Photo of Agustin Rodriguez

Agustin Rodriguez

Subscribe to Agustin Rodriguez's Posts

Agustin is sought after by clients for his strategic counsel on their most challenging competitive and regulatory compliance issues, including tobacco Master Settlement Agreement issues, federal and state enforcement investigations, licensing and excise tax issues, developing compliance programs, and evaluating advertising and marketing practices. A partner in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group as well as its Tobacco and Cannabis law practices, he represents manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and suppliers in all aspects of their businesses, including regulatory compliance, FDA requirements, administrative disputes involving federal or state governmental entities, mergers and acquisitions, commercial agreements, and taxation matters.

Contact:Read more about Agustin Rodriguez

Published in Law360 on July 19, 2023. © Copyright 2023, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.

While many individuals are excited about the proliferation of state laws providing for medical and recreational use of marijuana across the country, inconsistencies in these state laws have made it difficult for employers to put in place consistent policies and practices on testing for marijuana as a condition of employment, upon reasonable suspicion, and post-accident. Employers are being forced to revisit their drug-testing policies not just because of changes to their state’s laws regarding medical and recreational use of marijuana, but also because it is becoming increasingly difficult to find employees who have not used, or do not use, marijuana. If employers want to continue testing for marijuana in states where use is legal, policies must be drafted carefully to account for the continued evolution of the law in this area.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued first-of-its kind draft guidance for investigational new drug (IND) applications involving psychedelic drugs. Citing the rise in interest in exploring the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelic drugs, FDA indicated its receptiveness to allowing researchers to investigate exactly how useful psychedelics are at treating psychological disorders, such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse, anxiety, and other conditions. While the guidance is not geared toward trials intended to support marketing applications, the agency’s attention to this topic may herald a new wave of associated investigations.

On May 11, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, along with two convenience stores and the American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, sued the California attorney general and district attorney for Fresno County in their official capacities, seeking declaratory relief that these California officials misinterpreted and misapplied California’s ban on flavored tobacco products and incorrectly concluded that RJ Reynolds’ new products violate this ban.

Under the sponsorship of Representatives Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Angie Craig (D-MN), congressional lawmakers recently renewed their effort to force the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) hand in regulating cannabidiol (CBD) products. The two proposed bills would require FDA to do what it stated in early 2023 it could not do: regulate CBD and other hemp-derived foods and dietary supplements under existing Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) pathways.

This is the second post in our multipart series evaluating the Food and Drug Administration’s response to the Regan-Udall Foundation report on the operations of the Center for Tobacco Products. If you missed our first post, check it out here.

There is a common refrain that appears throughout the Reagan-Udall Foundation report on the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — lack of transparency. The report found that stakeholders generally perceived premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) — required for all electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) on the market — as “ineffective and problematic” due in part to a “lack of adequate guidance and transparency regarding CTP expectations,” as well as a “lack of clarity regarding review standards.”

FDA’s approach to a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) raises new questions about whether its marketing denial order was arbitrary and capricious and whether the deliberative-process exemption justifies its withholding of related records. The Agency’s approach is partially documented in a memorandum that FDA disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and there is pending litigation over other records that FDA continues to withhold.