Jason Adelstone is a seasoned business lawyer, international policy advisor, and problem solver. Based in Denver, Colorado, he provides domestic and international legal counsel to a diverse clientele, including entrepreneurs, corporations, religious organizations, and federal and international cannabis operators. His practice spans corporate law, international policy, and cannabis regulatory compliance, helping clients navigate the complexities of the global cannabis industry and beyond.
On September 9th, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a motion to stay filed by SAM, Inc. and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, Inc. (collectively, “SAM”). The motion sought to stay (pause) the Attorney General’s final order placing state legal medical marijuana into Schedule III of the
Colorado regulates marijuana businesses through the state Marijuana Enforcement Division (MED), while local jurisdictions retain separate licensing and regulatory authority over marijuana businesses within their boundaries. The current Colorado Marijuana Rules are codified at 1 CCR 212-3 (version effective January 5, 2026). Because state rules, forms, fee schedules, and local ordinances can change, applicants should
With so much of my attention focused on U.S. rescheduling lately, I wanted to take advantage of the D.C. Circuit’s delay and the DEA ALJ’s delayed timeline. This gives me an opportunity to get back into some considerations on international cannabis reform. Who controls government is one of the most important factors when discussing cannabis
Cannabis law has never been more contradictory. In the U.S., federal and state governments often regulate identical products under completely different legal frameworks. Hemp and marijuana can produce the same intoxicating effects, yet lawmakers treat them as fundamentally different. Medical marijuana now occupies a unique place under federal law while adult use marijuana remains prohibited.
While most attention has focused on the recently concluded marijuana rescheduling hearing, an equally significant legal battle has unfolded in the D.C. Circuit over the final rescheduling order ("Final Order"). Petitioners, the Department of Justice, newly intervening parties, and amici participants have exchanged a series of briefs over the past month. Those filings may ultimately
When I first met Martin Jelsma (retiring as Programme Director Drugs & Democracy at the Transnational Institute) in 2019, I was a law clerk who, from day one, began following developments in international cannabis policy. At the time, I was trying to understand the intricate architecture of the international drug control treaties—how they functioned, how
The hearing on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the rescheduling of “marijuana” commenced on June 29, 2026 and will end tomorrow, July 15th. The Government brought two witnesses to the stand on the first day, and then seven prohibitionist organizations had the floor for the remaining seven days of the hearing. As I discussed
Until last week, federal law prohibited marijuana users from owning or possessing firearms, even in states where marijuana is legal. In recent years, we have covered the differing opinions by federal courts challenging this status quo. On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court held in a 9-0 decision in U.S. v. Hemani that 18 U.S.C.
On April 28, 2026, Acting Attorney General Blanche (“AG”) issued a notice of hearing concerning the proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The notice replaced the hearing that began in December 2024 (“2024 Hearing”), which the AG terminated upon issuing the new notice. The
With just over two weeks until DEA’s expedited processing deadline for state legal operators to apply for DEA registration, several petitioners litigating the legality of the DEA’s final rule have filed a motion to stay DEA’s final rule in the D.C. Circuit (“Motion”). The Motion was brought by the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association,
