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.
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 federal rescheduling of marijuana has been a topic of conversation within the marijuana industry since President Biden’s statement requesting that the secretary of health and human services (HHS) and the attorney general (AG) “initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”[1] However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning the Chevron doctrine adds an additional layer to an already complicated process. While the exact impact of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[2] on the cannabis industry remains to be seen, this article explores the way in which it may impact the pending rescheduling.
On May 16, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to the transfer of marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to schedule III, consistent with the recommendation provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2023. The CSA requires that
Among the two most widely reported federal changes to cannabis regulation are the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed regulation for the federal rescheduling of marijuana (the Proposed Rescheduling) and amendments to the 2018 Agricultural Improvement Act (the Farm Bill). The Proposed Rescheduling would result in the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I[1] of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III[2] of the CSA.[3] The proposed amendments to the Farm Bill would change the definition of “hemp” to remedy a loophole currently utilized by hemp manufacturers who manufacture and sell intoxicating cannabis products.
Introduction
The medicinal and recreational use and popularity of marijuana has continuously grown throughout the U.S. since Oregon became the first state to decriminalize marijuana in 1973. To date, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have implemented medical marijuana programs, twenty-five of which have also expanded into adult-use.
A recent lawsuit in Alabama, challenging the award of medical cannabis licenses by regulators, underscores the potential pitfalls in licensing regimes where applicants are selected based on specific enumerated factors. Below, we examine the Alabama lawsuit in greater detail and consider the alternative policy of utilizing a lottery system to award licenses.