Gentle readers, once again we find ourselves in a Presidential election year. Feel free to join me in tuning out the deluge of reporting and social media as to matters you cannot control in the slightest, and which are mostly negative and discouraging. Except for this blog post, which I promise will be great. In
2024 is going to be a crazy year for cannabis businesses and investors. Among many other things, there will be a general election, possible rescheduling to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), an upcoming Farm Bill that could re-tool how hemp and hemp products are regulated, and maybe even some federal cannabis legislation.
We are helping build out another cannabis banking program here in Oregon. My law firm has done a series of these for credit unions (“CU”s) and other financial institutions (“FIs”) going back to 2014. We have also handled a good bit of hemp banking work– mostly in 2019 and 2020 before that industry cratered. In
I’ve been representing clients in California’s cannabis industry since 2018. Our firm has been representing businesses in the space for many years before that, in states with more mature licensing programs. One of the most common mistakes we see in new cannabis markets is businesses that rely too much on federal legalization happening. For example,
The lawsuit filed on October 26 against Merrick Garland to “end federal cannabis prohibition” wouldn’t really end federal cannabis prohibition. If you had that impression, it may be because reporting on this topic has been subpar. Many of the headlines are incomplete or downright misleading. Some stories take several paragraphs to explain the actual nature
When Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, did it intend to legalize intoxicating hemp products? If it did, why didn’t it just legalize marijuana? And why didn’t it address the manufacture or sale of intoxicating hemp products? I think the answer to all of these questions is clearly “no.” Congress did not intend to open
Cannabis rescheduling appears to be a matter of time and my colleagues have written about the possible implications (see here, here, and here). Rescheduling to a less restrictive category will also have implications for trademarking by cannabis brands. By broadening the legality of cannabis goods and services, rescheduling will also make more canna trademarks eligible
I’m pretty sure that more ink has been spilled on the Secure and Fair Enforcement Act (“SAFE Banking”), than any other proposed cannabis law. It just won’t pass and it just won’t die. Specifically, SAFE Banking was introduced in 2017 and it passed the House seven times (seven times!) with bipartisan support since 2019. The
On September 14, 2023, Special Counsel David Weiss of the Department of Justice filed an indictment against Robert Hunter Biden in the District of Delaware. The indictment pleads three counts, which I analyze below. The Hunter Biden indictment centers on issues I’ve analyzed in many posts this year (see links at the bottom). Today I
Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended rescheduling cannabis from schedule I to III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). My colleagues already covered various implications of the proposed cannabis rescheduling (see here and here). Today, I want to talk about one of the most important consequences of the announcement other than
