Cannabis

Subscribe to Cannabis via RSS

On October 12, hemp producers and retailers notched an early win in litigation challenging the legality of Maryland’s cannabis licensing program as it applies to hemp. By way of background, the Maryland General Assembly recently passed the Cannabis Reform Act (CRA), after voters gave their stamp of approval to recreational cannabis in the state via a 2022 referendum. Rather than create a separate licensing system for hemp products, the CRA requires anyone selling a “product intended for human consumption or inhalation that contains more than 0.5 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per serving or 2.5 milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol per package” to be licensed as a cannabis business. “Tetrahydrocannabinol” (THC) is defined to include delta-8, delta-9, and delta-10 THC. This lack of distinction between hemp- and marijuana-derived products results in the inclusion of existing producers and retailers of hemp-derived THC products into the new cannabis program.

As a result of a legal challenge by the Oregon Cannabis Industry Alliance and cannabis cultivators in Oregon, the Oregon Health Authority’s (OHA) aspergillus fungus testing rule for marijuana, marijuana products, and industrial hemp concentrates and extracts has been withdrawn, and 2,500 pounds of marijuana plus 65,000 units of infused pre-rolls that failed aspergillus testing were released from administrative hold.

Though controversial, cannabis[1] has steadily grown into a booming industry. Despite this rapid growth and the legalization of cannabis in numerous states[2], cannabis is still classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). As cannabis is illegal under federal law, individuals and companies involved or related to the cannabis industry face an uphill battle when insolvency issues arise. Federal forums that traditionally address insolvency matters, such as bankruptcy, have historically been unavailable to those engaged in the cannabis industry, forcing them to seek state-controlled alternatives, such as receivership. However, as more and more states have legalized commercial transactions involving cannabis in some form, bankruptcy courts have begun to adopt two distinct paths: one for individuals and entities directly engaged in growing, processing, distributing, or selling cannabis products, and one for entities that are associated with cannabis more indirectly, which the bankruptcy system recently has been more open to.

On October 2, the Virginia Board of Pharmacy posted a general notice indicating that it had voted to rescind the request for applications (RFA) for a Pharmaceutical Processor license in Health Service Area I. The RFA will now be conducted by the Virginia Cannabis Control Authority (the CCA) sometime after it assumes oversight of the state’s medical cannabis program on January 1, 2024.

Since its first recreational marijuana dispensary opened in 2014, Colorado has been at the forefront of the burgeoning adult-use cannabis industry, setting a precedent for other states considering the legalization of recreational marijuana, and reaping significant tax benefits for the state in the process.

The Georgia Board of Pharmacy has begun accepting applications from independent, licensed pharmacies for authorization to dispense authorized medical marijuana products, and nearly 120 pharmacies reportedly have agreed to provide medication from Botanical Sciences, one of the state’s two licensed production companies, according to a company statement.

State attorneys general (AG) are continuing their push for cannabis banking reform, underscoring the need for action to promote public health and safety in legal cannabis markets. On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of 22 state AGs sent a letter to Congress urging passage of the Secure And Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, coinciding…

The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to mark up a new version of the SAFE Banking Act, now known as the “Secure And Fair Enforcement Regulation Banking Act” or the SAFER Banking Act (SB 2860). The revised bill addresses concerns around potential bad actors, but also establishes guardrails in the case that federal regulators may want to put pressure on banks to not service certain customers, such as “marijuana-related businesses” or other high-risk industries.

Introduction

On September 12, the New York Cannabis Control Board (CCB) approved final regulations governing the adult-use cannabis industry in New York,[1] marking a long-awaited moment for industry participants and state regulators alike. The CCB’s approval signifies a significant step forward for the state’s cannabis market. The regulations are designed to govern all aspects of the industry, from cultivation and processing to distribution, retail, on-site consumption, and delivery services. Among these regulations, one rule stands out for its complexity and potential impact on industry participants: the definition of a “true party of interest.”

On August 9, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut that aims to stop all legal cannabis activity in the state and declare the state’s 2021 legalization framework as unconstitutional.[1] The complaint, filed by a local homeowners advocacy group against the Zoning Board of the City of Stamford and the Stamford Mayor, alleges that Connecticut’s legalization framework, the Responsible and Equitable Regulation of Adult-Use Cannabis Act (RERACA), violates both the state and federal constitutions by legalizing federally prohibited conduct, and is therefore preempted under both. In addition, the complaint alleges that the state’s social equity council violates the Connecticut constitution by providing exclusive public emoluments or privileges to certain groups based on race, and that the approval by certain board members of changes in zoning regulations was invalid due to several board members terms having previously expired.