WeedLife News Network

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new bill last week that will help protect banks that do business with licensed cannabis companies.

Under Bill AB 1525, banks, credit unions, savings associations and other financial institutions wouldn’t be in violation of California state laws by providing their services to licensed cannabis businesses – similar to the SAFE Banking Act, the landmark cannabis banking bill that the House of Representatives passed last year.

The SAFE Banking Act was included in the latest Democrat-proposed coronavirus stimulus bill worth $2.2 trillion. 

Despite the local status of marijuana in states that have opted to legalize weed, the plant remains classified as a Schedule I drug on the federal level, resulting in a complex legal landscape for banks that wish to work with cannabis businesses.

These lenders could face money laundering charges, while companies that legally work in the cannabis industry are forced to operate as cash-only businesses, which in turn creates the perfect environment for fraud, theft and tax evasion.

Lawmakers in Virginia have passed two bills that prohibit law enforcement officers from conducting warrantless searches based solely on the odor of marijuana. The measures, Senate Bill 5029 and House Bill 5058, have been approved by both legislative bodies and await the signature of Democratic. Gov. Ralph Northam to become law.

Earlier this year, Virginia decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana by limiting penalties to a civil fine of $25. Jenn Michelle Pedini, the development director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the executive director of the group’s Virginia branch, said in a release on Monday that the two bills continue the state’s reform efforts, but more still needs to be done.

“While this will certainly decrease non-essential interactions between law enforcement and otherwise law-abiding Virginians, it is only by legalizing the responsible use of cannabis by adults that the Commonwealth can end its failed experiment with prohibition and begin repairing the decades of damage,” Pedini said.

According to the text of the bills, “no law-enforcement officer may lawfully search or seize any person, place, or thing solely on the basis of the odor of marijuana and no evidence discovered or obtained as a result of such unlawful search or seizure shall be admissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.” Other provisions of the legislation limit the power of police to issue summonses for minor traffic offenses.

Advocates for the bills argue that police have long used the smell of cannabis, real or otherwise, as pretense for conducting warrantless searches. Attorney Todd Zinicola said that the courts are insulated from the extent of the abuse of power.

Instituting cannabis laws will likely have little effect on students, suggests a new study out of New Zealand that found using weed is part of their culture and no amount of rulemaking and finger-wagging is likely to change that.

Researchers at the University of Otago wanted to explore drug acceptability views among students and find out whether or not cannabis law in New Zealand, where recreational weed is illegal, has any influence on their use of marijuana.

The answer? Not really, notes a university news release.

Published in Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment, the findings indicate that consuming cannabis has been normalized in student culture, says Kirsten Robertson, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of marketing at the university.

That seems borne out by the 82 per cent of students who report their peers had used cannabis before, and about half that, 39 per cent, who note their peers used weed regularly.

New Zealand was poised to make history this year by putting the national legalization of cannabis to a vote, but now advocates are concerned that it won’t make the cut in 2020 due to all the issues that have shifted the focus this year. 

If legalization does get pushed through, cannabis would be legalized for recreational use for those over 20, and there would be regulations as to the growing and selling of cannabis. People would be able to purchase up to 14 grams a day and grow two plants per person. A “yes” vote means that Parliament will be able to pass the law if they choose to, and legal cannabis would be a viable possibility in the country. 

New Zealand would become one of the few countries in the world to have legalized, including Uruguay and Canada. However, many have stated concerns over poll numbers dropping when it comes to cannabis support. 

Studies show that more than $1.4 billion New Zealand dollars could be gained each year from legalizing cannabis, a major boost to the economy. This is based on the country having 400 new stores, 5,000 new jobs, and a spike in cannabis use when it becomes legal. 

However, thanks to the combination of COVID and the other major issues coming up this year, including a vote on euthanasia, which has been a huge moral battleground in New Zealand, there hasn’t been the kind of hype around legalization that one would expect to see on an average year.

When voters head to the polls this November, they’ll decide on a marijuana legalization initiative that’s appearing on the ballot in Arizona for the first time since 2016.

Medical marijuana has been legal in Arizona since 2010. More than 250,000 Arizonans are medical marijuana card holders today.

This year’s Smart and Safe Act, or Proposition 207, looks to decriminalize recreational use. If passed, adults 21 and older could legally use and buy the product, and possess it in limited quantities.

A similar measure narrowly failed in 2016. Prop. 207 spokesperson Stacy Pearson said the new bill is informed by criticisms of its predecessor.

"The most important example [of that] is the criticisms from the business community, who thought that the 2016 initiative did not go far enough in allowing employers to prohibit use by their employees," she said.

The legal cannabis industry continued to make inroads against its illicit counterparts, as one-quarter of all sales took place among regulated players in the first quarter of the year, according to new data from the Ontario Cannabis Store.

The provincial pot distributor's quarterly review showed that the province controlled a 25.1-per-cent share of the cannabis market in the fiscal first quarter of 2020, a slight uptick from the 24.7 per cent share observed in the previous quarter. The number lagged behind the national share for the legal market, according to OCS and Statistics Canada calculations.  

The market share gains indicate that Canada's approach to legalizing pot for recreational use is gaining traction amongst consumers. Additional data showed household spending on legal cannabis in the second quarter of 2020 outpaced the illicit market for the first time 

"The growth of the market in terms of the volume of product sold and percentage of the illegal market captured are both inching upwards as a direct result of the collaboration between the OCS and its commercial partners – licensed producers and authorized cannabis retail stores," Cheri Mara, chief commercial officer of the OCS, said in a letter published with the agency's quarterly review. 

The OCS also said in its quarterly review that its $7.05-per-gram sale price for dried flower is now cheaper than the average price offered by illegal mail-order marijuana sites ($7.98). The discount comes as large-format 28-gram value offerings become increasingly popular in the legal retail market. Those products accounted for 3.9 per cent of all dried flower sales last quarter, nearly four times the total observed by the end of last year, the OCS said. 

Arkansans spent $154 million on 24,067 pounds of medical marijuana since the first dispensary opened in May 2019. This is according to Scott Hardin, who is a spokesperson with the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission.

In Northwest Arkansas and the River Valley specifically, 8,416 pounds of medical marijuana were sold since August 2019.

There are currently 29 dispensaries in Arkansas, and the state expects to open eight more.

83,779 Arkansans have a patient card for medical marijuana. Starting on September 30th, expired patient cards must be renewed to make new purchases.

A trip to the doctor's office for card renewal is not required. Patients can do a Telehealth appointment with a doctor to confirm their conditions and to receive a patient card.

Market research company OH Predictive Insights finds that the legalization of recreational cannabis in Arizona is almost split amongst voters.

The recent poll surveyed by 600 likely voters answered the question, “ Do you believe that marijuana should be legalized for adult use in the State of Arizona?” The survey was conducted between September 8-10.

As a result, 46% likely agreed, 45% opposed, and 9% remained undecided. The effort towards this survey is to see how Proposition 207 will do in November’s election. Under Prop 207, adults (aged 21 or older) would allow one ounce of marijuana for recreational use and up to 6 plants for cultivation; medicinal use is already legal in the state. Unfortunately, between the decline in support from a July poll and the failed initiative Prop 205, the shaky future of Arizona’s Prop 207 will come down to November’s election.

Not the first time Arizonians were split on a decision. In 2016, the proposed Proposition 205 failed to succeed to a 51.3%-48.7% margin, leaving the opposition with a lackluster defeat. The results from a July poll by OH Predictive have shown the swing with voters pro-legalization leading from 62%-32% to now at 46%. The most significant campaign obstacle to make this happen will be working on the 9% undecided.

“As election day nears, voters appear to be focusing on what’s on the ballot,” says OHPI Chief Mike Noble on OH Initiative blog, “And while the campaign to oppose marijuana legalization is anemic compared to 2016, voters still have concerns about the effort.”

Petitioners claim that a recent DEA rule is unlawful because it exceeds the DEA’s authority and violates the 2018 Farm Bill.

On August 21, the Drug Enforcement Agency (the “DEA”) released an Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”), which, in part, suggests that in-process hemp extract shall be treated as a schedule I controlled substance during any point at which its THC concentration exceeds 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. “Any point” includes even fleetingly during the processing phase and includes situations where the THC percentage is brought back into legal compliance for the finished product.

In response to this threat, close to 2,500 hemp stakeholders have already expressed their opposition to the Rule by submitting comments via the federal public docket. But some have taken their opposition one step further by suing the DEA. On Friday, September 18, the Hemp Industries Association (“HIA”) and RE Botanicals, a South Carolina hemp CBD manufacturer, filed a petition against the DEA and its acting administrator, Timothy Shea, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The petitioners claim that the Rule is unlawful because it exceeds the DEA’s authority and violates the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”). Specifically, the Rule contradicts the plain language and the intent of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp, its derivatives, extracts and cannabinoids so they could be regulated as agricultural commodities, and thus, fall outside the DEA’s jurisdiction.

In addition, HIA and RE Botanicals argue that the DEA failed to issue the Rule in compliance with administrative procedures imposed under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”). Indeed, Mr. Shea implemented the Rule without providing the public with notice and the opportunity to comment before the Rule went into effect. Instead, the Rule provides that its content “merely conforms DEA’s regulations to the statutory amendments to the [Controlled Substances Act] that have already taken effect, and it does not add additional requirements to the regulations.” (Emphasis added).

The Cannabis Control Commission filled in the blanks Thursday of its long-discussed marijuana home delivery rules, agreeing upon a framework that creates two types of delivery licenses and settling on a timeline that would have new cannabis industry rules in place in about a month.

The CCC adopted draft delivery regulations Thursday that would create two distinct delivery license types: a “limited delivery license” that would allow an operator to charge a fee to make deliveries from CCC-licensed retailers and dispensaries, and a “wholesale delivery license” that would let an operator buy marijuana wholesale from cultivators and manufacturers and store it in a warehouse. The licensees would augment retail stories and serve as a new means for people to acquire recreational marijuana.

“What we’ve done in addition to creating those two license types is also to establish new fees and fee structures, to require warehousing for wholesale delivery licensees, to authorize white labeling for wholesale delivery licensees, we’re defining specific operational requirements that will be in addition to the general operational requirements, and we are amending existing relevant regulations to incorporate the license types and the activities that they can undertake,” Commissioner Britte McBride, who led the regulation writing process, said

McBride said the limited delivery license “isn’t much of a change at all from the delivery-only license that had been included in our regulations.” When it started this latest round of regulatory revisions earlier this year, the proposed rules would have limited delivery operators to a courier role, sourcing marijuana and marijuana products from CCC-licensed retailers and making same-day deliveries. Several prospective cannabis delivery operators told commissioners during a public hearing that the framework for delivery would not work as initially written.

Last month, commissioners voted to allow delivery companies to source the marijuana and products they offer for delivery from CCC-licensed cultivators and product manufacturers on a wholesale basis, a change that one regulator said is key to equity in the newly-legal industry. That policy decision manifested itself Thursday in the form of the new wholesale delivery license type

The DEA recently issued an interim final rule addressing the implementation of hemp provisions of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (aka the Farm Bill). But the rule has left many hemp companies confused and concerned. Specifically, the DEA seeks to criminalize certain cannabinoids in what appears to be a direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the Farm Bill. 

Many in the industry are specifically worried about the rule’s possible impact on Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the use of which has rapidly expanded lately due to its vast and therapeutic benefits, including appetite stimulation, nausea reduction, and relief from anxiety and pain. 

I believe that the DEA’s proposed criminalization of Delta-8 THC and other cannabinoids exceeds its authority and that the production and use of Delta-8 THC should remain compliant with the law. 

Some background of Delta-8 THC

Delta-8 THC is an isomer derived either from the hemp plant or from cannabidiol (CBD). Currently, most of the Delta-8 THC on the market comes from CBD because hemp extraction does not generally elicit high enough concentrations or quantities to make it a profitable option. But while Delta-8 THC is no doubt a cousin of Delta-9 THC, they are not the same.

Delta-9 THC is the most abundant and well-known cannabinoid. It produces the euphoric effects commonly associated with cannabis use. Delta-9 THC is significantly more psychoactive than Delta-8 THC, which is why it is still listed as a controlled substance in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The impact of the Farm Bill on Delta-8 THC is quite different from Delta-9 THC. 

Potentially hundreds of thousands of Michiganders could soon be in line to have previous marijuana offenses expunged, thanks to a sweeping legislative package that is on the verge of becoming law.

A total of six bills are heading to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s desk after clearing the final round of approval in the legislature, and all would significantly change the criminal records of many in the state. And the effort to wipe clean the records of some who were previously busted for pot comes in the wake of Michigan voters approving a measure to legalize recreational marijuana use in 2018. 

According to the Detroit Free Press, the legislative package that was approved by lawmakers includes a proposal to “create a process to streamline expungement of marijuana offenses if the activity that led to the conviction would have been legal under the recreational marijuana law.”

House Bill 4982 allows “people convicted of one or more misdemeanor marijuana offense to apply for expungement, streamlining the process,” while also providing a “rebuttable presumption that the conviction was based on activity that would not have been a crime if committed after the use of recreational marijuana by adults became legal in December 2018,” according to the Free Press.

“In challenging the application, a prosecutor would need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the conduct would constitute a criminal violation after recreational marijuana was legalized. Courts would move to set aside convictions that are not contested after 60 days,” the newspaper explained. 

A new measure would prioritize minorities, women, and those disproportionately affected by the War on Drugs for a marijuana business license.

A bill that would create a licensed recreational marijuana market in Vermont is headed to Gov. Phil Scott’s office. Residents could legally possess and consume marijuana for the past two years, but had no legal means to acquire it. This legislation would change that.

When Vermont Legislature introduced and passed cannabis legalization in 2018, the state became the first to end prohibition through lawmaker impetus instead of a ballot initiative led by advocates. However, Vermont lawmakers failed to create a legal system of cannabis sales in the process.

The new measure underwent a lengthy back-and-forth between the Vermont House and Senate. Following compromises by both sides, the bill passed each chamber and still requires Scott’s final approval. The Republican Governor hasn’t indicated whether he’ll sign the bill, though commented that lawmakers addressed many of his concerns and have “come a long ways.”

“Vermont legislators should be applauded for their hard work fine-tuning the cannabis regulation bill and sending it forward to the governor’s desk,” Matt Simon, New England political director at the Marijuana Policy Project, told The Fresh Toast. “This was a difficult compromise, but legislators worked hard to ensure that a wide range of concerns were addressed.”

As the deadline to begin operating under the 2018 Farm Bill rapidly approaches, hemp growers following their state pilot programs may soon be getting the relief they’ve been asking for.

The U.S. House of Representatives has introduced a bill (H.R. 8319) with a provision that would allow hemp growers to continue operating under their pilot programs through September of 2021, extending the interim period by nearly a year.

The current deadline for states to end their hemp pilot programs established by the 2014 Farm Bill and begin operating under the 2018 Farm Bill is Oct. 31 of this year.

The proposed extension of hemp pilot programs answers the call of industry leaders and lawmakers alike to give hemp growers more time to adjust to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) interim final rule (IFR) on hemp, which aligns with regulations under the 2018 Farm Bill and is generally seen as a more stringent set of rules.

Nearly two dozen states chose to operate under their pilot programs for the 2020 growing season, according to the U.S. Hemp Roundtable.

Hemp farmers—who have been hard hit by the COVID-19 crisis and hampered by slow reforms to federal drug regulations—are now eligible for federal aid under a second round of pandemic economic relief.

The original installment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency’s Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP1), which contained $16 billion in funds, was distributed in the spring. Hemp farmers were not eligible to apply.

President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced the second round of CFAP relief on September 18. An additional $14 billion in funds has been earmarked for farmers, bringing the amount of pandemic relief funding for the U.S. agricultural sector to $30 billion so far.

A USDA press release announcing the aid package classified hemp as a “flat-rate crop,” and said, “Crops that either do not meet the 5-percent price decline trigger or do not have data available to calculate a price change will have payments calculated based on eligible 2020 acres multiplied by $15 per acre. These crops include alfalfa, extra long staple (ELS) cotton, oats, peanuts, rice, hemp, millet, mustard, safflower, sesame, triticale, rapeseed, and several others.”

The U.S. Hemp Growers Association (USHGA) said after hundreds of industry members contacted the USDA, as well as a phone call between the trade organization and USDA officials, hemp farmers were added to the proposal at the last minute.

MCN speaks with Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration about medical cannabis regulation and access.

The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which operates under the aegis of the Department of Health, is responsible for regulating therapeutic goods – including pharmaceutical and complementary medicines, medical devices, tests, and vaccines – across Australia. It oversees the classification and manufacture of medicines and medicinal products; as well as conducting risk and safety assessments, standards enforcement, and post-market monitoring.

As the regulatory body in charge of determining the validity of applications to prescribe medical cannabis, the TGA has approved requests for cannabis prescriptions to treat conditions and symptoms including:

It should be noted, however, that applying to prescribe cannabis for one of the above conditions does not guarantee approval from the TGA.

MCN speaks with a spokesperson from the TGA about Australian cannabis regulation and access, the evolution of Australian cannabis policy, and the importance of continued education within the sector.

What is the current medical and legal status of cannabis in Australia?

Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended, which requires all signatories to implement controls on the cultivation of the cannabis plant. Commentary to the Single Convention provides an overview of the standard regime to which signatories have committed:

In 2020, state courts still seem to be a good bet for cannabis businesses in cannabis-legal states. But federal courts are sliding backward.

A few weeks back, the Cannabis Law Institute invited me to discuss contract drafting for cannabis deals. A focal point for the panel was whether courts are willing to enforce cannabis contracts. The last time I had really looked at that issue was early 2019, when I wrote: Cannabis Dispute? Courts are Open. As the title indicates, my research (and our law firm’s experience) showed that both state and federal courts were generally open to resolving cannabis contract disputes at the time. And I assumed the trend had held. Unfortunately, it has not!

In the 2019 piece, I summarized:

[Contract enforceability] was always the biggest consideration in choosing a forum for cannabis disputes. A few months ago, we ran a survey of federal courts and cannabis litigation, observing that none of the districts at issue were invalidating state-sanctioned businesses’ cannabis contracts on the dreaded “illegal purpose” basis. This trend is holding strong in recent federal court disputes on issues from RICO to patent infringement, despite the prohibited status of “marijuana” under federal law. As to state courts, the decisions declining to hear cannabis beefs are pretty far in the rearview. (Ironically, it has been safer overall to enforce cannabis contracts in federal courts that state courts to date.) When drafting agreements for cannabis clients, we still advise as to the diminishing possibility of non-enforcement, but most cannabis companies seem comfortable choosing court over arbitration if other goals are satisfied.

In 2020, state courts still seem to be a good bet for cannabis businesses in cannabis-legal states. Although I have not run a formal survey, I also have not come across local courts tossing disputes solely because the contract related to cannabis activities (and our cannabis business litigators have worked on many of these cases). But federal courts are sliding backward. A trio of cases in Washington, Oregon and Nevada show why.

Throughout all the major cannabis news that has been making headlines in Europe, the U.S., and across the globe over the past ten or so years, France has been almost nowhere in the mix.

A parliamentary committee wants to change that as soon as possible and the members are urging the government to initiate a medical cannabis experiment and figure out the best way to address medical cannabis concerns. 

An Urgent Call To Action

The committee made this demand in a document, asking for a budget that would support some kind of experiment surrounding medical cannabis and its potential for legalization. 

“It’s very important that funding for the medical cannabis experiment is now integrated into this process,” said  Benjamin-Alexandre Jeanroy, CEO of Augur Associates in Paris, back in 2019 regarding the importance of moving forward and making something happen. While France has technically approved such an experiment a year ago through legal channels, there needs to be actual implementation to get something off the ground and into the trial stage so that progress can be monitored.  

Robin Reda of the French National Assembly and president of the committee claims that she believes France “has fallen alarmingly behind its European neighbors” in terms of cannabis reform overall. “The bulk of the technical work was done before the health crisis,” Reda added, explaining that she doesn’t believe this delay is due to COVID alone, as there has been plenty of time. She instead blames “bureaucratic blockage” and wonders why the government is not moving forward.