EDGARTOWN, MA, Aug. 6, 2019 – Innovative Publishing Co., publisher of Cannabis Industry Journal, has announced that Andrew Kline, Director of Public Policy at the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), will serve as the keynote speaker at the 2019 Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo on October 2. The Cannabis Quality Conference & Expo (CQC) takes place October 1-3 in Schaumburg, IL (just outside Chicago). The CQC is an educational and networking event for cannabis safety and quality solutions. Serving the Midwest market with a unique focus on science, technology and compliance, the CQC enables attendees to engage in conversations that are critical for advancing careers and organizations alike.
To see the agenda for the CQC and registration pricing, click here.Kline’s keynote talk is titled “The Business of Cannabis: Why Public Policy Matters.” It will feature two discussions: First, a general update on public policy and government relations with respect to the cannabis industry. Second, Kline will discuss how cannabis should be regulated at the federal level once legalization happens.
Kline joined NCIA’s leadership team in April of this year and began his work with the organization swiftly. He led a coalition of CBD and hemp businesses to prepare public comments and testimony for the purpose of educating and influencing FDA rule-making. Prior to working with NCIA, he served as President of the National Association of Cannabis Businesses (NACB), the first self-regulatory organization for the cannabis industry.
Before joining the NACB, Kline was Special Counsel for the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Enforcement Bureau where he was responsible for high-profile investigations and public policy negotiations affecting the telecommunications, internet, cable and satellite industries. He also served as Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor for Intellectual Property Enforcement in the Obama Administration.
Patents: Protection For New And Inventive Technology
Patents, which are issued in accordance with Canada’s Patent Act, provide their owners with the right to have a Court prevent anyone else in Canada from making, using, selling, importing or exporting what is claimed as the patent’s invention. The owner of the patent enjoys this monopoly for a period of 20 years from the date the patent is applied for. A patent is infringed even if the infringer arrives at the invention independently, without actual copying. If a patent owner brings a lawsuit and the Court finds infringement, the Court will typically order the infringing activity to cease and require the infringer to pay the owner a suitable amount of compensation.
There are several drawbacks to applying for a patent from the point of view of the applicant.Patents are meant to protect only inventions, meaning novel, non-obvious and useful solutions to practical problems. In the cannabis field, such inventions could include engineered genetic sequences or new plant cells that lead to useful improvements in the whole plant, new cultivation processes, new methods of extraction, new methods of storage or means to enhance stability, new formulations for administration, and new uses for the plant. It would not be uncommon for a cannabis producer to hold a suite of different patents that cover a whole range of innovative technologies and innovative business methods.
Not all classes of technical innovations are protectable by patent. For example, patents are not available for a whole cannabis plant because no patents are allowed on higher, multicellular organisms. Patents are not issued for genetic sequences or cells that are the result of cross breeding. Patents are also unavailable to monopolize methods of using cannabis as a medical treatment. That said, patent agents are skilled at casting innovations in areas such as these in terms that do provide some patent rights.
To obtain a patent, the applicant hires a patent agent to prepare and submit an application to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). An examiner at CIPO reviews the application for compliance with the statutory requirements and enters into a correspondence with the applicant’s patent agent in a process known as a patent prosecution. Third parties also have the opportunity to oppose the grant of a patent on limited grounds. The prosecution may continue for a period of years before the application is either allowed to issue to patent, or is ultimately rejected. Separate patent applications must be filed in every country in which patent rights are sought, though there are international treaties that facilitate these separate filings and preserve early priority filing dates.there can be a significant cost in obtaining patents, particularly if patent rights are sought in multiple countries.
It is important to emphasize that if an invention had been disclosed to the public more than one year before the application for the patent is filed, a patent cannot issue. Cannabis producers must therefore ensure that disclosures of their innovative work be controlled, including when working with partners. This can typically be handled with the use of appropriate non-disclosure agreements.
The prospect of market exclusivity makes the filing of patent applications a must for cannabis businesses, including those just starting out. For a start-up, simply filing a patent application projects that the company has value and a clear vision of its business. Venture capital often seeks companies with patent applications on file because the applications can mature into assets which can be monetized either by protecting a market for the owner, or through assignment or license to others.
cannabis researchers and producers have already filed hundreds of patent applications in Canada. There are several drawbacks to applying for a patent from the point of view of the applicant. Unlike the case for a trade secret, an applicant for a patent must make full and correct disclosure of the invention and how to use it in the patent itself. This disclosure will allow competitors to understand the applicant’s technology. The public disclosure provides a blueprint for competitors to build upon the patent’s disclosure, and to design around it to avoid infringement. Also, and unlike trade secrets, patents have an expiry date after which the public is free to practice the invention. The Commissioner also has the power to issue compulsory licenses to third parties in several circumstances, including when the demand for the patented article is not being met on reasonable terms. Further, the patent right is not infringed when the patented invention is used for non-commercial or experimental purpose. Finally, there can be a significant cost in obtaining patents, particularly if patent rights are sought in multiple countries.
Disadvantages or not, cannabis researchers and producers have already filed hundreds of patent applications in Canada. These applications relate to a wide range of inventions in the cannabis field including new cannabis resins and oils, methods of producing cannabis having improved properties, specific new growing processes, new harvesting methods, new extraction techniques, new formulations for human and veterinary use as foods, medicines and supplements, new delivery devices, new purification methods, new analytical methods, and new stabilization methods. Interested companies can access these disclosures from the public record.
As cannabis companies rush to obtain patent monopolies for their technologies, minefields are created for operating companies. Cannabis producers should obtain reports on what patent applications exist and might be asserted against their operations if and when these applications mature to issuance. With that intelligence in hand, the cannabis producer can understand what threats can be safely ignored and what patents must be addressed by assignment or license, by ‘design around’ or by developing an argument as to why the patent is invalid and thus unenforceable.
Editor’s Note: In Part 3 of this series, which will be published next week, Naiberg will discuss plant breeders’ rights and protecting new plant varieties. Stay tuned for more!
Opiate abuse is a far-reaching international public health issue, impacting tens of thousands of people every year in the United States alone. As the epidemic continues to spread, the medical community is faced with the immense task of researching and developing safer, non-addictive treatment alternatives for patients of chronic pain and other ailments. The controversial and oft-debated notion of cannabis as an opiate alternative has become increasingly well-researched and gained considerable credibility in recent years. The new challenge lies in advancing the cannabis industry to the point of being a legitimate medicine that can be prescribed and administered by doctors.
Opioids are among the most commonly prescribed medical treatments for severe chronic pain, yet prescription opioid overdoses killed more than 165,000 Americans between 1999 and 2014 according to the Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, the health and social costs of opioids are estimated to be as much as $55 billion a year. As such, it has become more imperative than ever that mainstream medical practitioners take notice of the cannabis plant’s powerful healing properties and shift away from potentially harmful pharmaceutical medications.
The evidence of cannabis’ safety and efficacy is well established. For instance, in a literature review of 38 studies evaluating medical cannabis’ efficacy for treating pain, 71 percent concluded that cannabinoids had empirically demonstrable and statistically significant pain-relieving effects. In addition, a 2015 meta-analysis of 79 studies found a 30 percent or greater reduction of pain with the use of cannabinoids compared to placebos. Further, an analysis of a decade of randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials on cannabis for treating pain concluded that cannabis should be a first line treatment for patients with painful neuropathy and other serious and debilitating symptoms, who often do not respond to other available medications.
Not only is cannabis demonstrably safe and effective, but numerous studies also present compelling evidence that the prescription of opiates has dropped sharply in U.S. states and countries that have legalized medical cannabis. For example, a study in the Clinical Journal of Pain followed 176 chronic pain patients in Israel over seven months. Researchers found that 44 percent of participants stopped taking prescription opioids within seven months after starting medical cannabis. Patients cited the following reasons for using cannabis instead of pharmaceutical drugs: 65 percent reported less adverse side effects, 57 percent cited better symptom management and 34 percent found that cannabis had less withdrawal potential than their other medications.The evidence of cannabis’ safety and efficacy is well established.
The tide is quickly turning as many respected doctors are beginning to advocate for the tremendous medical potential of cannabis as a replacement for prescription pills. That said, if the cannabis industry is to help solve the crisis inflicted by modern pharmaceutical painkillers, we must develop next-generation scientifically formulated products and advocate to improve their accessibility.
Inhalation and oral methods of cannabis consumption have no reliable dosage as medicine, rendering them unfit for administration by health professionals. These mainstream consumption methods also have extremely low bioavailability and bioactivity. Bioavailability for ingested cannabis products is only 6 percent and for inhalation methods can be as low as 2 percent. Oral absorption of THC is slow and unpredictable, with peak blood concentration occurring 1–5 hours post dose. Similarly, inhalation methods can take up to two hours to have any effect. The next phase of the medical cannabis industry must focus on fixing problems that prevent cannabis from being a universally recognized health tool. Fortunately, scientists are making major advancements in cannabis delivery technologies, offering novel and innovative administration methods that have proven both effective and reliable.
With products like Evolve’s NanoSerum™ representing a promising solution to help reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with prescription opioid use and abuse, meaningful progress is already underway. It’s been a long and challenging road to arrive at this point, but our efforts are only just beginning. Achieving long-term change on a national and international scale will require professionals from all levels of the cannabis, science and medical communities to push for advanced product offerings that provide consistent, standardized dosing in healthier, smokeless modes of delivery.
According to The Associated Press, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo today, an Obama-era policy barring Department of Justice officials from going after state-legal cannabis businesses. This move comes just after California, the nation’s most populous state, legalized adult use sales of cannabis. Previously, the Cole Memo has served as a kind of stopgap for states to conduct legal cannabis markets, giving them peace of mind that the federal government wouldn’t interfere.
One fifth of the entire United States population now live in states where adult use cannabis sales are legal. A majority of states in the country have some form of cannabis legalization law on the books.
According to The Associated Press, AG Sessions’ new policy will leave it up to federal prosecutors to determine how they wish to enforce federal law and the controlled substances act. Sessions has been historically conflicted with federal policy surrounding legal cannabis and has repeatedly expressed his disdain for the drug.
The Trump Administration’s confusing and often-unclear stance on cannabis has only fueled more speculation, worries and fear that cannabis businesses are no longer safe from federal prosecution.
The cannabis industry and politicians around the country were quick to respond to the AG’s new policy shift. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) said he would be holding up DoJ nominees, “until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation.” The Cannabis Control Commission of Massachusetts, the regulatory body tasked with overseeing the state’s legal cannabis industry, says “nothing has changed” and that it will continue their work to legalize and regulate the cannabis industry.
Steve Schain, Esq., an attorney with Hoban Law Group, a prominent cannabis law firm, says this only fuels the confusion. “With Jeff Sessions threatening to singlehandedly crush $7.2 billion legalized marijuana industry spanning 30 states, generating millions in taxes and providing tens of thousands of jobs, much confusion abounds,” says Schain. “While unclear if merely a ‘knee jerk reaction’ to California program’s launch breadth of coverage, unless and until the United States Department of Justice provides an official statement, publication, or other specific information, neither legalized marijuana’s current status – nor the Federal Government lack of Congressional mandate or funds to derail state programs – has changed.”
Omar Figueroa, a well-known California cannabis attorney, urges clients and friends to start getting informed. “Which district is your ‘commercial cannabis activity’ operation(s) located? Who is the US Attorney for that district? What is that US Attorney’s cannabis policy? The answers to these questions just became extremely important. Please contact us for legal advice and representation.”
Advocates and activists were also very quick to condemn Sessions’ move, including Matthew Schweich, interim executive director for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). “This extremely misguided action will enable a federal crackdown on states’ rights with regard to marijuana policy,” says Schweich. “Attorney General Sessions has decided to use the power of the federal government to attack the ability of states to decide their own laws. A majority of Americans support legalization, and Sessions has simply decided to ignore their views. In the states where marijuana is legal, voters approved those legalization policies at the ballot box. This is a direct attack on the will of the people.”
“This news from the Department of Justice is disturbing, especially in light of the fact that 73% of voters oppose federal interference with state cannabis laws. But, the rescinding of this memo does not necessarily mean that any major change in enforcement policy is on the horizon. This has been, and still will be, a matter of prosecutorial discretion. We therefore hope that Department of Justice officials, including U.S. Attorneys, will continue to uphold President Trump’s campaign promise to not interfere with state cannabis programs, which have been overwhelmingly successful in undercutting the criminal market.
In addition to safely regulating the production and sale of cannabis, state-based cannabis programs have created tens of thousands of jobs and generated more than a billion dollars in state and local tax revenue to date. Any significant change in federal enforcement policy will result in higher unemployment and will take funds away from education and other beneficial programs. Those revenues will instead go back to drug cartels and other criminal actors.”
Could this move be a genuine policy shift that will cause a crackdown on the legal cannabis industry? One action that could prevent the DoJ’s ability to target cannabis businesses relies on a Senate vote passing the Leahy Amendment as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. That amendment would prevent the DoJ from using resources to go after state-legal medical cannabis laws, but does not exactly protect companies operating under adult use and recreational laws.
Is it possible that this is just the Trump Administration moving public eyes away from the bombshell revelations in Michael Wolff’s book and Trump’s feud with Steve Bannon? The current administration has a history of creating headlines amidst unrelated controversy, deflecting a public relations crisis from the public eye.
Next Frontier Biosciences announced the launch of their new product line, Verra Wellness, in the Colorado market this week. The products are designed with relatively new concepts for the cannabis market, including nasal, sublingual and topical administration.
The company claims their product is the first-ever cannabis nasal mist. Co-founded by biotech executives Marc Graboyes and Dr. Paul Johnson, Ph.D, Next Frontier Biosciences is developing this product line with three formulations, each with a different ratio of THC and CBD. According to a press release, Next Frontier Biosciences is focused on developing cannabis products with these new drug delivery methods, and even offering a microdosing option.
“We believe that leveraging science and research is the key to optimizing product development,” says Dr. Johnson, one of the co-founders. “With the introduction of our Verra Wellness line of products, we are reshaping the cannabis industry by offering trusted products that provide uniform composition, formulation and dosing in highly consistent modes of administration.”
Their topical salves in the Verra Wellness product line are “designed to permeate skin and muscle tissue deeply without penetrating the blood stream or causing psychoactive effects,” reads a press release. In addition to the nasal mist and topical salve, they also launched a sublingual spray.
According to Marc Graboyes, chief executive officer and co-founder of Next Frontier Biosciences, drug delivery mechanisms like a nasal mist are superior to smoking, vaporizing and edible administration. “Nasal administration is among the most effective delivery technologies due to the extensive vascularization and large surface area of the nasal cavity, allowing for rapid uptake and reliable results,” says Graboyes. “The cannabis nasal mist is a novel technology that other brands have not yet tapped into.”
He says this drug delivery mechanism is efficient, fast acting and a healthy alternative to smoking. “For many, nasal delivery is a desirable alternative delivery mechanism because it does not present the health risks associated with smoking,” says Graboyes. “In addition, as previously mentioned, the large surface area of the nasal cavity permits high drug absorption, and the fine-mist sprayer allows for accurate, consistent dosing and an excellent safety profile. Further, nasal delivery avoids first-pass metabolism by the liver, where a large fraction of orally delivered cannabinoids are inactivated.”
While the Verra Wellness product line is available in Colorado starting this week, the company has plans to expand into a number of other states as well. “We are executing a multi-state expansion, with plans to move into the California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada markets in the coming year,” says Graboyes.
Since the first session of the 115th Congress convened on January 3, 2017, twenty-four cannabis reform bills have been introduced, fifteen in the House and nine in the Senate. All of them address in varying ways the puzzles that have emerged as more and more states legalize cannabis in the face of federal prohibition. Some are narrow, some are broad, some are for medical cannabis only, some for recreational too, some have more bipartisan support than others, but all indicate in some manner the direction federal reform will eventually take.
Understanding the content and status of these bills and what they would mean for the industry if/when they are enacted, will help stakeholders anticipate changes that we know are bound to drop, and therefore be better prepared to adapt to them when they do.
Generally lacking in the journalism on cannabis is coverage and analysis of federal proposals deep enough to provide a useable understanding of the policies they stand to codify. As CIJ is dedicated to providing just such useable information to industry-insiders, this bill-by-bill review fills the gap.
All twenty-four bills fit rather neatly into one of three categories: De-scheduling/State Control Reform, Medical Cannabis Reform and Banking/Tax Reform. This second article in the series will look at the first category, and the next article will wrap up the last two.
De-Scheduling/State Control Reform
HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017
Policy:The bill proposes two major changes to the CSA. The first is to strike cannabis from the statute, essentially leaving the regulation or prohibition of it up to each state. The second is to insert into the CSA a provision that makes it a federal offense to transport cannabis from one state to another in any way that violates state law. In other words, if a state wished to continue prohibiting cannabis, it would be both a federal and state crime for anyone to transport cannabis into that state. Likewise, if a state wished to legalize and regulate cannabis, but wanted to prevent out-of-state cannabis from entering, the transportation provision would permit that state to do so.
Impact: Industries in states that have already legalized cannabis will structurally remain the same. Banking will open up for these state businesses, and so will the opportunity to write-off ordinary business expenses. Questions about contract enforcement and risks of federal prosecution will become moot, and when state regulatory bodies make decisions on how to govern the industry, they will no longer have to concern themselves with U.S. DOJ enforcement and/or prosecutorial policies. The big potential change will be seen if two or more contiguous states that have legalized cannabis decide to permit transport of the drug between their states. Markets will expand, opening access to new customers and challenges from new competitors. Licensees may also have the option to venue shop, and we could see states themselves competing with one another to attract cannabis business with the carrot of favorable regulations.
One possible pitfall to keep in mind is that this legislation could violate something in constitutional law known as the Dormant Commerce Clause—a topic CIJ will cover should it surface.
Introduced on February 27, 2017 by Representative Thomas Garett (R-VA)
Cosponsors: 4 Republican, 11 Democrat, 1 At-Large
Referred to House Committees on:
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
HR 2528 – Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act of 2017
Policy: This bill would add to the CSA a provision specifically declaring no congressional intent to preempt state cannabis laws.
Impact: HR 2528 would rule out the potential for a judicial resolution to the federalism controversy. Most legal challenges to state legalization regimes have relied on a theory of Supremacy Clause preemption. Most notably was the 2014 case initiated by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado, which you can find broken down here. Although the Supreme Court denied to hear that case, the issue is outstanding and remains an important factor, if not the central factor, in cannabis cases currently pending in federal court. Under this reform, state cannabis laws would be safe from invalidation, but it is less clear whether a mere anti-preemption clause would strip the federal government of its other powers under the CSA, or alter in any way the current status of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. Questions arising under such uncertainty would likely have to go through long and hotly contested litigation before we have concrete answers. So although this proposal would resolve the ticklish issue of preemption, it leaves unaddressed the many other conundrums posed by federal-state divergence.
Introduced on May 18, 2017 by Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Cosponsors: 1 Republican
Referred to House Committees on:
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
HR 1841 – Regulate Marihuana Like Alcohol Act
Policy:This bill sets to accomplish a number of different reforms: remove cannabis from CSA; allow for import and export except into states that wish to prohibit cannabis altogether and/or prohibit its importation into the state; decriminalize cannabis use on national forest land; require a permit from the Secretary of the Treasury to import cannabis and to engage in any cannabis business activity; mandate businesses that obtain a Treasury permit to also comply with all State laws (so if state wants to continue to prohibit, they may); share jurisdiction over the administration and enforcement of the new federal laws between the DEA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabaco, Firearms and Explosives which is to be renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.
Impact: If enacted, this bill will have many of the same impacts as the abovementioned HR 1227- Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017. The IMPACT section for that bill will also pertain to this bill, with the following exception: by requiring a permit to operate a cannabis business from the Department of Treasury, the bill would add a layer of regulation on top of state law. Treasury Permits would be conditioned on permitees complying “with all other Federal laws relating to production, sale and consumption of marijuana.” Although §302 of the bill limits Treasury’s discretion in denying applications to only certain, enumerated disqualifying factors, the “other Federal laws” the bill refers to could embody any number of policy and jurisdictional preferences either enacted by the Congress or promulgated by the executive agencies charged with administration. At the current stage of speculation the best we can say is that descheduling cannabis under this bill would be a benefit to the industry, but out of all of the present proposals the provisions authorizing federal regulation present the greatest uncertainty for the shape the future of the industry might take.
Introduced on March 30, 2017 by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO)
Cosponsors: 1 Republican, 14 Democrat
Referred to House Committees on:
Energy and Commerce
Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Statute: Adds one sentence to the CSA that excludes its application to any person acting in compliance with State cannabis laws.
Impact:The bill would have the same impact as the above HR 1227 – Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2017, with the only exception that the transportation provision in HR 1227 makes it clear that states will be permitted to prohibit the importation of cannabis from other states if they want to. This bill, without speaking directly to the matter of interstate importation, could leave the question open-ended until resolved through judicial interpretation.
Introduced on February 7, 2017 by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Cosponsors: 8 Republican, 12 Democrat, 2 At-Large
Referred to House Committees on:
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health
On Tuesday, August 1st, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the twenty-fourth cannabis reform bill. The bill has yet to be assigned a number or referred to committee, but it is called the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, and makes some interesting contributions to the lineup of reform proposals.
For legalization purposes, the bill both removes cannabis from the CSA and removes prohibitions on importing and exporting. The above analysis for descheduling and import/export would apply to Booker’s bill in the same way. The interesting twist thrown in is how criminal and racial justice objectives are linked to incentives for states to legalize. The ultimate decision to legalize or not in a given state will continue to be the prerogative of each state, but the catch is that if a state does not legalize cannabis and the number of arrests for cannabis offenses in that state disproportionately impacts minority or low-income citizens, then the federal government will pull funding it provides to that state for criminal justice-related programs. This could push more states who would otherwise not legalize onto the reform bandwagon. Such states will have to pit how much they value federal funds against how much they value criminalizing cannabis. If the former outweighs the latter, policy logic will dictate that they legalize. Updates on this bill, and movement on any others, will be tracked by CIJ.
For the next piece in this series, we will review the bills currently pending in Congress that cover medical cannabis reform and banking/tax reform. Stay tuned for the latest on what’s happening around Capitol Hill and in federal cannabis policy circles.
This week, the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) hosted their annual Cannabis Business Summit in Oakland, California amid some alarming news in Washington. On Monday, a letter written by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions back in early May made its way into the news, where he writes to Congress asking permission to prosecute medical cannabis businesses. The following day, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein spoke to the Congress Appropriations committee, saying that, “From a legal and scientific perspective, marijuana is an unlawful drug- it’s properly scheduled under Schedule 1.”
Those two statements identify the crystal-clear anti-cannabis stance of the two most senior-level officials at the Justice Department, a position that should alarm cannabis legalization advocates.
The former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, a prominent legalization advocate, gave a press conference at the NCIA event, where he gave reporters his thoughts on cannabis and drug legalization, the Trump administration and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. To be blunt, he called Sessions crazy and Trump destructive and ignorant.
“I don’t know what happened to this administration,” Fox told a room of reporters. “A large majority of US states have already approved the use of medical cannabis, which I think is a great thing,” says Fox. “The state of California by itself produces more marijuana than what we do in Mexico. There is a conflict between the frameworks of law… there is no consistency in public policy.” To be clear, the former Mexican president advocates legalizing all drugs, attributing the violence in Mexico to the failed War on Drugs. “I don’t think prohibition has worked and we [Mexico] have paid a huge price for that.”
Former Mexican president Fox’s focus on international politics during that press conference sheds some much-needed light on the violence and other externalities linked to organized crime and the black market drug trade. “We are going to stand firm against what is going on- it is not only the fate of the United States, it is the fate of the whole world,” says Fox. “It is a real shame for this nation in front of the world- we are all pissed off out there hearing this crazy tweeting and crazy public policies that has nothing to do with the soul of this nation… No nation can isolate [themselves] behind a wall and still succeed.”
With the Trump Administration sending mixed signals on legal cannabis, and with Congress beginning to ramp up efforts for reform, in order for industry stakeholders to best understand where we are headed, it will be helpful to remember how we got here. As readers may be aware, the current status of federal cannabis law can be traced back to the legislative prong of Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs. His Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA) made it a federal crime for anyone to use or possess any amount of marijuana anywhere in the U.S. Current federal cannabis policy, on the other hand, complicates the matter, and can be traced back to a memorandum issued in 2013 by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. The Cole Memo instructed U.S. attorneys general in states that have legalized marijuana to use their limited resources in prosecuting CSA offenses only if they violated specific federal enforcement priorities. The highest of these priorities include diverting legal marijuana business revenues to illegal drug operations, transporting marijuana over state lines, making marijuana accessible to minors, and growing marijuana on federal lands. The problem is that the Cole Memo is only a policy, it is not law; and so not only can the current administration unilaterally change it whenever it wants, but state-legal cannabis businesses, their employees and customers are breaking federal law every single day!
This is a very unusual situation to be in for both the states and the feds, and it raises two basic constitutional questions: What gives the feds the right to make cannabis illegal everywhere in the U.S.? And how can states simply defy the prohibition?
The first question was in fact answered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 when two California women (Diane Monson and Angel Raich), both with very serious illnesses, sued the federal government for confiscating their state-legal medical cannabis. The feds defended their actions by claiming that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause gave them the authority to march into California, march into the homes of these women, and enforce the CSA. Diane and Angel argued that the Commerce Clause only gives the feds the authority over interstate commerce; and since their cannabis was grown by themselves, used by themselves, never bought or sold, or transported out of the state, it was therefore wholly intrastate cannabis and had nothing at all to do with interstate commerce. The Court sided with the feds, ruling that even though the cannabis was intrastate, when you take all intrastate cannabis activity like that and add it together, it will have a substantial impact on the interstate cannabis market. Because of that connection it was ‘necessary and proper’ for the feds to enact the CSA and enforce it anywhere in the country they wanted. Although there is still much debate over this ruling, it remains the law of the land to this day.
Fast forward to 2014. The states of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado claiming that by legalizing marijuana, Colorado was violating federal law under the CSA. Because federal law overrides state law when they conflict, then Colorado’s cannabis laws must be struck down, or so they argued. In response Colorado took a very interesting position that built on the hard realities of the cannabis market. It is best to explain it in four parts. First, they cited the fact that the federal government lacked the resources to enforce the CSA, a claim which the feds have admitted to themselves. Second, Colorado pointed to a constitutional doctrine called ‘anti-commandeering’, which says that they have no obligation to criminalize cannabis at all. If the feds want to make it a federal crime, that is one thing; but that does not mean CO must make it a state crime as well. Third, Colorado said that by regulating cannabis as extensively and strictly as they have done, they are reducing the amount of cannabis activity compared to not regulating it at all. Taken together, this means that because Colorado does not have to criminalize cannabis, and because the federal government cannot enforce their own criminalization, then Colorado is actually helping out the feds by regulating the drug instead of allowing for a free-for-all under state law.
In March of 2016 the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in full or issue an opinion, which had the effect of giving a default victory to Colorado. Among political and legal commentators the speculation is that enough justices on the Court either agreed with the logic of Colorado’s position or wanted to wait for this federal-state controversy to be worked out by Congress. Because it was only a default victory, the constitutional status of the legal cannabis industry remains on unprecedented and unstable ground. The Controlled Substances Act has not yet been found to preempt state law, so cannabis businesses are still able to operate legally in their state. But because the CSA still applies to everyone, they do so at the whim of the Trump Administration’s policy preferences. The confusion that this presents has put cannabis businesses in many difficult situations, and it serves as the legal backdrop for such familiar problems as access to banking and contract enforcement.
Currently, legislative and judicial fixes are in motion. Related cannabis litigation is pending in federal court at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. And a Cannabis Caucus has formed in the U.S. Congress to address the shortcomings of the CSA. In the coming articles we will explore both of these routes to reform, the likelihoods of various possible outcomes, and the impact they will have on the legal cannabis industry.
Editor’s Note: For readers interested in learning more about this topic click here for Brian’s research article published by the Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law
Last week, Governor Brown’s Administration released a set of proposed rules for the medical cannabis, attempting to provide some oversight to the once unregulated market. In 2015, the governor signed three bills into law that established a regulatory framework via the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. That legislation set up the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation inside the Department of Consumer Affairs as the overseeing regulatory agency.
According to the press release, the proposed regulations for manufacturing and cultivation have also been published. “The proposed licensing regulations for medical cannabis are the result of countless hours of research, stakeholder outreach, informational sessions and pre-regulatory meetings all across the state,” says Lori Ajax, chief of the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation. “And while we have done quite a bit of work and heard from thousands of people, there is still so much more to do. In order to make our program successful we still need your feedback.”
According to their website, the legislation divides responsibility for licensing businesses between three regulatory bodies: The CA Department of Food and Agriculture the CA Department of Public Health and the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation, which will be the leading body in charge of licensing. The proposed regulations are not set in stone, but give us an important glimpse into how the state hopes to regulate the market.
Among the proposed rules are a number of regulatory compliance nuances expected to raise prices, but provide extra measures to protect consumer safety. According to the SF Gate, regulators expect prices could climb $524 per pound. But with that price jump comes a lot of regulations that other states have so far successfully implemented. The laboratory testing and traceability stipulations are presumably designed to safeguard public health, preventing things like black market diversion and off-label pesticide use.
In addition to the medical regulations, the proposed manufacturing regulations set some notable requirements. Those rules are set by the Office of Manufactured Cannabis Safety, established in the Center for Environmental Health of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) after the 2015 legislation was signed into law. Good Manufacturing Practices, food product standards, operational and labeling requirements are included in the provisions, along with a list of licensing tiers, application requirements and fees. They have a handy summary of the proposed regulations for those looking for the key highlights.
Omar Figueroa, an attorney with a cannabis law practice in California, says his clients in the industry are preparing to suggest changes to the proposed regulations and possibly legal challenges. “They are looking at this as overregulation by people that are not in the cannabis industry,” says Figueroa. “These are outsiders with a limited knowledge base creating somewhat uninformed regulations.” He says a good example of this is the potency limit on infused products. “They make perfect sense for [the recreational market] but for the medical market it is simply unacceptable. Patients develop a tolerance to THC and would have to increase their caloric intake and buy more infused products if this proposed regulation becomes final.” He says there are a number of regulations that seem kind of arbitrary. “Like prohibiting cannabis-infused caffeine products; there doesn’t seem to be a necessity in the rulemaking for this,” says Figueroa. “A lot of these regulations are going to be susceptible to challenges because California requires regulations to be necessary and alternatives to be considered.”
Although the lab testing regulations won’t be published for another few days, Figueroa expects them to be a huge disruptor for the market. “Most labs in the state are not ISO 17025-accredited, which means many labs might not be able to issue certificates of analysis when the regulations get enforced,” says Figueroa. He says it is safe to say California regulators are looking at other jurisdictions, like Colorado and Oregon for example, in crafting these rules, but we can expect a sea change in these regulations before they get enforced.
Manufacturers will be required to use a cannabis product symbol with a ‘THC!’ marking on their labels. There is also a 100-milligrams-per-package limit for THC in infused products, which is similar to rules we saw Colorado and Oregon roll out during a preliminary period of legal recreational cannabis.
For those looking to get involved in the regulatory process, there is a 45-day comment period on the proposed rules.
According to The Washington Examiner, Department of Homeland Security secretary John Kelly said that marijuana is a gateway drug during a speech at George Washington University on Tuesday. “And let me be clear about marijuana. It is a potentially dangerous gateway drug that frequently leads to the use of harder drugs,” says Kelly. “[U.S. Customs & Border Protection] will continue to search for marijuana at sea, air and land ports of entry and when found take similar appropriate action.” The DEA recently dropped any mention of the gateway drug theory. Many argue it is a myth propagated by drug war stalwarts and even the National Institute on Drug Abuse won’t call it a gateway drug anymore.
During a crime committee meeting this morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions mentioned a link between the illegal marijuana trade and cartel violence. “We have quite a bit of marijuana being imported by the cartels from Mexico- this is definitely a cartel-sponsored event,” says Sessions. According to The Washington Times, Sessions mentioned violence involving marijuana distribution in the nation’s capital, Washington D.C., where cannabis is legal. “So it remains a significant international criminal organization, the marijuana network,” says Sessions. This is not the first time the Attorney General has suggested a link between the plant and violence. Back in February, Sessions claimed that legal cannabis has led to an increase in violence.
The statements made this morning are the latest in a series of contradictory and uncertain messages on federal cannabis policy by the Trump administration. “DHS personnel will continue to investigate marijuana’s illegal pathways along the network into the U.S., its distribution within the homeland, and will arrest those involved in the drug trade according to federal law,” says secretary Kelly. That message, however, contradicts statements he made earlier in the week.
During a Sunday interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” secretary Kelly told Chuck Todd “marijuana is not a factor in the drug war.” In that interview, he went on to add that methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine are the real culprits they are after, noting the high death tolls associated with the drugs and connection to organized crime in Mexico. The Trump administration still has not issued a clear, consistent position on federal cannabis policy.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
We use tracking pixels that set your arrival time at our website, this is used as part of our anti-spam and security measures. Disabling this tracking pixel would disable some of our security measures, and is therefore considered necessary for the safe operation of the website. This tracking pixel is cleared from your system when you delete files in your history.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.