingly attractive for U.S. businesses and investors.
Date: August 28, 2025 at 12:00 PM PT
Format: Live interactive webinar with Q&A
Whether you’re exploring international expansion, seeking diversification, or tracking global cannabis reform, this session will offer actionable guidance from legal practitioners who work directly with international cannabis businesses and investors.
Last week, President Trump told reporters that his administration was considering rescheduling marijuana, and would make a determination over “the next few weeks.” It was good to hear an update on the issue, because things had stalled out since Trump took office in January. The cannabis industry is accustomed to operating in limbo, of course; but losing momentum is hard.
I won’t prognosticate as to whether marijuana will be reoriented toward Schedule III, in keeping with HHS recommendations and the Biden plan, or whether we’ll get some worse or better outcome. Instead, I’m going to explain how this should work. There are four primary paths:
I’ll give some high-level thoughts on each of these paths below. 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.
Trump could direct DOJ and DEA to resume the terrible pageant of marijuana rescheduling. There are a couple of issues with this one. First, the rulemaking had veered off track, owing largely to bad behavior by DEA. Second, the judge overseeing the process has retired, and DOJ now takes the position that administrative law judges are unconstitutional. Third, this process, which is essentially a litigation, could drag on, and on and on.
Trump could direct DOJ to issue a new notice of proposed rulemaking, placing marijuana on III or some other schedule. DOJ could argue that the erstwhile process was improvidently granted, and/or tainted, and has lost any veneer of legitimacy. That rationale would likely stand up to scrutiny, but I’m not sure what could be gained from another public rulemaking circus, especially one that cuts against the recent recommendations of HHS. And again, Trump’s DOJ is down on administrative judges.
I explained in a prior post that:
The CSA “vests” the Attorney General with the authority to “schedule, reschedule or decontrol drugs” (21 U.S.C. 811(a)). The Attorney General has traditionally delegated that authority to the DEA administrator (28 CFR 0.100). However, the Attorney General also retains the authority to schedule drugs under the CSA in the “first instance” (28 U.S.C. 509, 510).
[Merrick] Garland should have done that. Instead, he kicked this down to DEA, a body which has shown repeated disdain for law and judicial orders— as I pointed out the very day that HHS made its rescheduling recommendation. Garland’s decision also stirred up a hornet’s nest of tedious legal arguments around delegation, whether the DEA should be the proponent here, etc.
If the Trump administration decides reschedule marijuana, DOJ should simply write a final rule. 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.
To me, this seems more likely than options 1 or 2; and less likely than option 3. I say that with low confidence, mind you. I don’t know what is happening behind the scenes.
If the Trump administration decides to leave marijuana where it is, then the ball is back in Congress’ court. The CSA vests with Congress the ability to re- or deschedule drugs, of course, in parallel to the executive branch. Congressman Greg Steube (R-FL) again filed his “Marijuana 1-to-3 Act” last week, which would require the Attorney General to transfer marijuana to Schedule III within 60 days of passage. That’s one potential bill.
If DOJ isn’t tasked with writing a final rule, I’d love to see the Trump Administration demand that Congress take this up, and for Congress to do so. As my colleague Jason Adelstone explained recently, “unlike the executive branch, Congress can create a durable legal framework for marijuana that protects the industry from regulatory whiplash.”
Isn’t it pretty to think so?
_____
For more posts about rescheduling and its ramifications, check out the following:
A federal appellate court has ruled that a New York cannabis licensing rule favoring in-state residents is unconstitutional, because it discriminates against applicants residing out-of-state. We have been tracking this case for the past couple of years — see our prior posts here and here.
This decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is the first to apply the Dormant Commerce Clause to adult use cannabis — and, in combination with an earlier decision involving Maine’s medical cannabis program, suggests a trend toward rejection of all protectionist state cannabis laws despite the federal illegality of marijuana sales and use. The decision was a long time coming: we speculated as far back as 2015 on this blog that the Dormant Commerce Clause could be used to upend residency requirements for state cannabis programs.
Here, the Second Circuit decided that one of New York State’s cannabis dispensary application pools could be challenged under the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause, because it favored applicants convicted in New York of marijuana-related crimes prior to legalization in 2021. The court reasoned that it was highly likely that people convicted of crimes in New York were residents of New York. Such applicants received better odds of selection from the pool. This discriminated against residents of other states that wanted to acquire a cannabis dispensary license in New York, including the California-based plaintiff.
The Dormant Commerce Clause has been cited in many lawsuits seeking to overturn state and local laws that require cannabis business applicants to reside in the state or community. Many of these legal challenges by non-resident applicants have failed – primarily based on the government’s argument that the Constitution does not protect illicit businesses. Although cannabis is now legal for medical or recreational use in a majority of states, it remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”).
The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that simply because the CSA was enacted to eradicate the interstate cannabis market, it did not create “a license for states to incubate intrastate markets in the same product.” Giving preferences to New Yorkers is a protectionist measure that is forbidden by the Commerce Clause, the Second Circuit held.
The Commerce Clause explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. But the Clause has been interpreted as also forbidding the enforcement of state-enacted economic regulations in situations where Congress has not enacted laws regarding the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “state laws offend the Commerce Clause when they seek to build up domestic [in-state] commerce through burdens upon the industry and business of other states.” Residents of a state are not entitled to preferential advantages over non-resident competitors.
The Second Circuit acknowledged the “irony” in enforcing the Commerce Clause “in the context of illicit markets; but the objective should not be conflated with the rule itself.” If illicit markets were exempt from the Dormant Commerce Clause, “states would then be free today to bake in advantages for their residents should Congress later legalize the market.” Congress could, if it wanted, give states the power to restrict certain interstate activities – such as exempting cannabis business ownership from the Commerce Clause – but it has not. “[S]tate protectionism is forbidden unless Congress says otherwise – and Congress has not said otherwise.”
The Court rejected New York State’s argument that Congress has authorized protectionist state measures relating to marijuana because cannabis is a Schedule I drug in the CSA. The CSA’s ban on interstate marijuana trafficking and New York’s licensing scheme do not correspond, however. New York’s “preference [for New Yorkers when issuing dispensary licenses . . . does not inhibit interstate marijuana traffic; it creates an incentive to institutionalize the marijuana industry and help it flourish.”
New York’s attempt to avoid obvious residency requirements by prioritizing those with in-state marijuana convictions was deemed an unconstitutional proxy for state residency preferences. The Court was also unimpressed by New York’s argument that it was advancing “restorative justice and social equity goals,” because there were ways to do this without favoring New Yorkers over non-residents.
The Second Circuit’s decision in Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board, Case No. 24-384-cv, follows a 2022 decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals involving regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries, Northeast Patients Group v. United Cannabis Patients & Caregivers of Maine, 45 F.4th 542 (1st Cir. 2022). Expect more challenges to follow.
For previous posts on the Dormant Commerce Clause and cannabis, see also:
The latest addition to RCC’s Mood line melts stress & lifts your spirits Rare Cannabinoid Company (RCC) takes your mood as seriously as you do. They’re constantly on the front lines of innovation, creating products using exciting blends of hemp cannabinoids that can help relieve stress and help you find your joy. The Hawaiian brand […]
The post We tried Rare Cannabinoid Company’s THC+CBC Mood Oil appeared first on Leafly.
Despite the United States’ draconian federal policies towards marijuana—which more closely resemble prohibitionist countries like Russia, rather than our Canadian or German allies—the world is embracing cannabis reform at an unprecedented pace. As American entrepreneurs wrestle with complex state-federal conflicts, 280E tax burdens, and banking restrictions, international markets are opening new pathways for legal cannabis commerce.
Despite some setbacks, cannabis liberalization is expanding worldwide. Understanding where policies stand—and where they’re headed—can help cannabis entrepreneurs find their niche in international markets, even as the U.S. landscape remains relatively cumbersome.
Join us on August 28 at 12:00 PM pacific for our webinar, Cannabis Without Borders: Navigating International Opportunities and Regulatory Trends, featuring Harris Sliwoski attorneys Jason Adelstone and Vince Sliwoski.
This session will take a strategic look at major global regions, highlighting emerging opportunities and potential pitfalls within different jurisdictions. Our panelists will offer practical insights for entrepreneurs, investors, and legal professionals hoping to understand the evolving global cannabis landscape. The discussion will cover current policy environments and the political dynamics influencing cannabis reform.
We’ll explore developments across major global regions:
Expect real-world examples of countries progressing with cannabis reform—and others that have stalled or backtracked.
International cannabis presents unique advantages and relief for U.S. investors:
• Federal Law Limitations – U.S. federal laws don’t apply abroad, allowing investment in legal foreign markets
• Tax Relief – Foreign cannabis operations aren’t subject to Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions
We’ll also explore how a simple DEA regulatory amendment could allow U.S. cannabis exports to medical markets worldwide—and potentially spark the growth of a similar domestic program.
The global cannabis industry is at an inflection point. While the U.S. clings to federal prohibition—even with potential Schedule III changes—international cannabis markets are rapidly evolving. For U.S. stakeholders, this presents opportunities to participate in regulated cannabis without the heavy domestic burdens.
This webinar will offer a practical overview of global cannabis trends and explain why international markets are increasingly attractive for U.S. businesses and investors.
Date: August 28, 2025 at 12:00 PM PT
Format: Live interactive webinar with Q&A
Whether you’re exploring international expansion, seeking diversification, or tracking global cannabis reform, this session will offer actionable guidance from legal practitioners who work directly with international cannabis businesses and investors.
Effective August 1, 2025, the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) issued emergency amendments to New Mexico’s Hemp extraction, production, transportation, warehousing, and testing administrative code. These amendments were created to address concerns with the production and use of synthetic hemp cannabinoids found in finished products. The primary goal of NMED appears to be the protection and safety of hemp industry workers from toxic and harmful chemical used to create synthesized cannabinoids.
These emergency rules, however, do nothing to protect against another stated goal—reducing the risk to consumer of finished hemp products. Importantly, the emergency rules do not apply to imported finished hemp product, or to retailers selling those product within the state. Therefore, these regulations will likely only harm local hemp facilities, while favoring out-of-state operators shipping finished hemp products into New Mexico for retail sale.
The emergency amendment includes an effective date of September 1, 2025 (with some provisions becoming effective 15 days later), but the agency’s website and in its “Concise Explanatory Statement” reference an August 1 effective date. If no permanent rule is adopted within 180 days from the effective date of the emergency rule, the emergency rules expires. So, unless permanent rules are in effect, these emergency rules will expire on either January 28th or February 28th of 2026.
The emergency rules define “semi-synthetic cannabinoid” to mean a substance that is created by a chemical reaction that converts one cannabinoid extracted from cannabis directly into a different cannabinoid. It does not include cannabinoids produced via decarboxylation of naturally occurring acidic forms of cannabinoids, such as THCa into THC, through the use of heat or light, without the use of chemical reagents or catalysts, and that results in no other chemical change. It should be noted that New Mexico already uses the “total THC” calculation, which accounts for THC and THCa when determining the maximum 0.3% THC concentration.
The emergency rules intended to also include a definition for “synthetic cannabinoids”, but instead accidentally replicated the “semi-synthetic cannabinoids” definition. As such, the current emergency rules do not include an official definition of “synthetic cannabinoid.” (check out NMAC 20.10.2.7 (WW) & (YY))
It is now illegal to operate a “hemp facility” in the state of New Mexico that does not meet the requirements of the emergency amendment, in addition to all other current laws and regulations. Hemp facilities include the following hemp facilities: (1) extraction; (2) manufacturing; (3) processing; and (4) warehousing.
Hemp facilities are no longer permitted to receive hemp-derived material or hemp extract unless the hemp facility receives documentation from the company providing such product that it was derived from hemp. Therefore, even if the product tests no greater than 0.3% THC, but comes from a marijuana plant, it is illegal for a New Mexico hemp facility to accept it.
The emergency rules include exceptions for allowing the following semi-synthetic and synthetic cannabinoids as an ingredient in a hemp finished product, as long as they have a purity greater than 98%:
A significant flaw in New Mexico’s emergency rule framework is that packaged products obtained by non-licensed hemp facilities (i.e. retailers) are not regulated under these new restrictions. In fact, New Mexico does not currently require a permit to sell pre-packaged CBD or other hemp products in the state. This creates a substantial competitive disadvantage for New Mexico hemp operators while simultaneously undermining the stated public health objectives of the emergency rules.
While certain testing and packaging requirements still apply to imported finished hemp products, the emergency regulations create the following market distortions:
This framework creates a fundamental inconsistency where New Mexico prohibits the production of semi-synthetic and synthetic cannabinoids within the state but allows the sale of finished products containing those same semi-synthetic and synthetic cannabinoids if manufactured elsewhere. While these emergency rules may protect workers from alleged harm, New Mexico consumers can still access the same products the state deems concerning enough to emergency-regulate. The only practical effect, however, is to disadvantage local manufacturers.
If synthetic cannabinoids pose sufficient consumer health concerns to warrant emergency regulation, the current framework fails to address those concerns because:
New Mexico’s hemp emergency rules, while seemingly well-intentioned, create a regulatory framework that restricts local manufacturers while allowing the continued sale of finished products containing the same synthetic cannabinoids that prompted the emergency action. There are certainly better ways to protect workers from chemical harm that would be less detrimental to licensed hemp facilities. Additionally, this approach fails to achieve its other stated consumer protection objectives, while creating significant competitive disadvantages for New Mexico businesses.
The exclusion of imported finished hemp products from regulation means that synthetic cannabinoid products can freely enter the New Mexico market from other states as long as they meet federal hemp requirements (0.3% delta-9 THC) and New Mexico’s labeling and packaging requirements—effectively nullifying the consumer protection objectives. Until this regulatory gap is closed, the emergency rules will serve more as a barrier to local economic development than as a meaningful tool for protecting consumer safety.
NMEC will be seeking comment via public meeting and its online portal sometime in September. If you operate a hemp facility in New Mexico and need assistance challenging these emergency rules or ensuring compliance, we’re here to help. Contact a licensed New Mexico hemp attorney for a complimentary consultation.
I have helped people buy, sell and invest in hundreds of cannabis businesses. I’ve represented many hundreds more. One thing that makes my job harder, at times, is working with cannabis businesses that have misaligned public records and reporting.
There are three pillars of public reporting, or disclosures, that a cannabis business should strive to maintain with the utmost consistency: 1) ownership records filed with the secretary of state; 2) ownership records filed with state and local cannabis regulators; and 3) ownership records filed with taxing authorities. Internal records, such as a company’s operating agreement or stock ledger, should not contradict information that has been disclosed to government authorities.
Unfortunately, and for various reasons, many cannabis businesses have put misaligned information out there into the world. When it comes time to sell these businesses or their assets, or take on investment, or do standard things like acquire a bank account, contradictory information can be a huge problem.
Businesses are created at the state level, typically by filing Articles of Incorporation (for a corporation) or Articles of Organization (for an LLC). Some states require more disclosure as to company ownership and management than others.
Generally speaking, when I oversee a filing, we disclose as little information as possible. Often, however, people take the opposite approach. There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily; but you need to be accurate. You also need to make updates when changes occur, and not just at the next renewal filing for the business.
We see problems here regularly. Perhaps owners don’t want to disclose someone with a problematic record that has ownership or control over the cannabis business; or perhaps an owner does not want to be publicly affiliated with the business; or maybe someone left, and nobody took responsibility for updating regulators.
In our experience, regulators, like bankers, will typically cross-check applications against other public filings. Specifically, they’ll cross-check against the secretary of state registry referenced above. Explaining away inconsistencies is never any fun, and may not even be possible in some cases. It’s generally best to apply for a license once everything is sorted. After the license is acquired, required “change” disclosures must be timely made.
This type of filing doesn’t fall into the same class as the two mentioned above. Generally, and with some exceptions, the IRS may not disclose a company’s tax information to third parties unless permission has been given. Still, an LLC that is taxed as a partnership or an s-corporation will prepare a K-1 or 1120-S for each member. A corporation will list out officers and directors directly on its form 1120.
If a member receives a K-1, for example, but that member is not disclosed to state cannabis regulators as required by rule, that could cause problems in the context of a sale or other transaction. The best practice is to ensure that tax filings are consistent with other regulatory submissions, as well as with the company’s internal agreements.
Hopefully, your cannabis business has everything in order when it comes to public reporting, as well as internal documentation. If not, it’s best to address the situation prior to a pivotal event, and prior to making additional filings. Inaccurate filings can sometimes move things along, but tend to add layers of complication down the line.
If you have concerns about how your business has handled filings or other documentation, please contact us. The best time to deal with that type of issue is now.
Welcome to August 2025 horoscopes, stargazers. Discover what this month holds in store for your sign and the strain to match.
The post Star signs and cannabis strains: August 2025 horoscopes appeared first on Leafly.
