Everyone in the hemp industry knows that last fall the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) released its interim hemp rules governing the production of hemp. Our hemp-CBD attorneys have written extensively about the new hemp rules and their shortcomings, as well as the panoply of different hemp regulations at the state level and the DEA’s
Every week, clients ask us to review their hemp-derived cannabidiol (“Hemp CBD”) products to ensure “full compliance.” Unfortunately, given the patchwork of often conflicting state labeling laws, and the lack of a federal pathway for the sale and marketing of these products, it is virtually impossible for Hemp CBD stakeholders to meet compliance standards. Consequently,
In an inevitable conclusion, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) won their federal court case against the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”) pursuant to which the BCC must now comply with a recent DEA subpoena regarding alleged criminal activity by certain state-licensed distributors hailing out of (what’s probably) San Diego
Last week the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a bad interim hemp rule. I wrote that it was dangerous because I viewed it as making most hemp processing activities illegal if, at any point in processing hemp, the level of delta-9 THC increases beyond 0.3%– even if the hemp was remediated before it left the
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
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
Congratulations to Senator Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s V.P. pick. Harris will become the first Black woman and the first person of Indian descent to be nominated for national office by a major party. It’s a huge accomplishment. It could also impact the race significantly in the coming weeks and months. What would a Vice President
For the past eighteen months, hemp stakeholders have been begging the federal government to regulate the hemp-derived cannabidiol (“Hemp CBD”) industry. As of date, the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) has received over 4,000 comments from shareholders on the safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of Hemp CBD products. There is no doubt that a
