According to a press release published earlier this week, A2LA announced the accreditation of two separate cannabis laboratories in two separate states; both are the first cannabis testing labs accredited in their states. Demeter Laboratory, based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Galbraith Laboratories, based in Knoxville, Tennessee, achieved the ISO 17025:2017 accreditation.
According to Cassy VanTassel, M.S., quality manager at Demeter Laboratory, Oklahoma is still developing and defining their regulatory framework for cannabis testing requirements. “Even though the State of Oklahoma is still establishing regulations and legislation, Demeter will always strive to meet the highest quality standards, so our customers know they are getting the best quality testing,” says VanTassel. “Demeter chose A2LA as its Accreditation Body due to their reputation in the industry, their diverse clientele, and the quality of their assessors.”
In Tennessee, Galbraith Labs is looking to aid the hemp industry in product safety testing. Christy Myers, customer service manager at Galbraith Laboratories, says they want to help farmers produce safe hemp products. “We are proud of our commitment to stay current within our industry and achieve the high standards set by A2LA,” says Myers. “Adding cannabis testing to our line of services was a great opportunity for Galbraith Laboratories to serve the community by helping farmers produce safe and legal hemp.”
Galbraith Labs was founded in 1950 as a contract lab in Knoxville serving many industries. With their newly established accreditation, they hope to aid the cannabis industry in Tennessee with hemp testing. Demeter Laboratory is the first medical cannabis lab in Oklahoma. Their goals include “advancing quality controls in medical cannabis, supporting safe consumption of cannabis and ensuring the transparency of the cannabis community.”
Tilray just did something very interesting. In addition to announcing that it was shipping product to German distributor Cannamedical via its Portuguese facility, it also announced that it had begun outdoor cultivation.
Even more intriguing: the company is claiming that somehow, via its proprietary technology (apparently), this kind of crop will be legit for distribution within the EU medical system.
There is only one problem with this. Outdoor growing does not sound remotely GMP-certified.
Here is the next bit of exciting news. Tilray, apparently, is not the only large Canadian cannabis company now operating in Europe that appears to be trying to get around GMP certifications for medical market penetration. Or appear oblivious to the distinctions in the international (and certainly European market).
And things are a bit smelly on that front, not only in Denmark post CannTrust, but in truth even in Germany, the supposed “Fort Knox” of regulatory consumer and pharmaceutical standards.
In fact, at least according to insiders, there is apparently quite a bit of gray market product sloshing around in the Teutonic medical market. Even though so far, at least not publicly punished for the same, nobody has been caught. Or at least publically reprimanded.
And who is on the hot seat at least according to most of the licensed if not just pre-licensed indie producers and distributors who were contacted for this story? Sure, there are dark horse “start-up” indie violators, but they are not the only problem. Many who talked to CIJ named big public Canadian companies too. And potentially Bedrocan beyond that.
Who Is Who And What Is What?
Part of the problem, beyond any kind of deliberate flouting of regulations on the part of many companies who are at least trying to understand them, is that global standards are different. “GMP certifications” of every country, even within a region like Europe, are in fact, not uniform. That is why, for example, the new EU-US MRA agreement had to be signed first regionally and then on a state-by-state level across the EU.
Beyond Germany of course, there are other problems that are coming to the fore.In the medical cannabis space, in particular, right now, that is causing problems simply because many with pharma experience are not hip to the many risks in the cannabis industry itself. On the Canadian, Australian and American side, there is also a lot of bad advice, in particular, coming from consultants who should know better.
To be properly EU and German GMP-certified, one of the required steps is to have German inspectors walk your production floor. It is also not good enough to have “pesticide-free” or national organic certification at the crop cultivation site, and add GMP cert at time of “processing.” That piece of misadvise has been showing up not only in Canada, but Australia too. And creates a nasty reality if not expensive retooling upon entering the legitimate market in Europe, for starters.
These Issues Affect Everyone In The Industry
In an environment where ex-im is the name of the game, and even the big guys are short of product, compliance is getting granular as smaller players step up to the plate – and many if not most hopeful Canadian producers (in particular) now looking to Europe for sales are not (yet) up to speed.
A big piece of the blame also lies in the lack of proper administration at the federal and state level too – even auf Deutschland. To get a distribution license, a company must actually get three licenses, although there are plenty in the market right now who begin to describe themselves as “distributors” with less than the required certs.
The lack of coordination and communication, including which certs to accept as equivalent and from where is creating a market where those who know how to game the system are.
For example, several people who contacted CIJ, claimed that uncertified product was making its way into Germany via Central and Latin America, through Canada, picking up “GMP cert” along the way. In other words, not actually GMP-certified but labelled fraudulently to make it appear that way.
The same claims were also made by those with on-the-ground industry knowledge in South Africa (Lesotho).
Beyond Germany of course, there are other problems that are coming to the fore. As CIJ recently learned, a firm authorized by the Dutch government to provide cannabis packaging, including for exports, was not GMP certified until July 2019 – meaning that all product they shipped internationally even within Europe before that date potentially has labelling issues. Cue domestic importers. If not regulators.
Grey Market Product Is Making Its Way In Through Official Channels
For those who are taking the time to actually get through the legal registration and licensing process, it is infuriating to see others who are apparently fairly flagrantly buying market position but are in no position to fulfil such obligations. It is even more infuriating for those who intend to meet the requirements of the regulations to realize that the vast amounts spent in consulting fees was actually money paid for inaccurate information.
And the only way ultimately the industry can combat that, is by standing up, as an industry, to face and address the problem.German distributors are so aware of the problem that they are starting to offer gap analysis and specific consulting services to help their import partners actually get compliant.
Government agencies also might be aware of the problems, but they have been reluctant to talk about the same. CIJ contacted both BfArM and the local Länderauthorities to ask about the outdoor grow in Portugal and the lack of GMP cert for a Dutch packager. After multiple run-arounds, including sending this reporter on a wild rabbit chase of federal and state agencies (who all directed us back to BfArm) and an implication by the press officer at BfArM that the foreign press was not used to talking to multiple sources, CIJ was redirected back to state authorities with a few more instructions on which bureau to contact. The state bureau (in Berlin) did not return comments to questions asked by email.
Here is the bottom line that CannTrust has helped expose this summer: the entire global cannabis industry is trying hard to legitimize. Not every company is shady, and there are many who are entering it now who are playing by the rules. But those who are hoping to exploit loopholes (including “name” if not “public” companies) are also clearly in the room.
And the only way ultimately the industry can combat that, is by standing up, as an industry, to face and address the problem.
Editors Note: This is a developing story. CIJ has been contacted by the Dutch Cannabis Agency as it investigates what appears to be an intra-government debate over qualification of EU-GMP cert, acceptance of audit documents and other matters within European countries that appear to have caused much of this confusion with regards to Bedrocan and its packager Fagron. Many reputable, licensed sources within the industry spoke to us on deep background, out of concern that they too would be held liable. That said, so far, nobody can explain why the only licensed Dutch packager, was issued a new EU GMP cert document on July 9, 2019, the same day that Danish authorities halted CannTrust product entering Denmark. That is a government decision. Further it is also still unclear why rival cannabis companies would attempt to contact the cannabis media with a certain (and misguided) spin on this situation.
Beckley Canopy Therapeutics, based in Oxford, England has raised ₤7.4 million for the purposes of cannabinoid research and drug development. The new company is a unique partnership established between Canopy Growth Corporation and the Beckley Foundation, a research institute which examines the utilization of psychotropic drugs for the treatment of physical and mental conditions.
Studies focusing on the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of opioid addiction and cancer pain will be conducted in Europe, the UK and the US.
Why Is This Significant?
Here is the first reason: the woman behind it all. Her name is Lady Amanda Feilding, Countess of Wemyss and March. Born into a landed gentry family at Beckley Park (a Tudor hunting lodge with three towers and three moats) she also has a long history of engaging and supporting scientific endeavours that use stigmatized drugs in the treatment of both intractable disease and mental illness via the use of scientific research.
In 1998, Amanda Feilding set up the Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust which initiates, directs and supports neuroscientific and clinical research into the effects of psychoactive substances. She has also co-authored over 50 scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.
The so-called “hidden hand” behind the rebirth of psychedelic science, Fielding’s contribution to global drug policy reform has been widely acknowledged in international drug policy circles. She was named as one of the bravest men and women in the history of science in 2010 by the British Guardian.
And here is the second reason: The foundation is now partnered with Canopy Cannabis, one of the leading cannabis firms in the world, which is also working closely with Spanish opioid manufacturer Alcaliber.
In other words, this coalition is almost the mirror opposite of the approach taken by the American Sackler family, makers of Oxycontin, who have fought cannabinoids as an alternative or even transition drug in multiple state legalization campaigns. Meanwhile the death rates from overdoses have quadrupled since 1999. In 2016, opioid-related drug overdoses killed about 116 people a day (or about 42,249 for the year). It is estimated that about 11 million people in the U.S. are currently misusing or dependent on opioids.
Beyond The Politics of The Opioid-Cannabinoid War
While opioids clearly have a role particularly in chronic pain treatment, the question now at the global scientific table is this: Are cannabinoids a substitute for longer term chronic pain management? It is a fiercely battled scientific debate that has frequently, particularly in the U.S., crossed over into political drug reform questions.
The unique partnership of Beckley and Canopy is well placed both scientifically and culturally to take on a discussion which has languished for too long in the grass of political debate and reform.
Even better, it is taking place in a country where English is the first language, but outside the U.S. and further, in a country where cannabis has now been legally reclassified as a Schedule II drug.
Do not expect, in other words, the same trials and tribulations that faced noted U.S.-based researcher Sue Sisley, to slow down research, trials or findings.
Why Is A Cultural and Scientific Reset Required?
For the past forty years, since the end of the 1970s, cannabis in particular, has been pushed into a strange scientific territory in part, because of the culture surrounding the drug. This in turn, along with the schedule I classification of cannabis, has led to not only a dearth of research, but a reluctance on the part of prescribing doctors to examine its efficacy.
In the present, this means that doctors are still (beyond insurers who demand medical evidence before approving payment) the biggest hurdles in every medical system where cannabis is becoming legal. See the debate in Canada, the UK and of course, Germany, where patients frequently report asking for a drug their doctors refuse to prescribe.
This is exactly the kind of high-placed, societally influential effort in other words, that might finally break the medical taboo at the most important remaining logjam– at the point of prescription and approval for patients.
In rather shocking news out of Germany on the cannabis front, it appears that Canadian LP ABcann has not been selected as one of the finalists in the country’s first tender bid to cultivate cannabis domestically.
As reported in the German press, the company has not been invited to submit an offer in the final award procedures. The reason per a company spokesman as quoted in the German media? The company proved it met the required qualification thresholds – namely it could deliver the required amount of product as required by the German government. However the amount it could produce was less than other firms being considered.
That is a strange statement, especially because the ten licenses on offer only called for a total of 2,000 kgs of production total by 2019 and 6600 kgs by 2022.
Who Is ABCann?
ABcann has been in business since 2014 in Canada, when it received one of the first cultivation licenses issued by the Canadian government. It has also been aggressively positioning itself in the German and European market this year – and in multiple ways. It got itself listed on both American and German stock exchanges by summer. The company established a subsidiary headquarters in Schönefeld as of August 2017. As late as October, the company also was appearing at industry conferences, like the IACM medical conference in Cologne, as an expected finalist in the first bid.
However, the company’s plans to build a $40 million, 10,000 square meter plant somewhere in Lusatia are now also reportedly on hold. The exact location of the plant is unknown, per German government requirements that grow facilities remain secret. That said, with a year and a half to complete construction, if given the green light even by early next year, it may be that this was the reason the company has apparently not made the cut. Or perhaps the German government did not believe the company was adequately funded. A September exercise of warrants netted the company an additional $45 million in operating cash. But with expansion plans in not only Canada and Europe, but Australia too, did the company pass the German test for liquidity?
Management changes are also afoot. As of October 1, Barry Fishman, a former Eli Lilly executive took over as CEO of ABCann Global. Ken Clement, founder of the company, announced in mid-October that he was stepping down from his position as Executive Chair of the Board to be replaced by Paul Lucas a former President and CEO of GlaxoSmithKline Canada. John Hoff, the Geschäftsführer (or CEO) of ABcann’s German subsidiary, has also recently left the company. When asked by CannabisIndustryJournal about his reasons for doing so at the Cannabis Normal conference in Berlin at the beginning of November, Hoff cited “management and creative differences” with ABcann Canada as the impetus for his recent departure.
However with the news of ABcann’s apparent loss of a front-runner position in the pending bid, such news appears to herald a bit more of a shakeup at the company, if not a refocussing of overall global strategy.
A source within the company who wished to remain anonymous also said this when contacted directly by CannabisIndustryJournal. “Our top priority currently is to acquire an import license. We also fully intend to pursue all of our plans in the German market, but we have no firm dates on the construction front.”
The State of Medical Cannabis Reform Auf Deutsch
The German medical cannabis question has certainly jerked forward over the past several years through several rough patches. This year it has gotten even stranger. And nobody is quite sure where it will end up.
The news about ABcann is also the latest episode in a very strange story that has continued to develop mostly out of sight of the public.
That bid process, which was expected to announce the winners by late summer, has now dragged on through the fall.Germany began moving forward quietly on the cannabis issue in the first decade of the century. Patients could only access the drug in basically trial mode. Most patients who qualified with a doctor’s prescription and a special permit to take the drug, could also access only Sativex (which is very expensive) or the synthetic form of the drug, dronabinol, manufactured domestically in a facility near Frankfurt. All bud cannabis was imported from Holland by Bedrocan. Strictly controlled not by German, but rather Dutch law on cannabis imports.
In 2014, the first German patients successfully sued the government to grow their own plants if their insurance companies refused coverage of the drug and they proved they could not afford alternatives.
This year, in January, the German government voted unanimously to change the law to mandate public health insurance. The law went into effect in March. Mainly driven by a desire to halt home-grow, the rules changed again. Post March 2017, patient grow rights have now been revoked. Now patients are theoretically allowed to get cannabis covered under public health insurance. In reality, the process has been difficult.
In April, the German government created a new “Cannabis Agency” under the auspices of BfArM. And BfArM in turn issued a tender bid for the country’s first domestic licences in April.
That bid process, which was expected to announce the winners by late summer, has now dragged on through the fall.
When Will The Winners Be Announced?
That too is unclear. It is very likely that the final announcement will not be made by the government until the beginning of the year – after the new government is formed. The so-called “Jamaica Coalition” – of the mainstream CDU, the Greens and the liberals (FDP) is under major pressure to address the issue of access. So far Chancellor Angela Merkel has signalled her resistance for additional changes to the new cannabis law. That said, the current situation in Germany, which is untenable for patients and doctors, as well as companies trying to enter the market and investing heavily, is unlikely to hold for even the next several years.
Problems with finding doctors and medical reimbursement under insurance have kept this patient population from growing the way it would otherwise.In late October, the news broke that two legal complaints had been unsuccessfully filed against the bid itself. Both parties’ complaints were dismissed. Yet there also appears to have been a third complaint that has actually devolved in to a real Klage – or lawsuit. Lexamed GmbH’s claim directly addresses issues expressed by many German-only firms this year. Namely that they were unfairly left out of the bid process because of a supposed lack of experience. As such it is likely to be closely watched by other existing German hopefuls.
This lawsuit has now formally delayed the announcements on the bid decision until at least after December 20th of this year, when the oral arguments will be heard in the case. A decision about the bid will go forward when this has been decided, by the beginning of 2018.
In the meantime? Cannabis imports are starting to enter the country. In late summer last year, Spektrum Cannabis, formerly MedCann GmbH, located just south of Frankfurt, received the first import licenses from the German government to bring medical cannabis into Germany from Canada. Both Aurora and Tilray were granted import licenses this fall.
There are 16 different kinds of cannabis on the market right now. And about 170 kilos of cannabis were imported into the country in the last year. There are also currently about 1,000 patients although this number is artificially low. Problems with finding doctors and medical reimbursement under insurance have kept this patient population from growing the way it would otherwise. There are easily a million patients in Germany right now who would qualify for cannabis if the system worked as it was originally intended in the legislation passed in January.
That said, despite the recent news that ABcann is “out” – at least for this round– apparently the pan-European bid process is still very much alive, despite many recent rumours that it was dead in the water. And plans also seem to be afoot for a separate and additional cultivation licensing round potentially as soon as next year. Details however are unclear and nobody either in the industry or the government is willing to be quoted or give any further information.
Last week, the Cannabis World Congress & Business Expositions announced they have removed Roger Stone from their conference’s keynote talk. The news follows a month-long boycott led by a group of women with the #DisownStone campaign, exhibitors, activists and the Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA), among other organizations.
According to the press release, conference organizers met with a number of people and organizations to discuss inclusivity and made the decision to oust Stone, citing the distraction his keynote was causing. “Following collaborative discussions with numerous partners, participants, and interested parties who support the legalization of cannabis in an inclusive manner, Cannabis World Congress & Business Expositions, (CWCBExpo) is announcing that Roger Stone will no longer be featured as a keynote speaker at the upcoming CWCBExpo events in Los Angeles and Boston,” reads the press release. “The forums created by CWCBExpo are crucial to the growth and legalization of the cannabis industry and they supersede the distractions that have surrounded the events.”
When the Minority Cannabis Business Association announced they would boycott the conference unless Stone was removed, support poured in from throughout the cannabis industry and a Change.org petition was created. Shortly after, we published an op-ed in support of the MCBA and their boycott. The boycott received national attention from major news outlets across the country. New Frontier Data, prominent cannabis law firm Greenspoon Marder, Denver Relief Consulting, Cannabis Industry Journal and Dope Media are among the signatories on that petition.
The petition reached 750 signatures in just two weeks and now has 840 signatures. That petition launched the #DisownStone campaign, which was ultimately successful in their mission. According to a statement put out by the #DisownStone campaign, the movement was led Amanda Reiman, Betty Aldworth, Bonita Money, Lauren Padgett, Leah Heise, Tiffany Bowden and Wanda James. It quickly garnered support from organizations involved in the conference. 20 speakers and 11 sponsors and partners signed the petition.
The #DisownStone statement praises the CWCBExpo for their decision to remove Stone. “We applaud the leadership at the Cannabis World Congress and Business Expo for their decision to remove Roger Stone from the keynote slot at CWCBExpo in Los Angeles and Boston,” reads the statement. “In choosing to release Roger Stone and to remove the employee that displayed egregious and reprehensible behavior towards members of the industry, the CWCBExpo set an example for the industry to follow. We understand that this decision was a difficult one and respect that the conference chose this route.”
The campaign ended their statement with a forward-looking sentiment, vowing to fight racism in the cannabis industry. “We will continue to denounce racism whenever we see it in the cannabis industry and elsewhere, and look forward to the day when no person can be arrested and jailed for using cannabis,” reads their statement. “We are excited to attend CWCBExpo and continue the conversation in person with their leadership and with attendees.” The campaign is hosting a #DisownStone after party at the LA event to celebrate their victory on September 14th.
Stone told LA Weekly that he plans on suing the conference organizers for $1 million. “The expo is in breach of contract,” Stone told LA Weekly. “I will be suing them for $1 million. I will not be deterred from my efforts to persuade the president to preserve access to legal medicinal marijuana consistent with his pledge to the American people.”
In an email to LA Weekly, Jesce Horton, chair of the board at MCBA, told reporters he is now willing to work with the conference organizers, given their decision to remove Stone. “Roger Stone’s deplorable rhetoric was just a piece of our inability to be involved,” Horton told LA Weekly. “More important is his history of advocating for regulations that work directly against an industry inclusive to small businesses and minority entrepreneurs. I look forward to working with CWCBE and support their decision to stand with us.”
Marketing cannabis and the products that accompany recreational use is set to become one of the biggest industries in the United States. With 29 states promoting legal medical cannabis, 14 with it decriminalized and 8 having legalized it completely, you might be thinking this will be the easiest ad-campaign of all time. Unfortunately, science suggests otherwise.
The Science of Marketing
You heard correctly, marketing is a science, but almost half of what we know about the process cannot be applied to cannabis. Why? Because cannabis lives in the grey area of the American psyche. How do I know this?
In 2015, I completed and published The Safe Haven theory, a socio-demographic linguistic analysis of attitudes toward recreational drug use in the United Kingdom. I won’t bore you with the intricacies of the study, but the findings are important.
The study, using theoretical sociological trends, found that even non-recreational drug users in the United Kingdom favor cannabis legalization. A great number of police jurisdictions have chosen to not longer punish cannabis users, meaning that the law is (mostly) on our side – the side of full legalization and taxation of cannabis as a product for recreational usage, not so dissimilar from alcohol.
In the UK, we could easily put a huge billboard of someone’s grandmother smoking a spliff and make a million on the first day.
Unfortunately, the same can’t be done in the United States.
Advertising law aside, Americans just don’t have the same view of cannabis as Brits. In the last two years, I applied the same framework to a host of American demographics, and – as I hypothesized – localism rules the American market.
If you live in a Red town and you’re a recreational cannabis user, stigma will prevail over the scientific data, and changing that stigma is almost impossible without hard scientific evidence to back-up the marketing campaign.
Qualitative research is key when understanding why people buy into particular industries. This might not be the general belief held by most folks in advertising, as stats and numbers are distinctly easier to work with. However, as last year’s General Election and Brexit vote showed: numbers can lie. Therefore, the best means of understanding what people really want is to actually talk to them – and I mean in-person.
Marketing rules are shifting. More and more, the heads of marketing departments are turning to scientific and scholarly data to assess the current trends in social development, molding their campaigns around this data as a means of showing that they are industry leaders in understanding the phenomena, as well as speaking to target buyers in their own language.
Am I being too wordy? Let me put it simply.
Say your new product is an indoor indica strain with sleep/stress aid properties, this is how you should market it to three specific demographics:
Californian recreational smoker in the 50+ age demographic with a moderate knowledge of cannabis strains,“Indoor indica, grown locally with minimal chemical input, good as a sleep aid and positive for stress reduction.”
New York medical user, 30+, business background,“This strain is an excellent sleep aid, can decrease stress without taking off the edge of your day-to-day workload; highly recommended for those employed in a full-time, private sector position.”
Small town with predominantly low-income demographic employed in blue-collar industry, “affordable means of relaxing after a tough day at work that won’t give you the same cancer risk as tobacco.”
We market the same strain to each of these demographics, but the language used in the campaign is more important than the product itself. In the UK, the same strain would be marketed across the country using something like:
“Dank strain with sleep aid and relaxation properties, best for chilling out at the end of the day – definitely not recommended prior to work!”
What this means for the United States cannabis marketing specialist is simple: you need to invest as much as you can in getting scholarly researchers out into the field and figuring out the local socio-demographic linguistic trends for your target buyers. Luckily, this can be a fairly affordable means of research.
Marketing specialists have two options in uncovering this data:
Use students currently enrolled in universities and colleges, either offering paid internships or college credit for bulk research.
Hire an academic consultancy corporation. This is rapidly becoming a norm in for companies looking to expand their marketing by using scientific data, particularly in industries related to sport and the outdoors.
Just like how Pepsi really missed the mark with their latest failed advertising campaign, cannabis companies are at significant risk of ostracizing themselves from a wealth of demographics that would otherwise be open to recreational or medical cannabis use as an alternative to harsh pharmaceuticals, alcohol and even some forms of therapy.
Language is key, and if you can’t talk to your buyers on their level then you’ve already lost your edge over the competition.
As CIJ readers are probably aware, last month Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017—the annual budget, in other words. Lying within this 1,665-page document is Section 537, which for one year restricts the Department of Justice from using any funds to prevent states from implementing their medical cannabis laws. Medical cannabis businesses and patients can take some solace in this restriction. Last summer, the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting in San Francisco, confirmed that this appropriations rider prevents federal prosecutors from bringing suit against medical cannabis businesses and users operating in compliance with state law. Two problems remain glaring, however: one, the protection only applies to medical cannabis activity, not recreational; and two, it is only guaranteed to last for one fiscal year.
To be sure, for the 115th Congress to address the profusion of issues emerging from the nationwide legalization movement, they must do something more. Various reform proposals have in fact been introduced during the current congressional session, and in order to fully digest where they stand and what they have the potential to accomplish, it will help to make sure that we know how they fit within federal legislative procedure.
Catching Up to Speed with the Legislative Process
Whenever confronting a question about government and politics, it is never a bad idea to start at the source of authority. In America, that source is of course the Constitution, and in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2, We The People have given to Congress the power to “determine the rules of its proceedings”. When we remember back to the School House Rock cartoon for How A Bill Becomes A Law, the majority of political maneuvering behind the basic process taught in the cartoon actually happens according to these ‘rules’ or ‘resolutions’. In fact, at the beginning of each new Congress (every two years) each chamber, and each committee and subcommittee within each chamber, votes on the rules that will govern how they are to go about their legislative business. Traditionally, the rules from the previous Congress are carried over by this vote with only minor tweaks. On top of that, both parties in each chamber have theirown internal rules and procedures for setting their policy agenda, directing political strategy, and determining which members will be nominated to certain leadership positions and committee posts. Playing the game of politics according to this layer cake of rules is a necessary part of the work of a legislator, and is often as important a factor in how our country is actually governed as is who wins election to office and what substantive provisions are formally enacted into law. So for the purposes of understanding federal cannabis reform, let’s take a quick look into the procedural status of the relevant legislation and who is in a position to influence what happens to it; then, when reviewing the policies they stand to codify, we will also understand the legislative landscape they must navigate.
A good place to start is February 16, 2017 when Republican Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Don Young (R-AK) along with Democratic Congressmen Earl Blumenaur (D-OR) and Jared Polis (D-CO) launched the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. Under House and Senate rules, such a caucus must formally register with the House Committee on Administration as a Congressional Member Organization (CMO), disclosing its officers and members and declaring its purpose. These CMOs are sometimes referred to by different names: caucuses, conferences, coalitions, task forces, etc. The best known of these are the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses and the House and Senate Republican Conferences. By setting party policy, driving legislative strategy, promoting party cohesion and rewarding party loyalty, these largest of CMOs dominate partisan activity on Capitol Hill. Smaller CMOs, on the other hand, advance only specific interests and often cross the partisan divide. The Cannabis Caucus, for instance, was formed to catalyze a federal response to the nationwide legalization movement, and its “Path to Marijuana Reform” is a large part of the spate of bills that have been dropped into the congressional hopper over the past six months.
All in all there are twenty cannabis reform bills currently pending in Congress. In the House, all but two of the fourteen bills there have been referred to either the Energy & Commerce Committee or the Judiciary Committee, and all but one of the six in the Senate have been referred to either the Finance or Judiciary Committees.
A Note on Committees & Procedure
Under House and Senate rules, bills are referred to committees by matching the former’s subject matter to the latter’s jurisdiction. In the House, the Speaker may attach time limits for committee action, refer a bill or portions of a bill to multiple committees and determine the sequence in which they are to be considered. The Speaker may also convene an ad hoc committee to consider a bill, and “make such other provision as may be considered appropriate.” As can be gleaned, the Speakership holds substantial procedural powers, and is in fact the only congressional leadership position created by the Constitution. The Senate’s counterpart, the majority leader, has in comparison less discretion in moving along legislative business.
At the next step, both the House and Senate grant each committee the authority to make their own rules on how they are to consider bills. Once referred, committee chairs generally decide to further refer a bill to a subcommittee, hold hearings, subpoena evidence and witnesses, call ‘markup’ sessions to propose and debate amendments, and finally to schedule a vote to report bills back to the chamber floor. If a committee chair wishes to kill a bill, these procedural powers provide wide, though not absolute, authority to do so. Jockeying for a chairmanship is therefore big game in the life of a legislator. Ultimately, members are nominated and elected to their respective committees and chairs according to the rules of their parties’ caucus or conference, and upon a vote of approval on the floor. Seniority is only one factor in these votes, and so because nothing is predetermined, these intraparty contests can explain a great deal about member behavior.
With that background to help triangulate Capitol Hill politics, we should now be better equipped to look into the cannabis bills pending before the 115th Congress, the committees to which they have been referred, and their procedural status. Stay tuned for the next article in this series when we will begin our bill-by-bill review.
On May 1st, Congress reached a bipartisan deal to keep the government open and funded through September 30th, 2017. Congress approved the appropriations bill that sets the government’s spending with an important section in it relating to cannabis. Section 537 on page 230 states that the Department of Justice cannot use funds to interfere with states’ legal medical cannabis programs.
The bill uses similar language to The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, a bill that was originally introduced in 2013 to prevent the Department of Justice from spending money on enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in states with legal medical cannabis programs. This new appropriations bill, with the language in section 537, effectively achieves the same thing. “None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of… to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana,” reads the bill. The language includes a mention of the 40 or so states and territories with some form of medical cannabis program, legislation or bill.
This means that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is relatively powerless to go on a sort of ‘crackdown’ on medical cannabis programs. Given Sessions’ previous comments and general views on cannabis, this should put cannabis industry stakeholders at ease for the time being. Of course, this budget is only for the 2017 fiscal year, so come September, the same or similar language needs to be included in the next appropriations bill. With Jeff Sessions’ task force still investigating federal cannabis policy, it is still very possible we could get a clear policy decision in the near future.
“We are encouraged that the Federal Government and NIDA are recognizing the true and powerful medical benefits that cannabis provides, especially in the war against devastating opiate-based drug addiction, abuse and death,” says Sally Vander Veer, President of Medicine Man Denver. “We have seen anecdotal evidence of this as reported by our patients/customers (and the beneficial effects of cannabis in numerous other conditions) since we opened our doors in 2010. Our hope is that this acknowledgment will open the door to additional research, eventually leading to legal and safe access to cannabis medicine for all Americans.”
The following section also includes a protection of industrial hemp research, as defined in the Agricultural Act of 2014, which basically means universities and institutions can research it. SEC. 538. “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of section 7606 (‘‘Legitimacy of Industrial Hemp Research’’) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.” With all of the uncertainty and inconsistent comments coming out of the Trump administration, at least we have a sense of security in the medical cannabis community through the summer.
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.