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.