Earlier this week, the House passed a short-term funding bill that postpones the federal ban on hemp-derived THC products. President Trump signed the ban into law last year; it was scheduled to take effect November 12th. This Wednesday, however, Trump signed off on the Congressional extension, pushed by his Administration, which means the ban is
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
It’s been a while since we wrote a round-up post on Oregon cannabis. Here are some items of note, as we head into the fall. Gather ‘round! Proposed THC cap and packaging requirements On August 19th, the Oregon Capital Chronicle ran an article featuring a renewed push by Sen. Lisa Reynolds (D-Portland) to cap individual
Five bills moving through the California legislature right now could reshape how DCC investigates violations, what gets tested and disclosed at retail, and what cannabis packaging can even look like. This post breaks down AB 1826, AB 1965, AB 2249, AB 2532, and AB 2537 in plain terms, explains how they interlock, and offers a practical compliance checklist for operators who want to get ahead of these changes before final enactment.
Rescheduling has reshaped the legal landscape for California Cannabis businesses, but many existing contracts haven't caught up. This post breaks down where supply, licensing, and investment agreements now fall short—covering gaps in DEA registration language, license conversion triggers, and 280E-related representations—and offers a practical framework for reviewing and updating agreements before those gaps become disputes.
Federal rescheduling turned California cannabis license designations into real strategy decisions, not just paperwork. This post explains when and how to convert or split A/M licenses, why medical vs adult-use separation now matters for 280E and DEA planning, and why every link in the supply chain needs its own clearly defined medical channel.
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.
Federal rescheduling has finally arrived, but it didn’t magically solve everything for California cannabis businesses. Instead, it created a new set of decisions: whether to pursue DEA registration as a medical operator, how and when to restructure DCC licenses, and what 280E relief actually looks like for mixed medical/adult use companies. This article walks through the concrete steps California operators should take now — including what to do if you missed the initial DEA registration window.
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
