When the 2018 Farm Bill was inked, one of the biggest perceived wins was a provision prohibiting states from interfering with interstate transport or shipment of hemp. It turns out that this protection was for a long time meaningless. Many hemp transporters today face just as much risk when transporting hemp as they did before
California’s three cannabis agencies–the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and California Department of Public Health (CDPH)–aggressively regulate every aspect of the state’s licensed cannabis industry. Most of the agencies’ rules make sense or have some justifiable purpose. Today, I want to talk about some of the rules that
Insurance is a key part of any business, including cannabis businesses. As Jonathan Bench has explained: Insurance in the cannabis industry is big business, and business owners need to know what policies are available and what those policies cover. Why? Because in insurance policies, like all other business contracts (e.g. leases), the risk of a
If you have spent much time around the world of private capital raising, then you know that there are only two avenues for a company that wants to bring on investors. Either you register your capital offering (equity, debt, or some hybrid) or you find a state or federal filing exemption that you can qualify
On Friday, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) released an Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) that, as we discussed, threatens the hemp industry by treating partially processed hemp extract not intended for consumption (also known as “intermediary hemp”) as a Schedule I controlled substance. This is hugely problematic because intermediary hemp is an essential and necessary
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an interim final rule on hemp (“DEA hemp rule” or “rule”) on August 20, 2020. As per the DEA’s own executive summary, the rule “merely conforms DEA’s regulations to the statutory amendments to the [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)] that have already taken effect, and it does not add additional
After we discussed TCPA claims in our last webinar, we received a few follow-up questions relating to the somewhat recent Supreme Court decision in Barr v. American Ass’n of Political Consultants (“Political Consultants”) and its impact on TCPA claims going forward. Here’s the deal: Political Consultants is not really going to have an effect on
Last summer I wrote about a ruling by the Second Circuit concerning a lawsuit filed by five persons challenging marijuana’s status as a schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The lawsuit asked the federal courts to rule that marijuana’s status as a schedule I drug is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause
Over the years, we’ve pointed out when federal agencies opt to ignore the federal illegality of cannabis. It happens more often than you might think depending on the topic (see, for example, the NLRB). One agency, though, that has surprisingly never lifted a finger against state-legal cannabis–though it is taking a closer look at CBD–is
The California legislature is considering a new law (AB-1639) that, if passed, would restrict how cannabis vape products are made and sold. AB-1639 would change California law for tobacco and cannabis businesses (for the purposes of this post, we’ll just focus on the cannabis side of the law), and would effectively prohibit almost any kind
