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.
Stock up for all your Halloween activities with 25% off storewide Friday through Monday, 30% off every Tuesday, and up to 40% off daily deals.
The post Have a hazy Halloween with up to 40% off all month long at AmeriCannaRx appeared first on Leafly.
On October 8th, voters of Caye Caulker will make history as they head to the polls for Belize’s first-ever community cannabis referendum. This grassroots initiative, spearheaded by the “Legalize It Caye Caulker” campaign led by village councilor Ilya Rosado, asks voters whether the Government of Belize should establish a regulated, taxable cannabis industry on the island.
The referendum comes after an impressive community mobilization effort that gathered 365 signatures to trigger the vote (more than the 25% of registered electors required). For this small island community, the stakes are high. Supporters argue that legalization could create jobs, generate tax revenue, and establish Caye Caulker as a leader in responsible cannabis tourism.
This local referendum carries particular significance given what happened just three years ago at the national level. In 2022, Belize came remarkably close to full cannabis legalization when the government advanced comprehensive legislation to create a nationwide regulated marijuana industry.
However, the National Evangelical Association in Belize, along with the Belize Association of Evangelical Churches and The Belize Council of Churches, launched an aggressive campaign to stop the measure. These religious organizations mobilized their congregations to petition for a referendum that would allow voters to override Parliament’s decision. The church coalition successfully gathered enough signatures to trigger the national referendum process, effectively halting the legislation’s implementation.
Beyond the signature campaign, opposition from the evangelical churches created significant political pressure. The banking sector and portions of the tourism industry, swayed by the churches’ messaging, also joined the resistance. By July 2022, the national government had abandoned plans for the referendum altogether, citing the estimated $5 million cost of holding the vote. The legalization effort died, leaving Belize with only its 2017 decriminalization law that permits possession of up to 10 grams on private property.
The Caye Caulker referendum represents a fundamentally different approach—one that builds from the community up rather than imposing policy from above. By allowing a single village to decide its own cannabis future, this vote sidesteps some of the national political pressures that derailed the 2022 effort.
Even within the current government, Cabinet members have expressed divergent views on the Caye Caulker initiative, reflecting the continued complexity of cannabis politics in Belize. Yet the referendum proceeds, demonstrating how local democratic action can sometimes succeed where national politics fail.
For Caye Caulker residents, October 8th offers more than just a vote on cannabis policy. It represents an opportunity to chart their own economic future and potentially provide a successful model that other Belizean communities could follow. Whether the evangelical opposition that stopped national legalization three years ago can mobilize effectively against this local initiative remains to be seen. Further, it is unclear what affect the passages of this referendum would actually accomplish since the national government has yet to legalize commercial sales.
As voting day approaches, all eyes are on this small island community, where residents will speak with their vote on whether they want to be pioneers in Belize’s cannabis future or maintain the status quo.
The post Where National Politics Failed, Can Local Democracy Prevail? The Caye Caulker Cannabis Referendum appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.
