Can We Use Commercial Cannabis to Address Historical Inequities?

Here in Portland, a number of City Councilors have been adamant that Portland’s adult use program should benefit minority communities. There is a current proposal to give historically disadvantaged groups some level of preference when applying for licenses. This mirrors a common sentiment nationwide that the adult use industry should benefit those communities historically disproportionately affected by marijuana-related prosecutions. 

Chicago has one interesting idea for how this could happen. Chicago’s Mayor Lightfoot has proposed a “social equity program” that would essentially create a co-op for growing adult use marijuana and allow minorities to invest through small cash investments or sweat equity. The Mayor has proposed using $15 million in municipal funds for this project. It would be interesting to see this play out, if it gets off the ground.

Bills to Watch in 2020 NH Legislative Session

While the text of bills slowly make their way out of the Office of Legislative Services for the 2020 legislative session in New Hampshire, there are at least a couple cannabis-related bills of interest to keep tabs on. 

The first bill is HB 1386, sponsored by Rep. Wendy Thomas (D – Hillsborough), which would prohibit employers from retaliating against an employee solely because the employee is a qualified patient of the New Hampshire therapeutic cannabis program and has a positive drug test for cannabis. The potential reach of this bill is unclear as it provides that “[e]mployment where no cannabis is allowed shall be excluded from this section.” This suggests that at least some undefined class of employers (Hospitals? Police departments? Schools?) can retaliate against employees who test positive for cannabis. The bill also clarifies that an employer is not required “to allow being impaired by cannabis products while at work.” Given Governor Sununu's veto of several cannabis-related bills last session, I do not anticipate this bill becoming law this session (at least in its current form).

The second bill to watch is HB 1150, sponsored by Rep. Renny Cushing (D – Rockingham), which would permit qualifying patients visiting from out-of-state to access New Hampshire’s therapeutic cannabis dispensaries. Anybody who has visited New Hampshire knows that the state prides itself on obtaining revenue from visiting out-of-staters whether by tolls, state-run liquor stores on the highway, or room and meals taxes. Nevertheless, the elimination of the current ban on such transactions may run into some practical obstacles, such as how to determine whether an out-of-state consumer is a “qualifying patient.” This determination will likely become even more difficult as our neighboring states move away from a medical cannabis market and toward a legalized recreational cannabis market.

Feds Take Steps to Increase Hemp Producers’ Access to Capital

The Department of Treasury released new guidance yesterday that makes it much easier for banks to serve hemp producers. This comes on the heels of the USDA interim rules governing hemp nationwide. 

Basically, the new guidance says that banks no longer need to file ‘suspicious activity reports’ with Treasury for hemp producers since the crop is now largely legal under federal law. Suspicious Activity Reports (or SARs) are a fairly burdensome regulatory requirement for banks that require a great deal of diligence. This new guidance not only reduces the regulatory burden; it also reduces legal exposure banks may face by working with clients in the hemp industry. This should mean a greater willingness on the part of federally chartered banks to work with hemp producers, which, in turn, will result in greater access to capital.

This is also important because of likely trickle down effects. Insurers, for example, will likely become more eager to work with the hemp industry as access to capital increases.

Of course, banks will still need to ensure that their clients are complying with state and federal laws governing hemp, and will need to conduct necessary diligence to avoid banking illegal marijuana operations with products containing THC in excess of 0.3%. In addition, banks will need to remain cautious about clients who work with CBD in food products given the FDA’s hostility to that practice.

All in all, I see this as another positive step in the long game toward broader legalization.

Class Action Lawsuit Brought Against CBD Company for Deceptive Advertising

Just a week after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that it could not give CBD a “generally recognized as safe” designation, a proposed class action has been filed against a CBD company in California. The complaint alleges that Infinite Product Co.’s CBD products are misleadingly labeled and illegal to sell because they use CBD as an additive to food and topical cream products in violation of federal law. The “generally recognized as safe” designation allows a substance to be used as a food additive without going through the FDA’s approval process. Currently, there is no federal regulation that allows the use of CBD as a food additive. This proposed class action could be the first of many against CBD companies offering consumer products and food containing CBD as an additive, and may provide further impetus to the FDA to provide more guidance related to CBD products.

Tomorrow’s City Council Meeting on Portland’s Ordinance

Ok, so it's actually a meeting of the HHS and economic development subcommittees but, either way, it’s a necessary and important step to finalizing Portland’s ordinance and launching adult use in Maine’s largest city. The subcommittees will be taking public comment, so in terms of how many hours of comments we should expect to sit through, we’ll see if the craze around the cannabis industry or the distractions of Thanksgiving win out. I’m planning on a long night. 

A couple of particular items to look out for: 

• First, the current draft ordinance doesn’t permit the transfer of licenses. This would mean that an adult use store that transfers 10% or more of its equity to someone else would lose its license. Since bank loans aren’t really a thing in the cannabis industry, private investors are key and private investors want equity. Private investors also want to be able to sell their equity. So the ban on transferability doesn’t work in the industry. I expect we’ll hear some conversations about that.
  
• Second, THE CAP. It will be interesting to see if the cap stays at 20 retail stores total, or which direction it moves, or whether it is entirely eliminated. I’m sure the councilors are getting an earful on the daily about this.
  
• Third, the criteria to get a license look like a work in progress. They’re oddly structured in the current draft and really favor businesses that have owned or leased their retail location for a long, long time. They also strongly favor applicants who have operated a different type of licensed business in Portland for a long period of time. The lottery criteria tell us a lot about the city’s policy priorities, and I expect that the councilors will want some changes to these as well. 

See you tomorrow.

State Adopts New Restrictive Policy on CBD Sales That Is, at Least in Effect, Quite Similar to the Old Policy

The Maine Department of Agriculture has begun its next phase restricting sales of CBD in the state. Readers will recall that, over the summer, the State took the position that CBD sold in Maine had to be derived from hemp grown in Maine. The reality, of course, is that only a small portion of CBD sold in Maine has its origins in Maine and that policy expired in September.

Now, the State is handing out notifications to retailers and others in the CBD business that ingestible CBD products sold at retail in Maine must be produced in Maine. Here is a copy of that notification received by one retailer in the state:

This sounds different in substance than the State’s policy over the summer. Now, CBD sold in Maine doesn’t have to be derived in Maine. But the reality is that this policy will have largely the same effects since a huge portion of the CBD that is imported into Maine has already been incorporated into food products and is shelf-ready.

Trying to understand the State’s motivations for this latest policy shift, it appears to be related to the federal ban on CBD sold in edible products. The nuance of the State’s position isn’t entirely clear, but as we hear more we will post it here.

Do the Proposed USDA Hemp Rules Threaten Our CBD Industry?

We’re hearing concerns from some farmers and CBD manufacturers that the proposed USDA hemp rules, released earlier this week, could make it much more difficult to provide high-quality CBD products in the U.S. The concern, as I can best articulate it since I’m not a farmer, is that full-spectrum CBD is largely available in plants that have a longer growth cycle, but these plants may also have THC levels above 0.3 percent by virtue of being in the ground for longer. Under current regulations, some farmers and producers have found ways to reduce the THC content following harvest, which allows them to sell full-spectrum CBD products with compliant THC levels. The new USDA regulations, though, require that the crop be tested for THC content 15 days prior to harvest. Any crops with an excess of THC will need to be discarded. This eliminates the possibility of growing for longer and eliminating excess THC after the fact.

I can’t speak personally to whether this perceived threat is real or overblown, but its one interesting example of the many consequences (intended or otherwise) the new federal regime will have on the industry.

One other, related, strain: Though hemp must have THC levels below 0.3 percent, these new rules create a couple of safe harbors. First, they recognize that testing labs have margins of error, and so if your crop tests at 0.34 percent THC, but the lab results have a 0.05 percent margin of error, then the crop is legal and you’re good to go. Second, if your crop is above 0.3 percent but below 0.5 percent THC, you can’t sell it, but you also won’t be prosecuted. These rules basically recognize the inherent uncertainty involved with growing hemp.

USDA Hemp Rules Nearly Finalized

We haven’t seen a draft of the rules yet, but the latest news is that the White House has signed off on the proposed rules and they’ll be released any week now. Once the rules are released, a public comment period will begin. The USDA is still claiming that final rules will take effect before the end of 2019. 

The Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (which houses our hemp program) is likely to respond by drafting and proposing new rules of its own. These rules will likely parallel the federal rules including any THC potency testing guidelines, quality control standards, and broader cannabinoid testing requirements. 

Maine will also seek USDA approval of a state regulatory plan governing hemp. Once this approval is obtained, Maine hemp will finally be legal.

California Regulators Issue Cannabis Banking Guidance That’s Actually Useful

On October 2, 2019, the California Department of Business Oversight issued some really helpful guidance aimed at California banks and credit unions that are currently or are planning to bank marijuana-related businesses (MRBs). The guidance document consists of an extensive questionnaire that is used by California state bank examiners when they audit a bank or credit union’s MRB compliance program. The guidance document is intended to help California financial institutions comply with Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN guidance on cannabis banking. Although some of the guidance in the questionnaire is California-law specific, much of it is broadly applicable to any financial institution in any state that has legalized medical or recreational cannabis. We are encouraging all of our financial institution clients who have or are working on MRB compliance programs to take a look!

House Passes the SAFE Banking Act

On September 25, 2019, the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAFE Banking Act by a vote of 321 in favor and 103 opposed. As we’ve previously posted, the Act would prohibit federal bank regulators from penalizing financial institutions that provide services to state-legal cannabis businesses and will result in greater access to financial services for the cannabis industry. Given the 91 Republicans who voted in favor, it appears that cannabis banking reform may be poised to become a bipartisan issue, although only time will tell.

The Act will now move on to the Republican-controlled Senate, where commentators agree that passage is far less certain. Historically, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly opposed cannabis even while supporting the legalization of hemp. In any event, even if ultimately adopted, the protections granted to financial institutions under the SAFE Banking Act will only apply to state-law compliant cannabis customers, so it will continue to be vitally important for financial institutions to adopt robust marijuana-related business compliance policies and procedures and engage in continuous monitoring of cannabis customer compliance with relevant state laws.

Maine Legislature to Address Vaping Devices and THC

As readers may have seen, a list of the bills that the Maine Legislature may be discussing this winter has been released. I’m going to focus on the bills related to vaping for this post, since there are a lot of them. These bills are obviously a response to a string of vaping-related illnesses and deaths around the country in recent months, including several in Maine. It’s been reported that many of the victims were using vape pens, etc., loaded with THC rather than nicotine and, although it is not clear that contaminated THC rather than thickeners or other additives are causing these illnesses, the Maine Legislature has responded to these reports. These are some relevant bills offered by our legislators:

LR: 2763
Sponsor: Representative Cooper of Yarmouth
Title: An Act To Prohibit the Sale of Vaping Devices and Similar Electronic Smoking Devices 

LR: 2765
Sponsor: Senator Millett of Cumberland
Title: An Act To Enact Restrictions on Electronic Smoking Devices 

LR: 2837
Sponsor: Representative Hutchins of Penobscot
Title: An Act To Prohibit the Addition of Tetrahydrocannabinol and of Cannabidiol to Liquids Used in Vaping Devices 

LR: 2969
Sponsor: Senator Dow of Lincoln
Title: An Act To Ban Persons under 21 Years of Age from Purchasing, Possessing or Using Vaping Products 

LR: 2682
Sponsor: Representative Cooper of Yarmouth
Title: Resolve, Directing the Department of Health and Human Services To Study the Average Potency of Medical Marijuana and Illegal Marijuana, the Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use and the Adverse Physical Effect of Using Vaping Devices To Inhale Marijuana

Lots of Different Rules Governing Maine’s Marijuana Programs Are Going to Become Official Soon – But When?

We are waiting on final and effective versions of several different sets of rules governing Maine’s marijuana programs. I’ll start with the Rules for the Certification of Marijuana Testing Facilities, since the public hearing for these rules was just yesterday. The hearing was sparsely attended and public comments were not particularly noteworthy. Readers probably know that the Emergency Rules for the Certification of Marijuana Testing Facilities already took effect in September. This is allowed during rulemaking under Maine’s administrative procedures act in certain situations, and so rulemaking continues anyway. Final written comments are due October 10. At that point, we can expect about a month until final testing rules are released since the Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) will need to work with the Office of the Attorney General to sort through and incorporate any comments.

We are, of course, also still waiting with baited breath for the final adult use rules to be released. These will incorporate, at a minimum, the changes required by the legislature last June. The legislature required some fairly broad changes to the residency requirements in these draft rules, and we are waiting to see how OMP reacts and what the final rules look like accordingly. These adult use rules, the OMP has stated, will be released within the next 60 days.

Don’t forget that the rules governing Maine’s medical marijuana program are outdated. The current rules were enacted before the legislature significantly revised the program in 2018. So expect OMP to also tackle a rewrite of these rules sometime, perhaps this winter.

The Non-Crackdown on Out-of-State CBD Comes to an End

About a month ago, I noted that the State wasn’t really walking the walk. At the time, the State had only recently began informing CBD vendors that any food products containing CBD derived from hemp grown outside of Maine could not be sold in Maine. This ended up being much ado about nothing. As the law changed yesterday and LD 1749 takes effect, it doesn’t appear that the State ever took any real steps to enforce what it interpreted as a prohibition on out-of-state CBD. Practically speaking, none of this matters anymore, since the prohibition on out-of-state CBD is now officially over. However, I’m re-posting here a Bangor Daily News op-ed from the  several weeks ago which begs the state for a more consistent policy with regards to CBD.

For your consideration: Maine Needs Consistent Policy on Hemp and CBD

Mainers May Be Hot to Invest in Marijuana, but Out-of-State Money Is Still a Necessity

The website patch.com has posted a report that Maine is the no.1 state for marijuana investments. This doesn’t mean that Maine has the most investor dollars in marijuana, but just that Maine investors are more interested on average in marijuana stocks than investors in other states. I took interest in this report because it brings us back to our concerns over Maine’s restrictions on out-of-state investment in marijuana businesses. Sure, a high percentage of Maine residents are interested in the pot sector, but there just aren’t that many Maine investors compared to other states, and even fewer high-dollar investors. 

Starting a sophisticated marijuana business takes a lot of capital and banks are lending to this sector, so investment is needed. By necessity, the bulk of this investment needs to come from out of state to really jumpstart Maine’s adult use sector. Overly restrictive laws that prohibit this investment will only stifle the industry.

State Audit Gives New Hampshire Therapeutic Cannabis Program a Failing Grade

The results of a June legislative performance audit show that, in 2018, the State of New Hampshire failed to issue identification cards within the statutory deadline of five days after approval on 98.4% of the applications for the Therapeutic Cannabis Program. On average, in 2018, identification cards were received within 14 days after approval of the application. The 2018 numbers are an improvement over 2017, when the State failed to provide any identification cards within five days of application approval. The average turnaround time in 2017 was more than 24 days after application approval.

The failure, since inception, to provide adequate staffing and funding for the Therapeutic Cannabis Program has led advocates to push for a home-grown option. The House and Senate passed HB 364 this spring, providing a home-grown option, but Governor Sununu vetoed the bill on August 2, 2019. The House will have an opportunity to override the veto on September 18, but the prospects for success are small.

NCUA Advises Credit Unions They Can Provide Financial Services to Hemp Businesses

Last week, the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”) released interim guidance advising federally insured credit unions that they may provide certain financial services to legally operating hemp businesses. The interim guidance was released in response to the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill in December 2018 that removed certain hemp-derived products, including cannabidiol, from the list of Schedule 1 drugs in the Controlled Substances Act. 

The NCUA advises credit unions that they need to “understand the complexities and risks involved” if they choose to serve hemp-related businesses, and reminds credit unions that they “must have a Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance program” that addresses the risks related to hemp-related businesses. While the guidance encourages credit unions to “consider whether they are able to safely and properly serve lawfully operating hemp-related businesses within their fields of membership,” it also reminds credit unions of the “long and successful history” many credit unions have had in “providing services to the agricultural sector.”

The NCUA will issue additional guidance after the U.S. Department of Agriculture publishes its final regulations and guidelines.

The Non-Maine CBD Crackdown: What’s Become of It?

As we’ve previously discussed, Maine is claiming that, until September 19, food products sold in Maine cannot contain CBD grown elsewhere. So how is this policy working out in practice?

We’ve heard from several folks in the industry that the "crackdown" isn’t really materializing. Inspectors from Maine’s Department of Agriculture have been talking about this issue with some retailers in the state, but, in the instances we’ve heard about, inspectors have either told retailers that they’re not interested in checking to determine whether edibles for sale are in compliance, or the inspectors have provided a "verbal warning" to those selling non-Maine CBD products, without any explanation for what this actually means. 

I’d love to hear from anyone who has had any different experiences so far this month, but, so far, at least anecdotally, the State may be taking a conservative approach to enforcement.

FDA Official Suggests that CBD will be banned from foods for the foreseeable future

We’re tracking statements from the FDA regarding CBD in food. With state policy fluctuating so wildly on this issue and often attempting to mimic federal laws, the FDA’s evolving position on CBD is important.  So it’s notable that earlier this week a member of the FDA’s cannabinoid working group, Lowell Schiller, reaffirmed the FDA position that “under current law, it’s unlawful to sell a food or dietary supplement with CBD in interstate commerce.” He went on to state that significantly more research is needed before this changes at the federal level.

Keep in mind that these are policy statements, not explicit laws or regulations particular to CBD, from the FDA. So their legal force is subject to challenge. Regardless, for the time being, as CBD becomes more ubiquitous nationwide and states explicitly approve foods containing CBD, federal policy will continue to diverge from state law and the reality on the ground.

Draft Marijuana Licensing Rules Released for City of Portland

As local readers likely know, Portland completed its zoning regulations for marijuana stores last February. But at the time, the City deferred on a number of decisions such as what stores will be allowed to sell, and what criteria will need to be met to be able to open a retail store. Now the City has taken a big step toward answering those questions. The City released draft licensing rules last week. 

We’re still combing through the rules, but some notable takeaways off the bat: staff are proposing a cap of 20 total retail licenses, and a 250’ buffer between stores “to avoid having stores cluster in one location and to avoid over-saturation of the market." City staff are also offering the Council options for what seems to be essentially a first-in-time licensing system or, alternatively, a weighted lottery. Staff have said they prefer the first-in-time system.

Staff will be presenting their recommendations to the Economic Development and HHS Committees tomorrow, August 6, at 5:30 pm. This will be open to the public.

The Conundrum of Encouraging the Growth of Hemp and Marijuana, While Avoiding Cross-Contamination

Mjbizdaily.com reported earlier this week that the State of Washington has eliminated a law requiring a 4-mile buffer between outdoor marijuana and hemp farms. This requirement was a substantial barrier to the state’s hemp industry, and its elimination will open significant tracts to potential hemp farming in Washington. But the whole point of this buffer, originally, was to prevent cross-pollination. Imagine that your outdoor marijuana grow is suddenly pollinated by hemp seeds from next door. This causes logistical issues and legal issues, and could also significantly devalue your crop. 

This controversy highlights the balancing act that every state is dealing with. Too much marijuana grow can lead to oversupply, which can cause the price per pound to fall precipitously. Cross-pollination with hemp farms can also decrease the value of a marijuana crop. And cross-pollination in the other direction can result in inadvertent illegal grows. But a lot of states (including Maine) also see potential in the hemp industry, and don’t want to discourage it. The State of Maine even seems to be taking steps to prop up our hemp industry by requiring that Maine hemp be used to create CBD for foods. So where’s the balance between preventing cross-pollination while encouraging hemp growers? 

As may be too often the case, I’m gonna stop with that question for now. Definitely send me a note though if you have any thoughts on this dilemma.

Maine Takes Another Step Toward Becoming a Marijuana Tourism Destination—But Are We Moving Fast Enough?

Maine’s cannabis tourism program might be hitting its stride. The Office of Marijuana Policy has reached “instant reciprocity” arrangements with 23 states which allow medical cannabis patients from those states to also use their patient cards in Maine. Here’s the announcement from the OMP. Consistent with state law, the visiting qualifying patient can purchase up to 2.5 oz of medical marijuana and marijuana products every 15 days while visiting Maine. 

Adult use tourism will obviously be of a different cloth, since the hope is that it will attract consumers who can’t legally purchase marijuana products in their home state. There is some evidence that Massachusetts’ rec program is attracting New Yorkers, and the hope is that Maine’s program will bring folks from New Hampshire and New York, etc. Of course, in an industry where there’s a massive "first mover" advantage, it’s not clear that Maine will really open the floodgates to adult use marijuana in time to reap many of the benefits that earlier states are seeing.

Is This the Beginning of Another Maine Crackdown on CBD?

Maine regulators are going after CBD food products again, it appears. Inspectors from the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry have been handing out the letter pasted below to retailers and others in Maine over the past week. According to these "guidelines," the State is interpreting LD 630 to require that any CBD edibles contain CBD derived from Maine-grown hemp. Given the language in LD 630, this approach seems like it could cause more problems than it prevents, and could be putting the state on the fast track to litigation. Especially since the State is promising to begin enforcing this new policy on August 1, less than three weeks from now.

Congress Takes Another Step Toward Reforming U.S. Cannabis Laws. A Good Sign for the SAFE Banking Act?

Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary held a first-ever hearing which, essentially, advocated for significant reforms of our nation’s marijuana laws. The hearing was titled "Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform," and you can watch it on YouTube here, if that’s the sort of thing you’re into. 

At least a majority of the committee seemed to start from the premise that marijuana should not be a Schedule I controlled substance. Even the Republican minority offered a witness who supports significant marijuana reforms, including passage of the STATES Act which, for those who may have forgotten, would protect state-legal cannabis businesses from federal prosecution. 

Hopefully, this hearing is also a positive sign for the future of the SAFE Banking Act, which would further open the door to federally chartered banks working with cannabis businesses (our previous posts on this Act are available here). The SAFE Banking Act is still waiting for a vote on the House floor, after being approved by the House Financial Services Committee last March. 

These federal reforms, even the discrete ones, really will matter to New England’s marijuana industry. Even if Congress acts piecemeal, a little bit of reform here and little bit there could quickly give a massive boost to the industry by opening the door to things like banking and credit card processing, and eliminating the constant looming threat of federal enforcement against state-legal businesses.

CBD Largely Banned in NYC

New York City is nine days into a CBD prohibition. Straight from the NYC Health Department website: “As of July 1, 2019, the Health Department is embargoing food and drink products that contain CBD – the products will have to be returned to the supplier or discarded.” And beginning October 1, 2019, NYC will begin fining retailers and food service establishments that sell CBD products.

With this ban, New York joins a number of other large cities, including Los Angeles, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, and Seattle. Each of these cities is relying on the hardline position of the FDA that CBD as a food additive is illegal, period.

It should be noted that the July 1 CBD ban is the latest iteration of a months-long process in NYC where the City has taken an increasingly hardline approach to CBD. As early as last February, the City announced it was banning the sale of CBD in food service establishments. But enforcement has been lax – this newest policy promises to strengthen enforcement and expands the ban to include retailers. We will have to watch and see if this increasingly restrictive approach to CBD in NYC (and other major cities) creates a template for other jurisdictions.

Rulemaking for manufacturing facilities is ongoing, and this has us looking forward to long-awaited testing rules

Many of you have probably seen the Proposed Rules:  Marijuana Manufacturing Facilities from the Office of Marijuana Policy.  In case you missed it, the public hearing is next Monday, July 8 at 8am in Augusta. And the comment deadline for these rules is July 18. 

The rules are fairly technical, and I’m guessing that any comments will be fewer and less impassioned than the comments to the adult use rules.  But it is interesting to note that these rules are replete with referencing to required testing, which begs the question, when will we see the OMP’s proposed testing rules?  It’s pretty much common knowledge at this point that testing is going to be the (or a) great bottleneck in Maine’s adult use industry, so many of us are waiting and waiting and waiting with baited breath for the OMP to drop these rules, and get that process started.

Circling back to manufacturing, there don’t seem to be any great surprises hidden in these rules, though I’ll be interested to hear and read the comments and see what sticks out to different industry folks.

Supreme Court Decision Casts Further Doubt on Constitutionality of Residency Requirements, Like the One in Maine’s Adult Use Marijuana Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court, today, issued a decision which seems to support the argument that the residency requirements in Maine’s marijuana laws are unconstitutional.  In Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas the Court considered a Tennessee law requiring that an individual must have been a resident of the state for the previous two years in order to obtain a license to operate a liquor store.  Without getting into the weeds of the analysis, the Court found that “[b]ecause Tennessee’s 2-year residency requirement for retail license applicants blatantly favors the State’s residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, it is unconstitutional.”

Readers will recall that Maine’s adult use laws bear a number of similarities to the Tennessee law at issue in this case.  Our marijuana statute requires that “a majority of shares” or “other equity ownership interests” in a marijuana business must be held by Maine residents.  See 28-B MRS § 202(2).  And the law defines a “resident” as, among other things, someone who has filed income tax returns in Maine each of the past four years.  28-B MRS §102.  This is precisely the type of durational residency requirement that the Supreme Court just rejected, albeit in the context of alcohol rather than marijuana.

Will Maine’s marijuana law residency requirements be overturned by the federal courts? I suppose that depends, first and foremost, whether someone opts to challenge these laws.

The FDA Thinks There “May Be” Some Products That Add CBD to Food – What Are They Gonna Do About It?

Last week, the FDA made yet another effort to clarify the status of CBD under federal law with a “What you need to know” webpage. The FDA continues to state that, aside from Epidiolex, it “has not approved any other CBD products.” Yet, the FDA acknowledges, in what may be the understatement of the century, that “we are aware that there may be some products on the market that add CBD to a food.” You think? Square that acknowledgment with the fact that, according to the Washington Post, more than 1,000 CBD-infused products are now available online, or with Carl's Jr. rolling out a CBD-infused special sauce burger in Denver for 4/20 Day. 

While the FDA goes through its process and tries to figure out what to do about CBD, the industry isn’t waiting around. It seems like the feds are going to have a lot of catching up to do. But as regulations do roll out, eventually, this could change the enforcement landscape. A broad prohibition simply can’t be meaningfully enforced since the number of violations is astronomical, but more tailored regulations by the FDA could prove easier to enforce, depending on what they look like. For now, we’ll keep monitoring.

VLA Committee Recommends Changes to Adult Use Rules

The adult use rules necessary to launch Maine’s new market are still winding their way through the legislature, but they’ve been voted out of committee with a number of changes, and should be sent along (in one form or another) to the Governor in the next couple days. The majority report from the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee contains the changes to the rules and some related changes to statute. This was handed out during amendment review in the committee yesterday.

While you can peruse the majority report for all the details, a couple of things stand out:

1. The committee is amending statute to state that adult use edibles are not “considered to be adulterated” under Maine’s food code. This places adult use edibles in the same ranks as medical marijuana edibles and, though in different statute, foods containing CBD. 
2. You’ll see that in Section 8 of the majority report, the legislature does not actually “redline” the rules created by the Office of Marijuana Policy. Rather, the OMP will receive these specific directives from the legislature, and it will be up to the OMP to put the rules in a final form consistent with these directives. This leaves a few things up in the air about the rules until we see the OMP’s final version. 
3. The legislature is directing the OMP to eliminate the terms “other interested parties,” “party of control” and “true party of interest” from the adult use rules. The rules will “substitute for those deleted terms the statutory terminology in Title 28-B, subchapter 2 regarding the characterization of ownership interests.” This directive should serve to bring the rules in line with the statute in terms of residency requirements for officers and directors, as well as for owners of marijuana establishments. We have in the past written on the residency requirements generally (here, here, and here). 

Stay tuned as we expect this to move quickly through the legislature and on to the Governor.

But, We May Have More Dispensaries and More (Legal) Cannabis Growing in New Hampshire

Last time: No Recreational Cannabis This Year and No New “Alternative Treatment Center” Licenses

However . . .

Even though the Senate killed the effort to add additional licenses, it has passed legislation (HB 335) that provides DHHS with authority to allow current license holders operating ATCs to open a second dispensary location within their geographic licensed areas. The opening of a second location is subject to Department approval and may not be used for cultivation. The bill now goes to Governor Sununu.

The Legislature has also passed two bills (HB 364 and HB 459), which will make it easier to grow cannabis in New Hampshire. HB 364 permits qualifying patients and designated caregivers to cultivate cannabis for therapeutic use. The bill also permits qualifying patients and designated caregivers to donate excess cannabis to other qualifying patients. The bill sailed through the House, but passed the Senate on a party-line vote and may be vetoed by the governor. HB 459 seeks to promote the cultivation of hemp in the State by defining it and establishing a committee to study the federal guidelines on growing hemp. It sailed through the House and Senate and awaits action by the governor.

Additionally, the Legislature passed two bills (HB 350 and SB 88) which would make it easier for patients to obtain the required certification from a licensed health care provider to qualify for therapeutic cannabis. HB 350 adds physician assistants to the list of licensed health care providers who are authorized to certify that criteria has been met for the use of therapeutic cannabis. SB 88 eliminates the requirement that a licensed health care provider certifying that a patient meets the criteria for the use of therapeutic cannabis have a pre-existing three-month relationship with the patient. These bills face uncertain prospects in the governor’s office.

No Recreational Cannabis in New Hampshire This Year, and No New “Alternative Treatment Center” Licenses

There will be no legalization of recreational cannabis in New Hampshire this year. That is the story of the legislative session as the House and Senate wind down their sessions this month. Nevertheless, there are still a number of cannabis-bills headed to the Governor’s desk.

The chances were unlikely that recreational cannabis would be legalized in New Hampshire this year, particularly after Governor Sununu vowed to veto such legislation. Nevertheless, the House passed HB 481, which legalized recreational cannabis in April. The Senate, however, recognizing the lack of votes to overcome the governor’s promised veto, voted to keep it in Committee over the summer.

The House Health Committee also decided to retain two bills (HB 366 and HB 461), which would have added qualifying medical conditions for therapeutic cannabis. It will take up the retained bills in the fall. 

Meanwhile, the Senate killed HB 174, which would have added a potential fifth alternative treatment center (ATC) license. There are currently four licenses (or certificates) to operate ATCs in New Hampshire. These four certificates correspond to four geographic areas set by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Each licensee may only operate within its prescribed geographic area. HB 174 would have allowed DHHS to begin taking applications for a fifth license for an ATC to be located in Hillsborough or Merrimack County. Currently, there is only a single ATC in Hillsborough County and no ATC in Merrimack and Rockingham Counties (the second and third largest counties by population). The defeat of this bill is a blow to potential future entrants to the New Hampshire market. 

Another potential blow (or opportunity) to potential future entrants to the New Hampshire market is SB 145, which changes the law with respect to the corporate form of ATCs. Under current law, an ATC must operate as a not-for-profit entity. SB 145 would amend the law to allow ATCs to be a “domestic business corporation organized under RSA 293-A” or a “domestic limited liability company organized under RSA 304-C.” The likely initial result of this change will be a sale or reorganization of the current ATCs. But it could open up the market to future acquisitions by for-profit entities.

Next: But, we may have more dispensaries and more (legal) cannabis growing in the state.

The Maine Office of Marijuana Policy Re-formats/Changes (?) Residency Requirements in Response to Rulemaking Comments

The OMP released provisional adult use marijuana rules late yesterday. These rules are majorly substantive, so they are now headed to the legislature. It seems likely that the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee will hold its public hearing on these rules as early as Monday next week.

While there’s a lot to unpack in this newest iteration of the OMP rules, I’ll focus briefly on the residency requirements today. The provisional rules eliminated two notable subsections from Section 2.3.1(B) that were present in earlier iterations. These are the two subsections which OMP eliminated:

(b)(i) No person or entity shall attempt to subvert this paragraph by way of multi-layered corporate structures or other methods for creating a corporate veil, nor through other equity conveyance tools, including without limitation, purchase options and purchase warrants. The Department may deny an application at its discretion for violation of this provision.

(b)(ii) No person or entity shall create a party of control to a marijuana establishment License consisting of less than a majority of residents.

Before you read too much into the deletion of these paragraphs, the OMP justified removing these paragraphs in its response to specific comments:

“The Department has removed the language of sub-parts (B)(i) and (ii) with the understanding that the powers contained therein were inherent in the powers granted by the Legislature to the Department in statute. These provisions were determined to be duplicative by the Office of Marijuana Policy. Action taken by OMP to remove these provisions should not be construed as a limit on the power of the Department to pierce any corporate veil intended to obfuscate the residency requirements intended by the Legislature in Title 28-B. The Department has clarified in rule that the applicant shall bear the burden of proving majority ownership by residents.”

Lastly, the OMP also added additional language to the residency requirements in Section 2.3.1(B)(b), so now that subsection reads (with the new portion underlined):

“A majority of the shares, membership interests, partnership interests or other equity ownership interests as applicable to the business entity must be held or owned by natural persons who are residents or business entities whose owners are all natural persons who are residents of the State of Maine. The applicant shall demonstrate to the Department that a majority of the shares, membership interests, partnership interests and other equity ownership interests are held by residents of the State of Maine.”

Next, the legislature will have the opportunity to make changes to these provisional rules, and will certainly be considering how these residency provisions jive with the Department’s claim to “inherent powers” derived from Title 28-B.

The Latest USDA Guidance on Hemp Law

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of General Counsel issued some guidance last week on its view of the current legal status of hemp. The takeaways are:

1. Hemp is no longer a Schedule I Controlled Substance under federal law.
2. At the moment, states cannot prohibit the interstate transport of hemp (or hemp products) lawfully produced under the 2014 Farm Bill. Why the 2014 Farm Bill, when the 2018 Farm Bill just became law, you might ask? Well, point 3 gets to this.
3. The 2018 Farm Bill loosened the requirements for hemp to be grown legally, but this more relaxed regime only takes effect after the USDA publishes the necessary regulations. Once these regulations are published, then states and tribes may not prohibit the interstate transport of hemp produced under a state or tribal plan or under a license issued by the USDA.
4. While states and tribes cannot prohibit the commerce of hemp legally grown elsewhere, they can enact and enforce laws which prohibit the growth of hemp within their territory.
5. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) retains authority to regulate hemp under applicable FDA laws. In other words, the FDA can and will continue to crack down on those who make unapproved therapeutic claims related to CBD, and may continue to regulate the addition of CBD to food products.

Overall, this guidance is probably good news for those who are growing or sourcing their product legally, and want to reach a national market. It could also be interpreted as another baby step in the direction of nationwide legalization of one species of cannabis.

If You Believe the Proposed Rules, Regulators Want to Know EVERYTHING About YouOr: A Few Words on Disclosure Requirements

For those who are still scouring the proposed adult use rules, take a look at  the sheer volume of information required to be disclosed to the Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) by anyone seeking a license, and the Department’s claim to unlimited power to keep digging and digging and digging until “satisfied.”

Section 2.4 seems to be designed to require the disclosure of every contract and relationship and, the Department may argue, could even require you to disclose not only your contractors, but your contractors’ contractors. Remember the broad definition of “party of control” (discussed here), and add to that similarly broad definitions of “true party of interest” and “other interested parties.” An applicant must not only disclose all three categories of “parties” (which could be read to encompass everyone remotely involved with or interested in the business), but must provide “all requested information concerning financial and management associations and interests of other persons, parties of control, other interested parties or true parties of interest in the marijuana establishment” (Rule 2.4.2(B)(2)). 

These regulations take us at least two layers deep, but if the Department wants to keep digging even further, it can. Rule 2.5.1 allows the Department to “require additional information to verify that business structures, loans, franchise agreements, and other legal arrangements or anything else regarding true parties of interest, parties of control or other interested parties are not being used to circumvent ownership requirements.”

If these exacting disclosure requirements, combined with broad powers of investigation, remain in the final rules, this will cause headaches on both sides of the process. Applicants will need to be comfortable providing all sorts of sensitive information to regulators, but will also need to be sure their investors, contractors, etc., are comfortable also providing this information to regulators. This is probably something that businesses will want to address, if possible, at the time they enter into their business arrangements to make sure these issues don’t arise in the thick of the application process.

I expect that regulators, too, will find these regulations a bit too much when put into practice. They will need to sift through vast troves of contractual arrangements and other partnerships, many of which will require a particular expertise to decipher. Applicants who want to air on the side of compliance will be almost required to dump their entire filing cabinet on the Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) just by virtue of the vague nature of the regulations. We’ll see if this language stays in the final rules, and we’ll see if it is relaxed over time through the practice of the Department.

The TSA Warms up to CBD in Words, but What About Deeds?

So the TSA claims to have changed its policy over the weekend to permit travelers to carry hemp-derived CBD products with them in flight. The TSA website has been updated to state that “products/medications that contain hemp-derived CBD or are approved by the FDA are legal as long as it is produced within the regulations defined by the law under the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018.” 

At first read, this seems like oils, gummies, topicals, edibles – they’re all a go! Prepare for take off! But then we get down to enforcement and implementation, and I’m left scratching my head. The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (or the 2018 Farm Bill, as it’s better known) does legalize hemp and hemp products, but only when grown under certain requirements, with state and/or federal approval. How on earth is a TSA agent going to know whether your CBD is derived from hemp that was legally grown in Kentucky or illegally grown in Texas? (Texas may be a bad example since hemp/CBD is about to be legalized there too, but you get the point.)

I for one doubt that TSA agents will be specially trained in the legality of CBD and hemp. The more likely scenario is that this change in TSA regulation is intended to accommodate FDA-approved Epidiliox, the first federally approved drug containing CBD. If any other form, it’s hard to know how TSA agents will treat CBD for the foreseeable future.

The Public Hearing on Proposed Adult Use Cannabis Rules Is Over, But the Public Comment Period Continues

The public hearing on the proposed adult use cannabis rules took place this morning at the Holiday Inn in Portland. The room was packed with a pretty diverse group of industry folks – banks, towns, and marijuana establishments large and small were all well-represented today. Comments were limited to three minutes per person, and the hearing took barely more than two hours total. Some of the reoccurring issues throughout the morning included: 

• Concerns that testing labs will be a serious bottleneck and drag on the adult use industry
• A number of smaller operators are worried that the rules are too comprehensive and "onerous" and will drive the industry underground
• Concerns that the rules will limit out-of-state investment and make it difficult to work with experts and consultants from other states
• Questions about confidentiality provisions in the rules and the degree that applicant info will be publicly available

The panel of regulators from Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) and the Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) seemed to be diligently taking notes this morning, and we’ll have to wait and see how amenable they are to changing the rules as a result of this process. It’s a safe bet that written comments (due June 2) will be more impactful than today’s three-minute spiels, but how impactful, we don’t know. The OMP says that they plan to provisionally adopt final rules and send those rules to the legislature for approval in June. If approved by the legislature, then the rules would likely be scheduled to take effect 90 days later.

Adult Use Residency Rules Are Bad Business

If you saw our previous post on the residency requirements in the proposed adult use rules, you know that they severely restrict the ability of non-Maine residents to own equity, operate, or exert “more than minimal influence” over a Maine cannabis business. Putting aside the legality of the rules (and the legality of the residency requirement in the statute, which may also be questionable), these residency rules are bad business and will harm Maine’s burgeoning cannabis industry.

Maine cannabis companies do not qualify for bank loans or other traditional sources of financing. The typical way cannabis companies raise capital is through equity investment and, for many companies, at least some of their equity investors live out of state. It is also customary in the industry to have management or consulting agreements in place with companies from other states who have expertise in an area of processing, cultivation, or product development that your company does not have, with royalties paid to consultants in return for their time and expertise. In addition, many cannabis companies are beholden to private lenders for equipment loans or leases. The expansive residency rules go far beyond the statute’s mandate to have 51% of owners be Maine residents, and would arguably prohibit or severely restrict Maine cannabis companies from having or entering into any of the foregoing arrangements. And existing caregiver and dispensary operations may be required to rethink their ownership structures and contractual relationships before entering into the adult use market, as DHHS has historically allowed consulting and management agreements with out-of-state vendors.

The legislature created residency requirements focusing on ownership, rather than control, because this allows outside investment to come into Maine in certain forms so long as it does not upset the 51% residency requirement. This balance is necessary to the growth of Maine’s cannabis industry. Other states have taken restrictive approaches to outside investment when they launched their adult use cannabis markets, only to loosen these restrictions down the road. Oregon initially required 51% of a cannabis business to be owned by two-year residents but repealed the requirements in 2016. According to the Cannabis Association Executive Director, Amy Margolis, the residency requirement was a failure because it stifled investment and hurt Oregon business owners. Margolis said: “[f]or every five people who came into my office, three or four of them were looking for capital, and they couldn’t find it here in Oregon. It became clear that unless people could reach outside the state for investment money, we weren’t going to have a very successful market.” Colorado similarly loosened its residency requirements to allow for out-of-state investment. We shouldn’t disregard the hard lessons learned by other states.

Prohibiting out-of-state investments for cannabis companies will only result in reduced investment into the Maine economy and will result in Maine having an industry that’s less competitive than states with more lenient or no residency requirements. A less healthy industry means fewer jobs for Maine people, fewer choices for Maine consumers, and an industry susceptible to falling behind other states. This is why the legislature struck a balance and did not effectively prohibit outside investments in Maine cannabis businesses. The Office of Marijuana Policy Department of Administrative and Financial Services should not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature and slow the growth of Maine’s adult use marijuana industry before it even starts.

Federal Efforts to Relax, Just a Little Bit, About Marij(h)uana

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was famous for (among other things) his heavy opposition to marijuana legalization. His approach flew in the face of the dozens of states that have legalized medical and/or adult use marijuana, and seemed like it was leading toward a Wild West-style showdown. But Jeff Sessions is gone now, that excitement has dwindled for the time being, and Congress is even trying to take a baby step toward aligning federal law with legalization at the state level. 

The STATES (Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States) Act is old news at this point, but it could be important and this is a new blog, so I’m going to briefly write about it anyway. This bill, currently before Congress, states that enforcement of the federal prohibition on marijuana “shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State law relating to manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.” (Side note: What’s up with the feds spelling "marijuana" with an "h"? If you know, please tell us!) 

The STATES Act is bipartisan, with co-sponsors including Senator Cory Gardner (R – Colorado) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D – Massachusetts). And, in perhaps the most controversial moment of his short tenure as Attorney General, Bill Barr has offered at least tepid support for the legislation. So stay tuned.

What Is Going on in the World of Hemp?

Anyone involved in the hemp and CBD industry in Maine has been on a roller coaster ride this year. On December 20, 2018, hemp became (kind of) legal federally. But then the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that non-approved food products containing CBD remained illegal. Then Maine regulators started telling retailers that they weren’t allowed to sell food products containing CBD, only to walk that position back. In response, the State Legislature passed LD 630, which legalizes the sale of food products containing CBD. Meanwhile, at the federal level, the FDA appears to be taking the position that virtually any CBD product meant for human consumption is illegal. 

Where does this leave us? Folks in Maine appear to be safe from enforcement for the time being, with the notable exception of those who make explicit claims that CBD has therapeutic benefits. If you’re growing, processing, or selling hemp and CBD, though, it’s unlikely that the feds are going to knock down your door tomorrow, and LD 630 is keeping the State at bay for now. But watch out, because rulemaking is coming, and we’re sure to see rules that aim to limit the import (and perhaps the export?) of CBD products, create strict labeling and testing standards, and limit the use of CBD in animal food. There will be more details on a lot of the specifics here in future posts, but the situation is certainly fluid. 

Bottom line: Legalities aside, it seems to be full speed ahead in Maine, with a few notable restrictions. Avoid making public claims of therapeutic benefits (like "CBD cures cancer"). Make sure that your product is clean, free of mold and pesticides, etc. and has a THC content below 0.3 percent. Do what you can to ensure your product is accurately labeled. (Check out this study, which concludes that 70 percent of CBD products are inaccurately labeled in terms of CBD content.) And be aware of quickly changing laws and rules at the state and federal level that could impact your business.

SAFE Banking Act Would Open the Door (Wider) to Cannabis Banking

The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019 has garnered bipartisan support and may even have a shot at passage. It would not remove cannabis from Schedule I of the CSA, but it would prohibit federal bank regulators from penalizing financial institutions that provide services to state-legal cannabis businesses. Under current federal law, all proceeds of cannabis businesses are unlawful even if the company is operating in full compliance with state law. Federally chartered and insured financial institutions therefore risk sanctions, loss of access to payment systems, cancellation of deposit insurance, and even loss of charters for serving the cannabis industry.

Notably, the SAFE Banking Act would prohibit forfeiture of collateral taken as security for loans to cannabis companies and would prevent regulators from cancelling deposit insurance or otherwise sanctioning banks for providing products and services to state-law compliant cannabusinesses. Maine’s Bureau of Financial Institutions is apparently following the issue. On April 15, 2019, it, along with state banking supervisors from many other states, sent a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate urging the passage of legislation that would create a safe harbor for financial institutions to serve legal cannabis businesses. A group of 33 state attorneys general, including Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey, sent a letter on May 8, 2019, urging Congress to enact a federal banking safe harbor to help get cash off the streets and into banks where it belongs. The American Bankers Association also submitted a letter to the Senate in support of the SAFE Banking Act. 

Many people believe this law could be the final push that federally chartered banks need to feel comfortable providing services to the growing industry. If adopted, it would open access more broadly to checking accounts, credit cards, payment systems, payroll services, and loans, and may even help provide some relief to the access to capital issue that so many burgeoning cannabis businesses are presently struggling with.

What’s up with the Residency Requirements in the Proposed Adult Use Rules?

If you’ve looked at the proposed adult use rules, you’ve probably noticed some pretty expansive language limiting the ability of non-Mainers to play really any role in a Maine marijuana business. The Marijuana Legalization Act already requires that every officer, director, manager, and general partner of a marijuana business must be a Maine resident, and requires that “a majority of shares” or “other equity ownership interests” must be held by Maine residents (See 28-B MRS § 202(2)). Now the proposed rules go way beyond these restrictions in statute. 

The statute allows 49% of a business to be owned by non-Maine residents, for example. The rules, though, prohibit any out-of-state person or entity from exerting “more than minimal influence, through direct or indirect financial interest, over decisions regarding the operation of a marijuana establishment.” Whoa. To spin this out a bit: If I’m from Delaware and I own 20 percent of a Maine marijuana business, I’m 100 percent in compliance with the law. But wouldn’t a 20 percent owner necessarily exert “more than minimal influence” over decisions of the business? These rules seem to prohibit what the law allows, which makes the legality of the rules questionable. (More on this in forthcoming blog posts.)

Finally, I’ll just note that the proposed rules give the Office of Marijuana Policy Department of Administrative and Financial Services broad authority to dig, deeply, into the corporate structure and dealings of any applicant or licensed business. Check out rule 2.5.1, which allows the Department to “require additional information to verify that business structures, loans, franchise agreements, royalty agreements and other legal arrangements or anything else regarding true parties of interest, parties of control or other interested parties are not being used to circumvent ownership requirements.” Depending on the Department’s motivation, it can keep digging and digging and withhold a license until its satisfied that residency requirements, etc., are met.

(I am trying not to bury too many legal citations in this blog, to make it digestible, but to spell out the residency requirements explained above, check out section 2.3.1(B)(2) on page 15 of the proposed rules, which states that “no person or entity shall create a party of control to a marijuana establishment license consisting of less than a majority of residents.” Now, check out the definition of "party of control" on page 9 of the rules. This definition is frighteningly broad, as quoted above.)

Adult-use Rulemaking Is Underway in Maine – This Is Your Chance to Comment

After releasing pre-draft proposed rules for unofficial comment to gauge the initial reaction of the public, Maine's Office of Marijuana Policy (OMP) has now released the official no-longer-in-draft-form proposed rules for real comment. In other words, rulemaking has begun. With a public hearing scheduled for May 23 in Portland, and all public comment due by 5:00 pm on Sunday, June 2, perhaps we can expect rulemaking to be complete and these major substantive rules to be back in front of the Maine Legislature for approval sometime in June, during this session?

The OMP has conveniently posted all of the unofficial comments received in response to the draft rules, and their responses, online here. This provides some interesting insights, and some very predictable ones, into what the different stakeholders care about, and how the State plans to deal with these concerns. Also, kudos to the OMP for using Google Docs – very practical and mainstream for government!

Welcome to Our Blog (and, What We’re All About)

Welcome to the Cannabis Law and Policy Update! You can expect updates and commentary on a potpourri of marijuana and hemp happenings at the state and federal level. We will be primarily focused on the law (since we’re lawyers), but in the broadest sense. Think everything from court decisions to legislation to regulation to enforcement, with our reactions and some practical advice sprinkled throughout.

At the moment, every week seems to bring some significant development in the world of cannabis law and policy. Maine’s rulemaking process for adult use marijuana is heating up, which means that a (legal) adult use industry is just around the corner; the legality of hemp and CBD is a complete rollercoaster ride; the Legislature is continuing to fix and tinker with Maine’s medical and adult use marijuana laws; and the feds remain curmudgeons all around. We’ll be hitting on specific angles in this arena all the time, so check back frequently and subscribe.