Cannabis

Subscribe to Cannabis via RSS

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has drawn criticism for heavily redacting a recommendation letter to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) concerning the rescheduling of cannabis. HHS said the redactions were justified under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. As Stephen C. Piepgrass, Agustin E. Rodriguez, Jean Smith-Gonnell, and Cole White noted in a recent article published by Law360, this has sparked debates about the balance between necessary secrecy and the public’s right to government information. Legal challenges to these redactions are expected. The deliberative process privilege, which safeguards deliberative discussions within government corridors, is often invoked in the context of FOIA.

Despite the federal ban on the sale, use, and possession of cannabis in the U.S., in October, Georgia became the first U.S. state to allow pharmacies to sell low-dose tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products. Pursuant to statutes passed by the Georgia General Assembly in 2019, certain Georgia pharmacies approved by the Georgia Board of Pharmacy, are permitted to sell low-dose THC products containing up to 5% THC, the intoxicating component found in the cannabis plant. The 5% cap is far lower than the allowable THC levels in most states.

Recently, the City of Denver’s Department of Public Health and Environment (DDPHE) ordered, among other things, the destruction of Titan Health LLC’s (Titan Health) marijuana plants that it deemed to “hav[e] evidence of spider mite influx.” Titan Health appealed the DDPHE’s Notice of Violation (NOV), not only due to the lack of evidence warranting such an extreme remedy, but also because the NOV exceeded the City of Denver’s authority.[1] In fact, according to Titan Health, Colorado state law specifically preempted the NOV. While the merits of the appeal were not ultimately heard, this case exemplifies the importance of understanding state preemption and the limitations placed on localities’ authority.

The principle of open government is foundational to a healthy democracy, and the availability of government records upon request from the public is one of its chief cornerstones. In the U.S., the primary mechanism by which the public gains access to government records is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[1] FOIA serves as a pivotal tool for ensuring governmental transparency by allowing the public to make requests to governmental entities to access specific government records.

The legal marijuana industry has grown rapidly in the U.S., with 38 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia legalizing its use for medical and/or recreational purposes. However, despite the industry’s growth, marijuana businesses continue to face significant challenges with payment processing and banking, primarily due to the federal prohibition of marijuana. This conflict between federal and state laws has led to an exploration of alternative financial systems, including the use of cryptocurrencies.[1]

The cannabis industry has witnessed significant growth in recent years, marked by the legalization of medical and/or recreational marijuana in 38 states, Washington D.C., and three territories. Alongside this expansion comes the need for robust regulatory frameworks to ensure compliance and safety within the industry. One such regulatory component that has stirred considerable debate over the years is the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag technology in state track-and-trace systems. While RFID tags can offer significant benefits to both regulators and business owners when compared to traditional barcodes, the costs imposed on licensed businesses often outweigh the benefits that state regulators receive from requiring the use of the technology. In fact, in the Colorado Department of Revenue – Marijuana Enforcement Division’s (MED) latest draft rules governing the industry, the agency removed references to the requirements for RFID technology, a step that could signal the beginning of the end of state-mandated RFID tracking of cannabis products.

Apologies for the cannabis puns in the title, but they are required by law. Okay, you are correct. That is not true. But it is true that trademark protection is important for individuals in the cannabis industry. Earlier this month, Ohio became the 24th state in the U.S. to legalize recreational marijuana. As more states pass laws to legalize marijuana, the conversation returns to the likelihood that Americans might see a law with nationwide reach. A federally applicable law (or lack thereof) becomes significant in the context of obtaining a trademark registration for cannabis products and services. Even if the products or services are legal under state law, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which oversees the registration of federal trademarks, requires that use of the mark be federally lawful before it will issue a federal trademark registration.