Tag Archives: statutory

No Green Wave This Time, But Two More States Legalize Adult Use Cannabis

By Brett Schuman, Jennifer Fisher, Jeremy Lateiner, Allyson McCain, Amy Arnelle, Whitney Williams
No Comments

Five states voted on adult-use cannabis legalization. These results increase the number of states that have legalized cannabis for adult-use from 19 to 21. Similar ballot measures failed, however, in Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota. The continued expansion of legalized cannabis at the state level, combined with President Biden’s recent initiation of an administrative process to review expeditiously how cannabis is scheduled under federal law, is likely to increase pressure on Congress and the rest of the federal government to either decriminalize or legalize cannabis under federal law.

Here is a snapshot of the cannabis-related election results:

November 2022 Cannabis Referenda Results

Maryland

On November 8, 2022, Maryland voted to pass Maryland Question 4 (the Marijuana Legalization Amendment), by a margin of 65.5% to 34.5%. Maryland Question 4 amends the Maryland Constitution to add a new article, Article XX, which authorizes adults 21 years of age and older beginning in July 2023 to use and possess cannabis, and directs the Maryland legislature to pass laws for the use, distribution, regulation, and taxation of cannabis within the state.

Maryland legalized medical cannabis in 2014.

Interestingly, unlike most other ballot measures, Maryland Question 4 actually originated from the Maryland legislature. On April 1, 2022, the state legislature sent implementing legislation that was contingent upon the approval of the Marijuana Legalization Amendment to Governor Larry Hogan’s (R) desk. House Bill 837 (HB 837) was passed by the state House on February 25, 2022, by a vote of 92-37. The state Senate passed an amended version on March 31, 2022, by a vote of 30-15. The House concurred on April 1, with a vote of 89-41. Governor Hogan decided not to sign or veto the bill, allowing it to take effect upon approval of the amendment.

HB 837 temporarily expands decriminalization from January 1 to June 30, 2023. It decriminalizes the possession and use of up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis with a civil fine of up to $100. Before the passage of the Marijuana Legalization Amendment, the decriminalized amount was 10 grams. It also reduces the penalty for possession of more than 1.5 ounces but not exceeding 2.5 ounces to a civil fine of up to $250.

Beginning July 1, 2023, HB 837 legalizes the personal use and possession of up to 1.5 ounces or 12 grams of concentrated cannabis for individuals 21 years of age or older. It also legalizes the possession of up to two cannabis plants. It changes the criminal penalties for persons found possessing cannabis under the age of 21. The bill also automatically expunges convictions for conduct that is now legal, and individuals serving time for such offenses will be allowed to file for resentencing.

The bill also requires specific studies on the use of cannabis, the medical cannabis industry, and the adult-use cannabis industry. It also establishes the Cannabis Business Assistance Fund and the Cannabis Public Health Fund.

The Marijuana Legalization Amendment does not establish any licensing or regulatory framework for adult-use cannabis sales.

Missouri

On November 8, 2022, Missouri voters passed constitutional Amendment 3 by a margin of 53.1% to 46.9%, legalizing the purchase, possession, consumption, use, delivery, manufacture, and sale of cannabis for anyone over the age of 21. The law also imposes a 6% state tax on all cannabis sales and allows local governments to impose an additional tax of up to 3%. The law will go into effect December 7, 2022.

Missouri legalized medical cannabis in 2018.

Under Amendment 3, private residences may contain no more than twelve flowering plants at one time, and both the plants and any cannabis produced by such plants in excess of three ounces must be kept in a locked space and not be made available to the public. Individuals may obtain a license to cultivate up to six flowering plants, six non-flowering plants, and six clones.

In addition, those individuals currently serving a sentence for certain cannabis-related offenses are now able to submit a petition for release from incarceration and/or expungement of the offense, and those previously convicted of certain cannabis-related offenses may petition for expungement.

Arkansas, North Dakota & South Dakota

Voters in Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota rejected adult-use legalization efforts in their respective states. Each state’s ballot measure would have allowed adults to possess up to one ounce of cannabis. In addition, among other things, Arkansas’ Issue 4 would also have expanded the state’s medical cannabis program to permit licensed businesses to sell to cannabis to adults; and North Dakota’s Initiated Statutory Measure 2 would have required the establishment and implementation of a program for the production and sale of adult-use cannabis by October 1, 2023.

Medical cannabis remains legal in Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota. Although there has been a trend in a number of states where legalization of adult-use cannabis follows prior legalization of medical cannabis and the establishment of a medical cannabis program in the state, that trend does not appear to hold true in these “red” states. For example, after North Dakota voters passed a ballot measure to legalize medical cannabis in 2016, they have now rejected ballot measures that would have legalized adult-use cannabis in both 2018 and 2022. In South Dakota, voters passed a ballot measure to legalize adult-use cannabis in 2020, which was later invalidated by South Dakota courts in response to a challenge brought by Governor Kristi Noem. Two year later, voter interest dwindled and a similar measure failed.

A Look Ahead to 2023

Oklahoma

On the horizon for 2023 is a second chance for Oklahomans to decide on State Question 820, which would legalize adult-use cannabis for individuals 21 years of age and older after the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied a chance for voters to decide on the measure this November.

Oklahomans for Sensible Marijuana Laws (OSML) petitioned State Question 820 for the November ballot on July 5th, submitting nearly 164,000 signatures one month in advance of the August 1st deadline. Despite the Secretary of State Brian Bringman’s office advising OSML that the counting and verification process for signatures typically takes 2 to 3 weeks to complete, the office took nearly seven weeks to certify that 117,257 signatures were valid – well over the required minimum of 94,911 signatures. The severe delay caused OSML to miss the August 26th deadline for the measure to complete a 10-day protest period, finalize the measure, and print State Question 820 on the ballot. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on September 21, 2022 that the measure would have to be postponed until a future election. “At this point in time, SQ820 is not in full compliance. There is still a possibility of rehearing in two of the protests, which prevents this Court from fully resolving those objections in compliance with [state law]. That, in turn, prevents the Secretary of State and the Governor from taking their final steps in compliance with [state law].” Nichols v. Ziriax 2022 OK 76, ¶14.

On October 18, 2022, Governor J. Kevin Stitt issued an Executive Proclamation declaring a special election to vote on State Question 820 – a proposal to legalize adult-use cannabis, which will take place on March 7, 2023.

How Effective is Your Internal Auditing Program?

By David Vaillencourt
No Comments

The word “audit” evokes various emotions depending on your role in an organization and the context of the audit. While most are familiar with and loathe the IRS’s potential for a tax audit, the audits we are going to discuss today are (or should be) welcomed – proactive internal quality audits. A softer term that is also acceptable is “self-assessment.” These are independent assessments conducted to determine how effective an organization’s risk management, processes and general governance is. 

“How do you know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been” – Maya Angelou

Internal quality audits are critical to ensuring the safety of products, workers, consumers and the environment. When planned and performed periodically, these audits provide credible, consistent and objective evidence to inform the organization of its risks, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Ask yourself the question: do your clients/vendors rely on you to produce reliable, consistent and safe products? Assuming the answer is yes, what confidence do you have, and where is the documented evidence to support it?

Compliance units within cannabis businesses are typically responsible for ensuring a business stays legally compliant with state and federal regulations. This level of minimum compliance is critical to prevent fines and ensure licenses are not revoked. However, compliance audits rarely include fundamental components that leave cannabis operators exposed to many unnecessary risks.

Internal quality audits are critical to ensuring the safety of products, workers, consumers and the environment.

As a producer of medical and adult-use products that are ingested, inhaled or consumed in other forms by our friends, family and neighbors, how can you be sure that these products are produced safely and consistently? Are you confident that the legal requirements mandated by your state cannabis control board are sufficient? Judging by the number of recalls and frustrations voiced by the industry regarding the myriad of regulations, I would bet the answer is no.

What questions do internal audits address? Some examples include:

  • Are you operating as management intends?
  • How effective is your system in meeting specified objectives? These objectives could include quality metrics of your products, on-time delivery rates and other client/customer satisfaction metrics.
  • Are there opportunities to improve?
  • Are you doing what you say you do (in your SOPs), and do you have the recorded evidence (records) to prove it?
  • Are you meeting the requirements of all applicable government regulations?

There are potential drawbacks to internal audits. For one, as impartiality is essential in internal audits, it may be challenging to identify an impartial internal auditor in a small operation. If your team always feels like it is in firefighting mode, it may feel like a luxury to take the time to pull members out of their day-to-day duties and disrupt ongoing operations for an audit. Some fear that as internal assessments are meant to be more thorough than external assessments, a laundry list of to-do items may be uncovered due to the audit. But, these self-assessments often uncover issues that have resulted in operational efficiencies in the first place. This resulting “laundry list” then affords a proactive tool to implement corrective actions in an organized manner that can prevent the recurrence of major issues, as well as prevent new issues. The benefits of internal audits outweigh the drawbacks; not to mention, conducting internal audits is required by nearly every globally-recognized program, both voluntary (e.g. ISO 9001 or ASTM Internationals’s Cannabis Certification Program) and government required programs such as 21 CFR 211 for Pharmaceuticals.

Internal Auditing is a catalyst for improving an organization’s effectiveness and efficiency by providing insight and recommendations based on analyses and assessments of data and business processes. Additional benefits of internal audits include giving your organization the means to:

  • Ensure compliance to the requirements of internal, international and industry standards as well as regulations and customer requirements
  • Determine the effectiveness of the implemented system in meeting specified objectives (quality, environmental, financial)
  • Explore opportunities for improvement
  • Meet statutory and regulatory requirements
  • Provide feedback to Top Management
  • Lower the cost of poor quality

Findings from all audits must be addressed. This is typically done in accordance with a CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action) program. To many unfamiliar with Quality Management Systems, this may be a new term. As of Jan 1, 2021, this is now a requirement for all cannabis licensed operators in Colorado. Many other states require a CAPA program or similar. Continuing education units (CEUs) are available through ASTM International’s CAPA training program, which was developed specifically for the cannabis industry.

Examples of common audit findings that require CAPAs include:

  • Calibration – Production and test equipment must be calibrated to ensure they provide accurate and repeatable results.
  • Document and record control – Documents and records need to be readily accessible but protected from unintended use.
  • Supplier management – Most standards have various requirements for supplier management that may include auditing suppliers, monitoring supplier performance, only using suppliers certified to specific standards, etc.
  • Internal audits – Believe it or not, since internal audits are required by many programs, it’s not uncommon to have a finding related to internal audits! Findings from an internal audit can include not conducting audits on schedule, not addressing audit findings or not having a properly qualified internal auditor. Are you looking for more guidance? Last year, members of ASTM International’s D37 Committee on Cannabis approved a Standard Guide for Cannabis and Hemp Operation Compliance Audits, ASTM D8308-21.

If you are still on the fence about the value of an internal audit, given the option of an inspector uncovering a non-conformance or your own team discovering and then correcting it, which would you prefer? With fines easily exceeding $100,000 by many cannabis enforcement units, the answer should be clear. Internal audits are a valuable tool that should not be feared.

Richard Naiberg
Quality From Canada

Protecting Intellectual Property In Canada: A Practical Guide, Part 1

By Richard Naiberg
No Comments
Richard Naiberg

Cannabis producers are making large investments in new technologies to improve their plant varieties, production know-how and product formulations. At the same time, producers are working hard to create and promote more compelling, top-of-mind brand identities for their improved products. The series concludes with a 9-point outline of specific steps cannabis producers need to consider taking to protect their key intellectual property assets. 

The value of these investments cannot be realized if competitors are allowed to copy and exploit the producer’s successes. Canada’s intellectual property laws can and should be used to protect cannabis producers from such predation. Invoking Canada’s laws to this end is not difficult and does not have to be expensive. It does, however, require specific, deliberate and early action.

This series of articles outlines the principal means of protecting intellectual property rights in the core technologies and marketing programs of cannabis companies. The series also highlights what any cannabis company must do to ensure that its own activities do not run afoul of another’s rights. No company wants to begin a new venture only to face a lawsuit for intellectual property infringement.

The series concludes with a 9-point outline of specific steps cannabis producers need to consider taking to protect their key intellectual property assets.

Trade Secrets: Protection For Confidential Know How

A trade secret is specific, commercially valuable information and know-how that is kept confidential within the company and cannot generally be reversed-engineered by outsiders. A trade secret provides protection over any type of information or know-how and is not subject to any expiry date. Trade secret protection is lost only when the information or know-how becomes available to the public.

As a best practice, defining the trade secret in a confidential document can be useful as a way of restricting access to the secretCannabis producers generate all kinds of valuable know-how that cannot be appreciated simply from an inspection of the vended product. Examples would include methods of crossbreeding, cultivation, harvesting, extraction and processing. Customer lists and other internal business structures and information may also qualify as trade secrets.

There are no statutory pre-conditions that must be met to obtain a trade secret. A trade secret is acquired simply upon the generation of valuable information or know-how that is kept confidential. As a best practice, defining the trade secret in a confidential document can be useful as a way of restricting access to the secret, and as evidence in proceedings as to the scope of the trade secret (an issue that is frequently in dispute in such cases).

For the trade secret to be maintained, the producer will need to take steps to ensure that access to the know-how and associated documents is restricted only to those who need to know the secret for purposes of carrying out their functions at the company. All personnel with access to the trade secret will need to be bound to confidence by employment agreement and/or by separate contract. When employees leave, they ought to be reminded of their obligations of confidentiality and must be prohibited from removing any documentation regarding the trade secret from the company. All outside companies who need access to the secret must sign non-disclosure agreements. It is typical for owners of trade secrets to be vigilant in their market surveillance and to engage private investigators when they suspect a trade secret has been stolen.

A trade secret’s very confidentiality provides its principal value. A competitor cannot copy what it has no ability to discern. However, when someone with access to the secret ‘goes rogue’, such as by using the know-how for his or her own account or for that of a new employer, the owner of the trade secret must act quickly and bring the matter before the Court. The Court has a broad discretion to stop the rogue and any persons or companies who learn the secret from the rogue from further dissemination or exploitation of the trade secret. The Court also has a broad discretion to craft an appropriate remedy to compensate the trade-secret owner for the wrong. If the action is brought before the trade secret is broadly disseminated, the trade secret may be reinstated and enforceable in the future. If the owner of the secret acts too slowly and the dissemination of the trade secret becomes too broad, the trade secret may be lost forever.

Adopting the use of trade secrets to protect know-how in the cannabis business does suffer from the fragility of the right itself. One disclosure, however inadvertent, can destroy the protection. In addition, a trade secret will not protect a company from a competitor who independently derives the know-how. Further, theft of the trade secret can be difficult to spot because, by its nature, the trade secret is exploited within the walls of the competitor company and is not evident in the marketed product. The owner of the secret will need to watch its competitors for telltale shifts in business direction and product offerings, particularly when those competitors hire the ex-employees of the owner of the trade secret. It is typical for owners of trade secrets to be vigilant in their market surveillance and to engage private investigators when they suspect a trade secret has been stolen.

Editor’s Note: In part 2 of this series, which will be published next week, Richard Naiberg will take a closer look at patents and how business can protect new and inventive technology in Canada’s cannabis industry. Stay tuned for more!