Devoted Law presents: In recent posts, we’ve discussed cases where a neighbor to a cannabis grow sued the grower for nuisance, claiming that growing cannabis interfered with the neighbor’s use of their land. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. These lawsuits relied on the non-cannabis landowner’s claims that the federally illegal cannabis business caused harm because of odor, disruptive activity, and diminution of property values. As of last week, we have another variation on the nuisance theme. On August 31, 2018, Jack Hempicine LLC (“Hempicine”), a Polk County hemp grower, sued fellow hemp farmers for nuisance and other torts. Unlike the previous cases, this case claims that the harm to the property was caused when the other farms cross-pollinated the Hempicine farms and ruined its crops. Jack Hempicine LLC v. Leo Mulkey Inc., Case No. 18CV38712, Polk Cty. Sup. Ct. In this case, Hempicine alleges:
According to the complaint, Hempicine began producing hemp and hemp seed in Polk County in 2015 and 2016. In 2016, Hempicine allegedly told defendants that Hempicine only produced feminized seed, warning the defendants of the risks from cross-pollination from male plants. Hempicine says that after this meeting, the defendants grew male hemp plants that cross-pollinated Hempicine’s female plants, giving them high levels of THC and making them unmarketable. The Hempicine complaint calculates its damages for loss to the 2016 and 2017 crops to exceed $8 million, and says that it will amend its complaint to include damages from the lost 2018 crop later. Hempicine’s complaint seeks recovery under four separate legal theories. First, it alleges that the defendants breached a duty of care to Hempicine and was thus negligent. Second and third, it alleges that the defendants acted negligently or recklessly in growing male hemp plants on their property, and thus are liable for trespass or nuisance. Fourth, the complaint alleges that defendants grew male plants in the vicinity of the Hempicine farms that they knew would likely result in cross-pollination, and thus have intentionally interfered with Hempicine’s economic relations. This is not the first time this issue has arisen. During the Oregon Legislature’s efforts to pass hemp legislation, cannabis producers noted the risk of cross pollination between cannabis and hemp, which of course are just two varietals of the cannabis sativa plant. Among other things, some cannabis producers urged the legislature to create separate agricultural zones for hemp and cannabis (which didn’t happen). There are also a number of lawsuits involving similar claims of cross-pollination by GMO crops. Hopefully this industry can find a way for hemp and marijuana farms alike to be neighbors. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/oregon-industrial-hemp-litigation-wont-you-be-my-neighbor/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/oregon-industrial-hemp-litigation-wont-you-be-my-neighbor/
0 Comments
Devoted Law presents: The path to marijuana public reforms is inevitable. According to recent surveys, 64 percent of Americans favor the legalization of marijuana and roughly 90 percent support its legal use for medical purposes. This growing popularity of cannabis has been reflected in recent legislative and referendum actions across the country at the state level. Earlier this year, shortly after Vermont legalized, we looked at four states–New Jersey, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Virginia–most likely to follow the footsteps of the existing 9 states that had already passed laws to regulate marijuana and the 28 with medical cannabis programs. Today, on the eve of the November 6 elections, we take another look at the legislative and/or referendum developments in these jurisdictions and see whether these four states have in fact come closer to ending marijuana prohibition. New Jersey’s governor, Phil Murphy, has made legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana a goal of his administration. Unfortunately, Gov. Murphy has yet to convince lawmakers to pass a combined bill that aims to (1) expand medical marijuana and (2) fully legalize recreational marijuana for adults. Because New Jersey does not allow its citizens to bring direct initiatives, the fate of marijuana will have to be decided by legislators, a process that will most certainly take time. But the state seems close. Oklahoma On June 26th, Oklahoma voters approved State Question 788, an initiative that legalized the use of medical cannabis. Specifically, the initiative allowed for the use, cultivation, and distribution of medical cannabis to qualified patients. The Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (“OMMA”), which oversees the program, has been accepting online applications since August 24th. As of early this week, OMMA had already issued more than 1,000 patient licenses and 100 business licenses. Michigan In April, the Michigan Board of Canvassers ruled (a 4-0 decision) that the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the committee behind the initiative that would end marijuana prohibition in the state, had collected enough signatures to qualify for the November 6 ballot. According to a March survey conducted by the Michigan-based pollster EPIC-MRA, 61 percent of Michigan voters favor the legalization and regulation of marijuana. If this poll is accurate and if the initiative were to pass, it would:
Virginia Like Gov. Murphy, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam was unable to convince his colleagues to pass a bill decriminalizing marijuana before the end of his first legislative session. Although marijuana possession remains a criminal act in the state, Gov. Northam managed to enact on major piece of legislation this year by signing a bill that will allow doctors to recommend cannabidioil (CBD) or HC-A oil for any medical condition. Next Up Other states will decide the fate of recreational and medical marijuana during the November election. North Dakota voters will consider initiatives that would legalize and regulate marijuana for adults’ use, whereas voters in Utah and Missouri will decide the fate of medical marijuana ballot measures. I’ll cover those states in part two of this installment. In addition, the legislature of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has recently approved a bill to legalize and regulate marijuana for adult and medical use. The bill is now sitting on Gov. Ralph Deleon Guerrero Torres’ desk. If enacted, the bill would make the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands the first U.S. territory to legalize and regulate marijuana for adult use. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/state-legal-cannabis-in-2018-status-report/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/state-legal-cannabis-in-2018-status-report/ Devoted Law presents: Development agreements have become a popular tool for California municipalities regulating commercial cannabis activities. We’ve talked a bit about development agreements in the cannabis context here. In a nutshell, a development agreement is a contract between a municipality and developer that freezes applicable rules, regulations, and policies pertaining to a property at the time of execution. Our California cannabis real estate and land use lawyers have come across quite a few of them lately. Unfortunately, many times local jurisdictions are misusing them at the industry’s expense. Development agreement laws were enacted to provide assurances to developers faced with uncertainty in government approval processes for complex and long-term development projects. A development agreement should provide developers with assurances that the developer will see a return on investment by providing vested rights to engage in a particular use on a property. The rights are locked in so that if local laws change in the future (e.g., the voters or legislative body prohibit a particular use), the uses permitted in the agreement can continue for the remaining term of the agreement. The scant authority dealing with development agreements focuses on the broad purpose of the statute to provide assurances to developers as soon as project commitments must be made. Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221, 230. Development agreements allow municipalities to impose fees without having to deal with the uncertainty and expense of putting the matter before voters (as required with the imposition of a tax), and to negotiate community benefits and public improvements to be provided by developers. They also put municipalities in privity of contract with developers, providing an additional degree of control and remedies for each party that would not otherwise exist. In the context of cannabis, we are seeing a perversion of the intent of California’s development agreement statutes. Many municipalities require development agreements for commercial cannabis activity regardless of whether there is actual land development involved. The terms are incredibly short (often only 1 to 5 years), the fees are substantial, and developers are not expressly provided with vested rights to operate. In other words, most of the cannabis-related development agreements fail to provide developers with assurances that they will see a return on their investment. Further, the vast majority of municipalities do not allow any negotiation of commercial cannabis development agreements, which calls into question the validity of any associated fees. After all, the justification for exempting development agreements from the constitutional and statutory requirements applicable to municipal fees and taxes is that the terms are bargained for between the parties. Stay tuned for the next two parts of this series on demystifying development agreements. In part two, I’ll break down the basics of development agreement laws, and what they mean for the marijuana industry. In part three, I’ll cover some key terms to fight for in development agreement negotiations related to California cannabis use. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/california-cannabis-development-agreements-part-one/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/06/california-cannabis-development-agreements-part-one/ Devoted Law presents: The legal status of cannabidiol (CBD) has long been complicated. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) allowed for the cultivation of “industrial hemp”, defined as the cannabis plant that contains less than .03% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry weight basis, as long as that hemp was grown pursuant to a state’s guidelines. The 2014 Farm Bill lead to a massive influx of industrial hemp-derived products containing CBD (Hemp-CBD). However, not all states have legalized industrial hemp, making the U.S. a quilt of different rules and regulations on industrial hemp and Hemp-CBD. We’ve written about how state law impacts Hemp-CBD, in regards to where a distributor can sell its products. State law considerations are also relevant to consider when transporting Hemp-CBD. Consider the case of Anita Maddux. According to Planet Jackson Hole, Maddux was driving through Wyoming en route to Montana to care for her sick mother when she was pulled over for her expired California license plates. It turns out Maddux was driving with an expired license, no insurance, and a 10-millimeter bottle of CBD she obtained from a health store in New Mexico. At the Teton County Jail, police tested the CBD oil for THC. The test results confirmed the presence of THC but the amount of THC. Maddux ended up spending 36 hours in jail before being released on a $1,000 bond. Recently, the Jackson Hole News & Guide reported that Teton County Deputy Prosecutor Clark Allen intended to dismiss the felony drug charge. However, Allen noted that “I don’t want to send the message that we will not pursue these cases[.] We will pursue these types of cases under the right circumstances. This case just isn’t it.” Allen went on to acknowledge that Wyoming law is not clear when it comes to CBD oils: “Our laws are way behind the curve with the products we’re dealing with[.] A citizen takes a big risk when they possess these products.” A similar story played out in Cary, South Carolina where Ayman Tamim Nu Mann Alqazah, a wholesaler of e-cigarettes and other similar goods, was charged with trafficking marijuana after a box of CBD-infused gummies he ordered popped open while in transit. The News & Observer reports that box opened while it was transferred from a truck in Florida. Alqazah’s order totaled four boxes weighing 241 pounds. Alqazah now faces drug trafficking charges. Hopefully, like Maddux, Alqazah’s charges will eventually be dismissed. Regardless of the outcome, Alqazah and Maddux show that shipping CBD products comes with substantial risk. Though many states have legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp in some form, the law surrounding Hemp-CBD remains confusing. Additionally, enforcement action is sporadic. Often, Hemp-CBD products are distributed without incident. Other times, law enforcement will seize Hemp-CBD products to confirm that they do not contain THC and then will either destroy or return the products depending on test results. Other times, as was the case with Maddux and Alqazah, criminal charges are levied against individuals who possess Hemp-CBD. All of this means that businesses must carefully consider how their products reach consumers. For example, imagine that Hemp Co. is planning to distribute Hemp-CBD. Hemp Co. sources its industrial hemp from a farm in Medford, a small town in Southern Oregon. Hemp Co. has a large order to fill for a natural food store in Billings, Montana. Hemp Co. decides that the fastest and cheapest method of delivery is ground shipping through Idaho. However, according to a 2015 informal opinion from the Idaho Attorney General, the state makes no distinction between industrial hemp and marijuana. Therefore, Hemp-CBD, even without the presence of THC, is not permitted in Idaho. Even though Hemp Co.’s products come from a farmer who cultivates in-line with Oregon’s industrial hemp program (and relevant federal law), that does not insulate Hemp Co. from liability if the shipment is inspected by Idaho State Police. Even if Hemp Co. re-routes to travel through another state, it still would likely have to pass through Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, or North Dakota. Though not all of these states are as “bad” as Idaho, none of them have CBD-friendly laws. Paying for air-shipment may seem like a solution, but there are numerous regulations and transit-company polices that Hemp Co. must deal with. All of this requires careful planning and risk management. I was recently watching an old episode of the TV show Kung Fu, which chronicles Caine, a young American played by David Carradine, training to be a Shaolin Monk traveling the Old West. At one point Caine asks his teacher Master Tae “what is the best way to deal with force?” Master Tae responds, “as we prize peace and quiet above victory, there is a simple and preferred method. . . Run away.” Hemp-CBD distributors should heed this advice and “run away”, to the best of their ability, from states like Wyoming and Idaho. Transporting Hemp-CBD is inherently risky. CBD businesses should consult with attorneys and logistic specialists to plan ahead and avoid running into the same problems as Maddux and Alqazah. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/transporting-cbd-plan-your-route-carefully/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/05/transporting-cbd-plan-your-route-carefully/ Washingtons Ever-Shifting Residency Requirement for Marijuana Businesses | Law and Finance Tips9/4/2018 Devoted Law presents: Despite lobbying efforts to the contrary, Washington has maintained its strict state residency requirement for Washington cannabis business owners. If a person wants to own 0.001% of a cannabis business, the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) requires that person to be a Washington resident and to go through about 1,000 hoops before it authorizes the licensed cannabis business to issue that ownership interest. In general, cash-starved producer-processors looking for investment and out-of-state investors have pushed for the law to change, while more established retailers and certain producer-processors prefer the lack of out-of-state competition. The residency issue is resonating in Olympia, with many legislators openly discussing lifting or altering the state restriction on out-of-state ownership. While the overall topic of the residency requirement is often discussed, one issue that doesn’t get as much attention is how the WSLCB is currently defining residency. And that’s because they don’t— at least not directly. The WSLCB’s marijuana regulations define the term “residence” as a place where a person physically resides, but that is only in the context of the rule that marijuana licenses cannot be issued to businesses whose location is at a personal residence. The section talking about the residency requirement, WAC 314-55-120(10) uses the terms “resided” and “residency requirement,” but the rules do not define those terms. Neither does RCW 69.50, the section of Washington’s legislative code that contains its statutes related to regulated marijuana businesses. RCW 69.50.331(1)(b)(ii) contains the legislative requirement that someone must have “lawfully resided in the state for at least six months prior to applying” for a marijuana business license. Whether the drafters of that section meant “resided in Washington without breaking any laws” or “would be considered resident of Washington as a matter of law”, we cannot really say. The statute does not contain any significant guidance on what does and does not constitute residency. When Washington first opened for licensing, the interpretation of these sections was key. Back then, in 2013 and 2014, the residency requirement was only three months, and entrepreneurs looking to take advantage of the market had been trying to figure out the least that they could do to establish residency in order to qualify for the new licenses. When people asked the WSLCB what constituted residency, they were deferred to other state agencies that had defined residency. I personally have been on multiple phone calls with WSLCB investigators where they deferred to the Department of Revenue’s (DOR) definition of residency. The problem with deference to the Department of Revenue is that the WSLCB generally acts like it wants a narrow definition of residency, whereas DOR wants a broad definition of residency. DOR wants people to be considered residents because that means that they owe sales tax and/or use tax on their purchases. Even the WSLCB’s old rules FAQ still has a link (albeit a broken one) to this Access Washington webpage saying that there are many ways that one can show that he or she is a Washington resident, including registering to vote and obtaining a Washington driver’s license. Although it provides resources that make it seem like it is easy to prove residency, the WSLCB’s enforcement officers and investigators continue to treat residency as a strict requirement that one physically inhabit Washington virtually every day of the year. We have an administrative case happening right now where the WSLCB claims that our client is not a Washington resident, even though that person owns residential property in Washington and gets all of his or her mail there, is registered to vote in Washington, and maintains a Washington drivers license (and no other state licenses or IDs). They can’t point to a single written definition of residency that this client violates, but they continue to fight on this point. This isn’t all about one case, one client, or even one issue. The WSLCB is showing time and time again that it likes to live in the zone of vaguely written or non-existent regulations and stringent enforcement of the WSLCB’s interpretations of those vaguely written or non-existent rules. Unless you assume that the WSLCB has malicious intentions in drafting and enforcing its rules in this way (which we do not assume), it does not make sense that they would not adopt a stringent definition of residency if they want to enforce it that way. But until the WSLCB amends its rules by adopting an actual definition of residency, it will continue looking like it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/washingtons-ever-shifting-residency-requirement-for-marijuana-businesses/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/04/washingtons-ever-shifting-residency-requirement-for-marijuana-businesses/ Devoted Law presents: Poor Josephine County. We have been writing on this blog about the southern Oregon county’s mounting frustrations with cannabis, its successive losses in litigation, and its most recent attempt in federal district court to submarine Oregon’s cannabis programs. We immediately identified this lawsuit as a “stunning overreach” and we predicted the county would lose. To that end, and just before the holiday weekend, a U.S. magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) that Josephine county’s case should be dismissed. And that is what should occur. By way of background, we explained back in April that Josephine County wanted the federal court to:
Well, none of that is happening. The magistrate judge issued a thoughtful, eight-page opinion (no public link available– email me if you want a copy) which rested on two points of law: 1) Josephine County, as a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, lacks standing to sue the state in Federal District Court; and 2) no justiciable case or controversy exists between the parties. Let’s take a quick look at each finding. Standing. For one party to sue another, it must convince a court of a sufficient connection to, and harm from, the law or action challenged. Here, the Report cited a mountain of Ninth Circuit precedent to the effect that a state cannot be sued by its political subdivisions. In apparent anticipation of this, Josephine County attempted to argue that its “home rule” status makes for an exception, but the Report swatted that argument away in two brisk paragraphs. When a party has no standing, the merits of its claims don’t matter. No Justiciable Case or Controversy. The Report covered this argument almost as an afterthought. The judge found that even if the court could find an exception to the fatal standing issue, the case should be dismissed because Oregon has not prohibited Josephine County from enacting the regulations it wants to enact (restricting marijuana grows on rural residential land). Instead, the county erred by not providing landowners required notice, and that deficiency (rather than any substantive deficiency) was the sole reason a lower court iced the county’s restrictive ordinance. The judge had fun in this section of this Report. He notes that:
Indeed! So what happens next? The Report will be referred to a district court judge. The county’s objections, if any, are due within 14 days. After that, the state would have 14 days to respond. Once those windows close, the judge will issue a final opinion, which is almost certain to agree with the Report. Theoretically that ruling could be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. In our opinion, though, it’s unlikely either of those courts would take up the case. We also believe that Josephine County should stop wasting taxpayer funds on ill-conceived litigation and bad press. Who knows if that will actually happen, though. For more on the Josephine County saga, check out the following posts:
source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/27652-2/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/03/oregon-cannabis-josephine-county-loses-again/ Devoted Law presents: A violation of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (“OLCC”) recreational marijuana rules can land you in hot water. I’ve previously written about rule violations and the administrative process, including settlements. It’s been our experience that the OLCC is open to settlement agreements for licensees who violate rules, and we regularly help settle these cases. Some are easier than others. Settlement agreements generally save time and money related to administrative litigation costs for both licensee and the OLCC. Based on our review of the OLCC News Releases, the OLCC has approved settlement agreements with approximately 20 licensees and had never rejected a settlement agreement proposed by its staff. That all changed last week. The OLCC alleges Black Market Distribution LLC (“Black Market”) violated 10 OLCC rules. On August 23, 2016, the OLCC was presented with a settlement agreement that would have allowed Black Market to pay a $16,335 civil penalty or serve a 99 day license suspension. The OLCC rejected the proposed settlement agreement because it determined the violations were egregious enough that a suspension or fine would not result in the licensee taking the necessary corrective action to come into compliance. Black Market will not automatically lose its license but instead will now proceed to an administrative hearing to fight to keep its license. How does this compare to past settlement agreements? Here are the three most relevant examples:
What do these settlement agreements tell us? In the past, for egregious violations, the OLCC had agreed to settlements that resulted in license forfeiture in some form. In the Black Market case, maybe the OLCC is or was looking for license forfeiture given the number of violations Black Market is accused of. Alternatively, the OLCC may be shifting to stricter enforcement of its rules. In the August 23, 2018 News Release, the OLCC made it clear that the agency expects licensee to be compliant and law-abiding and intends to strengthen its action against rule breakers. Only time will tell if the OLCC intends to move away from settlement agreements with licensees. In the meantime, the best way to avoid a civil penalty, suspension, or license revocation is to ensure you and all of your employees are compliant with all the OLCC rules. Because there are so many rules, and because those rules continue to evolve, that can be a tall order. If you are unsure about anything, one of our many talented Oregon cannabis attorneys can assist with compliance questions. And if you find yourself in the OLCC’s cross-hairs, we may be able to help with that too. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/new-settlement-policies-the-olcc-moves-to-revoke-marijuana-wholesaler-license/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/new-settlement-policies-the-olcc-moves-to-revoke-marijuana-wholesaler-license/ Los Angeles Cannabis: Dont Forget Your Social Equity Business Agreements | Law and Finance Tips9/1/2018 Devoted Law presents: Applicants who qualify for commercial cannabis licensure during Phase II of the City of L.A.’s cannabis licensing process only have until September 13 to get their applications into the Department of Cannabis Regulation (“DCR”). This phase of licensing is reserved for existing, non-retail, social equity applicants. To get a license during this phase, the DCR requires proof of operation in the City prior to January 1, 2016, proof of service to an “Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensary” prior to January 1, 2017, and proof of eligibility as a Tier 1, 2, or 3 social equity applicant. For more on Phase II eligibility, see here and here. I wrote earlier this month about the unusual business relationships our L.A. cannabis business lawyers are seeing born out of social equity in L.A. It’s pretty clear that lots of applicants will go for Tier 3 social equity status (i.e., where a Tier 3 incubates a Tier 1 or 2 social equity applicant). In that situation, the Tier 3 social equity applicant has to sign a social equity agreement with the City, but little to no detail on the content of that agreement exists in the law. In addition, licensees would be extremely unwise not to maintain social equity business agreements between themselves in order to ensure mutual performance and compliance. In turn, this post is dedicated to covering the details that should be included in social equity agreements between licensees:
Even though social equity is fairly heavily regulated in L.A., government cannot cover all the business details between parties (nor should it). That’s where a well thought out, written agreement becomes incredibly important in order to curb risk and get the parties in line for success or for a more orderly break-up in the event that things don’t work out. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/details-dont-forget-your-la-social-equity-business-agreements/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/los-angeles-cannabis-dont-forget-your-social-equity-business-agreements/ Devoted Law presents: Federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in states that have legalized cannabis has been a huge question mark for years, but especially so in California since the 2016 passage of Prop 64, which legalized medicinal and adult-use cannabis and laid the framework for a new regulatory regime. Almost two years later, that question remains, but certain trends have emerged, were reinforced, and now seem to be forging full speed ahead. Those trends suggest that (1) the Department of Justice is not engaging in a crackdown against cannabis businesses that are in compliance with state and local law, and (2) the state and the federal government have agreed to coordinate on enforcement actions where it furthers the priorities of both entities. So far, those priorities have been organized crime and illegal cultivation on public lands, and this week the latter priority got a big boost from both sides of the equation. On the state side of things, a proposed state law extending the statute of limitations from one to three years for state enforcement actions against unlawful “conversion of timberland to nonforestry-related agricultural uses”—a move that targets illegal cannabis cultivation on public lands—has passed the state legislature and is now before Governor Brown for signature. The bill also clarifies that the limitations period does not begin to run until the state discovers the violation. On the federal side of things, the Department of Justice issued a formal statement about the results of its summer-long collaborative project with the state and local governments to target and eradicate illegal cultivation operations on public lands, aka Operation Forest Watch, which we now know has been underway since at least October 2017 and also included the California National Guard. One important reason behind this effort was an unprecedented level of illegal toxic pesticides being used in unlicensed cannabis cultivation, some so powerful that a “quarter-teaspoon can kill a 300-pound bear.” Because cannabis grown using these dangerous pesticides cannot pass California’s stringent quality standards, it has been mostly shipped illegally to the Midwest and the East Coast, undermining both California and federal laws prohibiting diversion out of state. The big-picture takeaway from this joint operation is that “federal authorities are concentrating their efforts on hazardous illegal grows on public land instead of targeting California’s new recreational marijuana industry, although marijuana remains illegal under federal law.” Another take on it is that federal and state cooperation on cannabis enforcement as it has been structured to date benefits both entities when priorities are aligned: The federal government furthers its goals of protecting public lands and public safety and targeting organized crime; while the state furthers those same goals in its own interests, and at the same time reinforces the state’s regulatory regime by incentivizing licensing and compliance and cracking down on the state’s illegal markets. It remains to be seen what effect these joint enforcement actions, as well as California’s continued crackdown on unlicensed operators, will have on the state’s cannabis market writ large, but to date they have unquestionably proven beneficial to both parties, as well as all Californians who enjoy and want to preserve our forests. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/california-cannabis-state-and-feds-team-up-to-target-illegal-public-land-grows/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/california-cannabis-state-and-feds-team-up-to-target-illegal-public-land-grows/ Devoted Law presents: This past year, the country has witnessed widespread interest in the use of cannabis in its nutraceutical (when added to food or drinks) form. Cannabidiol (“CBD”), the non-psychoactive chemical compound found in the cannabis plant, has gained great popularity among alcohol beverage companies. The growing popularity of CBD-infused products combined with their mainstream nature has given alcohol beverage companies the false impression that blending CBD into their products is an easy process. This post bursts the myth by highlighting the regulatory labyrinth into which alcohol beverage manufacturers must venture to enter this growing, popular market. Alcoholic beverages are regulated by federal and state law. Consequently, beer, wine and spirits producers are generally accustomed to navigating rules, various forms of licensure, and modes of compliance related to their industry. Their familiarity with comprehensive regulations makes alcohol beverage companies well equipped to navigate the intersection between alcohol and cannabis, which is heavily regulated at the state level. Unlike alcohol, though, many forms of cannabis are strictly federally prohibited. As such, “marijuana” and “tetrahydrocannabinols” (THC) are listed on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The CSA defines “marijuana” as: “all parts of the Cannabis sativa L. plant whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.” The CSA exempts certain parts of the cannabis plant from the definition of marijuana, including hemp-derived CBD products that are manufactured with hemp grown as part of a Farm Bill-authorized state pilot program. Accordingly, only CBD derived from industrial hemp (“Hemp” or “Hemp-CBD”) is allowed in the formulation of CBD-infused alcoholic beverages. The U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco and Trade Bureau (“TTB”)’s 2000 Hemp Policy (the “Policy”) dictates how manufacturers may use Hemp-CBD in their alcohol products. The Policy sets forth the requirements for formulas and statements of process producers may use. Although the TTB permits the use of Hemp derivatives in alcohol products, the federal agency strictly prohibits producers from using “depictions, graphics, designs, devices, puffery, statements, slang, representations, etc. implying or referencing the presence of hemp, marijuana, and other controlled substance; or any psychoactive effects.” In other words, producers should refrain from using the term “CBD” in their formula or statement of process as the TTB seems to interpret the term as unlawful under federal law. In addition to submitting the list of ingredients and the method of manufacture they intend to use, producers must provide the TTB with an analysis conducted by a U.S. lab of the hemp components that will be used in the product. A detailed description of the method employed by the U.S. lab must also be presented to the TTB. The TTB will approve the formula or statement of process if the finished product does not contain a controlled substance. Once the hemp components have been tested for controlled substances, producers must ensure that detailed records are kept at the manufacturing premises for inspections, which we hear may occur as early as within the first month of production. Once a producer receives TTB approval, which may take up to two years, the producer must then comply with state rules and regulations. In Oregon, for example, manufacturers must provide proof to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (“OLCC”) that they have met the TTB formula requirement and meet the OLCC labeling requirements before they can manufacture and sell the infused beverage in the state. Oregon beverage producers who intend to sell their infused product outside of Oregon must also show the OLCC that they comply with the TTB labeling requirements. As this post underlines, obtaining approval for the manufacture and sale of hemp-CBD infused alcoholic beverages is a complex process, due primarily to the uncertain nature of hemp-CBD laws. Therefore, it is crucial for any company intending to enter this market to consult with an experienced, well-versed law firm (like us!) prior to moving into this trending space. source: Canna Law Blog https://www.cannalawblog.com/the-law-on-cbd-infused-alcoholic-beverages/ via WordPress https://lawfinancechronicle.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/the-law-on-cbd-infused-alcoholic-beverages/ |