On Feb. 10, 2020, as West Virginia companies were finalizing applications for medical marijuana permits, President Donald J. Trump made statements that caused several companies to reconsider filing. President Trump said he is “empowered to ignore the congressionally approved medical cannabis rider [to the Omnibus Spending Bill], stating that the administration ‘will treat this provision consistent with the president’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.’”[1]
Both existing medical marijuana companies and those interested in applying for permits want to know whether this assertion of power would be justified and if it would affect their ability to do business going forward. That is: Has the executive branch been empowered to ignore the congressional spending power given to Congress in the Constitution? If so, from where does that power derive? Further, when two Congressional Acts conflict, what is the executive “empowered” to do, if anything?
Under Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution, “The executive power shall be vested in a president . . . [who] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”[2] By assigning the executive power to see that laws be “faithfully executed” and assigning Congress with “all legislative powers” granted by the Constitution, the founders limited the executive to only enforce the laws promulgated by Congress.[3] Thus, the executive branch is given limited power, which “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”[4] Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Congress has given the executive expressed power to enforce the laws identified under the CSA. This power, however, is limited to Congressional authority. Thus, the power can be suppressed or eradicated by Congress at will. When this occurs, the executive has little to no ability to enforce the law.[5]
In 1970, Congress enacted the CSA to regulate specific drugs deemed at risk of abuse and dependence.[6] Since then, cannabis has been declared by Congress to be a Schedule I drug, meaning there is no acceptable medical use, establishing its outright ban. To support the banning of cannabis, Congress asserted, “Controlled substances [like cannabis] have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.” Until 2014, Congress supported the full enforcement of the CSA through Omnibus Spending Bills.
However, in 2014, in public law No. 113-235, Section 38, in the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, Congress expressed its will to limit the DOJ’s (executive’s) power to enforce the CSA by restricting the DOJ’s use of congressionally approved funds therein. Specifically, the amendment prevented funds made available under the spending bill “to be used to prevent [32 States and the District of Columbia] from implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” In so doing, Congress effectively removed the DOJ’s power to enforce the CSA against state legal entities.
In addition to the question of enforcement authority by the executive, there are also questions regarding whether Congress was endowed with the power to regulate the cultivation, processing, or sale of drugs generally. In our limited federal government model, in order for Congress to create a law, it must have been given the power to act by the Constitution.[7] There are two essential constitutional provisions typically relied upon to justify the vast majority of our laws, which are both found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.[8] The first is the power to tax and spend for the “general welfare” of the people. The other is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The founders feared the power to tax and spend for the general welfare had the potential to be broadly construed, and they discussed at length how the General Welfare Clause should be interpreted narrowly.[9]
In other words, absent an enumerated power listed in Article I, Section 8 or an amendment to the Constitution, Congress has no constitutional power to act. Some contemporary examples highlight the means by which Congress has been able to regulate such vices when there is no enumerated constitutional power to do so. For example, when Congress outlawed the sale of alcohol during the prohibition era, it could not do so based on the language of the Constitution. Rather, Congress had to amend the Constitution with the ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919. Congress had no such constitutional authority to ban alcohol; it had to create a new power to enact prohibition. Likewise, when the federal government wanted to enact a federal minimum drinking age of 21, it knew it could not create a law mandating the restriction, because no such constitutional power exists. Rather, Congress used the General Welfare Clause by conditioning receipt of federal highway funds on a state’s adoption of the 21-year age limit.[10] Congress did not create a national drinking age; it just provided a carrot to trigger state compliance.[11]
Despite this legislative history, the Supreme Court found Congress has the authority to enact the CSA pursuant to the Commerce Clause.[12] Specifically, in Raich, California’s Compassionate Use Act authorized limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes, and respondents Raich and Monson, who were California residents, both used doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions.[13] After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal CSA to the extent it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use.[14] Respondents argued enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions.[15] The district court denied the respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding they had “demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority” as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes.[16] On review, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the district court’s ruling.[17] It held Congress was acting within its Commerce Clause power in enacting the CSA.[18] Whether that holding would be revisited is a question many are currently asking.
[2] The Constitution enumerates few powers to the executive. These include: power to veto bills passed by Congress—art. I, § 7, cls. 2 & 3; power to write checks pursuant appropriations made by law—art. I, § 9; military power as commander in chief—art. II, § 2, cl. 1; pardon power—Id.; power to make treaties, with advice and consent of the Senate—art. II, §2, cl. 2; power to nominate ambassadors, federal judges, and other public officers, with advice and consent of the senate—Id.; power to make recess appointments—art. II, § 2, cl. 3; and power to convene and adjourn both houses of Congress—art. II, § 3. The Constitution also imposes duties on the president, which the president has power to implement. These include: duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution—art. II, § 1; duty to advise Congress on the state of the union—art. II, § 3; duty to receive ambassadors and other public ministers—Id.; duty to faithfully execute the law passed by Congress—Id.; and duty to commission officers of the United States—id.
[3] See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587-588 (1952).
[4] Id. at 585.
[5] See id., at 602 (Frankfurter, J. concurring) (stating that “[i]t cannot be contended that the president would have had power” when “Congress explicitly negated such authority in formal legislation.” Thus, “Congress has expressed its will to withhold power from the president”).
[6] Joanna R. Lampe, Cong. Research Serv., R45948, The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 116th Congress Summary (2019).
[7] Andrew Nolan, et al., Cong. Research Serv., R45323, Federalism-Based Limitations on Congressional Power: An Overview 4 (2018).
[8] The specific provisions stated within U.S. Const. art. I. § 8 are: “The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” and “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes[.]”
[9] Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, largely known as the leading advocate for a strong federal government, provided that “[t]his specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”[9]The Federalist 83 (Alexander Hamilton) (emphasis added); later Hamilton would take a more expansive view on the clause. See Hamilton, Alexander, (5 December 1791) “Report on Manufactures” The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961–79).James Madison, another key Federalist, said if Congress could do anything it wanted to promote the general welfare, then it “would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”[9] Letter from James Madison to James Robertson, Jr., (20 April 1831), National Archives, Founders Online,https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-2332 (last updated September 29, 2019).
[9] See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211-12 (1987).
[10] See id.
[11] Something to consider today is Congress’ recent act to raise the federal age of tobacco use to 21. Rather than attempting to connect the minimum age to a constitutional authority like the prior examples, it appears Congress outright mandated it to the states. This demonstrates that, over time, Congress feels it has gotten stronger as constitutional protections have weakened.
So, what now for employers in Illinois? May they tell workers who get stoned on a break that they must leave the workplace? Can they still maintain a drug-free workplace? Can they still do drug testing? The answer to all three questions is yes; however, as explained below, there are important steps that an employer must take should it decide to discipline an employee. While there will be much to work out as Illinois navigates its new cannabis laws, employers may maintain the same standards at work that they had before the law became effective. But they need to know and follow the new law’s requirements.
Parameters of the New Law
On January 1, 2020, the Cannabis Regulation Tax Act (CRTA), 410 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 705/10 et seq., became law, permitting personal and recreational cannabis use for all individuals 21 years of age or older. Under the CRTA, Illinois residents may possess 30 grams of cannabis flower, 500 milligrams of a THC-infused cannabis product and 5 grams of cannabis concentrate for personal use.
The CRTA will not be interpreted to diminish workplace (includes buildings, real property and parking lots under control of the employer and used by the employee to perform job duties) safety. The act identifies and allows employers to adopt certain cannabis policies relating to use, consumption, storage and impairment to further protect employee safety, such as:
Employers are allowed to adopt a reasonable zero-tolerance policy for its employees or require a drug-free workplace.
Employers are permitted to adopt employment policies relating to drug testing, smoking, consuming, storing and using cannabis while an employee is at the workplace, performing job duties or on call.
Employers may prohibit an employee from using cannabis or from being under the influence of cannabis while at the workplace, performing job duties or on call.
Employers may undertake disciplinary measures or terminate an employee’s employment for violating a reasonable workplace drug policy.
A Fine Line
One of the trickier aspects for Illinois employers will be making a determination of when an employee is impaired or under the influence of cannabis. The law provides that an employer can express a “good faith belief” that the employee manifests certain articulable symptoms that decrease or diminish the employee’s job performance and responsibilities. The CTRA identifies a number of symptoms an employer may consider in finding an employee is impaired or under the influence, such as “symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery; disregard for the safety of employee or others, involvement in any accident that results in serious damage to equipment or other property; disruption of a production of manufacturing process; or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others.”
When an employer takes any action against an employee for being under the influence of cannabis, the CTRA requires that an employee be provided a reasonable opportunity to challenge the basis of an employer’s determination. Employers should notify an employee in writing of its determination and invite the employee to state their case as to why the employer’s determination may be incorrect before it takes an adverse action against the employee. All activity in the appeal process should be documented.
Employers’ Rights and Liability
Some good news for employers is that the CTRA does not create or imply a cause of action against an employer for the actions taken relating to an employer’s reasonable workplace drug policy. IL LEGIS 101-593 (2019), 2019 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 101-593 (S.B. 1557) (WEST). Actions taken relating to an employer’s reasonable drug policy include subjecting an employee or applicant to a drug and/or alcohol test, nondiscriminatory random drug testing, disciplining employees, termination of employment or withdrawing an offer for employment because of a failed drug test. The amendments to the CTRA now expressly limit an employer’s liability for disciplining or terminating employment resulting from a failed drug test. Further, the amendments to the CTRA clarify and reinforce an employer’s ability to administer pre-employment and random drug testing policies.
Employers must be careful, however, to not take action against an employee when the use of cannabis is after work hours. The Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act was amended, effective January 1, 2020, 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 55/5, to specifically prohibit employers from terminating employment because of an employee’s personal or recreational use of lawful products (including cannabis) outside of the workplace during nonworking, off-call hours. In the event an employee is disciplined or employment is terminated because of cannabis use outside of the workplace during off-duty hours, an employee may bring a discrimination cause of action under the Right to Privacy in the Workplace.
It is anticipated that there will be tension between individuals contesting an employer’s determination that he/she was impaired or under the influence of cannabis at the workplace with the contention that any use was during off-duty hours. For instance, what if an employee used cannabis four hours before starting a shift? The employee may claim protection under the Right to Privacy in the Workplace, whereas the employer may argue the employee was nonetheless under the influence in the workplace. This tension is exacerbated by the fact that there is currently no test to determine how recently an individual has used, consumed or smoked cannabis. Further, there is no test that determines how high or low cannabis levels are in an individual.
Illinois employers will need to understand and follow the CTRA laws and Right to Privacy in the Workplace laws. Employers should prepare specific written policies to address these new issues.
As early as September 23, 2019, the United States House of Representatives is expected to vote on the widely anticipated Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. First introduced in both chambers of Congress in 2017, re-introduced in the House in March of 2019, and amended this past June, the SAFE Banking Act has garnered bipartisan support as a necessary solution to the dilemma created by conflicting federal and state cannabis law regimes, particularly as it relates to financial service providers.
According to a press release issued by the House Committee on Financial Services on March 26, 2019, committee chairwoman, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), remarked, the SAFE Banking Act “addresses an urgent public safety concern for legitimate businesses that currently have no recourse but to operate with just cash.” The Act joins the ranks of congressional efforts such as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to omnibus spending bills, Section 728 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, the pending Blumenauer amendment, and proposed Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act—all of which seek to reconcile the federal government’s failure to enact comprehensive marijuana and, until recently, hemp policy despite widespread support on the state and local level. Status in the Senate is uncertain, as the chair of the Banking Committee has indicated an intent to poll those in Idaho, a state that has failed to legalize any form of cannabis, regarding the issue.
Today’s cannabis industry encompasses the growth, processing, distribution, and other ancillary services related to both hemp and marijuana. While hemp and marijuana are both derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L, they are legally distinguished on both a federal and state level by their THC content. As a result, marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, while hemp, boasting lower THC levels, is classified as an agricultural product within the purview of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This federal distinction, however, has not prevented more than 40 states from legalizing marijuana for medical and/or recreational adult use. Unfortunately, the businesses that choose to take advantage of such progressive state marijuana laws must do so without the support of traditional financial institutions that businesses, particularly minority and women-owned, rely on to fund and protect their financial growth.
According to §4(a) of the bill’s text, the SAFE Banking Act will shield depository institutions that serve cannabis-related businesses from federal penalties in states and Indian country where “cultivation, production, manufacture, sale, transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, or purchase” of cannabis is legal. In particular, the Act will prohibit regulators from terminating or limiting deposit or share insurance of financial instruments because an institution’s client participates directly or indirectly in the cannabis industry. Regulators will also be prohibited from penalizing institutions for authorizing, processing, clearing, settling, billing, transferring, reconciling, or collecting payments for a legitimate cannabis-related business for payments made by any means, including a credit, debit, or other payment card, an account, check, or electronic funds transfer. Perhaps, most importantly, the Act will also require the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) to develop uniform guidance and examination procedures for depository institutions serving cannabis-related businesses.
For financial institutions and insurance providers operating in states where cannabis is legal, this creates an immense opportunity and incentive to assist industry participants as they strive to protect and invest their monetary assets without putting the institutions they rely on at risk of federal prosecution. However, because protections under the SAFE Banking Act only apply when legitimate cannabis-related businesses are involved, monitoring clients’ compliance with relevant state laws will be particularly important. In the absence of clear federal marijuana policy and official hemp regulations under the 2018 Farm Bill, in addition to constantly evolving state laws and regulations, this may prove especially challenging. As such, in anticipation of the Act’s passage, financial institutions should enlist the support of experienced legal counsel to ensure the necessary processes for monitoring clients’ compliance are in place. In addition, those seeking to benefit under the Act should still pay close attention to due diligence requirements promulgated by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), although many concerns should be alleviated by the Act’s prohibition on civil or criminal prosecution solely based on the provision of financial services or investing income derived from such services.
NOTE: Cannabis as defined under the Act only references marijuana. However, in practice, the bill’s passage should alleviate apprehension surrounding hemp, as many financial institutions and their affiliates have refrained from offering services to hemp businesses under the current financial legal framework, even in the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill and pending USDA regulations.
The hemp and cannabidiol (“CBD”) industries today face substantial uncertainty, and they lack clear Federal rules, regulations, and guidance within which governments and businesses can safely operate.
That dearth of guidance has, to some degree, left individual states to wrestle with how best to regulate and control the production and sale of hemp and hemp-derived products within their own borders. At the epicenter of this struggle to address and regulate hemp in North Carolina is “smokable hemp.”
Where Do Things Stand in North Carolina?
When we last commented on the state of legislative efforts in North Carolina, the House of Representatives – along with local and state law enforcement agencies and county district attorneys – were fighting hard to kill the smokable hemp market in our state. The proposal set forth in the current version of the NC Farm Act of 2019 (“SB 315”) seeks to immediately ban and reclassify smokable hemp as marijuana (the Senate version of the bill included a ban as well but on a much more delayed timeline), and to subject its cultivation, sale, possession, and consumption to the same criminal and civil penalties as those for marijuana. The arguments and justifications for this ban have shifted over time, but generally include: that failing to ban smokable hemp will create “de facto” marijuana legalization in our state; that hemp and marijuana are indistinguishable in appearance and smell; that law enforcement will lose probable cause for drug-related searches and seizures; and that they will have to purchase expensive equipment to perform THC analysis in crime labs; that they will have to retire or retrain drug-sniffing canines (yes – this is apparently more important to House Republicans than the livelihood of our farmers and citizens’ civil liberties); that officers will have to be retrained and assigned to other jobs within their departments; and a general unwillingness to police and enforce marijuana laws differently in the future.
Since then, additional changes have been made to SB 315 – none of which are industry-friendly – and the bill was passed and approved by the House by a vote of 63 to 48. Among other things, the revised House version of SB 315:
More broadly defines the technical definition of “smokable hemp” to mean all “harvested raw or dried hemp plant material, including hemp buds or hemp flowers, hemp cigars, and hemp cigarettes.” This overly broad, sweeping definition appears to cover and include the entire hemp plant once it is harvested.
Classifies smokable hemp as marijuana and criminalizes the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, delivery, sale, purchasing, or possession of smokable hemp in our state. Violations are punishable by civil and criminal penalties, including possible prosecution for a Class I felony.
Fortunately, SB 315 is not law. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and the North Carolina Senate – especially Senator Brent Jackson – have continued to showcase their support for the hemp and CBD industries. Following its passage in the House, SB 315 was immediately referred to the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate, and there have been no indications so far that the bill will be considered for a concurrence vote this session – let alone be finalized, passed, and sent to Governor Cooper for signature or veto.
The Struggle is Real
North Carolina is not alone in its struggle. Other states are also considering – and some have passed – legislative bans that, in effect, criminalize the production, sale, transportation, and possession of smokable hemp. Indiana is one such state. In response to the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”), Indiana enacted and signed into law Senate Enrolled Act No. 516 (“SEA 516”) on May 2, 2019.
SEA 516 adopted the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of hemp. However, SEA 516 also criminalizes the manufacture, finance, delivery, and possession of smokable hemp, which it defines as “a product containing not more than three-tenths percent (0.3%) delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), including precursors and derivatives of THC, in a form that allows THC to be introduced into the human body by inhalation of smoke.” The definition of smokable hemp in SEA 516 specifically includes “hemp bud” and “hemp flower.”
On June 28, 2019, a group of hemp industry plaintiffs filed suit (the “Indiana Lawsuit”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the “Federal Court”), challenging the constitutionality of SEA 516’s smokable hemp provisions on the basis that they are preempted by federal law. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction that would temporarily halt Indiana’s enforcement of the smokable hemp ban pending the outcome of the case. The State opposed that request, and the parties briefed their positions and presented their arguments to the Federal Court for consideration.
On September 13, 2019, the Federal Court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction (the “Preliminary Order”)[1]. In doing so, at least for the time being, the Federal Court has prohibited the State of Indiana from enforcing the portions of SEA 516 that criminalize the manufacture, financing, delivery, or possession of smokable hemp. It is important to remember that the Preliminary Order is not a permanent or “final” injunction and the Indiana Lawsuit is still ongoing. But, the Preliminary Order is strongly worded and seems to forecast an ultimate outcome that favors the hemp and CBD industries.
How Does the Indiana Lawsuit Affect Us?
Just like Indiana’s SEA 516, North Carolina’s SB 315 adopts a definition of “smokable hemp” that differs from the definition of “hemp” set forth in the 2018 Farm Bill. SB 315 classifies smokable hemp as “marijuana,” and in doing so, attempts to criminalize the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, delivery, purchase, or possession of smokable hemp in North Carolina. These actions appear to be expressly preempted by Federal law. They also preclude the transportation of hemp or hemp products in or through North Carolina in direct contravention of the 2018 Farm Bill’s express prohibition on restricting the transportation of hemp and its derivatives in interstate commerce.
SB 315’s restrictions on smokable hemp also appear to violate conflict preemption principles. In the Preliminary Order, the Federal Court states that “the plain language of the 2018 Farm Bill, as well as statements from its legislative sponsors, reflect Congress’s intent to de-stigmatize and legalize all low-THC hemp, including its derivatives and extracts, and to treat hemp as a regulated agricultural commodity in the United States.” Provisions of law that seek to criminalize the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, delivery, purchasing, or possession of smokable hemp (including hemp bud and hemp flower) – “hemp derivatives of the kind specifically legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill – frustrates these congressional purposes and objectives.”
Further, the Preliminary Order indicates that the anti-preemption provision of the 2018 Farm Bill only applies to hemp production, which means that states can enforce laws “prohibiting the growing of hemp” within their borders. As noted by the Federal Court in its Preliminary Order, states (like, North Carolina) are free to place limits on the acreage that can be used to grow hemp within their borders or to dictate the type of seeds that can be used or planted by growers. But, states may not pass laws that interfere with the right to transport in interstate commerce hemp – including hemp derivatives like “hemp buds” and “hemp flower” – that has been lawfully produced. SB 315’s smokable hemp provisions, as they stand today, do just that.
The Preliminary Order also discredits many of the arguments raised to date by opponents of smokable hemp in North Carolina, including:
That there is no evidence that Congress ever contemplated, let alone had the intention of, legalizing smokable hemp with passage of the 2018 Farm Bill.
The Federal Court dismissed this argument by stating that “[t]he 2018 Farm Bill’s expansion of the federal definition of hemp and removal of all low-THC hemp from the federal list of controlled substances evinces a clear congressional objective to legalize all forms of low-THC hemp, including” smokable hemp. This analysis can be easily applied to arguments raised by House Republicans and law enforcement groups that, during the 2015 legislative session, our General Assembly never contemplated the legalization of smokable hemp when it passed the industrial hemp research pilot program authorizing legislation.
That legalization of smokable hemp (or a failure to re-criminalize smokable hemp) will create significant obstacles for law enforcement agencies to enforce and prosecute North Carolina’s laws against marijuana.
In response to nearly identical arguments and public policy considerations raised in the Indiana Lawsuit, the Federal Court recognized that “the fact that local law enforcement may need to adjust tactics and training in response to changes in federal law is not a sufficient basis for enacting unconstitutional legislation.”
So What Comes Next?
Industry advocates and opponents alike will continue to monitor the Indiana Lawsuit. With limited case law to rely upon, the Federal Court’s final decision, though non-binding, will likely have a ripple effect in North Carolina and other jurisdictions across the country. For now, our hope is that the North Carolina Senate will continue to refuse a concurrence vote on the House version of SB 315 – and, that the Preliminary Order will chill additional efforts (like those occurring in North Carolina) to classify “smokable hemp” as marijuana or to otherwise ban, restrict, or criminalize possession of the plant.
[1] C. Y. Wholesale, Inc. et al., v. Eric Holcomb, Governor, in his official capacity, et al., S.D. Ind., No. 1:19-cv-02659-SEB-TAB (Doc. 31) (September 13, 2019).
The cannabis industry is rapidly expanding in the United States, with multiple jurisdictions and corporations seeking to accommodate the evolving cannabis market. Carlton Fields attorneys Kevin McCoy and Jennifer Tschetter discuss the emergence of cannabis as a billion-dollar, mainstream industry; explore its impact on corporate clients; and analyze the ever-evolving legal landscape in this space.
Transcript:
Kevin: It’s an exciting day here at Carlton Fields. My name is Kevin McCoy. I am a trial lawyer here in the Tampa office of Carlton Fields with a background in commercial litigation, and today I’m going to be speaking with Jennifer Tschetter out of our Tallahassee office, who is the co-chair of our Cannabis taskforce, which is a very exciting area of the law and one that we are happy to be working in and learning about and helping clients with. So without further ado, welcome, Jennifer.
Jennifer: Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin: Thanks for making the time today. First of all, why don’t you give us a little background about you?
Jennifer: Sure. I’ve been practicing law about 18 years and during that time I spent 10 of them in public service, primarily at the Department of Health here in Florida.
Kevin: Wonderful. In the Department of Health, what were some of the areas that you touched upon in particular with respect to health issues, or have you been involved in the medical marijuana and the marijuana push here in Florida?
Jennifer: Yes, in fact, I was general counsel at the department when medical marijuana first came to this state. So, since the inception of the regulatory structure, I’ve either been intimately involved as a regulator, or since my move to private practice just a couple of years ago became more involved on the private side.
Kevin: Wow, so you’ve been in the front lines?
Jennifer: Yes.
Kevin: You’ve been in the front lines as the government has wrangled with this, I won’t say with the forbidden fruit anymore, because I don’t know that we’re in that land, but you’ve been fighting the fight for a while on both sides of the isle, I suppose?
Jennifer: Yes.
Kevin: So, you know, I use that term, the forbidden fruit, and it’s amazing to me, literally, that we are sitting here at a firm like Carlton Fields and we’re talking about Cannabis law, which, when I started here, I couldn’t have contemplated that that would be an area that we are growing and we are developing experience in and counseling clients on. But, it’s here. And, why don’t you talk to us a little bit about how here it is? I mean, in reality that this is no longer, you know, we don’t think of this anymore like this is two guys doing a drug deal in a parking lot, this is billion dollar industry. Is that fair to say?
Jennifer: Fair to say. So some of the things that I think are most interesting is to watch the evolution of this industry. If you’ve seen, I’m sure everybody has seen those maps, you know, that have varying colors of green based on, you know, are you a recreational state or a medical marijuana state, a low THC state and if you think about that 20 years ago there was one green state on that map and that was California and now you look at the states and there are only 3 that don’t have any color anymore. At least, in some form, 47 states have said you can use this on some level. Might be low THC. Might be full spectrum. Could be recreational. But, those types of statistics are interesting to me. The other ones that come to mind are 1 in 4 Americans right now live somewhere where purchasing recreational cannabis is legal. The farm bill’s delisting of hemp has opened another huge industry and they’re all derivatives of the cannabis plant which used to be forbidden.
Kevin: Let’s talk for a minute for those who are maybe new to this space, new to this industry, about that real distinction. Because that’s one that maybe I didn’t appreciate until recently. When we talk about cannabis, it’s easy to confuse some of the aspects of cannabis as it, as between marijuana or between CBD, which is all the rage of late. Can you just briefly give us an overview of the differences that happen between cannabis, between marijuana, between CBD? How does all that break down for somebody who’s really not deep in this space?
Jennifer: I’ll try. So, our definition in the United States of what constitutes the difference between hemp and marijuana, and they are both species of the same plant, cannabis. So they’re both cannabis, but what distinguishes them is their THC level and THC is the thing that most people think about as creating the euphoria typically associated with marijuana. In hemp, the THC level is .3% or less. If the cannabis plant, as it’s growing, has a THC level higher than .3%, it’s marijuana. So, that’s the distinction is the THC level in each.
Kevin: So, we’ve talked a little bit about some of the aspects that are happening and you talk about the delisting of hemp from the Controlled Substances Act. What has that or what have you observed the impact of that having as impacting some of the clients that we deal with in terms of, you know, these are corporate clients. These are big. They’re pharmaceutical. They are manufacturers. They are real businesses who are now looking at this. Can you just talk about what you’ve seen in industry as, for example, you mentioned CBD, as that has been delisted, or hemp I should say, has been delisted from a controlled substance.
Jennifer: So, CBD, I think there’s a place to start. So, hemp has opened the opportunity, not only for industrial uses for hemp, but it has created another potentially billion dollar industry in this country with the passage of the farm bill in 2018. So, those billion dollar industries don’t come around very often and one aspect of it is the CBD industry. Because hemp is low in THC, one of the other cannabinoids that’s very popular is CBD, which has been documented to relieve stress, anxiety, improve depression and can also alleviate some joint aches when applied topically. So, CBD is in high demand around the country and when it is extracted from the hemp plant, it can be infused in a variety of products: shampoos, lotions, gummy bears, drops. So, that created an enormous industry, but for every business in this country, the potential to at least contemplate whether a CBD additive would be helpful for their product and understanding how to navigate this new regulatory structure that’s kind of emerging, if you do chose to that, has been challenging.
Kevin: You mentioned the word challenging. What are some of the challenges that you are seeing as clients are coming to you for guidance as they’re entering, let’s just call it, the broad umbrella of cannabis without getting into whether it’s marijuana or CBD based on the .3% that you just described. But, what are some of the top, if you had to give us the top five challenges that people are coming to you, businesses, I mean we’re not talking little players here, we’re talking about real corporate clients, they need help, what are the areas that are the hottest right now that you are seeing?
Jennifer: So, compliance is one and the unfortunate part about that, and the challenge that goes with that, is the shifting sand that is the regulatory structure. When hemp was, when cannabis, I’m sorry, was put on the controlled substance act in the 70’s, it stopped all research, it stopped all production of both hemp and marijuana in this country. Because of that, everyone is just now putting brand new regulatory structures in place and research is ongoing and that continued compliance, I think that that is the number one challenge for a business trying to get in this market right now is that you can get a snapshot from a law firm as to whether your business is in compliance today, but the law in North Carolina can change tomorrow. The law in California can change next week and it’s that ongoing uneasiness and being willing to move in that space aggressively despite the potential for the bottom dropping out at any given moment.
Kevin: It sounds like on the compliance piece then, what folks are facing in this industry is right now, it’s you know, technology as I’ve seen it on, in any number of areas, whether it’s a plant, whether it’s a new gadget, a widget, whatever it may be, technology always moves faster than the law and the law is slow to catch up and that’s not necessarily a bad thing because we rely on law. But right now, what we’re dealing with is a regulatory patchwork, if you will, where step over the line from state X to state Y, you could be facing very different types of regulations, whether it’s labeling, whether it’s requirements and sourcing. Can you just talk about some of the things you’re seeing in that regard? I mean, for example, you know I think to the bill that we just passed here in Florida, the hemp bill, and some of the things that, for example, you would see here in terms of a Florida based hemp business that stick out to you that maybe could differ from other states around the country.
Jennifer: So, I think every state is going to have, and this will be a challenging piece of it, different rules on how you can bring that product into the state. And so, the USDA has issued some guidance that said everybody get ready, the farm bill said you can move this from state to state. It’s now a legal agricultural commodity. That’s great, except it does have an impact on agriculture and so, every agriculture department around the country right now is trying to figure out how to protect its farmers. And so the rules on how you bring product into this state, I think, will be one of the first challenges. That’s a patchwork where if you don’t know the law, you might not know that you need to be escorted into the state by our department of agriculture after you have an inspection, and when you get here, your truck needs to be a closed truck…
Kevin: Mm-hmm.
Jennifer: …in order to move about the state of Florida. Those are the proposed regulations.
Kevin: Sure.
Jennifer: We’ll see where they end up. Those will vary by state and part of it is that, I know here in Florida, it’s a perfect example. We’re so sensitive to invasive species. When you look at the cannabis plant, what the plant researchers have told you is that it’s a more invasive species, hemp, cannabis that would include hemp. It’s a more invasive species on their scale from 1 to 25, then Kudzu.
Kevin: Mm-hmm.
Jennifer: So, that should give us all pause as to whether we should be too quick to move so quickly in a space and eager, because it can have lasting implications.
Kevin: You know, it’s funny that you bring up this patchwork and states putting in place these kind of regulations to, maybe, protect their own, if you will. I think the last time I had ever thought about the commerce clause of the constitution was about a week ago when you and I were comparing notes on, I’m not so sure if this particular regulation doesn’t cut too close on protecting, you know, interfering with that. So, what are some of the legal issues that businesses are looking at as cannabis the plant impacts them? I mean, I would have to imagine, you’re dealing now, not only as a business dealing in cannabis, but, I mean, it’s gotta impact employment policies. It’s gotta be impacting, I mean, it’s actually, not to overstate it, but it’s almost like, what is this not going to impact, you know, in terms of policies, in terms of industry? Talk to us about some of the things that businesses have to be looking out for in terms of regulatory patchwork and you can interpret that or answer that in whatever way you want, because it’s a very broad question. But, based on what you’re seeing and what people are coming to you with, what are some of those top items outside of, maybe, compliance or regulatory?
Jennifer: There isn’t an item.
Kevin: Yeah.
Jennifer: This industry will touch almost all practice groups in law firms. When you think about it, because it’s both medicine and something that people want to use for recreational pleasure, it’s different than other things. That’ll make its impact on schools and Girl Scout troops. I mean, they’re gonna have to deal with issues related to cannabis and figure out what they can and can’t do for people that either have a prescription to take this medication, or CBD products limited, they’re not high in THC, so those are, there’s not an industry that I can think of that won’t be impacted by this.
Kevin: I tell you what, I have to agree and I am not anywhere near as versed in this space as you are. Admittedly, I’m a newcomer to understanding this as an industry. But, in the short time that I’ve been working with clients in this space, I mean, I have seen this touch land use. I have seen it touch rewriting employee handbooks which we’ve had to do, you’ve got tax issues. You’ve got money transmitter issues. You’ve got, how, where’s… great your business is doing well, but where are you going to put all that money? You know, US banks are slowly coming around. I think, part of that is because they’re pushing Congress to give them the clearance that they want to be able to touch some of this money.
You mentioned the USDA. You’ve got ongoing issues with the FDA and what are they going to do? And I think they, you know, they have been studying this and rightly so, which is, which is their task to do but, industry is crying out for them to make a move, to take a stand or at least a position and I think that will help industry in terms of knowing the rules of the road because right now, tell me if you disagree but, it’s almost like we are in the wild West in some regard because people are trying to predict what the regulatory framework will be and they’re not going to stop business while they’re waiting on government. So, they’re trying to do the best they can. Is that consistent with what you’re seeing?
Jennifer: Yes, and also a lot of innovation. So, the sky is the limit. You know, I was telling someone the other day, think about how different this industry is than some other highly regulated industries. And I think part of that is the federal prohibition on it, which makes it confusing to talk about. There’s not that federal overlay that you see in some other industries which is why, for example, we maybe don’t see nicotine gummy bears and we don’t see other products that are innovative. I think that they can be helpful, enjoyable. Those are all good things and they’re all possible in this cannabis space.
Kevin: What other areas, you know, we talk, we think about this in terms of somebody who’s directly in this space in terms of you’re cultivating, in terms of you’re manufacturing or you’re distributing whatever that product may be, whether it’s biomass, whatever you’re doing, maybe textile, but, it seems like they’re, this is going to touch a lot of ancillary businesses too. So, for example, you know, you look at the Florida farm bill, you have to have an approved third party independent lab testing your batches of product. So, talk about some of the ancillary industries that you’ve been working with in that regard, and just, setting aside not actually being in directly in the space but maybe a secondary player and areas where you’ve been giving counsel and people have been coming to you for your knowledge.
Jennifer: Sure. The ancillary businesses that we work with most often are those that are directly related. I mean, they’re driven by the cannabis space. And you’re right; the independent testing labs are one of them. And so we work with them and, you know, try to set high standards for those labs whether it be through accreditation and then work with the regulators to put appropriate regulations in place. And I think that’s where when clients can be introduced as an asset, a subject matter expert. Who knows better how to test and what’s possible to test for in a parts per million or parts per billion than the lab folks? And that’s why it’s been a pleasure to represent them and learn a lot about that space.
Other ancillary businesses are the seed to sale tracker. So what some people might not know is that virtually every state that has put in place a medical marijuana program puts in a seed to sale tracking system, and that literally tags plants from the time that they are growing in a cultivation room and you track them with bar codes all the way through the production process so that when you’re all done you know exactly what product was made with that plant. And those type of tracking mechanisms are essential to prevent against diversion in states that don’t want to have a legal recreational adult use market yet. So, that’s another ancillary business that is all unto itself but, the technology and information technology that goes into that is highly complicated and sophisticated. I think you will see that on the hemp side as well. In that most, one of the greatest concerns in the hemp industry is, where are we growing this? And part of that is to understand just how far the reach will be. Can you cross pollinate an orange field 10 miles away or is it 5 miles away? We’re gonna just all learn together. I think it’s an orange grove, candidly. But, those are the things that I think will be interesting and those ancillary businesses are creatively looking for solutions.
There are also drone manufacturers that will be essential in the GIS mapping of hemp cultivation plots all over this country that will help us understand the impact on other crops and also be a tool for law enforcement because I think what can be confusing for people – we were talking about it before in interstate shipments – is that if you were to cut up, you know, grind up a batch of hemp and a batch of marijuana or you drive by a field of hemp the terpenes are the same and it will smell a lot like that smell that we all associate with adult use or recreational marijuana. And so, when you see a load of it coming over state lines, that’s confusing to law enforcement, and rightfully so. Rightfully so. I think that there’s a lot of entrepreneurs looking for innovative solutions to help regulators to help the industry do it better, do it faster. And this is an industry that seems receptive to all those things.
Kevin: You know, you touch on a really interesting point. I went to one of the recent rule-making sessions here in Tampa that the Department of Agriculture put on. And there was a lot of discussion over the disposal requirement and the rule. And it actually surprisingly got a lot of pushback from the audience and a lot of questions about why would you impose these costs. And I actually thought the response from the folks from the Department of Agriculture sitting on the panels was encouraging because their response was, “Listen, there’s two paths here. If you get a crop of hemp that, we come out and we test it and it’s above .3% because of whatever factor happened, inadvertently it was too hot, who knows, you got bad seed. We can make that a law enforcement issue and now you have an entire acre or acreage of plant that is technically now illegal because of something that was out of your control. Or, what we have done is come up with this disposal plan that we’re still trying to flesh out but we can have a plan where we go, ‘This is no good. We’re going to give you the opportunity to dispose of it in the appropriate way.’ And then we don’t need to call law enforcement.” But, your comments trigger to me, what are you seeing in terms of the give and take of what’s happening or the receptiveness of regulators whether it’s federal or state to take input and be receptive to the idea that we’re going to work together on this. It’s not us versus you. It’s imperative to have relationships there and to be part of that discussion and sitting at that table having those conversations.
Jennifer: Both the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are very partner oriented. They’re looking for solutions. I think you find that the law enforcement community as well, and everyone is trying their best to disseminate information. So State Attorney Dave Aronberg this week released some guidance that things that smell like marijuana anymore aren’t necessary probable cause for a search of a vehicle.
Kevin: Sure, yeah.
Jennifer: It might not be, because there is smokeable hemp on the streets in Florida. So, you can’t just smell a car and think you can search it. That was distributed widely. Generous of the law enforcement community to not limit it to one particular jurisdiction but instead to share it more broadly. They’re also looking for solutions that work for everyone. Everybody wants the bad actors out of the space, but everybody knows that most of the actors that are coming here are looking for an opportunity and mean to do it the right way. And I think the state of Florida has had a position for a long time – and I have not seen it change – that the goal is always compliance. It’s not punishment, but instead compliance is our goal.
So, that didn’t surprise me. I, too, was very pleased to hear that Ag had taken the position that even though it’s .5% THC, it’s still hemp. You’re just going to destroy it in accordance with your waste management plan.
Kevin: Right.
Jennifer: And that is a very generous interpretation and one that is very farmer-friendly.
Kevin: Well, you touch on an interesting topic. And I don’t think us sitting here talking about this topic in Florida we could get through this first podcast without talking about the situation of the grandmother over at Disney. But, to me what was encouraging out of that entire issue was somebody made a law enforcement decision on the street, but after, maybe there was some talking and some education back in the State Attorney’s office, about the direction. We were on the verge at that time of the hemp bill passing, which would, that same instance right now, assuming that bottle was oil that was .3% or less, that would have been a no probable cause. That would have been a no arrest. And, so it was encouraging, while probably maybe the lady who was arrested could disagree about the experience there, it was encouraging to see that law enforcement with, given a little more time, was already thinking about this. And I think that’s maybe part of the education component that’s gonna come across the board. It’s not just industry, but it’s law enforcement, it’s government, and it’s, let’s, let’s not consume resources here unnecessarily, unless, as you say, we’re focusing on some of the bad actors who may be ruining it for the rest of us, so to speak.
So, the next thing I want to talk about today, Jennifer, is where do you think the opportunity is? We’ve talked about some of the regulatory headwinds and we’ve talked about how businesses might be facing some of those, which can be bad or good depending on what side you’re on. As lawyers, we love, that’s where we make our money, navigating that for folks. But, talk about the opportunities that are there, the opportunities for those who want to get in the space and are new to the space or contemplating getting in the space, whether they’re investors, they’re business, they’re start-ups. What are you seeing based upon the practice that you’ve built around cannabis?
Jennifer: The farm bill definitely changed the field in that when clients call now and they want to get into this space, they want to do something because these are two new burgeoning billion dollar industries that don’t come along very often. How do I get in is usually the question. And what I’ve been telling everyone since passage of the farm bill, and in Florida specifically the passage of our state hemp bill, is hemp is the way to go. It’s an unlimited number of licenses as opposed to marijuana which is a very limited number of licenses. We started with five total in the entire state of Florida. Five licenses would be given out for 20 million people. That’s slowly growing, but still there’s only 22 companies that get to participate in that space. Contrast that with hemp where you can pick just a part of it and as many people as want to participate can. So, I think if there’s opportunities right now, it’s in the hemp space.
And there are corollaries between the two industries that if ever, if marijuana ever turns out to be a space where there are more opportunities – they either remove the vertical integration requirement from the license so that you could have one person licensed to grow and one person licensed to sell and another person licensed to process. That may happen in this state and that would create more opportunities. But until it does, there’s only a few licenses out there and you have to do everything in that chain.
The nice part about these two industries is that those overlaps both require processing to get finished product that patients want to use. Both require retail sales and how to market that product in compliance with FDA regulations on, you know, making sure that you don’t claim they have significant health effects. So there are a lot of overlaps that I think for someone that wants to get involved in the industry right now, what I’m counseling them is that start in the hemp space. That’s the place to be. There are no opportunities in Florida right now in the medical marijuana space unless you want to buy one of those licenses for a significant amount of money. And, that’s the only way to get in that space right now and probably the only way to be there for the foreseeable future. With the state of litigation on the medical marijuana side of the industry, I don’t anticipate that we’ll see any new licensees. Certainly not in 2019 and it will be a long way into 2020 before we get to that place. So, for folks that want to get in right now and do something, they should look at hemp as that opportunity.
On the investment side, that can vary. I think that depends upon the quality of the company.
And, I think, one of the things we haven’t touched on today but I think will root itself out eventually in these industries are things like pretenders and frauds and burgeoning industries can attract those kinds of people. So, I think that’s where due diligence is really important on the investment side: understanding the regulatory structures, understanding whether they are scaled up. They can tell you they want to put 100 dispensaries in a state, but if they have a 100,000 square foot cultivation facility, that’s probably not even possible. You could never stock the shelves. So, those are the things that I think due diligence will help investors, and that’s why they’re consulting people like you and me to talk through those issues. But, for investment, I think both spaces are good. For people that want to work, make money, and be a part of something new, I’d take a good look at hemp.
Kevin: That’s a fantastic insight. You know, and from what I’ve seen and just some of the market research and then in some of the other things that you can just find on the Internet, you know, you go back to where we started in the medical marijuana versus the hemp side, and then in terms of CBD, that whole dichotomy that’s happening there in terms of people who hear the word “cannabis” have always associated it with marijuana. And it’s, you know, I may or may not be interested in that, but the whole concept of the CBD space now is coming out where essentially, at least from the marketing standpoint, you can have the benefits of marijuana without the THC and without the high. And the market that I’m seeing in terms of opportunity – I think this is what you’re talking about, too, with hemp – is that this market’s gonna explode. I mean, because more people who would never even contemplate for whatever reason that they would ever touch a cannabis product are now saying, “What’s so bad about this one?” You know, “I can still function, I’m not gonna be a pothead, if you will. I’m just gonna take the benefits from this plant that have been forbidden maybe for no good reason, we’re coming to find out, for such a long time.” So, I’m glad to hear you talk about that as an opportunity because even beyond, you know, the CBD and the ingestible space or the topicals, you get into textiles, you get into manufacturing of ropes, and everything else that goes with it. And so…
Jennifer: Drywall, concrete, I mean, all those hemp-based products. I heard Ag say the other day there are 25,000 known hemp-based products ready to go as soon as we have enough hemp in this country. And when you talk about drywall that is mold and fire resistant and I think about that in beach houses, that’d be perfect, right? So, I’m really excited about the opportunities that this space presents. And hemp, I think, is the future.
Kevin: I tell you what. This entire industry, to me, is just so exciting because it’s new, it’s fresh, it’s one of those opportunities that in the law, to have something that is just so untamed come along, you don’t see that very often. And I don’t know about you, I had a great time today. I hope you would join me again because next time I would really like to get into some of the Florida-specific stuff we’re seeing, including you’ve talked about some of the appellate issues maybe that the Florida Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on some stuff. So, will you join me again? Maybe we can try a next session?
Jennifer: Absolutely. And if it’s after August 8th, we should know more answers. So.
Kevin: Fantastic. And thank you, again. You are definitely very, very deep in this industry and I’ve learned a lot today, so thank you so much for joining us.
Jennifer: It was a pleasure. Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin: I also want to thank our audience for joining us today. We had a great time. We hope you did, too. We hope you will check out more about our practice at carltonfields.com. There you can find the landing page for the cannabis taskforce that Jennifer is the co-chair of and you can learn more about what we are doing in this space as it impacts businesses that are running throughout this industry.
Many, including state regulators, are closely watching the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as it works through the challenges associated with regulating cannabidiol (CBD) products. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), CBD cannot lawfully be added to a food or marketed as a dietary supplement; however, industry has been pressuring the Agency to create a pathway for the lawful use of CBD in food and dietary supplements through either an exception by regulation to the FD&C Act or through a nonenforcement policy.
As previously reported on this blog, FDA held a public meeting on May 31, 2019 to obtain scientific data and information about the safety of FDA-regulated products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. The Agency has made clear that outstanding questions related to the safety of CBD products must first be addressed before a regulatory framework can be established for lawfully marketing foods and dietary supplements containing CBD.
In response to FDA’s request for safety data and information, on July 16, 2019, a coalition of 37 Attorneys Generals submitted a letter to FDA, urging the Agency to cooperate with the states to protect consumer from false advertising and potential harms to their health from products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds, including CBD. The letter also urged the Agency to develop ongoing assessments of potential risk and benefits of these products, including how they interact with other dietary or pharmaceutical products. Ultimately, the letter requests that FDA “ensure that states maintain a role as regulators in this emerging market.”
Under the Law, those caught with up to three grams of marijuana will no longer face jail time but will still face a fine of $130. This is the smallest amount of marijuana that any state has decriminalized so far. Currently, possession of any amount of cannabis is punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a criminal record, and a $1,000 fine.
The Law also provides for the expungement “of criminal records pertaining solely to the possession of three grams or less of marijuana.” The state has amended its expungement statute in order to reflect this change, noting that courts must grant an expungement order, provided the individual is not facing any other criminal charges, and provided that the amount of marijuana possessed was three grams or less.
The Law establishes a “Marijuana Evaluation Task Force,” in an effort to examine other states’ laws, penalties and outcomes related to the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. The task force, which will be active until June 30, 2021, will make recommendations on further changing marijuana laws in Hawaii.
The Law does not provide employment protections for recreational users, nor does it modify Hawaii’s Medical Use of Cannabis Law, which was amended last year in part to form a working group to evaluate potential discrimination against medical cannabis users and the employment protections made available in other states.
Employers and health care professionals should be ready to handle issues that arise with the potential conflict between state and federal law in devising compliance programs, both in terms of reporting and human resources issues, including practices and policies addressing drug use and drug testing. States continue to consider – and pass – legislation to decriminalize and legalize cannabis (both medicinal and recreational), and we are slowly marching toward 50-state legalization. All organizations – and particularly those with multi-state operations – should review and evaluate their current policies with respect to marijuana use by employees and patients.
This post was written with assistance from Radhika Gupta, a 2019 Summer Associate at Epstein Becker Green.
The 2018 Farm Bill [1] relaxed restrictions covering hemp-based cannabis products, and it is causing a shift in business strategies in the industry. Instead of a full prohibition of trademark registrations covering cannabis goods or services, a narrow range of filings is now permitted, so long as they conform to the requirements of the Farm Bill and the latest USPTO guidelines. While the regulatory framework is still being developed, cannabis-related business owners who could not previously receive federal trademark protection are now reconsidering their trademark strategies.
The principal change from the 2018 Farm Bill is that while all cannabis products derived from marijuana are still prohibited by federal law under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), those derived from hemp are now permitted, albeit still tightly regulated. Hemp-based cannabis products are defined as those that contain no more than 0.3 percent THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana. Accordingly, certain products and services derived from hemp are now legal under federal law, and the USPTO has published guidelines that allow narrow federal trademark registrations covering them.
The USPTO had previously refused any trademark application that covered cannabis products or services. In response, many businesses have filed state-law trademark applications in jurisdictions in which marijuana has been legalized, although this provides only limited protection. Businesses have also tried to circumvent the federal prohibition by filing for goods and services tangentially related to marijuana or cannabis, such as apothecary or pharmacy services for medical marijuana, or services for the provision of information and/or advocacy for cannabis and its uses. The policy at the federal level is still to refuse these applications that cover goods and services that are legal on their face but are in fact related to marijuana. But that policy is now moot for certain hemp-related applications that conform to the new guidelines.
Even for applicants that have succeeded in registering trademarks for cannabis-based products under facially legal goods and services descriptions, attempts to enforce these marks can be hollow. During the course of litigation, it may become clear that the activities of the trademark owner are not permitted under federal law. These registrations are still valuable to block other filers as well as to signal that a business is adopting and is willing to enforce a particular mark, but the new USPTO regulations can provide substantially more protection to businesses that sell qualifying hemp-related products or services.
Under the new USPTO guidelines, marks covering hemp-based cannabis products and services are permitted to be registered as long as they contain no more than 0.3 percent THC and are otherwise legal under federal law. Accordingly, there are certain exceptions and requirements, which include the following:
The 2018 Farm Bill left jurisdictional responsibility for regulating certain products to the FDA. As of now, the FDA does not permit cannabidiol (CBD) to be sold in food or drug products. Accordingly, registrations for marks that cover “foods, beverages, dietary supplements, or pet treats containing CBD” are still prohibited. This restriction applies only to CBD at this point. Other non-CBD hemp-based food or drug products would be permitted registration so long as they conform to the applicable FDA guidelines. Also, CBD products that are not a food or drug may still be permitted registration as long as they do not fall under the FDA’s jurisdiction or are not otherwise prohibited by other federal laws. See USPTO Examination Guide 1-19.
For marks covering cultivation and other services related to hemp-based products, applications will be examined not only for compliance with applicable USPTO requirements but also for compliance with the 2018 Farm Bill and applicable state laws. Applicants must show that they have an applicable state license to provide their services, as not all states follow the 2018 Farm Bill’s guidance for hemp products, and in many states, these products are still illegal for commercial purposes or highly restricted.[2]
The new guidelines also allow for applicants to amend pending applications covering cannabis products to conform to the new requirements. To do so, the applicant must limit the list of goods and services to products that contain no more than 0.3 percent THC and submit any required documents showing that the goods and services covered are legal. The application’s filing date would also be amended to coincide with the legalization of hemp-based products, and the USPTO would conduct a new search of the register for prior marks to account for the later filing date.
Under the new regulations, cannabis businesses should consult a trademark attorney to consider their options to protect their trademarks on a federal level. Although the law is in flux and uncertainty abounds, there are several points from a trademark-filing strategy perspective to keep in mind when considering filings under the new guidelines:
The new, narrow USPTO guidelines will not be helpful to every business operating in the cannabis space. Businesses that will be helped either already offer or are considering offering hemp-derived goods and services that contain less than 0.3 percent THC, goods that do not constitute food or drug products that contain CBD, and goods that are not otherwise in conflict with FDA or other federal laws or guidelines.
A large number of trademark applications will likely be filed for hemp-based products soon, regardless of their applicants’ qualifications. Businesses should explore their options and file quickly, and keep in mind that it will be difficult to show prior use to oppose a third-party filer, as any such use was likely illegal under federal law.
Because the USPTO can suspend applications for good cause, it is logical to expect the USPTO to grant suspensions of applications while applicants are in the process of obtaining a license to cultivate hemp-based products.
Creating even more uncertainty, the 2018 Farm Bill has directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to derive regulations for hemp-related activities that fall outside of the FDA’s jurisdiction. The USPTO is expected to quickly adopt new guidelines to conform to the USDA.
Narrowing an existing application to conform to the new requirements will significantly narrow the filing. After such an amendment, the application cannot be amended back to cover the previous broader range of goods and/or services. If an applicant anticipates a change in law and can draw out the application process to wait for such a change, it may be advisable to file a new application that conforms to the new guidelines rather than amending the old one. The applicant can then keep the broader application alive to preserve their options.
In some cases, existing registrations may have made it through the examination process, even if they cover goods and services that were prohibited under federal law at the time of filing. If this is a possibility, businesses should consider their options for re-filing based on the new guidelines which on their face do not apply to amending existing registrations.
The new marijuana legalization framework being put in place state by state, most recently in Illinois, has raised more questions than answers in the state-regulatory sphere. However, until now, the federal guidelines were clear, as all cannabis-related products were prohibited under federal law. After the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, this is no longer the case. As the law in the cannabis sphere unfolds, businesses should work closely with a trademark attorney to explore options for protecting their valuable brands.
Named after its co-founder, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the Blumenauer amendment explicitly prohibits the United States Department of Justice (the “USDOJ”) from utilizing federal tax monies to enforce the federal prohibition of marijuana in states that have legalized cannabis.
The Blumenauer amendment constitutes a significant diversion from prior Congressional action on state cannabis programs. Since 2014, Congress has enacted similar appropriations riders which only protected state medical cannabis programs. The Blumenauer amendment, however, protects all state cannabis programs. Thus, for the first time, the House has passed an amendment protecting the recreational consumption of cannabis.
Regarding funding, the USDOJ is simply no different than any other federal agency. Without proper funding, an agency cannot enforce or otherwise impose its mandate on behalf of the federal government. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the Blumenauer amendment validates state cannabis programs and protects those operating under them.
While the Blumenauer amendment still requires passage through the Senate and President Trump’s signature, the House’s actions are a historic step forward for the federal legalization of cannabis in the United States.
Ninth Circuit Finds in Favor of Employer Who Discharged Employee for Positive Drug Test
In Carlson v. Charter Communication, LLC, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an employee who alleged discrimination under the Montana Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) because he was discharged for testing positive for marijuana use. The plaintiff, a medical marijuana cardholder under Montana state law, tested positive for THC (a cannabinoid) after an accident in a company-owned vehicle. His employer, a federal contractor required to comply with the DFWA, terminated his employment because the positive test result violated its employment policy.
The District Court of Montana held that the employer was within its rights to discharge the plaintiff because (1) the DFWA preempts the MMA on the issue of whether a federal contractor can employ a medical marijuana user; and (2) the MMA does not provide employment protections to medical marijuana cardholders. Indeed, the MMA specifically states that employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana, and the Act does not permit a cause of action against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination. The Ninth Circuit rejected this rationale. Because the MMA does not prevent employers from prohibiting employees from using marijuana and does not permit employees for suing for discrimination or wrongful termination, the Ninth Circuit held that the MMA does not preclude federal contractors from complying with the DFWA and thus found no conflict.
The plaintiff asserted that the provisions of the MMA exempting employers from accommodating registered users and prohibiting such users from bringing wrongful discharge or discrimination lawsuits against employers are unconstitutional and sought certification of the question to the Montana Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit rejected this request because, it determined, the Montana Supreme Court already decided the issue. The MMA and the specific sections challenged by the plaintiff appropriately balance Montana’s legitimate state interest in regulating access to a controlled substance while avoiding entanglement with federal law, which classifies the substance as illegal.
Plaintiff Wins Summary Judgment Against Employer That Rescinded Job Offer Due to Positive Test
If federal law does not preempt state law on the issue of marijuana, then in certain states – like Connecticut – employers will be more susceptible to discrimination claims from marijuana users. In Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company, the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to a plaintiff-employee of Bride Brook Nursing & Rehabilitation Center who used medical marijuana to treat post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and whose offer was rescinded for testing positive for THC during a post-offer drug screen. Plaintiff filed a discrimination claim under the Connecticut Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (“PUMA”), which makes it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a person or discharge, penalize, or threaten an employee “solely on the basis of such person’s or employee’s status as a qualifying patient or primary caregiver.”
We covered a previous decision in this case, in which the court held that PUMA is not preempted by the federal Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). The decision was notable then for being the first federal decision to hold that the CSA does not preempt a state medical marijuana law’s anti-discrimination provision, a departure from a previous federal decision in New Mexico.
In this recent decision, the District Court again considered whether PUMA was preempted by federal law. In ruling for the Plaintiff, the court rejected Bride Brook’s argument that its practices fall within an exception to PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision because they are “required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding.” Bride Brook argued that in order to comply with DFWA, which requires federal contractors to make a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace, it could not hire plaintiff because of her failed pre-employment drug-test. The court was not persuaded, concluding that the DFWA does not require drug testing, nor does it prohibit federal contractors from employing people who use illegal drugs outside the workplace. The court noted that simply because Bride Brook’s zero-tolerance policy went beyond the requirements of the DFWA does not mean that hiring the plaintiff would violate the Act.
The court also rejected Bride Brook’s argument that the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) prohibits employers from hiring marijuana users because doing so would amount to defrauding the federal government. Because no federal law prohibits employers from hiring individuals who use medicinal marijuana outside of work, employers do not defraud the government by hiring those individuals.
Lastly, the court rejected the theory that PUMA only prohibits discrimination on the basis of one’s registered status and not the actual use of marijuana, as such a holding would undermine the very purpose for which the employee obtained the status.
What These Decisions Mean for Employers
These decisions are notable for the fact that the federal courts refused to find the state laws were preempted by federal law. Importantly, neither found that the DFWA preempts state law, which means that even federal contractors must be aware of and follow state law with respect to marijuana use by employees. Thus, in states in which employers may not discriminate against medical marijuana users – such as Connecticut – all employers must take care not to make adverse employment decisions based solely on off-duty marijuana use and, in certain states, must accommodate medical marijuana use. A majority of states and the District of Columbia now permit the use of medical marijuana; employers, including federal contractors, should be mindful of these statutes and consult with counsel to ensure their employment policies are compliant.
![Canna We Talk Cannabis? Emerging Topics in Cannabis Law [PODCAST]](https://i0.wp.com/nationallawforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/pexels-photo-2731667.jpeg?resize=825%2C510&ssl=1)
