Photo of Jean Smith-Gonnell

Jean Smith-Gonnell

Subscribe to Jean Smith-Gonnell's Posts

Jean has dedicated her entire career to the cannabis sector, helping growers, dispensaries, investors, receivers, and other stakeholders achieve their business goals and prepare for unexpected issues. She has extensive experience with medical marijuana, retail marijuana, hemp, and CBD products, and helps clients as they establish their businesses, mitigate risk, and resolve disputes. Known for responding to clients within 24 hours or less, Jean is also a go-to advisor for a wide range of day-to-day operational issues.

Contact:Read more about Jean Smith-Gonnell

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.

When Minnesota legislators passed House File 4065 in 2022 — legalizing the sale of certain hemp-derived THC edibles and beverages — few could have predicted that a multimillion-dollar THC-infused beverage market would result. Today, Minnesota consumers enjoy access to THC beverages in many places traditionally reserved for alcohol — liquor stores, breweries, bars, and restaurants.

I. Introduction

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the largest governing body in college athletics. The NCAA regulates all aspects of student athletics among 1,100 schools in the United States. It also organizes the athletic programs for over 500,000 collegiate student athletes. Part and parcel to their governance of collegiate athletics is the NCAA’s responsibility for maintaining the integrity of competition by conducting drug testing procedures for student athletes under their purview. On June 26, 2024, the NCAA removed cannabis from its banned drugs list for Division I college football championship and post-season. This decision has significant legal and policy implications that extend beyond the realm of collegiate athletics. Arguably, this decision is a part of the evolving public perception of marijuana.

Concerns over consumer protection are mounting as the sales of intoxicating hemp products continue to rise. In response to a fragmented regulatory landscape that has led to inconsistent enforcement and compliance challenges, state attorneys general are stepping in to fill the void left by the absence of comprehensive federal regulations. These state-level actions aim to…

What’s Happening

Last week, the Maine Public Utilities Commission (the commission) heard an unusual pitch: an electric utility proposed to voluntarily report to law enforcement if residential utility usage suggested illegal marijuana grow enterprises — without the law enforcement agency submitting a subpoena or obtaining a warrant. Although the commission ultimately rejected the proposal, the utility cited its high identification success rate and the burden of responding to subpoenas (sometimes as many 50 for a single location), as its motivation for this proposal.