Photo of Cole White

Cole White

Subscribe to Cole White's Posts

Cole is a member of the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) group. He has a decade of experience working in the attorney general community, having joined the firm from the Wyoming Office of the Attorney General, where he was assistant attorney general.

Contact:Read more about Cole White

The proposed rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of U.S. cannabis policy but may bring few practical changes to state-licensed markets. On May 20, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking[1] (NPRM) to initiate the change, launching a 60-day public comment period that concluded on July 22. The proposal has stirred significant interest and debate among stakeholders, including state regulators, advocacy groups, health experts, individuals, and licensed businesses, resulting in the posting of more than 43,000 comments.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to transfer cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a change that could significantly affect current state cannabis programs. In response, the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA) submitted a detailed comment letter to the DOJ requesting clarity on how rescheduling will impact these existing regulatory structures. An examination of CANNRA’s public comment offers insights for state-legal businesses into what the future may hold for the joint regulation of cannabis at the state and federal levels.

The rapid evolution of intoxicating cannabinoids has brought forth significant changes and challenges to both the agricultural and commercial cannabis sectors across the U.S. These new cannabinoids have exposed gaps in state and federal regulatory frameworks, allowing intoxicating substances to be marketed without the stringent level of oversight applied to state-legal cannabis products. These hemp-derived cannabinoids are often sold in gas stations and convenience stores, posing significant risks to consumers, especially minors. The lack of clear federal guidelines has left state attorneys general (AG) grappling with this gray market, leading to calls for legislative action to address the issue comprehensively.

Only one day after reports surfaced that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will proceed with rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) reintroduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA or the Act), a nearly 300-page bill that would create a framework for the comprehensive regulation and taxation of cannabis in the United States. Then, on May 16th, the Department of Justice issued its notice of proposed rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III. Administrative and legislative approaches to cannabis reform each have their own strengths and weakness that must be carefully considered. In addition, these competing approaches offer an opportunity to highlight the political differences between administrative and legislative policy reform at the federal level.

Last week the office of the Attorney General of Connecticut announced that the state had reached a settlement with HighBazaar over allegations that the organization allowed the unlicensed sale of cannabis, and the presence of minors, at their outdoor social cannabis events in Connecticut. The settlement represents one of many enforcement actions aimed at eliminating the state’s gray market and protecting licensed businesses and consumers.

Just before the close of the Colorado legislature’s 2024 session, lawmakers approved a bill aimed at streamlining several deficiencies in the state’s regulation of marijuana businesses. While not all the bill’s intended fixes were passed, certain provisions will facilitate significant changes for businesses, including for licensing processes, contaminant testing protocols, reporting obligations, compliance procedures, and operations management practices. Several notable changes are discussed below.

In the grand experiment of American democracy, it is often said that states serve as laboratories, testing policies that challenge the status quo without risking the stability of the whole. Oregon, known in recent years for its pioneering drug decriminalization laws, is at a crossroads that marks the end of a significant experiment. State legislators recently passed a bill aiming to recriminalize the possession of small amounts of certain substances, a move now awaiting Democratic Governor Tina Kotek’s approval. Last week, the governor announced that she plans to sign the bill. The move toward recriminalization highlights a broader conversation on the re-evaluation of drug policy, public health, and social justice in a post war-on-drugs environment in the U.S.

One of the most interesting aspects of marijuana law and policy in the U.S. is its tendency to strike at our most foundational democratic principles. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Gonzales v. Raich,[1] that Congress has the power to regulate the purely intrastate cultivation, manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana under the commerce clause, even if the marijuana never crosses state lines, because marijuana-related activity has a “substantial affect” on interstate commerce. Several challenges have been made to this conclusion since Gonzales was decided, none of which have been successful to date.

Whether you believe that cannabis legalization has occurred too quickly or too slowly, one thing is certain: recent developments herald a potentially seismic shift in federal cannabis policy in the U.S. Reflecting on our article from September, which discussed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it is clear that the landscape continues to evolve rapidly. Since that publication, numerous noteworthy developments have unfolded, along with a growing discourse on the potential unintended consequences of such a reclassification. This article aims to catch readers up on the latest developments in federal cannabis legalization.

With rapid technological advances, expanded regulatory oversight, and constantly shifting market dynamics, owning and operating a business in the modern world has become an increasingly difficult challenge. Chief among the challenges that business owners face is the likelihood of financial distress, a daunting scenario that can arise from market downturns, management issues, or unexpected crises. When a business finds itself in financial turmoil, it is crucial that business owners and investors have viable options for navigating these challenges. Traditionally, bankruptcy is the primary avenue of relief for distressed businesses, offering a structured way to address financial woes and creditor claims.