Cannabis Archives - Page 4 of 6 - The National Law Forum

MLB To Allow CBD Sponsorships

Recently, Major League Baseball (MLB) informed teams that cannabidiol (CBD) sponsorships were no longer off limits and that they were free to pursue sponsorships in the CBD category under certain conditions. CBD companies will also no longer be prohibited from airing commercials during MLB game telecasts.

According to MLB’s Chief Revenue Officer Noah Garden, to be permitted, CBD sponsorships must promote products that are certified as not containing psychoactive levels of THC, the main active ingredient of cannabis. Any CBD product with concentrations of THC above 0.3% would not be permitted, as it is classified as marijuana, which is a Schedule I illicit substance. All CBD sponsorships will also require signoff by the MLB Commissioner’s Office.

MLB is the first of the four major US sports leagues to permit CBD sponsorships. Previously, only UFC and NASCAR had opened up the CBD sponsorship category for sale. And while MLB has opened the door to certain CBD sponsorships, for now, neither MLB nor any of the other major US sports leagues permit sponsorships in the broader cannabis category.

This change follows the new MLB collective bargaining agreement freeing up MLB teams to sell advertising positions on team jerseys and player batting helmets beginning with the 2023 season. MLB has confirmed that these lucrative jersey and batting helmet positions will not be off-limits to CBD companies. Garden noted specifically that “[MLB is] open-minded to doing a patch deal [in the CBD category], depending on the brand and what that brand represents. It has to [be] a brand that represents sports.”

Time will tell if MLB, its teams, and its fans embrace CBD sponsorships, but with cannabis industry valuations exceeding $13 billion in 2021, the rule change opens the door to a potentially lucrative sponsorship category.

Article By Richard L. Brand, Shahiedah Shabazz, and Zak Welsh of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more entertainment and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Medical Marijuana, Workers’ Compensation, and the CSA: Hazy Outlook for Employers As States Wrestle With Cannabis Reimbursement as a Reasonable Medical Expense

While each state has its own unique workers’ compensation program, workers’ compensation generally requires employers to reimburse the reasonable medical expenses of employees who are injured at work. Depending on the injury, these expenses can include hospital visits, follow-up appointments, physical therapy, surgeries, and medication, among other medical care. In recent years, medical cannabis has become increasingly common to treat a myriad of ailments—as of February 2022, 37 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories now allow the use of medical cannabis.

While that is good news for patients seeking treatment for issues like chronic pain, medical cannabis laws can cause a major headache for employers. The federal law known as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance, meaning that under federal law, it is not currently authorized for medical treatment anywhere in the United States and is not considered safe for use even under medical supervision. So, what happens when an employee is injured at work, is eligible for workers’ compensation, and is prescribed medical cannabis to treat their work-related injury in a state that authorizes medical cannabis?

Employers are faced with a tricky dilemma: They can reimburse the employee’s medical cannabis as a reasonable medical expense and risk violating the federal prohibition against aiding and abetting the possession of cannabis. Or, they can refuse to reimburse the otherwise reasonable medical expense and risk violating the state’s workers’ compensation law.

Usually, where it is impossible for an employer to comply with both state and federal law, federal law wins—a legal concept called conflict preemption. Unfortunately for employers, however, clarity on this issue will have to wait—the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined two requests to review state supreme court cases on this issue and definitively decide whether the CSA preempts state workers’ compensation laws that require reimbursement of medical cannabis. In the absence of federal guidance, national employers with workers in different states must follow the decisions of the handful of state courts that have taken up the question. The state courts who have decided the issue have come to inconsistent conclusions—thus, whether an employer should reimburse medical cannabis will vary depending on the state where the employee is injured.

For example, in Maine and Minnesota, both states’ highest courts have concluded that employers are not required to pay for their injured employees’ medical cannabis. These courts reasoned that employers would face liability under the CSA for aiding and abetting the purchase of a controlled substance. The employer, if reimbursing employees for using medical cannabis, would knowingly subsidize the employee’s purchase of marijuana in direct violation of federal law. However, in such a case, the employer would also violate state law for refusing to reimburse the employee’s reasonable medical expenses. Deeming it impossible for the employer to comply with both laws, these states’ courts concluded that the federal prohibition on cannabis preempts the state workers’ compensation laws.

States such as New Jersey have gone the other way, requiring employers to reimburse employee’s medical cannabis. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that there was no conflict between the prohibitions of the CSA and the demands of the New Jersey workers’ compensation law. Thus, the federal law did not preempt New Jersey’s state law, and employers were required to comply by reimbursing medical cannabis as a reasonable reimbursement.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts followed Maine and Minnesota’s approach, but did so based on its own medical marijuana statute, not the CSA. The Massachusetts law explicitly exempts health insurance providers or any government agency or authority from the reimbursement requirement because doing so violates federal law.

Given this patchwork of state decisions, employers should be cautious in determining whether to approve or deny medical cannabis as a reasonable medical expense under state workers’ compensation laws. While the answer is relatively clear (for now) in the states discussed above, there are still over 30 states with medical cannabis programs that have not addressed this issue. It is important to note that many state medical cannabis laws include provisions like Massachusetts that exempt employers from reimbursing employees for cannabis—a clear indicator that these laws were designed with federal prohibitions in mind. But these provisions are not necessarily determinative—New Jersey’s medical cannabis law has a similar provision, yet New Jersey employers are still required to reimburse for medical cannabis.

The bottom line is that federal CSA violations can be hefty, including a mandatory $1,000 fine, possible incarceration of up to one year, and possibly more if “aggravating factors” are found, such as prior convictions. Employers should therefore pay careful attention to their respective state medical cannabis laws, workers’ compensation laws, as well as the CSA and consult with counsel to determine the best approach in their particular jurisdiction. It is likely that more of these cases will be brought in the future, so be sure to check back for further developments in this evolving area of law.

Article By Amanda C. Hibbler of Foley & Lardner LLP. This article was prepared with the assistance of 2022 summer associate Zack Sikora.

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Minnesota Inadvertently Allows Unregulated Intoxicating Cannabis Edible Products

As of July 1, 2022, unregulated intoxicating THC products derived from hemp have been legalized in Minnesota, apparently as the result of confusion by state legislators about the new law’s actual effect. Although the express intent of the statute is to allow the sale of products that contain so-called “non-intoxicating cannabinoids” to consumers in Minnesota, the new law contains a massive loophole that effectively legalizes all forms of THC sold in edible products at levels that intoxicate with only a bare minimum of regulatory oversight.

This surely cannot have been the goal of many Minnesota legislators who voted for the bill. In fact, the Minneapolis Star Tribune has reported that at least one senator in the state’s Republican-controlled Senate confirmed that he did not realize that the new law would legalize edible products with all forms of THC.

The Loophole

The new law changes section 151.72 of the Minnesota Statutes by defining “non-intoxicating cannabinoid” as “substances extracted from certified hemp plants that do not produce intoxicating effects when consumed by any route of administration.” The bill then incongruously allows for cannabinoid edible products to be sold to consumers in the state so long as the product contains no more than 0.3 percent of any THC and no more than 5 mg of any THC in a single serving, or more than a total of 50 mg of any THC per package.

Most states are now being forced to grapple with how to respond effectively to the problem of unregulated intoxicating hemp cannabinoids being sold openly and online. Edible products with intoxicating levels of hemp-derived delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC, delta-10 THC and THC-O Acetate are sold widely as legal and less-expensive alternatives to regulated marijuana products. States have employed various strategies to, by varying degrees, limit, regulate or prohibit intoxicating hemp cannabinoids, and lawsuits on the subject have been initiated in several states.

No state has created a loophole quite like what exists in Minnesota’s new law. Although Minnesota seeks, at least nominally, to only allow the sale of products that contain “non-intoxicating cannabinoids,” food and beverages that contain less than 0.3 percent THC concentration may nevertheless be intoxicating due to the large amounts that may be consumed easily.

To illustrate the problem of hemp products that contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC concentration but are nevertheless intoxicating, consider this:

A typical energy bar of 60 grams would be allowed to have up to 180 mg THC if limited to 0.3 percent THC concentration by weight.
Regulated cannabis edible products, by comparison, typically may be sold only in a serving size of no more than 10 mg, with a limit of up to 100 mg per package.
A four-gram hemp gummy product, however, could have 10 mg of THC and still fall below the allowable concentration threshold.
Minnesota’s new law allows up to 5 mg THC per serving and 50 mg THC per package.

The intoxicating potential here is evident. One need only consume two servings to ingest the same amount of THC allowed in a standard regulated marijuana product serving. Ingesting 50 mg of THC will heavily intoxicate all but the most jaded stoner. Nowhere in the new law, however, is there any requirement to warn that the cannabis edible product may cause intoxication when consumed as suggested.

The Goal Informs the Solution

States should focus on the goal of prohibiting or properly regulating intoxicating hemp products that are currently sold as an unregulated and less-expensive alternative to regulated cannabis. We have previously warned that any state that decides to allow hemp-derived THC in edible products must necessarily grapple with tricky questions over how to regulate maximum serving size, active cannabinoid concentration per serving size, the number of servings per container, consumer warnings and similar questions to mitigate the risk to public health and safety. Cannabis and hemp industry leaders have likewise warned against “percentage” thresholds of cannabinoids as an appropriate measure for foods and beverages for the reasons described above.

In comparison to Minnesota, other states are proceeding in a more cautious manner. California’s recent Assembly Bill 45, for example, draws attention to the above-mentioned issues but acknowledges that more study is needed by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) before implementing regulations are issued. The bill provides that CDPH “may regulate and restrict the cap on extract and may cap the amount of total THC concentration at the product level based on the product form, volume, number of servings, ratio of cannabinoids to THC in the product, or other factors, as needed.”

Analysis

Exacerbating the problem is the fact that product contamination, label inaccuracies and outright fraud are pervasive within the hemp cannabinoid market. Products often are marketed with misleading or false claims, and many fail to incorporate any explicit warning of intoxicating effects. Because the Minnesota statute incorrectly assumes that consumers will not become intoxicated from compliant cannabis edible products, no such warnings are mandated. This is a mistake.

It appears that better education around hemp-derived edible products could have led to more thoughtful legislation in Minnesota. This example may nevertheless provide a learning opportunity for other states that are studying how to regulate intoxicating hemp products.

Article By Ian A. Stewart of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Looking into Our (Slightly Hazy) Crystal Ball: What Will the Mississippi Cannabis Market Look Like?

When you do what we do, you get a lot of calls and a lot of questions. Many of the calls and questions are not fruitful. Quite honestly, some of the calls are from folks whose interest in and experience with cannabis is, we suspect, on a purely personal and leisurely level. In the words of Hyman Roth, this is the business we’ve chosen.

But one legitimate question we’re often asked is what we think the cannabis market will look like in Mississippi. And, more specifically, whether Mississippi’s new medical cannabis regime will be similar to the one in Oklahoma.

It’s a loaded question, and one we suspect many questioners don’t fully appreciate. On the one hand, Oklahoma’s medical cannabis program has been compared to the Wild West. At last count, there were more medical cannabis dispensaries than liquor stores or supermarkets in the state. Many have concluded that this is a bad thing and/or that the program is a failure. Others have deemed the program a triumph of capitalism, a survival-of-the-fittest trial where only the “best” will survive.

As is often the case, we think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

On the one hand, the obvious and primary similarity between the programs is the absence of an expressed cap on the number of licenses available. While most states limit the number of licenses available, neither Oklahoma nor Mississippi does so. Many believe this feature will lead to Mississippi following the lead of Oklahoma in terms of the proliferation of dispensaries throughout the Magnolia State.

On the other hand, there are a number of differences between the two states and their statutes that indicate to us that Mississippi’s regime will differ in several important ways – ways we are seeing play out now. First, while the license fee for a dispensary in Oklahoma is $2,500, the fee in Mississippi is $25,000, 10 times the amount. And that amount is owed annually and is in addition to the initial $15,000 application fee. As a practical matter, and for better or worse, this feature alone should significantly cull the number of dispensaries because it provides a substantial barrier to entry into the industry.

Second, there may be significantly fewer locations available to open a dispensary in Mississippi than one would expect due to several geographic-limiting features of the law. Initially, localities have until May 3 to opt out of the medical cannabis regime, and several cities have already done so. Also, dispensaries cannot be located within 1,000 feet of any church, school, or daycare facility. For those unfamiliar with Mississippi, it may be tough to find anywhere in the state that isn’t within 1,000 feet of a church. Even more, the law forbids one dispensary from being within 1,500 feet from another dispensary, and dispensaries are only permissible in commercially zoned areas.

Third, the cannabis industry examining the Mississippi market will have the benefit of having lived through the Oklahoma experience. This is likely to minimize the “goldrush” mentality seen in Oklahoma’s early days. Instead, look for larger players to let the dust settle and come in looking to acquire operators who proved successful breaking out of the initial melee.

Conclusion

It seems possible that, at least in the early years, the Mississippi medical cannabis regime may more closely resemble Oklahoma than a state like Florida with strict limitations on the number of licenses. But our prediction is that certain aspects of Mississippi law and culture will lead to less of a free-for-all at the outset, hopefully leading to a more efficient and more orderly transition to a rational cannabis market in Mississippi.

Article By Whitt Steineker and Slates C. Veazey of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

New California Bill Would Prohibit Employers From Acting Against Workers for Off-Work Cannabis Use

A bill introduced in the California Assembly in February 2022 would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers and job applicants for off-duty marijuana use.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2188 would amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act to make it unlawful for employers to discriminate against job applicants or employees for the “use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace.” It also would prevent discrimination against applicants or employees that fail drug tests detecting “nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites in their urine, hair, or bodily fluids.” But, it would not permit employees “to be impaired by, or to use cannabis on the job.” AB 2188 also includes carveouts for building and construction trades employees, federal contractors, federal funding recipients, or federal licensees required to maintain drug-free workplaces.

AB 2188 would add to the current body of laws legalizing and regulating marijuana use in the Golden State. Indeed, Proposition 215 legalized the medical use of cannabis in 1996, while in 2016, Proposition 64 did so for recreational marijuana.

While the enactment of Prop. 64 represents a victory for recreational marijuana advocates, the legislation does not include language prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees for off-work recreational marijuana use. To the contrary, it expressly provides that employers will not be required to accommodate an employee’s use of marijuana. The legislative initiative stated that its purpose and intent were, among other things, to “[a]llow public and private employers to enact and enforce workplace policies pertaining to marijuana.”

Current cannabis regulations are consistent with the California Supreme Court’s holding in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc. In that case the court examined the conflict between California’s Compassionate Use Act (which gives a person who uses marijuana for medical purposes on a physician’s recommendation a defense to certain state criminal charges and permission to possess the drug) and federal law (which prohibits the drug’s possession, even by medical users). The court held that the Compassionate Use Act did not intend to address the rights and obligation of employers and employees, and further noted that the possession and use of marijuana could not be a protected activity because it is still illegal under federal law.

AB 2188 is and reflects a further effort by some to legalize and regulate the non-medical use of marijuana. As of 2021, 18 states and a number of territories had enacted laws to regulate cannabis for adult non-medical use. While in the employment context, certain states have moved to grant employees some level of protection for medical use, others extended protection for non-medical use. Employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against workers or applicants’ recreational use in Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and soon, Connecticut.

AB 2188 passed the Assembly May 26 and was read in the Senate for the first time May 27. If it makes it to the governor’s desk, he will have until Sept. 30, 2022, to sign or veto it.

Article By Adam Bouka and Charles O. Thompson of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

FDA and FTC Issue Warning Letters to CBD Companies

On March 28, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly issued seven warning letters to companies marketing cannabidiol (CBD) products with COVID-19 related claims.
Specifically, the agencies warned the following companies regarding the promotion of their respective products with claims that they cure, mitigate, treat or prevent COVID-19: Cureganics, Heaven’s Organics LLC, Functional Remedies, LLC D/B/A Synchronicity Hemp Oil, Greenway Herbal Products LLC, CBD Social, UPSY LLC, and Nature’s Highway. Examples of claims include: “Our research suggest that CBD . . . can block SARS-Cov-2 infection at early and even later stages of infection. . .”, “Studies Show CBD Compounds Prevent COVID Cells From Replicating”, and “Can CBD Help with the Fight Against COVID? Some of the worst effects of COVID are caused by inflammation, and CBD is a potent anti-inflammatory.”
By way of background, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), products intended to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent disease are considered drugs and are subject to the requirements that apply to drugs. Therefore, the agencies classified the products as unapproved and misbranded drugs that may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without prior approval from FDA.
The letters included a cease-and-desist demand from FTC, prohibiting the companies from making such COVID-19 related claims. The companies were provided with 48 hours to respond with specific steps that were taken to correct the violations.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Federal Cannabis Reform – Is 2022 the Year?

Hope soared with the possibility of federal cannabis reform in 2021. And for good reason – the induction of a new, more liberal administration, rapid state-level legalization, broad support by Americans,[1] and growing bipartisan backing led many to believe that 2021 was going to be the year where federal decriminalization of cannabis would become a reality. But, as 2021 continued on, optimism dwindled as any advancement in federal cannabis reform was hobbled by the inability of Congress to agree on the appropriate level of reform and the proper mechanics for passage. Specifically, tension rose amongst the elected Democrats on whether to support incremental reform (like access to banks or removal of cannabis from the list of Schedule 1 drugs) or comprehensive legalization with provisions to address social inequities stemming from the legacy of the War on Drugs. And so 2021 came to an end, and the cannabis industry saw yet another year of failed meaningful change on the federal level.

Still, momentum for reform has not been lost. If anything, last year saw more bills introduced into Congress (including two new federal legalization proposals) than ever before – clearly indicating its import to our nation’s leaders. Justice Clarence Thomas from the Supreme Court even subtly advised Congress to address legalization, noting that the Federal Government’s current “half in, half out regime” on cannabis strained the principles of federalism.

And so, as we move forward in 2022 with hope, we review the bills before Congress and their progresses to assess which of these may have some traction for passage during this upcoming year.

Secure and Fair Enforcement (“SAFE”) Banking Act of 2021[2]

Considered modest reform, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 mainly focused on granting cannabis-related businesses access to federally-backed financial institutions. The bill was introduced early in 2021,[3] and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 20, 2021 by a vote of 321 to 101. At the time of the House’s passage, many believed the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 would easily move its way through the Senate, due – in part – to its demonstrated bipartisan appeal with 106 Republican votes in the House. Congressman Ed Pearlman, one of its drafters, even remarked:

After years of bringing up this issue, I’m thrilled to see overwhelming support for this bipartisan, commonsense legislation in the U.S. House once again. I feel optimistic about the path forward for the SAFE Banking Act and, more broadly, reforms to our federal cannabis laws.[4]

However, after its passage in the House, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 languished in the Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Momentum for the bill slowed, with those opposing it campaigning for more comprehensive legalization. In late September 2021, fervor for the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 arose again when the House passed, by voice vote, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (“NDAA”) to add the SAFE Banking Act of 2021. Many hoped that by couching the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 in the NDAA, it would make it easier to pass through the Senate. On November 23, 2021, 4 Senators[5] penned a letter to the Senate’s Armed Services Committee urging them to retain the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 in the NDAA. Despite these efforts, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 was stripped from the NDAA on December 10, 2021 – stalling its progress once more.

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment & Expungement (“MORE”) Act

The MORE Act is the oldest comprehensive legislative proposal. It was passed in the House in December 2020, during a lame-duck session, but never made any headway in the Senate.[6] On May 28, 2021, Representative Jerrold Nadler reintroduced the MORE Act into the House and much of its substance provided the legislative stepping stones for the Cannabis Administrative and Opportunity Act (“CAO”).

The MORE Act aimed to end criminalization of cannabis by removing it from the list of controlled substances, eliminate related past criminal penalties and convictions, and provide essential criminal justice reform, social justice and economic development for those affected by the War on Drugs. The MORE Act also would tax cannabis products starting at 5% to 8% (increasing by 1% over 5 years) to help fund social reform projects, make Small Business Administration loans and services available to cannabis-related businesses, and prohibit denial of federal public benefits (like housing) and protections under immigration law on the basis of cannabis-related conduct or conviction.

After sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, the bill was finally approved in the Committee on September 30, 2021, with 2 Republican Representatives voting yes. This act sent the measure to the House floor for another vote before it could make its way to the Senate.

The Cannabis Administrative and Opportunity Act

Embracing the MORE Act’s goals for comprehensive reform, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (along with Senators Cory Booker and Ron Wyden) introduced the long awaited draft of the CAO into the Senate on July 14, 2021. Considered a historic and ambitious bill, the CAO aimed to implement a full-scale federal scheme for cannabis reform that reaches beyond just decriminalization. It hopes to provide restorative measures “to lift up people and communities who were unfairly targeted in the War on Drugs.”[7] Specifically, the CAO seeks to do the following:

Decriminalize cannabis by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and automatically expunge any arrests and convictions for non-violent federal cannabis offenses;
Transfer primary agency jurisdiction over cannabis to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) so that cannabis can be federally regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco;
Establish a Center for Cannabis Products responsible for regulating the “cannabis aspect of all products containing cannabis,” and implementing requirements related to cannabis products (g., good manufacturing practice, product standards, product labeling, product distribution and recall, etc.) within the FDA;
Mandate federal research and studies regarding the impact of cannabis (including any benefits and/or impairments) on the human brain and health conditions and its impact on drivers under its influence;
Permit movement of cannabis products through channels of interstate commerce;
Establish Opportunity Trust Fund Programs funded by federal cannabis tax revenue to restore and reinvest in communities greatly impacted by the War on Drugs (including funds for job training, reentry services, legal aid, and youth recreation/mentoring programs) and to help level the playing field by granting entrepreneurs of color access to the cannabis industry through small business loans;
Prohibit denial of federal benefits or immigration protection due to a past cannabis-related offense; and
Impose federal excise tax on sale of cannabis products, starting at 10% and increasing up to 25% in a span of 5 years, with certain favorable tax credit for cannabis producers with less than $20 million sales.

Though the CAO has lofty goals, it does not force states to legalize cannabis, emphasizing the integrity of state-specific cannabis law.

As a draft bill, the CAO was subject to a review period in which its authors requested public comments by September 1, 2021. At the expiration of this review period, the drafters of the bill received numerous comments from both supporters and those criticizing the CAO as overly ambitious and a big-government approach. In particular, many critics take issue with the bill’s tax structure, calling the imposition of an ultimate 25% federal excise tax burdensome. Indeed, the CAO – as it stands – implements the highest tax structure for cannabis products of all the bills proposed in 2021. Many allege that the high federal tax in addition to any state-imposed tax could promote the illicit cannabis market rather than encourage business owners to engage legally. Additionally, the high federal tax could force states to reduce their own tax requirements, negatively affecting their own ability to fund state-run social equity and education initiatives.

For now, the public comments have been taken under advisement as the cannabis industry waits to see what the drafters decide to incorporate. Once formally filed, the CAO will be sent to a committee for continued discussions and revisions before it can be advanced to the Senate floor for a vote.

The States Reform Act

The States Reform Act (“SRA”) is the latest comprehensive reform bill led by Republican Representative Nancy Mace and introduced in the House in November 15, 2021. Like the MORE Act and the CAO, the SRA also seeks to decriminalize cannabis and provides retroactive expungement for non-violent federal cannabis offense, except for any person involved in a drug cartel. However, the SRA differentiates itself by limiting federal social equity reform programs. Instead, the SRA vests the authority to determine what level of cannabis reform, including outright prohibition, in the individual states. States will also retain authority to regulate the use, distribution, sale and manufacturing of cannabis, with some general federal oversight by the FDA, TTB, ATF and the Department of Agriculture. Specifically, the SRA aims to regulate cannabis like alcohol (and alcohol alone) – another substantial difference from the CAO. The SRA permits each state to determine the appropriate age limit for purchase of cannabis products, but incentivizes states to implement a 21+ limit by eliminating funding for highways for any state with an age limit of under 21 years of age and prohibiting advertisements directed at any person under the age of 21. The bill also seeks to provide veterans with access to medical cannabis without fear of discrimination or denial of Veteran Affairs benefits. The SRA also generally requires that medical cannabis be permitted for treatment of arthritis, cancer and chronic pain. Similar to the CAO, the SRA will also allow the interstate cannabis transportation.

Notably, the SRA provides the lowest tax structure for cannabis products in comparison to other reform proposals, with the proposed imposition of a single tax rate of 3% that cannot be increased for at least 10 years. Revenues from the tax would be used to support SBA programs for cannabis businesses, law enforcement initiatives including reentry programs, and veteran mental health programs.

Given its recency, little is known about the bill’s reception in the House and any progress that has been made. However, the SRA does carry potential bipartisan appeal, particularly because it is sponsored by 4 Republican Representatives. Additionally, it is anticipated that the Congressional Republicans will appreciate the SRA’s straight forward tax structure capped at a low rate for at least 10 years and its stance on states’ sovereignty regarding cannabis reform. The real issue for the SRA is its lack of restorative justice and social equity efforts, which may be its death knell in the current Democrat-controlled House.

Implications for 2022

There are now 4 bills (3 with comprehensive legislation) circulating Capitol Hill that could provide much needed cannabis reform in 2022. Congress will likely continue debating, revising and attempting to compromise on the terms in the MORE Act, the CAO and the SRA. Potentially, if the 3 comprehensive bills remain on the discussion table, they will compete with one another, potentially dividing the Legislators’ support. Congress should thus focus on forging a compromise or middle ground on these reforms to increase bipartisan support and avoid competing and inconsistent bills floating around, resulting in another year of unwanted (and unnecessary) deadlock. Indeed, the CAO could be an example of such needed compromise – especially if the drafters seriously heed the criticisms and comments provided during the bill’s review period and consider incorporating certain bipartisan elements of the SRA, like a more stream-lined and lower rate tax structure. With that said, the status of these cannabis reform bills, particularly the CAO and the MORE Act, face potential change should this year’s mid-term elections change the makeup of who controls the Senate, House or both.

Regardless, until Congress can iron out the kinks on comprehensive cannabis reform, the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 remains a practical law to pass in the interim. The SAFE Banking Act of 2021 is currently the least controversial of all the cannabis-reform bills, has substantial bipartisan appeal, and will provide immediate financial resources and relief to the largely cash-based cannabis industry. Though a small reform, it is still a necessary one that is long overdue. The SAFE Banking Act of 2021 (and its predecessors) has already made its way through the House 6 times, proving that federal lawmakers believe it will help cannabis businessmen. It may not resolve the issue of prohibition on cannabis, but its passage will likely be a great victory for the cannabis industry, signal federal de-stigmatization of cannabis, promote public safety by discouraging participation in the illicit cannabis market, and help cannabis-related businesses comply with tax laws.

Footnotes

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record…

[2] On February 4, 2022, the SAFE Banking Act passed again in the House – this time, as an included amendment to the America COMPLETES Act.

[3] The bill is the successor to the previously introduced SAFE Banking Act of 2019. See https://www.cannabislawblog.com/2021/09/safe-banking-act-2021/

[4] https://perlmutter.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5486

[5] Gary Peters, Angus King, Kevin Cramer, and Mark Kelly

[6] https://www.cannabislawblog.com/2020/12/house-representatives-passes-bil…

[7] https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CAOA%20Detailed%20Summary

Article By Jennifer N. Le of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Feeling Thirsty? Wall Street, Industry Giants Stir Renewed Interest in the CBD-Beverage Market

For several years, industry giants such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Anheuser-Busch have made waves announcing future plans to explore the CBD-beverage market. And last week, Nasdaq published an article on the future of investment opportunities in cannabis-infused drinks. Perhaps most notable from the article was Nasdaq’s expected valuation for the CBD beverage market — a staggering $1.4 billion by 2023.

While it is true that certain investors are seeing green in the CBD-beverage market, the space is still plagued by a landmine of legal uncertainty and questions. Hemp-derived CBD was legalized at the federal level by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, also known as the Farm Bill. However, as we previously discussed, the FDA and FTC have overlapping enforcement authority over the marketing of CBD products, which can include anything from food products to dietary supplements to beverages with CBD added. And as recently as November 16, 2021, the FDA reiterated that its approach to regulating the CBD industry will be same as it has been — a regulatory minefield. The acting Deputy Center Director for Regulatory Policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research recently emphasized the agency’s position that it needs additional CBD research and safety data before it will consider CBD for uses beyond prescription drugs, including usage as a food or beverage additive or dietary supplement.

Companies marketing CBD beverages should take careful steps to ensure compliance with the FDA’s labeling requirements and guidance regarding CBD products. Unless and until the FDA provides further guidance, we can expect the back-and-forth game to continue with CBD companies entering the beverage space and the FDA initiating periodic enforcement actions. At a minimum, CBD companies entering the beverage space should refrain from making health claims, such as a product “can prevent, treat, or cure” a disease, as these claims are ripe for FDA enforcement actions. We provided several marketing dos and don’ts in a previous blog post that apply with equal force to the CBD beverage industry.

With industry experts claiming that the “best way to consume cannabinoids is through a beverage,” and Nasdaq reporting on the investment opportunities that surround CBD beverages, it is no surprise that CBD beverages are exploding in popularity.

This article was written by Rachel Sodee and Richard Swor of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings law firm. For more articles about CBD products, please click here.

Mississippi Enacts Medical Marijuana Law

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed legislation legalizing medical cannabis on February 2, 2022. Known as the “Mississippi Medical Cannabis Act”, the law permits the use of medical cannabis to treat certain debilitating medical conditions including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, muscular dystrophy, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, ALS, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, sickle-cell anemia, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism, cachexia or wasting syndrome, chronic pain, severe or intractable nausea, seizures, severe and persistent muscle spasms, among others. The law was effective immediately upon signing by the Governor, although medical cannabis will not become available for months.

Medical cannabis products will include cannabis flower, cannabis extracts, edible cannabis products, beverages, topical products, ointments, oils, tinctures and suppositories.

The medical cannabis law contains many favorable provisions for employers. Specifically:

Employers are not required to permit or accommodate the medical use of medical cannabis, or to modify any job or working conditions or any employee who engages in the medical use of cannabis, or seeks to engage in the medical use of cannabis;
Employers are not prohibited from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking adverse employment action against an individual with respect to hiring, discharging, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis, regardless of the individual’s impairment or lack of impairment resulting from the medical use of medical cannabis;
Employers are not prohibited from establishing or enforcing a drug testing policy;
Employers may discipline employees who use medical cannabis in the workplace or who work while under the influence of medical cannabis.
The law does not interfere with, impair or impede any federal requirements or regulations such as the U.S. Department of Transportation’s drug and alcohol testing regulations;
The law does not permit, authorize or establish an individual’s right to commence or undertake any legal action against an employer for refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against an individual with respect to hiring, discharging, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges or employment due to the individual’s medical use of medical cannabis;
Employers and their workers’ compensation carriers are not required to pay for or to reimburse an individual for the costs associated with the medical use of cannabis;
The law does not affect, alter or otherwise impact the workers’ compensation premium discount available to employers who establish a drug-free workplace program in accordance with Miss. Code Section 71-3-201 et seq.;
The law does not affect, alter or otherwise impact an employer’s right to deny or establish legal defenses to the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee on the basis of a positive drug test or refusal to submit to or cooperate with a drug test, as provided under Miss. Code Sections 71-3-7 and 71-3-121;
The law does not authorize an individual to act with negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, in breach of any applicable professional or occupational standard of care, or to effect an intentional wrong, as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis;
The law prohibits smoking and vaping medical cannabis in a public place or in a motor vehicle;
The law prohibits operating, navigating, or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, train, motor boat or other conveyance in a manner that would violate state or federal law as a result, in whole or in part, of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis; and,
The law does not create a private right of action by an employee against an employer.

Mississippi employers should review the law to determine whether any revisions to drug and alcohol testing policies or other workplace policies will be necessary.

Article By Kathryn J. Russo of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Cannabis and District Courts: Are Those Courthouse Doors Closed Too?

We have written many times over the past few years about how the bankruptcy courts are off-limits to state-legalized cannabis businesses. This past year brought no new relief to the cannabis industry, and the doors to the bankruptcy courts remain shut. Are the other federal courts off-limits as well? A recent district court decision from the Southern District of California sheds some light on this issue, and indicates that the district courts are at least partially open to participants in legal cannabis businesses.

Factual Background

The facts of Indian Hills Holdings, LLC v. Frye are relatively straightforward. Plaintiff Indian Hills Holdings (“IHH”), Construction & Design Professional Corp. (“CDP”) and its principal Christopher Frye (“Frye” and, together with CDP, the “Defendants”) entered into a contract whereby IHH paid Defendants to purchase Cultivation “Adult” Extreme Cubes (the “Cubes”). Defendants in turn contracted with ICT Centurion Investments, LLC (“ICT”) to purchase the Cubes. The Cubes were marketed as a “fully integrated growing container system” used in indoor cannabis cultivation. When ICT sold the Cubes to another party, Defendants were unable to deliver the Cubes to IHH. Defendants refused to return the money, and IHH sued, asserting breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud claims.

A default judgment was entered against CDP for failing to respond to IHH’s complaint. Frye, however, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing in part that IHH did not have standing to bring its claims. Noting that Frye only “cursorily” raised the standing issue and that the “issue is a complex one”, the court reframed Frye’s argument as follows:

The contract is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq.(the “CSA”);
Federal district courts will not enforce contracts that violate federal law;
Because federal district courts will not enforce contracts that violate federal law, IHH lacks an “actionable injury”; and
Because IHH lacks an actionable injury, the district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Legal Analysis

The court began its analysis by considering whether the parties’ contract violated the CSA. Section 863(a) of the CSA makes it unlawful to sell or offer for sale “drug paraphernalia,” which is defined to include “any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing … a controlled substance.” Because the Cubes are used to grow cannabis, and because cannabis is a controlled substance, the sale of the Cubes would seemingly violate section 863(a) of the CSA. However, the CSA contains an exemption, whereby section 863 does not apply to any person authorized by state law to manufacture, possess or distribute drug paraphernalia. California allows the manufacturing of drug paraphernalia, which would include the Cubes. As a result, the court wrote that the contract “may fall within the CSA exemption.” Additionally, the court noted that the U.S. Department of Justice has declined to enforce the CSA’s prohibition on the sale of marijuana when the marijuana is bought or sold in accordance with state law. For these reasons, the court concluded that enforcing the parties’ contract would likely neither violate the CSA nor public policy.

While the contract may be legal, the court still had to consider whether assuming jurisdiction over the dispute would result in a violation of federal law. After all, federal courts will not assume jurisdiction over a dispute where the court will be required to order a legal violation. The question therefore became whether a plausible remedy existed for IHH that would not require the court to order such a legal violation. The court held that it could fashion a remedy without violating the law by simply awarding IHH monetary damages. A judgment for money damages, unlike an award of specific performance, would not result in IHH obtaining the Cubes and growing cannabis. Instead, the result would be a return of the monies paid by IHH to Defendants for the Cubes. The court’s ruling was consistent with prior cases involving state-legalized cannabis business, where the courts found ways to provide relief without violating the CSA. E.g., Polk v. Gontmakher, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53569 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2021) (noting that “recent case law involving cannabis-related business contracts does not espouse an absolute bar to the enforcement of such contracts”); Mann v. Gullickson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152125 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016) (court may consider breach of contract claim arising from sale of cannabis business when “it is possible for the court to enforce [the] contract in a way that does not require illegal conduct”).

Takeaways

As the legalized cannabis industry continues to grow and develop, market participants will undoubtedly need access to courts. The bankruptcy courts remain off-limit, thus requiring distressed cannabis businesses and their creditors to turn to state-law insolvency proceedings (e.g., assignments for the benefit of creditors; receiverships). To those in the industry, it may be a welcome relief to know that at least some federal district courts have made themselves available to these parties and that these courts thus far have shown a willingness to adjudicate disputes arising from the cannabis industry. However, any party seeking their day in federal court needs to ensure that they are not asking the court to grant relief that would violate federal law, including the CSA. This means that while money damages should be available, specific performance of the contract is likely off the table.

Article By Mark A. Salzberg of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Cannabis

MLB To Allow CBD Sponsorships

Like this:

Medical Marijuana, Workers’ Compensation, and the CSA: Hazy Outlook for Employers As States Wrestle With Cannabis Reimbursement as a Reasonable Medical Expense

Like this: