Vince Sliwoski Partner

Cannabis lawyer Vince Sliwoski of Harris Sliwoski notes banks’ are increasingly curious about entering the space given the prospect of rescheduling.

As the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is moving toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug, the Justice Department proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis, but wouldn’t legalize it for recreational use.

This proposal would move marijuana from the “Schedule I” group to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.”

This switch is considered “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended the change.

“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.

As the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is moving toward reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug, the Justice Department proposal would recognize the medical uses of cannabis, but wouldn’t legalize it for recreational use.

This proposal would move marijuana from the “Schedule I” group to the less tightly regulated “Schedule III.”

This switch is considered “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended the change.

“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.

Cannabis lawyer Vince Sliwoski said while companies can currently access state-level banklike services, they still face increased costs due to the patchwork of options, and relatively small firms interested in partnering.

The news lit up the world of weed: U.S. health regulators are suggesting that the federal government loosen restrictions on marijuana. Specifically, the federal Health and Human Services Department has recommended taking marijuana out of a category of drugs deemed to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

This change is “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” said Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics.

“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.

“Rescheduling likely won’t change the banking limitations for cannabis companies”, as noted in a blog post by Portland attorney Vince Sliwoski at Harris Bricken, but it could substantially change the industry’s federal tax situation.

“I cannot emphasize enough that removal of § 280E would change the industry forever,” cannabis lawyer Vince Sliwoski writes. “Having worked with cannabis businesses for 13 years, I view taxation as the largest affront to marijuana businesses—more than banking access, intellectual property protection problems, lack of bankruptcy, you name it. This would be HUGE.” In addition to making it much easier to turn a profit, he says, the tax change would help attract investors and give marijuana businesses “more leverage” in negotiating those deals.

Microdosing psychedelic substances (“microdosing”) is a growing trend that has gained significant media and scientific attention. The practice typically involves consuming low doses of psychedelics, such as psilocybin or lysergic acid diethylamide (“LSD”), two or three times per week, over the course of weeks or months. Many claim that microdosing improves attention, creativity, or mood. Some say it reduces pain as well as symptoms of anxiety, depression, and migraine or cluster headaches. Others fear it has not been proven safe or effective by randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, the microdosing trend is growing against the backdrop of a broader psychedelic renaissance characterized by increasing interest in researching, legalizing, consuming, and commercializing psychedelics. This Article is the first to address the legal status of microdosing under local, state, and federal law. It analyzes the national trend toward psychedelic legal reform and how it affects the legal status of people who microdose.

Since 2019, over a dozen U.S. cities have decriminalized psychedelics, making their possession in each city a low priority for law enforcement. The following year , during the 2020 presidential election, the psychedelic renaissance reached a turning point. Through ballot initiatives, the District of Columbia partially decriminalized psychedelics, and Oregon became both the first state to decriminalize psychedelics and the first to legalize the production, sale, and supervised adult use of psilocybin. In 2022, Colorado became the second state to partially decriminalize psychedelics and create a legal market for their supervised administration. Related legislation has been proposed in about a dozen other states, including California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Hampshire. However, despite the growing popularity of microdosing, these jurisdictions have largely overlooked the practice and thus raised numerous equity and public health concerns. This Article analyzes available scientific evidence for microdosing, summarizes its risks and benefits, and analyzes how existing and proposed legislation affect the practice. It concludes with recommendations for the safe and equitable integration of microdosing into existing, proposed, and future psychedelics regulation. As more jurisdictions decriminalize or legalize psychedelics, they can use the Article as a resource and guide.

“Terminating a star employee—or any employee—based solely on the fact that the employee ingested a sub-perceptual amount of a psychedelic drug may not make business sense,”

Business Today featured Vincent Sliwoski on its list of USA’s Top 10 Cannabis Lawyers Spearheading Legal Trends in 2023:

Vincent Sliwoski is a key practitioner in Harris Bricken. His innate understanding and knowledge make him an effective outside general counsel to cannabis producers and brands, both in transactions context and otherwise. His clients emphasize his helpful nature and deep-seated industry knowledge.

An issue brief describing three psychedelic access pathways that are legal or semi-legal in the United States: medical, wellness, and religious access.

“Terminating a star employee—or any employee—based solely on the fact that the employee ingested a sub-perceptual amount of a psychedelic drug may not make business sense,” according to Vincent Sliwoski, managing partner of Harris Bricken Sliwoski.

Recently, a pair of large cannabis companies, MMJ International
Holdings Corp. and Global Cannabis Holdings, made waves by
announcing they had formed a partnership to import cannabis THC
products into the U.S.

The announcement did not identify the type of THC cannabis
products slated for import, or the legal strategy the companies would
pursue. However, many cannabis operators seem to be wondering
whether it is legal to import THC products — and specifically cannabis
seeds — into the U.S.

Attorney Vince Sliwoski, managing partner of Portland-based Harris Bricken and an author of the Canna Law Blog, hears similar concerns from clients over how personal income tax status may affect a business.

“When people try to model it out from a cash flow or business perspective, it seems like a harder way to make money than with cannabis, when you had retail sales and scalability and didn’t have an obligation to have someone sit with the client all day long,” Sliwoski said. “It’s going to be hard for a lot of people to figure out how to pencil it.”

Meeting land use requirements will also be a pressing concern for psilocybin entrepreneurs. Just leasing a space to provide psilocybin is going to be complex. Vince Sliwoski, a business lawyer, managing partner at the law firm Harris Sliwoski, and editor of the Canna Law Blog and the Psychedelics Law Blog, compiled a list of 10 things to consider about property leases for psilocybin businesses.

Vince Sliwoski, a lawyer at the international law firm Harris Sliwoski and editor of the firm’s Psychedelics Law Blog, pointed out that the 200 public comments on psilocybin rule making submitted was “far from overwhelming.”

Sliwoski explained that this was consistent with “the phenomenon of interested parties having strong opinions about controlled substances programs (and government programs more generally), but declining to contribute to the record.” According to Sliwoski, the relative lack of comments about regulation also reflects “the fact that the regulated psilocybin industry in Oregon will be smaller than many people initially expected.” In other words, he believes that many in Oregon’s psychedelic underground are keeping their distance for now.

Other insights about the final rules that Sliwoski picked up on include the observation that outside parties still will not be allowed to be present when psilocybin is being administered. The rules about facilitators needing to call emergency services at the slightest sign of distress have also been loosened. “The rules have been amended to require service centers to adopt procedures for client emergencies, and to take mitigation steps prior to contacting emergency services,” said Sliwoski.

The recent election has added some friction to the implementation of Measure 109. In November, more than twenty Oregon counties voted to opt out of (i.e., prohibit) the state’s psilocybin services program. Some of the counties’ bans are temporary; others are permanent. Still, according to attorney Vince Sliwoski, individual cities in Oregon can circumvent their county’s ban by going in a different direction. In other words: If a county opted out of Measure 109 this past November, a city within that same county could have voted to allow psilocybin services. The reverse is also true (i.e., a city can opt out even if its county opted in.)

“Decriminalization is where a state [or municipality] says we are going to move this to a very low law enforcement priority status,” says Vince Sliwoski, Managing Partner at Harris Sliwoski LLP, a firm that specializes in controlled substances work. “It’s treated somewhere on the misdemeanor continuum, [meaning] you’ll get a citation that’s almost tantamount to getting a parking ticket. So you’re still doing something that breaks the law, but it’s no longer a criminal law.”

A panel of legal experts discussed lessons the psychedelics industry can learn from the history of U.S. cannabis policy during a virtual event hosted by Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center.

The panel, which discussed the implications of cannabis legalization in many states for the psychedelics industry, was moderated by Mason Marks, a Florida State University College of Law professor and a senior fellow at the Petrie-Flom Center. The event also featured law firm partners Hadas Alterman, Ariel Clark, and Vincent Sliwoski, as well as Vanderbilt Law School professor Robert Mikos.

But for people who do not meet that law’s narrow criteria, expungement would require a new act of Congress. As Harris Sliwoski lawyer Vince Sliwoski notes, Biden’s proclamation “doesn’t expunge the underlying convictions at issue, or clear anyone’s record.” Sliwoski adds that “in many ways” the pardon recipients “find themselves in a similar spot today as prior to October 5,” because “they are still walking around as convicted criminals of record, and will be for the foreseeable future.”

However, the problem is that, despite the prohibited status of psychedelic drugs, people are continuing to ignore the law. “Microdosing is more widespread and popular than ever,” Sliwoski says. “This includes in business settings. It is well established that microdosing has been a trend in Silicon Valley for over a decade. This dynamic creates an awkward tension between business culture and practices, on one hand, and the law on the other.”

“Microdosing is more widespread and popular than ever, including in business settings,” said Vincent Sliwoski, an Oregon-based managing partner at law firm Harris Sliwoski. He specializes in laws governing controlled substances. “It has been a trend in Silicon Valley for more than a decade, with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates acknowledging their use of psychedelic drugs. The dynamic creates an awkward tension between business culture and practices, on one hand, and the law on the other.”

“Studies have shown that psilocybin therapy is effective in relieving emotional and existential distress at the end of life for 65-85% of terminally ill people in clinical trials, when administered properly,” Harris Sliwoski managing partner Vince Sliwoski notes on the firm’s Psychedelics Law Blog. “Many terminal patients cannot swallow….If OHA sticks to this ‘oral only’ stricture in the final rules—based on a restrictive reading of Measure 109 or for any other reason—you can expect some controversy and perhaps even legislative intervention.”

“For better or worse, what inevitably happens is these rules will be copy and pasted to states around the country,” said Mason Marks, another member of the Oregon advisory board and lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. “It’s already happening.”

Vince Sliwoski, managing partner at Harris Sliwoski law firm, acknowledges as much in a blog post on the subject: “Unfortunately, there’s a residency requirement. Fortunately, it sunsets after two years. Cue the crazy business structures,” he writes. “Potential owners and investors should pay careful attention to what the OHA rules provide, and work with an experienced business lawyer used to grappling with these strictures.”

The House passed a Weed Bill but Marijuana is not legal under federal law… yet. Vincent Sliwoski from Harris Sliwoski explains.

Taking a close look at what the MORE Act will actually do for marijuana decriminalization, blogger Vince Sliwoski of international law firm Harris Sliwoski wrote that it will not legalize cannabis the way that people might think. Sliwoski notes that the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that the federal government cannot “commandeer” states by forcing them to enact laws in the federal interest. That’s true in the cannabis prohibition context, and it will also be true once the feds give a green light to cannabis, under the MORE Act or otherwise.

He writes: “The biggest point of confusion seems to be the idea that if the MORE Act passes, cannabis will become legal nationwide. It won’t. As a matter of federal law, yes, cannabis will be descheduled entirely. And not only that, but all federal marijuana convictions will be expunged – even the folks who were captured with many tons of cannabis in helicopters and submarines. But state laws will not be preempted in the least.

“What the MORE Act actually does is remove marijuana from control under the federal Controlled Substances Act while adding a 5% federal excise tax and tacking on key provisions like expungement for past marijuana convictions under federal laws. As with alcohol, there will be no federal business licensing element.”

Five more states implementing legal cannabis programs could signal a major tipping point at the federal level, agrees Vincent Sliwoski, attorney at Harris Sliwoski.

“Buying and selling a cannabis business in Oregon has become a morass because it takes so long,” Harris Sliwoski attorney and cannabis law professor Vince Sliwoski told Law360 Thursday. “People are sitting on assets waiting for regulatory approvals. It’s frustrating.”

“I would say we get calls on this stuff almost every week,” Vince Sliwoski, managing partner at Harris Sliwoski, told Business Insider. Harris Sliwoski is a boutique law firm that has been taking on cannabis clients since 2010. Recently, it’s taken on psychedelics clients as well.

Vince Sliwoski, an attorney with the Harris Sliwoski law firm, theorized that federal courts are “sliding backward” in regards to honoring contracts involving cannabis companies. He cited several recent decisions to make the case that cannabis litigants might be better served in state courts.

Vincent Sliwoski, a managing partner at law firm Harris Sliwoski, says Harris is more progressive on cannabis reform-now, at least-than Biden ever was.

“Under the CARES Act, small businesses can receive loans to cover payroll expenses, health care benefits, employee salaries, rent, utilities and interest on mortgage debt,” according to Vince Sliwoski of the law firm Harris Sliwoski.

But cannabis properties can come with regulatory hassles, said Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Ore., real estate attorney. Recreational cannabis was approved in Oregon in 2015.

“If you create something like Charlotte’s Web or some strain that is in extraordinarily high demand, and people want it everywhere and view you as having it locked down, then the IP could definitely be a revenue source,” says Vince Sliwoski, an intellectual property lawyer who manages Harris Sliwoski’s Portland office and teaches Cannabis Law and Policy at Lewis & Clark Law School. “Otherwise, licensees may be reluctant.”

Vince Sliwoski, a lawyer who advises Oregon marijuana businesses, said “it’s full speed ahead” for his clients.

Writing on Cannalawblog.com on Monday, Portland cannabis attorney Vincent Sliwoski said Judge Clarke’s recommendation is “almost certain” to go through.

“Most people—and even many lawyers—are surprised to learn that juries are not required to follow the law,” Vince Sliwoski, an attorney at the Harris Sliwoski/Canna Law Group, wrote. “When a jury’s conscience takes over and tells it that someone does not deserve criminal punishment for his or her actions, regardless of the law, the jury can choose to acquit.”

Sliwoski offered an interesting, hypothetical scenario. What if a jury in federal court was tasked with deciding the fate of an individual charged for violating the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)?

“The possibility of jury nullification in a CSA case against a cannabis business is both fascinating and realistic.”

“It is realistic not just because of the favorable polling for cannabis nationwide, but also because these juries would be empaneled in jurisdictions that voted to legalize pot in the first place,” he wrote. “Imagine a hapless U.S. attorney being ordered to charge a popular cannabis farm in Humbolt County, California, which is America’s largest cannabis labor market.”

One Portland cannabis law expert, Harris Sliwoski attorney Vince Sliwoski, saw Williams’ statements as “perhaps … a note to state regulators to consider capping licenses and/or canopy at some future date.”

“It’s possible I’ve been working in this field too long to accurately perceive risk, but this seems close to a non-event for compliant businesses,” said Vince Sliwoski, a Portland-based attorney with Harris Sliwoski. His advice to those businesses: “Change nothing at all.”

“It’s kind of a careful statement, but I think it is a stay-the-course type of statement,” says Vince Sliwoski, a Portland cannabis industry attorney (and one of the contributors to the Merc‘s “Ask a Pot Lawyer” column).

“This is just about the grayest of gray areas as far as federal law and policy,” said Vincent Sliwoski, a cannabis law attorney and professor in Oregon, of CBD products.

Vince Sliwoski, a professor of cannabis law and policy at Lewis & Clark College, says such anecdotal advice is about the best sales staff can ask for right now — “at least within the confines of the law.”

Oregon banks working with the cannabis industry have some new protections after Gov. Kate Brown signed House Bill 4094 into law April 4, which removes criminal liability for banks in reference to any Oregon state statutes regarding working with legal cannabis businesses.

The law also calls for a study from the Department of Consumer and Business Services to evaluate and report on financial options for legal cannabis businesses by January 2017. The law can’t do anything to protect banks against federal rules.

The bill itself probably won’t have much effect, says Vincent Sliwoski, a Portland lawyer specializing in cannabis.

“I think it’s mostly symbolic just because bank regulation is generally a creature of federal law,” he says. “Despite the fact that states say things like, ‘We’re not going to have our Department of Justice prosecute a bank for servicing a cannabis account,’ it doesn’t do much to help get around the strictures of federal regulation.”