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.
