Andrew Smith, autor en Harris Sliwoski LLP Mercados difíciles, abogados audaces Thu, 02 Nov 2023 22:41:52 +0000 es-US por hora 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://harris-sliwoski.com/wp-content/uploads/cropped-Harris-Sliwoski-Logo-FinalIcon-White-1-32x32.png Andrew Smith, autor en Harris Sliwoski LLP 32 32 Los estados a los federales: Acabemos ya con la prohibición del cannabis https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/states-to-feds-end-cannabis-prohibition-now/ mié, 10 ago 2022 14:00:16 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=cannalawblog&p=120575 After a vote last week, the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) adopted a revised cannabis policy measure (the “Directive“) which supports federally descheduling cannabis, as well as cannabis banking reform. At this point, it’s abundantly clear that the states have moved beyond cannabis prohibition. The NCSL is a non-partisan organization that represents all state

The post States to Feds: End Cannabis Prohibition Now appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
After a vote last week, the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) adopted a revised cannabis policy measure (the “Directive“) which supports federally descheduling cannabis, as well as cannabis banking reform. At this point, it’s abundantly clear that the states have moved beyond cannabis prohibition.

The NCSL is a non-partisan organization that represents all state legislators nationwide. A state legislator present at the summit, held in Denver, said that most of the discussion leading up to the vote centered on federal cannabis banking reform, but there was no debate on the language of cannabis legalization. The legislator said that there was minimal opposition, with an estimated five to seven states of the 44 in attendance that vocalized their opposition.

NCSL passed similar measures back in 2017 and 2018 calling for cannabis descheduling, though those measures were limited in scope, specifying that states should be free to establish their own cannabis legislation without federal intervention. This time, the NCSL made an explicit call for federal cannabis legalization. The Directive also states that “until cannabis is federally descheduled,” the federal government should focus on enforcing penalties for criminal enterprises in “illicit” cannabis production and distribution instead of citizens who comply with state cannabis legislation.

A new section of the Directive charges Congress with passing legislation centered on cannabis banking reform. The Directive states that cannabis businesses are forced to deal primarily in cash because they cannot access the country’s banking system, which makes them prime targets for theft, burglary, and armed robbery. This section “urges Congress to pass legislation allowing financial institutions to provide banking services to legitimate state authorized cannabis-related businesses.” This strong language demonstrates the state legislators’ focus on cannabis banking reform and access to financial services.

The Directive is significant for several reasons. Primarily, it shows that states favor an escalation of federal cannabis reform since adopting past measures. Instead of simply resolving that the federal government should not interfere with state cannabis legislation, the revised measure calls on Congress to deschedule cannabis and reform cannabis banking at the federal level. The Directive also demonstrates uniformity among state legislators in supporting federal cannabis reform, as the measure passed with an overwhelming majority and marginal voiced opposition.

The timing of the Directive is interesting, as it comes with roughly a dozen federal cannabis reform bills floating around Congress. Perhaps the bill with the greatest amount of traction is the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA), sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Cory Booker (D-NJ). The bill was filed last month, and while there may not be enough support for the CAOA to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold in the immediate future, Schumer has continued holding bipartisan talks about cannabis reform. He most recently stated that he is committed to passing “something” on cannabis reform by the end of the year.

Finally, NCSL adopted the Directive with the SAFE Banking Act having floated around Congress for several years. The SAFE Banking Act is a bill aimed at remedying the cannabis industry’s exclusion from the banking system, but was recently left out of a larger package of manufacturing reforms as a concession to Republicans lawmakers to pass the bundle of reforms.

The latest NCSL adopted cannabis measure, which supports the federal descheduling of cannabis and cannabis banking reform, is a positive development. It indicates pressure to hasten reform and uniformity among state legislators. Whether Majority Leader Schumer gets his wish and passes “something” on cannabis reform this year remains to be seen.

To catch up on recent federal efforts to end cannabis prohibition, check out the following:

The post States to Feds: End Cannabis Prohibition Now appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Una carta muestra que los federales se preparan para aprobar fármacos psicodélicos https://harris-sliwoski.com/psychlawblog/letter-shows-feds-are-gearing-up-for-psychedelics-drug-approvals/ Fri, 29 Jul 2022 14:00:36 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=psychlawblog&p=119801 A recently published letter (“Letter”) indicates that the Biden administration is preparing for the approval of psychedelic drugs and MDMA to treat mental illness and PTSD. This type of federal agency correspondence would have been unimaginable five or six years ago. Things are changing fast! There are well-known potential health benefits of MDMA and psychedelics

The post Letter Shows Feds are Gearing Up for Psychedelic Drug Approvals appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
A recently published letter (“Letter”) indicates that the Biden administration is preparing for the approval of psychedelic drugs and MDMA to treat mental illness and PTSD. This type of federal agency correspondence would have been unimaginable five or six years ago. Things are changing fast!

There are well-known potential health benefits of MDMA and psychedelics like psilocybin and LSD. These benefits lie at the heart of the Letter, sent by Miriam Delphin-Rittmon, Assistant Secretary for Mental health and Substance Use at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), to Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA). The letter was sent in May and notes that the Biden administration anticipates that MDMA and psilocybin will be approved by regulators within the next two years for PTSD and depression. We’ve been predicting a similar timeline for MDMA and psilocybin drugs going back to 2018 (see here and here).

Delphin-Rittmon, responding on behalf of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, also writes that therapies involving psychedelics “must be explored.” The letter further explains that the Biden administration is exploring the possibility of establishing a federal task force to monitor developments in psychedelic treatments and therapies.

In the letter, Delphin-Rittmon explains that SAMHSA:

“agrees that too many Americans are suffering from mental health and substance use issues, which have been exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and that we must explore the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies to address this crisis.”

The Letter acknowledges Dean’s proposal for an interagency task force to, over the next two years, head a public-private partnership and address the complexities and potential issues of FDA approval of MDMA to treat PTSD and psilocybin to treat depression.

The move comes on the heels of a few significant breakthroughs this week and last regarding psychedelics law. On July 26, Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bipartisan bill which would prevent the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) from barring terminally ill patients from using controlled substances that have passed early trials. Should the bill become law, terminally ill patients could be treated with psilocybin, which is currently a Schedule I controlled substance.

We also covered the DEA retreat on July 22 from its effort to add five psychedelic compounds to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA faced serious public opposition and threatened legal action from three companies, Mindstate, Tactogen, and Panacea Plant Sciences. This illustrates the growing momentum to view psychedelics as possible treatment strategies rather than demonized substances worthy of an absolute ban.

Overall, the Letter is significant for several reasons. First, it demonstrates that the current administration is eyeing a clear path for FDA to approve psychedelic drugs to treat mental health disorders, which shows just how much perspectives on psychedelics as a means of treating mental health disorders have come in the past few years. While jurisdictions have undertaken decriminalization of psychedelics or even kicked off local regulatory regimes (Oregon), a federal approvals of MDMA and psychedelics to treat PTSD and depression would be a whole other ballgame.

Second, this news offers hope to many suffering from mental health disorders. Whether it is a drug overdose death brought on by depression or a former service member that takes their own life due to PTSD, Delphin-Rittmon and Dawn believe that psychedelics can play a role in preventing fatalities in the United States—just as they have in other countries.

“It is impossible that we take no action,” said Dean. As psychedelic drugs and MDMA appear set to be approved to treat mental illness and PTSD, this is indeed  an exciting time to follow legal developments in the psychedelics space.

The post Letter Shows Feds are Gearing Up for Psychedelic Drug Approvals appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Psilocibina en Oregón: ¿En qué ciudades y condados se encuentra? https://harris-sliwoski.com/psychlawblog/oregon-psilocybin-which-cities-and-counties-are-in/ mar, 12 jul 2022 14:00:45 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=psychlawblog&p=118088 In November 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 109, which directs the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to license and regulate the manufacture, delivery, sale, and administration of psilocybin. Licensing is set to kick off in early 2023. Things remain on track. We’ve written a lot about Measure 109 here on the Psychedelics Law Blog, including: 1)

The post Oregon Psilocybin: Which Cities and Counties Are In? appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
In November 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 109, which directs the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to license and regulate the manufacture, delivery, sale, and administration of psilocybin. Licensing is set to kick off in early 2023. Things remain on track.

We’ve written a lot about Measure 109 here on the Psychedelics Law Blog, including: 1) the welcome fact that localities are prohibited from developing their own licensing programs under the regime, but also 2) the (perhaps unwelcome, but inevitable) fact that cities and counties are allowed to “opt out” of regulated psilocybin altogether. This means any city or county is allowed to prohibit OHA psilocybin licensees from setting up shop within its borders. Several rural counties, in particular, are gearing up to do so.

Note that under Measure 109, cities and counties are automatically “opted in” to the psilocybin program unless local voters decide otherwise. This decision cannot happen at any random point in time. Instead, the city or county must present a ballot measure to its voters for consideration during a statewide general election. The next statewide general election is November 8, 2022. Anyone interested in Oregon psilocybin should have that date calendared.

Pursuing an “opt out” ballot measure requires several steps, even prior to filing a ballot title with the county clerk by the required August 19 deadline. The Association of Oregon Counties, for one, encourages county boards of commissioners to work with county counsel and planning department staff to determine the best path forward.

Before going further, readers should also understand that cities and counties in Oregon operate under distinct legal regimes. For example: Bend, Oregon is a city within Deschutes County, Oregon. If Deschutes County were to “opt out” of psilocybin, this would not affect Bend’s status, or the status of any other incorporated city within Deschutes County. Bend et al. would remain “in” unless those cities separately opted out, similar to the unincorporated areas of the County.

Psilocybin Map

View the US Map of Psilocybin Legality by State

 

Finally, we’ve fielded a few inquiries already as to the “legality” of the opt-out under the measure. This isn’t a new analysis. We recall dealing with opt-out in controlled substances going back to the early recreational cannabis days of 2015. Back then, we wrote:

Several of my clients currently scouting anti-cannabis locales have asked me whether the opt-out provisions of HB 3400 are “legal.” The answer is yes, almost certainly. Can lawsuits be brought against those locales? Yes (this is America). Will the lawsuits succeed? Probably not, although it depends on the scope of the ordinance at issue and how well it is drafted (the LOC templates look pretty good). At the end of the day, Oregon is a “home rule” state and cities and counties are allowed to make rules without permission from on high, so long as those rules are not incompatible with state law.

Fast forward to the present, where we have been working with a growing number of clients who are gearing up for Oregon psilocybin licensing. As such, we’ve been tracking “opt out” signals in many cities and counties around the state. The following is a current status list of potential “opt out” votes in some of the more notable Oregon jurisdictions. We present this list in no particular order, with the strong caveats that 1) businesses should do their own research, and 2) this list is non-exhaustive, and 3) this list is effective July 10, and very fluid.

  • Albany and Linn County: County planning on vote, Albany City Council to discuss vote at a future meeting
  • Baker City and Baker County: Baker City Council reviewing a vote at meeting on 7/12; Baker County will vote on 7/20
  • Beaverton: City plans on holding a vote, hearings planned with first reading of ballot measure at city council meeting on 7/19 with published Thursday before. City working with county and state to proceed with vote
  • Bend and Deschutes County: No plans for a city vote; County Commission will have an opt-out hearing 07/13.
  • Corvallis: Vote discussed by City council in June, but currently no plans for a ballot measure. City Attorney bringing additional psilocybin information to next city council meeting
  • Eugene: Vote is unlikely
  • Grants Pass and Josephine County: County plans to measure on ballot opting out of production and psilocybin treatment centers. Grants Pass City Council to decide soon whether to consent to county ordinance
  • Hillsboro: Will be discussed at city council meeting on 7/19, then a discussion regarding whether to proceed with a vote
  • Klamath Falls: City council meeting on 7/18 to discuss going forward with a vote
  • La Grande: Discussions for a vote under way; no decisions have been made
  • Medford: Will be discussed at city council meeting on 7/21
  • Ontario and Malheur County: County planning on vote; county officers instructed to proceed though nothing drafted yet
  • Pendleton and Umatilla County: County commissioners unanimously voted on July 5 to ban psilocybin manufacturing and service centers. Pendleton has not responded to requests for information, although that City initially opted out of cannabis, only to come back into the fold a few years later
  • Portland and Multnomah County: No plans for a vote
  • Redmond: No plans for a vote
  • Roseburg: Vote currently under consideration by the city council, and a memo with options to be presented at city council meeting on 7/11
  • Salem and Marion County: City has no plans for a vote; county did not return request for information

Again, this list is not exhaustive. City officials from “major” jurisdictions like Gresham and McMinnville, for example, have not yet published information or responded to our inquiries. And as we wrote above, this is a very dynamic situation with changes certain to occur between now and November 8. For that reason, our constant advice to clients looking to lease or purchase real estate for OHA psilocybin activity–particularly in certain jurisdictions–has been: “beware.”

Ultimately, if your target jurisdiction opts in, please understand that other barriers could spring up. Cities and counties can promulgate “time, place and manner” ordinances around psilocybin, so long as those regulations are reasonable. In our experience from the cannabis game, localities have fairly broad discretion there. These fights can be costly.

And last of all, if your target jurisdiction opts out, don’t lose hope. As noted above, we’ve seen localities opt out (in the cannabis context) only to see the light and come back in sometime later. To that end, repeal of a psilocybin opt-out ordinance does not require an election. This means that even if local voters choose prohibition this November, a city or county has the ability to reverse course on psilocybin prohibition at any point.

So let’s see how it goes. In the meantime, feel free to contact us with any questions on the regulated Oregon psilocybin industry. It’s going to be a really interesting fall.

The post Oregon Psilocybin: Which Cities and Counties Are In? appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
¡Allá Vamos! Las últimas demandas para acabar con la prohibición federal https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/here-we-go-the-latest-lawsuit-to-end-federal-prohibition/ Fri, 03 Jun 2022 14:00:13 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=cannalawblog&p=115080 High profile lawsuits to end cannabis prohibition are nothing new. We’ve covered efforts going back several years, though none of these has succeeded. A recently announced attempt, though, may be the best chance yet– especially given the changing environment with cannabis legalization in so many states; and especially given Constitutional jurisprudence relevant to those changes.

The post Here We Go! The Latest Lawsuits to End Federal Prohibition appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
High profile lawsuits to end cannabis prohibition are nothing new. We’ve covered efforts going back several years, though none of these has succeeded. A recently announced attempt, though, may be the best chance yet– especially given the changing environment with cannabis legalization in so many states; and especially given Constitutional jurisprudence relevant to those changes.

So what is happening? Well, various influential marijuana companies and stakeholders are joining to sue the federal government over alleged unconstitutional policies which affect their operations. This is according to the CEO of one of the companies joining the suit. This effort is especially interesting because of who represent this coalition of multi-state operators (MSOs). Allegedly taking on the case is the renowned constitutional law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. And David Boies — who many regard as the greatest living Constitutional law litigator — is said to be leading the charge.

Boies Schiller has represented clients in constitutional issues ranging from government agencies, politicians, and groups of plaintiffs in high-stakes constitutional rights cases. By taking on the case, the firm would be validating that the coalition’s claims have some merit.

In reality, the coalition plans on filing two separate federal district court, according to Abner Kurtin, founder and CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings. Kurtin mentioned that these lawsuits will likely be filed “in the next couple of months,” and that potential supporters of the “industry-wide effort” include Curaleaf and TerrAscend, as well as the American Trade Association of Cannabis and Hemp (ATACH).

The first lawsuit to end cannabis prohibition centers around the federal prohibition on interstate commerce in a cannabis context, as well as challenge the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) with a specific interpretation of the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause. One point the coalition will argue is that the federal government’s interstate commerce authority, particularly regarding fungibility, should not apply to cannabis companies in state-legal markets, which are highly regulated. On the other hand, the federal government will argue that market fungibility is the base of its interstate commerce authority. In other words, a good produced in one state can affect pricing of the good in other states, which gives the federal government jurisdiction to regulate it.

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled along these lines in Gonzales v. Raich, a Supreme Court cannabis ruling that expands the federal government’ authority. In that case, the plaintiffs were medical cannabis patients who invoked the 10th Amendment to protect their right to access marijuana that was legally grown and used in California. The Supreme Court majority thought differently, however, ruling that cultivating cannabis plants for medical use could impact marijuana pricing on the national illicit market. Kurtin argues that this is no longer the case, as state markets are now sophisticated and unique as to render national cannabis markets unaffected by cannabis cultivation in a particular state.

The coalition will also likely make the same argument as that raised by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who criticized the federal inconsistency of cannabis enforcement last year. This inconsistency, argues Thomas, is an example of why courts should end federal cannabis prohibition. Also worth noting is that Thomas ruled in favor of the cannabis patients in Gonzales.

The second lawsuit shines a light on the US tax code, specifically Section 280E. This is another fraught area, which clients of ours have also challenged in high-profile federal litigation. The Section states:

“No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business . . . of trafficking in controlled substances . . . which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.”

This essentially means that cannabis companies cannot claim tax deductions because they are trafficking a controlled substance under the CSA. A resolution in favor of the plaintiffs could be retroactive as well, allowing cannabis companies to recover tax deductions that they could have applied in years past. The recovery of these deductions could actually help to fund the litigation, in theory.

The lawsuits come at an opportune time, as many federal bills to legalize cannabis use at the federal level are stuck in either the House of Representatives or the Senate (see our recent summaries here and here). In addition, Kurtin mentioned that the lawsuits will be argued from a perspective of states’ rights, which will likely garner support from both political parties and appeal to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

Ultimately, the lawsuits to end cannabis prohibition represent another angle—which avoids the various hurdles of legislative approval—for federal prohibitions on cannabis to be overturned. Even if the litigation fails, it should exert even more pressure on Congress to Act. But the potential agreement of a highly regarded constitutional law firm to represent a coalition of major players in the cannabis world signals the potential merits of their claims. We will track the these cases in the coming months closely.

The post Here We Go! The Latest Lawsuits to End Federal Prohibition appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Resumen de la legislación federal sobre cannabis https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/federal-cannabis-legislation-roundup/ Thu, 05 May 2022 14:00:16 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=cannalawblog&p=111719 With so many new proposals for reconceptualized federal cannabis legislation floating around Congress, this summary should help clarify the differences to distinguish each bill from the others. This post will cover the MORE Act, the PREPARE Act, the States Reform Act, and the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. Part two in this series will cover

The post Federal Cannabis Legislation Roundup appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
With so many new proposals for reconceptualized federal cannabis legislation floating around Congress, this summary should help clarify the differences to distinguish each bill from the others. This post will cover the MORE Act, the PREPARE Act, the States Reform Act, and the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. Part two in this series will cover the SAFE Banking Act, the Medical Marijuana Research Act, the Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act, and the Hemp Advancement Act.

Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act) would end federal prohibition of cannabis by removing it from the list of banned substances. The bill is sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who, like others who have proposed federal cannabis legislation, cites the near-consensus opinion among Americans for legalization of marijuana, as well as greater racial and social equity, as his reasons for introducing the bill.

The MORE Act has an established history of support—more than any other federal cannabis legalization bill. The MORE Act initially passed through the House of Representatives in 2020 before losing support in the Senate, where a vote on the bill was never held. The bill passed through the House of Representatives again in March, and the slim Democrat majority in the Senate provides a more encouraging future for the bill than in 2020, when Republicans controlled the Senate.

Preparing Regulators Effectively for a Post-Prohibition Adult-Use Regulated Environment Act

The Preparing Regulators Effectively for a Post-Prohibition Adult-Use Regulated Environment Act (PREPARE Act) is a bill that would require the US Attorney General to lead a commission to oversee the process of making recommendations for a cannabis regulation system comparable to the current alcohol regulation system. The commission would oversee “study[ing] a prompt and plausible pathway to the Federal regulation of cannabis.”

The bill was introduced by Representative Dave Joyce (R-OH) and co-sponsors Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Representative Brian Mast (R-FL). The constitution of a specialized commission is what separates the PREPARE Act from the others. On the other hand, Joyce, like Nadler, stated that overwhelming support for cannabis legalization and social justice as the primary motives for his bill. The bill has not yet been voted on by the House of Representatives.

States Reform Act

The States Reform Act, introduced in November of 2021 by Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC), aims at removing cannabis as a Schedule I banned substance while respecting the rights of states to determine the level of cannabis reform and keeping Americans and their children safe. Like Nadler’s bill, the States Reform Act would decriminalize cannabis federally and defer cannabis regulation to the states, just like alcohol.

The State Reform Act also contains provisions regarding loans to cannabis-related small businesses, specifically stating that the Administrator of the Small Business Administration cannot discriminate against cannabis-related businesses by declining to provide loans to these businesses. The bill has not yet been voted on by the House of Representatives.

Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act

The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act was introduced on July 14, 2021, by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and co-sponsors Senator Cory Booker (D-NY) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). One of the reasons this bill is unique is because of who sponsors it—senators from the majority party, rather than representatives (like the other three bills discussed in this post).

The bill would remove marijuana and THC from the Controlled Substances Act, transfer regulatory jurisdiction of cannabis from the DEA to the FDA, and impose a federal excise tax on marijuana sales. The bill also calls for a study of the impacts of driving under the influence of marijuana, a study of the impacts of cannabis on the human brain, and funding for states for expungement proceedings for individuals convicted of marijuana-related crimes at the state level. The bill has not yet been voted on by the House of Representatives.

SAFE Banking Act

Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) introduced the SAFE Banking Act in March 2021. The general purpose of the bill is to “prohibit a federal banking regulator from penalizing a depository institution from providing banking services to a legitimate cannabis-related business.” Those prohibited penalties would include prohibiting terminating or limiting deposit insurance or share insurance just because the institution provides financial services to a cannabis-related business, and prohibiting or discouraging a depository institution from providing financial services to a cannabis-related business. The bill would also establish that proceeds from transactions involving a cannabis-related business would not be considered proceeds from unlawful activity, which would be subject to anti-money laundering regulations. The SAFE Banking Act passed through the House of Representatives on April 19, 2021, and has been read by the Senate and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the Senate.

SAFE Banking Act Excluded from Manufacturing Legislation

A bicameral conference committee is negotiating a manufacturing bill that apparently will not include marijuana banking reform. A group that included Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-NY), and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) met to scale down the bill and expedite the passage of the legislation before the August recess. This included keeping the Safe and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act out of the legislation, requested by Republicans. The exclusion of the SAFE Banking Act was met with criticism, particularly from Act sponsor Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) and Representative Blumenauer. Failure to include the Act, according to Representative Perlmutter, means that cannabis companies will continue having to do business in all cash.

Medical Marijuana Research Act

Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced the Medical Marijuana Research Act in October 2021. The bill would establish a new, separate registration process that facilitates medical marijuana research. It would direct the Drug Enforcement Agency to register practitioners to conduct medical marijuana research, and manufacturers and distributors to supply marijuana for research. The Medical Marijuana Research Act passed the House of Representatives on April 4, 2022, and has been received in the Senate, but has not been assigned to a committee.

Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced the Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act in February 2021. The bill is co-sponsored by seven other senators. It is one of the few bipartisan efforts to pass a Senate-sponsored bill aimed at marijuana research. It “would streamline the research process to allow FDA-approved marijuana-derived medications to be used to treat serious medical conditions.” Federal laws inhibit much medical research. Changes to federal law could be a huge benefit. The bill unanimously passed the Senate on March 28, 2022, and has been received in the House of Representatives.

Hemp Advancement Act

Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) introduced the Hemp Advancement Act of 2022 in February 2022. True, this is not a marijuana bill, but it bears mentioning as well. The purpose of the bill is to remove red tape and regulatory uncertainty from the hemp production industry, which was federally legalized by the 2018 Farm Bill. The bill would eliminate difficult testing requirements, set reasonable thresholds for THC, and end the discriminatory practice of preventing people with drug convictions from legally cultivating hemp. The Hemp Advancement Act has been referred to the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, but a vote on the bill has not happened yet.

Pro-Reform Candidate Wins Republican Primary in South Carolina

Okay, this first one isn’t about federal cannabis bills. But it’s still important. Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC), sponsor of the States Reform Act (SRA) introduced in Congress last year, won the South Carolina First District primary race against Trump-endorsed Katie Arrington. On June 14, the Associated Press called the race for Mace with Mace getting 53 percent of the votes and Arrington getting 45%. Mace said that winning the primary despite being attacked for supporting cannabis legalization “shows that the only place that this is controversial is in Washington, D.C.” Mace also said that any candidate who attacks a competitor over their reform position will “lose big.” Mace’s primary win is good news for the SRA. While the bill faces an uncertain future due to the other various cannabis reform bills in Congress, Mace stated that she feels her bill is the only bill that could attract enough bipartisan support to be passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Whether she wins reelection will be determined in November.

Representatives Introduce Bill Targeting Veterans

On June 23, Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Brian Mast (R-FL) reintroduced the Veterans Equal Access Act. Representatives Blumenauer and Mast are both co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. The Act has been introduced in Congress numerous times to bipartisan support, though the Act has not been enacted yet. The Act would permit doctors at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to prescribe medical marijuana to patients, if medical marijuana is legal in the state. Blumenauer and Mast are optimistic about the bill’s future, simply because this incremental veteran reform effort can attract support from members of Congress who are not yet ready to support widespread cannabis legalization. In addition to the Act, Blumenauer and Mast also sponsor greater cannabis legalization legislation, as Blumenauer introduced the Medical Marijuana Research Act in October 2021 and Mast co-sponsors the PREPARE Act which was introduced this past April.

Representatives Introduce Bill Addressing Access to Financial Services

Also on June 23, Representatives Troy Carter (D-LA) and Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) introduced the Capital Lending and Investment for Marijuana Businesses (CLIMB) Act. If passed, state-legal marijuana businesses would be eligible to be listed on national stock exchanges and have access to additional financial services. The aim of this bill is to protect private financial institutions, national securities exchanges, and market participants in listing or trading cannabis-related business securities. In this sense, federal agencies would be protected from penalties from other agencies, such as the Department of Justice. The bill would hopefully remedy the non-equitable access to financial services that has been hurting cannabis-related businesses for so long.

_____

If the prevalence of new federal cannabis legislation proves anything, it is that there is gaining momentum in Congress of a complete paradigm shift towards cannabis. The challenge will be to agree on a proposal. With potential changes in the composition of Congress on the horizon, we will see whether this momentum can be sustained long enough to result in new federal legislation.

 

The post Federal Cannabis Legislation Roundup appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Legislación federal sobre el cannabis: Ley PREPARE https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/federal-cannabis-legislation-prepare-act/ Lun, 18 Abr 2022 14:00:12 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=cannalawblog&p=110949 On Thursday, a bipartisan collection of congressmen introduced a bill that would require to US Attorney General to lead a commission to oversee the process of making recommendations for a cannabis regulation system comparable to the current alcohol regulation system. The bill, called the Preparing Regulators Effectively for a Post-Prohibition Adult-Use Regulated Environment Act (PREPARE

The post Federal Cannabis Legislation: PREPARE Act appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
On Thursday, a bipartisan collection of congressmen introduced a bill that would require to US Attorney General to lead a commission to oversee the process of making recommendations for a cannabis regulation system comparable to the current alcohol regulation system. The bill, called the Preparing Regulators Effectively for a Post-Prohibition Adult-Use Regulated Environment Act (PREPARE Act), was introduced by Representative Dave Joyce (R-OH), along with co-sponsor representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Brian Mast (R-FL).

According to the bill’s summary, the Act will “establish a Commission on the Federal Regulation of Cannabis to study a prompt and plausible pathway to the Federal regulation of cannabis, and for other purposes.” The Act’s purpose, according to the bill, includes:

The President and Congress shall prepare the Federal Government for an inevitable and prompt end to Federal marihuana prohibition by establishing a commission to advise on the development of a regulatory framework with respect to marihuana regulation, including accounting for the different characteristics of communities, agencies, and industries impacted by Federal marihuana prohibition. Such regulatory framework shall be modeled after Federal and State regulatory frameworks with respect to alcohol.

The bill cites that the cannabis sales produce revenue for the federal government, yet those that use cannabis are still “criminally persecuted.” The bill also cites that cannabis is proven to be medically beneficial for people “suffering from pain, cancer, post-traumatic stress disorder, seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, among other diseases.”

In a press release, Joyce stated:

with 91 percent of Americans supporting either medical or recreational cannabis legalization, it’s time for the federal government to respect the will of our voters—both Democrat and Republican alike—and begin a serious conversation about what a post-prohibition America should look like.

This implies similarities between cannabis and alcohol regulation.

The PREPARE Act is just one more in a flurry of recent proposed federal cannabis legislation. The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act) was initially proposed in 2020, and just passed through the House of Representatives by vote on March 31. Unlike the MORE Act, which aims at removing marijuana from the list of banned substances, the PREPARE Act focuses on the creation of a committee charged with making recommendations regarding how to regulate cannabis in the United States.

Other proposed federal legislation concerning cannabis include the States Reform Act, introduced last year by Republican South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace, and the delayed Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Recently, the Senate also passed The Cannabidiol and Marihuana Research Expansion Act, a bill focused more narrowly on research efforts.

As with other federal cannabis legislation (some good; some bad), the PREPARE Act faces an uncertain future. The bill would have to pass through the House of Representatives to advance to the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris. Making it to a vote in the Senate would itself be a victory, as the 2020 edition of the MORE Act passed through the House before it lost support in the Senate even before a vote could take place.

Competing legislation could also hinder the passage of the bill into law. Representative Joyce voted against the MORE Act last month, showing that while many in Congress support updated federal legislation concerning cannabis, the way by which cannabis is re-conceptualized through legislation can significantly attract or detract support from others with the same objective.

The post Federal Cannabis Legislation: PREPARE Act appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Legalización del cannabis: La Ley MORE obtiene de nuevo el visto bueno de la Cámara https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/cannabis-legalization-more-act-again-clears-the-house/ Sáb, 02 Abr 2022 14:00:58 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=cannalawblog&p=109079 Yesterday, March 31, 2022, the House of Representatives again voted to end federal prohibition of marijuana by removing it from the list of banned substances. The bill—the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (the MORE Act)—passed by a vote of 220-204, largely along party lines. Next the bill goes to the Senate for approval, where

The post Cannabis Legalization: MORE Act Again Clears the House appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Yesterday, March 31, 2022, the House of Representatives again voted to end federal prohibition of marijuana by removing it from the list of banned substances. The bill—the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (the MORE Act)—passed by a vote of 220-204, largely along party lines.

Next the bill goes to the Senate for approval, where its fate is murky. In 2020, a similar version of the MORE Act passed through the House but lost support before a Senate vote could take place. While passage of the MORE Act would end the federal prohibition of cannabis, legalization would still be subject to state legislation. Currently, cannabis is legal for recreational use in 19 states and legal for medical use in 36 states.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle for the MORE Act to clear is the fact that there are two competing bills regarding federal cannabis regulation. The first is the States Reform Act, introduced last year by South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace—who voted “nay” on the MORE Act. The second is the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, a cannabis decriminalization bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senators Cory Booker and Ron Wyden. The senators look to introduce their bill later this month.

There is reason to be more optimistic about Senate passage of new federal cannabis legislation—whether it is the MORE Act or the future Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act—than in 2020. When the MORE Act passed through the House of Representatives in 2020, Republicans had a firm majority in the Senate with 53 seats. After the 2020 Senate elections, Democrats won three seats previously held by Republicans, giving way to today’s 50/50 party split in the Senate. The tying vote goes to Vice President Kamala Harris, giving the Democrats a razor slim Senate majority. However, the MORE Act will require 60 votes to pass through the Senate, making passage unlikely if a vote is ever held.

There also continues to be growing momentum among states to legalize cannabis use. Since the House of Representatives voted in favor of the MORE Act in 2020, four states have legalized recreational marijuana (Connecticut, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia), and three states (Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi) have legalized medical marijuana. There has also been newfound momentum to decriminalize other substances at the municipal, state and federal levels, such as MDMA and psilocybin.

The MORE Act is sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York. Nadler claims that the passage of the bill would reverse decades of injustice, which particularly impacts communities of color adversely, as well as reduce America’s high incarceration rates. Other proponents of the bill claim that the vast majority of Americans favor some form of legalized cannabis, and that the police should focus on more important priorities. Meanwhile, opponents claim that legalized cannabis will lead to greater levels of organized crime and decriminalization will increase demand for marijuana, which will give cartels more power. Proponents respond that legalization would eliminate the cartels’ monopoly.

Passage through the House of Representatives is an encouraging, if not symbolic victory in the federal battle to legalize cannabis. It will be interesting to follow how this bill progresses through the Senate and its interplay with the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act.

The post Cannabis Legalization: MORE Act Again Clears the House appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Abierta la venta de psilocibina en Vancouver, B.C. https://harris-sliwoski.com/psychlawblog/open-psilocybin-sales-in-vancouver-b-c/ Thu, 24 Mar 2022 14:00:00 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=psychlawblog&p=108080 Over the past few years, access to mushrooms containing psilocybin has become much easier in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. There are now four dispensaries that sell psilocybin mushrooms in the city, including two locations downtown, one located on Commercial Drive, and one located on the Downtown Eastside. The prevalence of these dispensaries has made it

The post Open Psilocybin Sales in Vancouver, B.C. appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Over the past few years, access to mushrooms containing psilocybin has become much easier in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. There are now four dispensaries that sell psilocybin mushrooms in the city, including two locations downtown, one located on Commercial Drive, and one located on the Downtown Eastside. The prevalence of these dispensaries has made it much easier to acquire psilocybin mushrooms for recreational use and appears to mirror the rise of pot cafes in Vancouver during the city’s cannabis movement during the 2000s and 2010s.

Psilocybin Sold by a Licensed Pharmacy

While psilocybin is an illegal substance in Canada, it is classified as a Schedule III substance according to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). This means that psilocybin must be sold by a licensed pharmacy, but it may be sold from the self-selection section of the pharmacy. As only drugs unscheduled by the CDSA may be sold in Canada without professional supervision, these psilocybin dispensaries in Vancouver bend (break?) the law in the name of psilocybin reform. According to the City of Vancouver, there are currently no federal, provincial, or municipal regulations that allow recreational sales of psilocybin mushrooms.

Psilocybin Map

View the US Map of Psilocybin Legality by State

 

These dispensaries are able to operate because the Vancouver Police Department has admitted that it is more focused on “violent and organized criminals who produce and traffic harmful opioids, which fuel gang violence and contribute to the ongoing health crisis of illicit drug deaths.” However, those connected to the sale of psilocybin can still face charges and other penalties including orders, fines, and prosecution. For example, a business license cannot be issued to any establishment that sells psilocybin products.

Rise of Psilocybin Mushroom Dispensaries

The main contributing factor to the rise of psilocybin mushroom dispensaries in British Columbia is the increasing demand for the substance. Psilocybin research has increased recently, and studies have shown that psilocybin can effectively treat mental health conditions such as depression and PTSD, as well as addiction. These positive qualities have led to a paradigm shift across North America regarding psilocybin use and regulation, and institutions in Vancouver are leading much of this groundbreaking research. This shift in perspective has manifested in looser psilocybin regulations throughout the United States, including Oregon—whose voters approved Measure 109 which outlines the organization of a framework to regulate legal psilocybin mushrooms.

Currently, the process for accessing psilocybin legally in Canada is quite arduous. The process consists of requesting a federal exemption to access medical psilocybin, and each request must be approved by a federal health minister. This process has allowed over 80 Canadians access to psilocybin mushrooms, mostly to people with terminal illnesses or depression that resists other forms of treatment. However, this process is grossly inadequate to effectively distribute the benefits of psilocybin to those who need them. As such, people often seek to access psilocybin illegally. When people are forced to search for psilocybin underground, people may obtain substances without the same quality or safety specifications as regulated medical substances.

Ultimately, the recent rise of psilocybin mushroom dispensaries in British Columbia—and general lack of deterrence—shows a growing demand and a paradigm shift towards the greater embrace of psilocybin throughout North America– mirroring the ongoing attitude shift towards cannabis and other psychedelics. This is an encouraging trend that we are excited to follow.

The post Open Psilocybin Sales in Vancouver, B.C. appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
La Ley de Equidad Social de la Psilocibina de Oregón https://harris-sliwoski.com/psychlawblog/the-oregon-psilocybin-social-equity-bill/ mié, 09 feb 2022 15:00:51 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?post_type=psychlawblog&p=104151 In late January, the Oregon state legislature filed a pre-session, psilocybin social equity bill to supplement the state’s groundbreaking Measure 109 program. That legislation is new Senate Bill 1580, sponsored by ten Democratic state lawmakers. Its first public hearing was yesterday and it goes to Senate work session tomorrow. Oregon’s New Legal Psilocybin Program This

The post The Oregon Psilocybin Social Equity Bill appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
In late January, the Oregon state legislature filed a pre-session, psilocybin social equity bill to supplement the state’s groundbreaking Measure 109 program. That legislation is new Senate Bill 1580, sponsored by ten Democratic state lawmakers. Its first public hearing was yesterday and it goes to Senate work session tomorrow.

Oregon’s New Legal Psilocybin Program

This bill comes at a critical time, as Oregon’s new legal psilocybin program serves to transition psilocybin from an illegal substance into a regulated industry within the state. It also fills a gap that many saw in Measure 109, which, like Measure 91 on cannabis before it, fails to address social equity in any respect.

SB 1580 would establish a “Task Force on Psilocybin Health Equity” of fifteen members, comprising lawmakers, regulators, and others with significant experience with psychedelics treatment to study issues related to equity and accessibility of psilocybin services. The state Senate would elect one member of the task force, the House of Representatives would elect another, and the Governor would appoint the remaining thirteen members, stratified to represent various parties of state psilocybin regulators.

Psilocybin Map

View the US Map of Psilocybin Legality by State

Duties of the Task Force

The specific duties of the task force would include researching and making findings regarding barriers that people of color and low-income people face regarding: 1) establishing psilocybin-related businesses, 2) retaining culturally specific psilocybin service facilitators, 3) entering a licensure training program, and 4) accessing psilocybin services.

Further Responsibilities

Further responsibilities would include: 1) studying and making findings regarding the development of psilocybin research licenses, 2) regulation of research partnerships exploring the efficacy of psilocybin therapy and expanding access to psilocybin services, and 3) identifying possible legislation and funding sources to establish a psilocybin equity program.

The study would provide data to inform decisions by lawmakers and regulators regarding fee agreements and grants for financial and technical assistance for psilocybin businesses owned by disadvantaged individuals. It further proposes “that psilocybin service centers dedicate a minimum percentage of psilocybin treatment sessions to clients who are low-income.” A final report would be due by November 1, 2022 and the task force would be disbanded on January 2, 2023.

While the task force would not be permanent, SB 1580 could pave the way for a permanent psilocybin equity office in the state. Whether the bill can actually pass in this accelerated, five-week legislative session is an open question. From its current stop in the Senate Committee on Human Services, Mental Health and Recovery, its subsequent referral is the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. We’ve explained elsewhere that “Ways and Means is where a proposed law’s fiscal impact is studied, in conjunction with the statewide budget. It’s often a graveyard, especially in short sessions.” Let’s hope that’s not the case with SB 1580.

Anyone wishing to follow the progress of this bill over the next month or so can do so here. We will be sure to update if this bill passes.

The post The Oregon Psilocybin Social Equity Bill appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
Las cargas de los trabajadores inmigrantes en España https://harris-sliwoski.com/blog/the-burdens-on-spains-immigrant-laborers/ Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:00:02 +0000 https://harris-sliwoski.com/?p=89590 During the summer of 2015, I found myself in the small town of Vic, Spain, located about an hour north of Barcelona in the foothills of the Pyrenees Mountains. Though Vic has many sights worth seeing including Roman ruins and a large central plaza, I spent most of my time in a part of town

The post The Burdens on Spain’s Immigrant Laborers appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>
During the summer of 2015, I found myself in the small town of Vic, Spain, located about an hour north of Barcelona in the foothills of the Pyrenees Mountains. Though Vic has many sights worth seeing including Roman ruins and a large central plaza, I spent most of my time in a part of town known as “Vic Dos” or “Vic Two.” This part of town was completely different from the rest of Vic. Here, it seemed like everyone I met was a first-generation immigrant from either Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, or India, and everyone worked in one of the meat processing factories located on the outskirts of town.

Those that I met were undoubtedly grateful for the work, but I heard many stories of poor, racist treatment of these workers by the “bosses.” Work started very early in the morning, and often went well past the agreed ending time. The work is brutal and dangerous, with bosses expecting workers to butcher 700 pigs per hour, ten to twelve hours per day, six (or seven, if the bosses need you) days per week. Injuries occur all the time and can often constitute the grounds for immediate termination. Rampant racism abounds, with racial slurs and violent threats just becoming part of everyday life for workers. Pay is around 800 euros ($945) per month with deductions for materials and laundry. The facts are sickening, but the bosses get away with it because migrants without citizenship have very few rights in Spain. The workers I met came to Spain in hopes of a better life and a greater ability to provide for their families, but many told me they preferred life in their home country.

I returned to Barcelona in 2019 for my studies, and I made a point to visit Vic every weekend. A good friend of mine, who is also a first-generation Ghanaian immigrant, allowed me to stay with him on Saturday nights. As I went to sleep, he always made sure that his phone was nearby. While Sunday was his day off, he told me that he half expected a call from the bosses anytime during the night, telling him that he was needed at the factory on Sunday. Often, the call came around 4 AM. I asked him what would happen if he asserted that Sunday was his day off and did not go to work. He told me that wasn’t an option since he would be fired immediately.

Abhorrent treatment of migrant laborers is not unique to Vic. During the time I spent in the Valencian Community, I heard first-hand accounts of workers—usually from Senegal or Mali—who lost their jobs picking Valencia’s namesake oranges due to blatant racism. Last December, The Guardian reported that 21 warehouse workers in Murcia were rescued by Spanish police after being hidden in a secret room by warehouse managers. The workers were paid two euros ($2.36) per hour and were working in terrible conditions, featuring a “total absence of occupational safety and hygiene measures.”

A relative abundance of immigrant labor in Spain allows for employers to pay their workers very little and quickly replace anyone who is injured, ill, or doesn’t behave, without missing a beat. Though awareness of migrant labor mistreatment has increased in recent years, changes in Spanish labor law must follow. It is about time that employers realize they cannot violate basic notions of respect and decency towards workers, no matter the location, the industry, or who your workers are.

The post The Burdens on Spain’s Immigrant Laborers appeared first on Harris Sliwoski LLP.

]]>