Tag: Cannabis

Voters in Two States Approve Marijuana Ballot Initiatives on Election Day 2022

Voters in Maryland and Missouri approved laws to legalize recreational marijuana on Election Day 2022.  Recreational marijuana ballot initiatives did not pass in Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Maryland

Maryland voters approved a state constitutional amendment that will allow the use of cannabis by anyone over the age of 21 on or after July 1, 2023, subject to the General Assembly passing legislation concerning the regulation, distribution, possession and taxation of marijuana.

Missouri

Missouri voters also approved an amendment to the state constitution.  The amendment addresses both medical marijuana and recreational marijuana.

The medical marijuana law will permit nurse practitioners to recommend medical marijuana use to their patients in addition to physicians.  It also will permit the use of “marijuana-infused products,” i.e., products that are infused, dipped, sprayed, coated or mixed with marijuana or marijuana extracts.  Those products may be vaporized or smoked, or may consist of edible products, ingestible products, topical products, suppositories, and “infused pre-rolls” (a type of consumable or smokable product).  Medical marijuana cards will be valid for three years.  While the medical marijuana law does not permit operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, the law is now revised to say that the arrest or conviction of a medical marijuana user will require evidence that the user was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle and may not rely solely on the presence of THC or THC metabolites in the person’s system.

The medical marijuana law still prohibits legal claims against employers based on an employer’s prohibition of being under the influence of marijuana while at work.  However, new provisions state that employers may not discriminate against medical marijuana users unless:  failure to do so would result in the loss of a monetary or licensing-related benefits under federal law, or unless the person was under the influence of marijuana on the employer’s premises or during work hours.

The constitutional amendment also permits the recreational use of marijuana by adults age 21 and older.  Employers are not required to permit or accommodate the use of marijuana at work or on the employer’s property.  Employers are permitted to take adverse employment actions if a person is working while under the influence of marijuana.

The law does not define the phrase “under the influence of marijuana” so it is unclear whether employers may rely on positive drug test results for marijuana to prove an employee was “under the influence.”

Finally, the new law will allow individuals who are serving prison sentences for certain crimes including possession of up to three pounds of marijuana to petition the sentencing court to vacate the sentence, order immediate release and expunge the government’s records.  There are additional provisions addressing expungement of criminal records for those who previously served prison sentences related to certain marijuana-related crimes.

The Missouri constitutional amendment will take effect thirty days after the election.

Employers in Maryland and Missouri should review their drug and alcohol policies to ensure compliance with these new laws.

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

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Presidential Pardon for Simple Marijuana Possession Leaves Out Many

Severe immigration consequences for certain non-U.S. citizens remain despite President Joe Biden’s pardon of all prior federal offenses for simple marijuana possession.

On October 6, 2022, President Biden took a major step toward the decriminalization of marijuana, pardoning all prior federal offenses for simple marijuana possession. Although this pardon will affect only approximately 6,500 individuals who were convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law before October 6, 2022, it does not affect the much larger number of individuals who have been convicted of a marijuana possession offense under state law. To the disappointment of immigration advocates, the pardon does not benefit non-U.S. citizens who were not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their conviction, even if their conviction was under federal law.

Moreover, because marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act:

  • Non-U.S. citizens can still be denied entry to the country for use of marijuana or for working or actively investing in the marijuana industry;

  • Immigration authorities may deny a non-U.S. citizen’s application for lawful permanent residence (green card) or naturalization on the ground that they have a conviction for a marijuana-related offense, an admission by the non-U.S. citizen that they have used marijuana in the past, or that they have worked or is actively investing in the marijuana industry; and

  • The Department of Homeland Security can still place individuals, including green card holders, into removal proceedings (deportation) as a result of marijuana-related offenses, unless the conviction was for simple possession of less than 30 grams.

In his order, President Biden urged governors to consider similar state law pardons for simple marijuana possession charges, which might affect many more individuals. President Biden has also asked the Department of Health and Human Services to consider changing the current Schedule I classification for marijuana. If one of these changes occurred, non-U.S. citizens would substantially benefit, as their state convictions for marijuana-related offenses might be pardoned, thus lowering the negative consequences for immigration purposes.

For now, however, non-U.S. citizens should still be wary of marijuana use, or working or investing in the marijuana industry, even in places in the United States or abroad where those activities are legal. While there may not be federal prosecutions for the use and possession of marijuana, there may be severe immigration consequences for non-U.S. citizens, because the use and possession of marijuana remains illegal in certain states.

Article By Carolina Guiral Cuervo of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Five New Employment Laws that Every California Employer Should Know

A new year brings new employment laws for California employers.  California employers will want to begin revising employee policies and handbooks now, so that they are prepared to comply with these new laws when the majority of them go into effect on January 1, 2023.  Here are five new employment laws that every California employer should know:

AB 1041 (Expanded Definition of “Family Member” for Medical and Sick Leave)

Through AB 1041, the California legislature amended Government Code section 12945.2 and Labor Code section 245.5 to expand the definition of “designated person” for purposes of employee medical leave.  Section 12945.2 provides qualifying employees with up to 12 workweeks in any 12-month period for unpaid family care and medical leave.  Section 245.5 relates to California paid sick leave.  Both sections permit an employee to take protected leave to care for a “family member,” which is currently defined as a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner.  With the passage of AB 1041, the Legislature added a “designated person” to this list of “family members” for whom an employee may take protected leave.  A “designated person” is defined as “any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.”  In light of this broad definition, employers should be prepared to provide employees with leave to care for a wider range of persons.  An employee may identify his or her designated person at the time of requesting protected leave.  However, an employer may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period.

AB 1949 (Bereavement Leave)

AB 1949 adds section 12945.7 to the Government Code, in order to provide employees with protected leave for bereavement.  Under this new law, eligible employees may request up to five days of bereavement leave upon the death of a qualifying family member.  Family member is defined as a spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or parent in law.  Although the employee must complete bereavement leave within three months of the family member’s death, the employer may not require that the five days be used consecutively.  Statutory bereavement leave is unpaid, but the employer must allow the employee to use any accrued and unused paid vacation, personal leave, sick leave, or other paid time off for this purpose.  Section 12945.7 prohibits discrimination, interference or retaliation against an employee for taking bereavement leave; also, the employer must maintain confidentiality when an employee takes bereavement leave. Finally, section 12945.7 does not apply to certain union employees, with an existing agreement regarding bereavement leave.

SB 1162 (Posting Pay Ranges and EEO Reporting Requirements)

SB 1162 modifies Government Code section 12999 and Labor Code section 432.3 to require employers to provide candidates with salary ranges on job postings, report employee compensation and demographic information to the California Civil Rights Department (formerly the DFEH) on an annual basis, and retain relevant records.  For job postings (including those posted by third parties), employers with 15 or more employees will be required to include a pay range, which is defined as the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.  In addition to the current requirement that, upon request, the employer must provide a candidate a pay range, the employer must now also provide existing employees with a pay range, when requested.  Failure to comply with the pay range disclosure or record retention requirements can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

The new reporting requirement concerns annual employer pay data reports.  Employers must now report the median and mean hourly rate by each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, within each job category, with the first report due on May 10, 2023, based on 2022 pay data.  Employers with 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors must now produce data on pay, hours worked, race/ethnicity, and gender information in a separate report.  Employers who fail to timely file these required reports face civil penalties of up to $200 per employee.

Finally, employers must retain records of job titles and wage rate histories for each employee for the duration of the employee’s employment and three years after termination.  Failure to comply with these retention requirements can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

AB 2188 (Off the Job Cannabis Use Protection)

Effective January 1, 2024, AB 2188 adds section 12954 to the Government Code, which prohibits employers from discriminating against a person because of cannabis use while off the job, with some exceptions.  Employers may take action against a person who fails a pre-employment drug test, or other employer-required drug test, that does “not screen for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites.”  This is because, according to the California Legislature, cannabis “matabolites do not indicate impairment, only that the individual has consumed cannabis in the last few weeks.”  The employer may administer a performance-based impairment test, and terminate any employee who is found to be impaired in the workplace.  This new law does not apply to employees in the building or construction industry, or in positions requiring a federal background investigation or clearance, and does not preempt state or federal laws that require employees to be tested for controlled substances.

AB 152 (COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave Extension)

AB 152 modified Labor Code section 248.6 and 248.7 in order to extend COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (SPSL), previously blogged about here, which was expected to expire on September 30, 2022.  This new modification allows California employees to use any remaining SPSL through December 31, 2022.  It does not provide employees with new or additional SPSL.  In a departure from the original version of the law, when an employer requires an employee to take a COVID-19 test five days or later after a positive test result, the employer is now permitted to require the employee to submit to a second diagnostic test within no less than 24 hours.  If the employee refuses, the employer may decline to provide additional SPSL.  The employer obligation to cover the cost of any employee COVID-19 tests remains in effect.

Article By Kate Gold and Wesley C. Shelton of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

BREAKING NEWS: Biden to Pardon Federal Marijuana Possession Convictions

In a historic move, today, President Joe Biden announced a three-step program to bring broad changes to federal cannabis policy. As an initial step towards reform, President Biden will pardon all federal offenders convicted of simple marijuana possession. According to administration officials, the pardons will be issued through an administration process overseen by the Department of Justice. Those eligible for the pardons will receive documentation showing they were officially forgiven for their crime.

“No one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana,” Biden said in a video announcing his executive actions. “It’s legal in many states, and criminal records for marijuana possession have led to needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities. And that’s before you address the racial disparities around who suffers the consequences. While white and Black and brown people use marijuana at similar rates, Black and brown people are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionate rates.”

“Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs,” the President said.

As a second step in the program, Biden also encouraged Governors to take similar steps to pardon state simple cannabis possession charges.

And as the last step in this program, President Biden directed the Department of Health and Human Services and Attorney General Merrick Garland to “expeditiously” review the cannabis’s status as a Schedule I controlled drug pursuant to the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Article By Sarah A. K. Blitz and Whitney Hodges of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

DOT Proposes New Guidance For Medical Examiners To Address CBD Use By Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers

The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a proposed draft Medical Examiner’s Handbook (MEH), including updates to the Medical Advisory Criteria, in the Federal Register on August 16, 2022.  The FMCSA’s regulations provide the basic driver physical qualification standards for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, in 49 CFR 391.41 through 391.49. DOT Medical Examiners currently make physical qualification determinations on a case-by-case basis and may consider guidance to assist with making those determinations.

FMCSA stated that the goal of the updated MEH and related Medical Advisory Criteria is to provide information about regulatory requirements and guidance for Medical Examiners to consider when making physical qualification determinations in conjunction with established best medical practices. The revised Medical Advisory Criteria, in addition to being included in the MEH, would also be published in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391. The final version of the criteria would be identical in both publications. FMCSA is proposing to update both the MEH and Medical Advisory Criteria and seeks public comment on these documents until September 30, 2022.  The draft MEH may be viewed here.

Use of CBD with 0.3% THC or Less Is Not Automatically Disqualifying

Under FMCSA regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(12)(i), CMV drivers are not permitted to be physically qualified when using Schedule I drugs under any circumstances. The federal Controlled Substances Act lists marijuana, including marijuana extracts containing greater than 0.3% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as Schedule I drugs and substances. A driver who uses marijuana cannot be physically qualified even if marijuana is legal in the State where the driver resides for recreational or medical use.

However, under current federal law cannabidiol (CBD) products containing less than 0.3% THC are not considered Schedule I substances; therefore, their use by a CMV driver is not grounds to automatically preclude physical qualification of the driver under §391.41(b)(12)(i).

FMCSA emphasized that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not currently determine or certify the levels of THC in products that contain CBD, so there is no federal oversight to ensure that the labels on CBD products that claim to contain less than 0.3% of THC are accurate. Therefore, drivers who use these products are doing so at their own risk.

FMCSA now proposes that each driver should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and encourages Medical Examiners to take a comprehensive approach to medical certification and to consider any additional relevant health information or evaluations that may objectively support the medical certification decision. Medical Examiners may request that drivers obtain and provide the results of a non-DOT drug test during the medical certification process, if it is deemed to be helpful in determining whether a driver is using a prohibited substance, such as a CBD product that contains more than 0.3% THC.

This guidance does not impact FMCSA’s drug and alcohol testing regulations.  Use of a CBD product does not excuse a positive marijuana drug test result.

Use of Suboxone and Similar Drugs Is Not Automatically Disqualifying

FMCSA received a large number of inquiries related to Suboxone (a Schedule III drug under federal law, meaning that it has a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I and II drugs).  Treatment with Suboxone and other drugs that contain buprenorphine and naloxone, as well as methadone, are not identified in the FMCSA regulations as precluding medical certification for operating a CMV. FMCSA relies on the Medical Examiner to evaluate and determine whether a driver treated with Suboxone singularly or in combination with other medications should be issued a medical certificate. The Medical Examiner should obtain the opinion of the prescribing licensed medical practitioner who is familiar with the driver’s health history as to whether treatment with Suboxone will or will not adversely affect the driver’s ability to safely operate a CMV. The final medical certification determination, however, rests with the Medical Examiner who is familiar with the duties, responsibilities, and physical and mental demands of CMV driving and non-driving tasks.

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

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

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.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

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.

© 2022 Wilson Elser

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.

© 2022 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

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.

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

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.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP