State and federal excise taxes are a critical element of the business environment for major “vice” industries in the United States, such as tobacco. While no federal excise tax applies to marijuana, state excise taxes (SET) are a significant economic consideration for the recreational marijuana industry in a given state.
In the fifth episode of our 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Nick Ramos is joined by Jean Smith-Gonnell, the leader of the firm’s Cannabis Industry practice to discuss significant regulatory updates in the cannabis industry from 2024 and the potential impacts of the recent election on the industry in 2025.
With power changing hands in Washington, D.C., what can marijuana industry members expect from the 119th Congress? Two GOP proposals from the 118th Congress may foreshadow the likely path for federal marijuana legalization. These bills — the “States Reform Act of 2023” and the “Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) 2.0 Act” —would explicitly support states’ legal marijuana regimes, while leaving states with the ultimate decision of whether to establish such regimes.
The Colorado Attorney General’s (AG) Office recently entered into a settlement agreement with Bee’s Knees Enterprises, LLC, dba Bee’s Knees CBDs, addressing allegations of violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). The CCPA generally prohibits deceptive trade practices, including false representations or advertising, and allows for public or private enforcement and civil penalties. The settlement agreement resolves claims against Bee’s Knees without admitting liability.
This year’s election saw no shortage of surprises at the federal, state, and local levels, and Colorado Springs, CO was no exception. Although the results have yet to be officially certified, it appears that voters have approved an initiative that would authorize recreational cannabis sales in the city. Colorado Springs has long stood as one of the major hold outs of recreational cannabis legalization in Colorado, due largely in part to its community of active service members. Alongside the recreational sales authorization, a separate ballot measure that would have amended the city’s charter to prohibit any recreational sales within the city failed by only 1%. That slim margin, coupled with continued legal uncertainty, may foreshadow a tumultuous implementation process.
In a pivotal ruling issued on October 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to deny a motion filed by Lucas and Alisa Sirois, a Maine couple accused of operating an illegal marijuana cultivation and distribution network, to end federal prosecution against them. The ruling is significant not only because of its direct impact on the Siroises but also due to its broader implications for the ongoing tension between state and federal cannabis laws. The case underscores the legal complexities at the intersection of state and federal marijuana laws and provides additional clarity on the confines of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment.
Introduction
The interplay between the unintentional federal legalization of intoxicating hemp-derived products under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) and state regulatory frameworks is increasingly testing the limits of jurisdictional boundaries, as shown in a recent decision remanding a Connecticut consumer protection case against RZ Smoke, Inc. back to the Connecticut Superior Court.
In recent years, federal and state governments have taken action to make marijuana research easier. These actions are a step in the right direction, and researchers operating in the marijuana space must be aware of the regulatory requirements that are associated with conducting such research. In this article, we discuss some of the key considerations related to conducting marijuana research.
What Happened
On September 14, Virginia’s Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares issued a letter to the registered agent of the Good Vibes Shop, a Radford, VA store, for selling tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products without proper labeling and packaging. The AG’s letter alleges that the store’s THC products lacked child-resistant packaging and appropriate labeling, including ingredient lists, THC content, and age restrictions, in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). As we have recently discussed, the AG’s letter is part of a broader effort among states to protect consumers amid the evolving federal and state cannabis regulatory landscape.
On August 1, Missouri Governor Michael Parson issued Executive Order 24-10 (the EO), a bold move aimed at addressing consumer safety concerns surrounding unregulated psychoactive cannabis products. The EO sparked a legal battle with the Missouri Hemp Trade Association (MO Hemp), which claims that by designating these products as adulterated and imposing an embargo under the EO, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) violated Missouri law. The governor’s action is yet another example of a state taking aggressive steps to address gaps left by the lack of federal regulations to ensure consumer safety in the burgeoning industrial hemp industry.