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.
Just before the close of the Colorado legislature’s 2024 session in mid-May, lawmakers approved a bill aimed at streamlining several deficiencies in the state’s regulation of marijuana businesses. While not all of 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.
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.
I. Today’s Marijuana Landscape
Despite marijuana’s continued federal classification as a Schedule I controlled substance,[1] 26 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws at least partially decriminalizing marijuana possession and recreational use.[2] A majority of Americans now live in states where marijuana is legal for recreational use,[3] and nearly three-quarters of Americans live in states that have legalized marijuana for either recreational or medical sales and use.[4] Currently, 14 states have only legalized medical use,[5] while 24 states and the District of Columbia have implemented regulatory schemes for both medical and recreational use.[6] Of the remaining 12 states where marijuana is still illegal, possession is decriminalized in two states.[7] The map below illustrates these categories.[8]
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