Member Blog: It’s Still Snowing – But is Jersey’s Grass Finally Green?
by Charles J. Messina, Esq., Jennifer Roselle, Esq., and Daniel Pierre, Esq. of Genova Burns LLC
The seeds are planted: Earlier this week, Governor Murphy finally signed the enabling legislation for adult use into law. Although voters approved a referendum to legalize adult use of cannabis back in November, lawmakers’ efforts to draft the enabling legislation often went up in smoke. Until recently, the governor’s office and legislative leaders couldn’t decide how to address underage possession and use of cannabis. Now, lawmakers agree that minors should be subject to a three-tiered warning system in lieu of hefty fines.
But for adults, the Governor’s signature does not allow for immediate access to or use of recreational cannabis. Even with the passage of the recreational use law, residents cannot grow their own cannabis at home or legally purchase it without a medical marijuana card. Presently, there are no dispensaries authorized to sell adult-use cannabis.
Medical dispensaries, however, are expected to be the first access point for the adult-use cannabis market. There are 13 medical dispensaries serving the 100,000+ medical patients in the Garden State, and 24 new medical marijuana licenses are expected to be announced soon, many of which will be designated as dispensaries. Once the existing medical dispensaries demonstrate to the CRC that they have satisfied the medical needs of their patients, and that they have municipal approval for adult-use sales, they should be the first to sell to adults 21 and over.
In order for the Garden State to grow a recreational market, the CRC requires the appointment of two more members. Once all five members of the CRC are appointed, it has a specific timeframe to promulgate the rules that will regulate New Jersey’s recreational use industry. The CRC must, for example, fully develop the criteria and application process for the following six classes of recreational licenses that applicants can apply for:
Class 1 Cannabis Cultivator license — permits growing, cultivation or production of cannabis in New Jersey. Cultivators are also permitted to sell and transport cannabis to other cultivators, manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers, but not to consumers.
Class 2 Cannabis Manufacturer license — permits the manufacturing, preparing and packaging of cannabis and selling it to other cannabis manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, but not to consumers.
Class 3 Cannabis Wholesaler license — permits the storage and sale of cannabis strictly for resale to another wholesaler or retailer, but not to consumers.
Class 4 Cannabis Distributor license — permits the intrastate transportation of cannabis in bulk from one licensed cannabis establishment to another licensed cannabis establishment. Distributors may also engage in the temporary storage of cannabis as necessary to carry out transportation activities.
Class 5 Cannabis Retailer license — permits the sale of cannabis directly to members of the public from a retail store. Cannabis retailers may also operate cannabis consumption areas for consumers.
Class 6 Cannabis Delivery license — permits courier services for consumer purchases of cannabis by a cannabis retailer directly to consumers.
Once established, we anticipate applications for licensing to be announced. This will certainly happen after the epic snowfall melts, but many New Jerseyans and others are already starting to get their fertilizer ready…
Charles J. Messina is a Partner at Genova Burns LLC and Co-Chairs the Franchise & Distribution, Agriculture and Cannabis Industry Groups. He teaches one of the region’s first cannabis law school courses and devotes much of his practice to advising canna-businesses as well as litigating various types of matters including complex contract and commercial disputes, insurance and employment defense matters, trademark and franchise issues and professional liability, TCPA and shareholder derivative actions.
Jennifer Roselle is Counsel with Genova Burns LLC and Co-Chair of Genova Burns’ Cannabis Practice Group. She has unique experience with labor compliance planning and labor peace agreements in the cannabis marketplace. In addition to her work in the cannabis industry, Jennifer devotes much of her practice to traditional labor matters, human resources compliance and employer counseling.
Daniel Pierre is an Associate in Genova Burns’ Newark, NJ office and a member of the Cannabis and Labor Law Practice Groups. In addition to labor work, he likewise assists clients in the cannabis industry, from analyzing federal and state laws to ensure regulatory compliance for existing businesses to counseling entrepreneurs on licensing issues.
For over 30 years, Genova Burns has partnered with companies, businesses, trade associations, and government entities, from around the globe, on matters in New Jersey and the greater northeast corridor between New York City and Washington, D.C. We distinguish ourselves with unparalleled responsiveness and provide an array of exceptional legal services across multiple practice areas with the quality expected of big law, but absent the big law economics by embracing technology and offering out of the box problem-solving advice and pragmatic solutions.
Given Genova Burns’ significant experience representing clients in the cannabis, hemp and CBD industries from the earliest stages of development in the region, the firm is uniquely qualified to advise investors, cultivators, processors, distributors, retailers and ancillary businesses.
State of the States – Cannabis Policy Reform in the Current Legislative Sessions
by Morgan Fox, NCIA Director of Media Relations
The last few weeks have seen quite a bit of excitement for the possibility of comprehensive federal cannabis policy reform being closer than it has ever been, but what about the states?
Historically, the vast majority of progress has been made at the state level, and this year is shaping up to be another one full of victories for legalization advocates as state governments struggle to support their economies, create new tax revenue and job sources, and tackle long-overdue criminal justice reforms.
The overwhelming approval by New Jersey voters of a referendum to make cannabis legal for adults last year has put the spotlight firmly on the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. With state legislative sessions already underway, a number of states are already prioritizing legalization much more heavily than in years past even as New Jersey lawmakers struggle to pass enacting legislation to carry out the will of the voters in a fair and equitable manner. It is pretty clear that New Jersey’s neighbors don’t want to be left behind when it starts reaping the benefits of regulated cannabis markets.
Early this year, New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo released a statement outlining his plan to make cannabis legal in the state, and just recently added amendments that would allow delivery, clarify the tax system, and reduce penalties associated with some cannabis activities. There are still some concerns with this plan, including the amount of funding that would actually go toward repairing the disparate harms caused by prohibition and the lack of legal home cultivation. Regulated cannabis in New York could be worth more than $3.5 billion and create more than 60,000 jobs, making it one of the largest state cannabis markets in the country.
Meanwhile, in Delaware, a legalization bill that was approved in the state House in 2019 is slated to be reintroduced by the sponsor in the coming weeks. This bill would come on the heels of a report released last month by the state auditor which estimated that Delaware could take in $43 million annually with a 20% excise tax, and create more than 1,400 jobs over a five year period. In what seems to be a disturbing trend in some state legislatures this year, this bill is not expected to initially include home cultivation either.
In Connecticut, however, a new adult-use bill has been introduced that would center on restorative justice and social equity in the industry and would allow adults to grow limited amounts of cannabis in their homes. This bill has strong support in the state legislature but may soon have to compete with Gov. Ned Lamont’s proposal, which is expected to be released soon.
Nearby Pennsylvania is likely to consider adult-use legislation this year, with Gov. Tom Wolf (along with the incredibly supportive and newly internet-famous lieutenant governor) urging lawmakers to address the issue and – earlier this month – calling it a priority for his state’s annual budget proposal. Rhode Island lawmakers are expected to consider legalization again this year as well, and with the departure of Gov. Raimondo, it is more likely that the emphasis will shift away from a state-run model and back to regulating private businesses.
Farther South, Virginia made headlines this month by becoming the first state in 2021 to have both chambers of its legislature approve adult-use bills. Lawmakers are committed to ironing out the differences between the two bills this month during an extended session. With Gov. Ralph Northam in full support, Virginia stands poised to become the 16th state overall to make cannabis legal for adults and the first state to do so in the South, and it would be only the third to regulate cannabis through its legislature.
Adult-use legislation has also been introduced in Maryland, with supporters and cosponsors optimistic that it could be passed this year, though lawmakers there are not as far along in the process as their neighbors in Virginia. And in medical news, advocates in South Carolina are taking another shot at passing a medical cannabis bill there.
There are signs of progress from elsewhere in the nation as well. After running out of time in an emergency session last year, New Mexico’s governor and lawmakers wasted no time in getting back to legalization efforts this year. There are currently several bills being considered, and it appears very likely that some form of adult-use will be approved there this year.
This is just a snapshot of the momentum and positive movement we are seeing at the state level this year. If you are interested in up-to-date information about all cannabis-related state legislation in the U.S., please consider subscribing to Marijuana Moment’sbill tracker.
Unfortunately, the news isn’t all good.
In South Dakota, where voters approved both medical and adult-use initiatives in November by wide margins, advocates have suffered a temporary setback on the adult-use front. After a pair of law enforcement officials sued to have the adult-use bill thrown out because it addresses too many issues for a constitutional amendment, a circuit court judge ruled in their favor earlier this month. This situation is extremely disheartening and outrageous: the will of the people was overturned by a judge who was appointed by a governor who not only actively campaigned against the ballot initiative but also paid for the lawsuit to overturn it with taxpayer money! However, supporters have appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court.
In Montana, where voters also passed an adult-use initiative in November, supporters are faced with another lawsuit on similar grounds that was filed by opponents. However, observers are skeptical of that suit being successful, and lawmakers are moving ahead with developing enacting legislation.
And in Idaho, where a medical cannabis initiative was prevented from getting on the ballot last year, prohibitionist lawmakers are moving forward with a bill that would prevent any future legislation to make cannabis or any other currently illegal substance legal. If passed, this bill would be put before the voters in 2022, where it could very well be on the same ballot as a medical cannabis referendum.
Despite efforts to overturn progress and maintain failed and harmful cannabis policies, things are generally looking up and we expect several states to pass laws to stop arresting cannabis consumers and establish legal, regulated marketplaces in the near future.
Video: NCIA Today – 117th Congress, New Scorecard, DEIC Update, and more!
Host Bethany Moore, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Communications and host of NCIA’s weekly Podcast ‘NCIA’s Cannabis Industry Voice‘ brings you an in-depth look at what is happening across the country in federal cannabis policy reform and with NCIA.
From the top, Bethany discusses the “cautious optimism” bouncing around the D.C. Government Relations office, as the 117th Congress begins to get to work with GR Director, Mike Correia.
We check in with Mike Lumoto, Committee Organizer for NCIA’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Committee on the incredible growth they saw in 2020 and the plans taking off in the new year.
Don’t forget to download the new NCIA Mobile App and never miss the latest cannabis news.
Member Blog: Is 2021 the Year that Brings Normalcy to Cannabis?
Thanks to Democracy and the grassroots efforts of cannabis advocates from coast to coast, there are now 15 holes in the cannabis prohibition wall (legal states), and 36 cracks (medicinal programs). So when will that wall come down and how fast? More importantly, what will the industry look like when the dust settles?
Over the past few weeks, cannabis media pundits from all over the world have chimed in with their predictions for 2021. (Some even pontificated before knowing the results of the Georgia State runoffs in the Senate.)
With President Joe Biden now in the White House and the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, cannabis advocates are wondering when, and if, we will see federal legalization of cannabis in 2021. Will it succeed or will our dutifully elected politicians do something that will derail the will of the people during this Green Wave of reform?
Already, a Republican congressman from Florida, Greg Steube, decided to file the first draft of reform to a committee that will move cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 3 on the Department of Justice list of “controlled substances.”
But for many, this does not go far enough. I recently interviewed the Media Relations Director of NCIA, Morgan Fox, who told me, “It’s not something the NCIA or other Cannabis advocacy groups is going to support….we are all focused on de-scheduling, (this draft) it just doesn’t go far enough.”
So what position are lobbyists in Washington, D.C. taking now that their arguments for reform may find a more supportive group to talk to? What is the best thing for the industry? What’s the right thing to do?
I also interviewed Michael Correia, the Director of Government Relations for NCIA, who explained that the target should be for full legalization, but that at the heart of the issue, there is something more important that needs to be dealt with – racism. In my interview with him, he said, “…let’s just stop arresting people for this. Stop arresting people in this war on drugs so no one’s lives are ruined because they’re consuming a natural plant, that 30 plus states have said, Hey, we’re okay with this. There shouldn’t be these differences. So just stopping, arresting these people, and then worrying about what’s the next step?”
Why does he feel so strongly about this? The evidence is overwhelming that law enforcement has used simple possession as a profiling tool to fill our privately run prisons with black and brown people over mere cannabis possession. “The vast majority of these arrests (92%) were for simple possession of the drug. 500,395 of [the 545,602] arrested for cannabis [crimes] were simply found [to be] in possession of cannabis.”
So are you convinced now that cannabis, a plant, is not illegal because it is considered a drug, but rather because of a racist system and the fact it can be used as a means to profile and jail black and brown people? Do you want more evidence of the racial bias in cannabis arrests? Check out this 2020 report on the racial makeup of those simple possession “crimes.”
This is despite both groups use cannabis at similar rates.
Even in western states with recreational cannabis laws, black people were 1.5-1.8% more likely to be arrested for having cannabis.”Emily Earlenbaugh, Forbes
So what’s the 2021 plan for lobbyists, policymakers, and elected officials? What exactly does this industry look like if one of the following changes happens in the next year or two?
Cole Memo reinstated
SAFE Banking
Rescheduling
De-scheduling
The MORE Act
Science and Research Grants
Each one of those changes is not only positive for this young industry but will have a ripple effect that will impact other industries. The trickle-down effect for any of these changes being implemented will impact the private prison system, banking, and financial markets, big alcohol, big pharma, social equity, expungement of past convictions, interstate commerce, and the international markets.
The cannabis lobbyists know that with Democrats in charge of the direction of the Congress over the next two years, this is their opportunity for serious reform. After all, the House passed a legalization bill, the MORE Act, in December of 2020. In 2019, the previous year, the SAFE Banking Act was also approved by the House, but neither even got to the floor of the Senate because of the then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s anti-marijuana stance.
2021 is now upon us, and “grown-ups are now back in charge in D.C.” However, many advocates I’ve talked with are understandably wary and skeptical about the Federal Government dictating governance of this industry if cannabis is federally legalized and falls under the control of the alcohol and Beverage Commission.
Most cannabis advocates can at least agree that cannabis should be removed from the schedule that was created by the Controlled Substances Act in 1971. This change alone would allow banks to do business with the cannabis industry and allow for the removal of the restrictive 280E tax code that has limited the profit margins of already existing businesses.
Here are some links to other predictions from leading media sources about what cannabis reform democratic control of Congress may lead to:
So after reading all this information, here’s what I think will happen over the next four years.
First Year: Cannabis gets removed from the Controlled Substances Act schedule
Second Year:Decriminalization and expungement of cannabis possession crimes with banking reform
Third Year: Interstate commerce
Fourth Year: Full Federal legalization, international export markets open
It’s 2021, the year of the cannabis plant as a political issue is here and reform is as pungent as the odor of this amazing plant. Stay tuned, this will be an ongoing theme in D.C. politics this year as we all hopefully witness another chapter in the historic end to prohibition.
Jimmy Young is the founder of Pro Cannabis Media. An Emmy Award-winning talk show host from New England, and a resident of Massachusetts who holds a medical card after 4 major surgeries in 22 years.
The founder of Pro Cannabis Media is the current host of In The Weeds with Jimmy Young, a weekly podcast distributed over the CLNSMedia.com, site, iTunes, Spotify, Googlecast among others. In July of 2019, he teamed up with the founder of Cannabis.net, Curt Dalton, to host a two hour live monthly Weed Talk Show where the two Massachusetts natives have interviewed some of the biggest names in Cannabis, like Steve DeAngelo, Bruce Linton, and Tommy Chong. Locally local cannabis advocates and representatives from the medical establishment in the Bay State have all appeared on that show that is now being distributed nationwide. Young also produces a weekly news video, called News Dabs, highlighting and commenting on the biggest stories around the world in the emerging cannabis universe.
Committee Blog: Trust In Cannabis – Why It Matters More Now Than Ever
As a country, the U.S. is experiencing what can best be described as the “age of distrust.” While public distrust in institutions has been escalating for at least a decade, according to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer which has tracked trust in media, governments, businesses, and nonprofits since 2000. Social unrest and a global pandemic have escalated this distrust. Never has the public eyed institutions or businesses with such suspicion.
Meanwhile, in our industry, the vaping crisis of summer 2019 hit our industry below the belt, aided by some bad actors knowingly flooding the illicit market with products that couldn’t meet stringent state testing. That crisis created a crisis of confidence in the overall cannabis industry-leading it into a bleak period which was only partially buoyed by the declaration that dispensaries were considered “essential businesses” during the COVID-19 pandemic, pro-cannabis outcomes in both voting booths and Congress, many thanks to NCIA’s national and local efforts. By supporting NCIA, you’re signaling industry commitment and that you value growing trust within the industry.
Now, against the national backdrop of distrust and a COVID-19 vaccine that offers a glimmer of hope, it’s time to evaluate ourselves and our industry’s actions. Never has it been more crucial for all brands, but particularly our industry, to lean into actions and communications which consistently and powerfully earn the trust of investors and consumers. As an industry, we’re on an important precipice, what we do next will either ensure our credibility or tarnish it for years to come.
Consumers (and therefore investors) are looking at brands in a more holistic manner. Trust will be the single most valuable brand attribute.
Trust is defined on two spectrums: competence and ethics.
For CEOs, CMO’s, and experts in our industry, the time is now to act and communicate from a place of authentically aligned communications. This alignment will require hyper levels of empathy and a constant pulse on the state of affairs affecting your customers. Consumer behavior is in flux now.
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed consumers and now is the time for brands to align. According to the Edelman Barometer special report, Brands Amidst Crisis:
The role of brands in reflecting the consumer’s desire to be viewed as a tastemaker or trendsetter has decreased 9%
Up 38% is spending time with family
86% of consumers expect brands to solve both societal and personal problems, including proper treatment of employees and making product in a domestic market
The only values more important than trust to consumers are price and quality
Because consumer behavior is in flux, it’s never been more important to ensure internal and external values and communications align. Ironically, ensuring alignment supports the flexibility needed to respond quickly to changing behaviors or unexpected upheaval.
Aligned communications means we act internally and externally in a consistent and emotionally intelligent manner that earns trust. It’s not just good for our industry, trust in brands has very real bottom-line implications including increased sales, increased investor opportunities, and reduced customer acquisition costs. In fact, according to Edelman Trust Barometer, high trust consumers have 75% more brand loyalty.
Outstanding packaging and even quality products are the minimum expectations for today’s brands. But even those choices come under scrutiny from consumers if they don’t mirror consumer expectations and lifestyle. Therefore, earning trust starts at the very beginning. The earliest choices are powerful signals to consumers about brand values.
It isn’t enough to simply sponsor a campaign or align with a social movement. While those choices can be powerful quivers in your trust arsenal, it feels and sounds hollow when the brand is suddenly thrusting itself into a conversation without looking at itself first. Consumers are increasingly aware of “trust washing.”
92% of employees expect their employer’s CEO to speak up for issues ranging from income inequality to diversity and training for future jobs. An aligned trust-based strategy starts on the inside. Take a solid look at the ethos and ethics within your own company.
What are your company’s values?
What do you stand for?
How do you signal trust internally and how do you reward it?
Does your internal communication stand for your values?
The reason this internal step is critical is no matter what, your brand ethos is distilled into consumer interactions and communication, whether those communications are with dispensary workers or directly to the consumer, the experience will always stay with the brand. Imagine a dispensary worker making recommendations to a new-to-cannabis buyer, naturally, the dispensary worker has a huge amount of influence on the consumer’s impression of a new brand. And new-to-cannabis buyers are most likely to be loyal to their first brand, assuming the product meets expectations.
Personal experience is the number one way to build trust with consumers. 59% of customers say personal experience matters the most.
What consumer interactions signal trust?
How do you manage poor reviews?
How do you handle customer inquiries?
How does your owned media reflect not only your brand values but those of your customers?
Personal experience is absolutely about product experience and brand interactions. Brand interactions at events will take on more importance in cannabis. Consumers will want to engage in an experiential way with cannabis brands and it won’t be at cannabis events exclusively, consumers will expect to see cannabis brands in all the same places they see alcohol brands, even if sales and sampling aren’t available, which means experiences will need to be multi-sensory and strongly personal. Choose your experiences carefully based on your brand audience and ethos.
Earned media is second only to personal experience incredible trust-building. During the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in publications increased by 7%. Brands should look for opportunities in earned media that reflect their values. Branded content is another area where brands can use the credibility of publications.
Experts are still considered credible sources (52%) and they far surpass celebrities (35%) and influencers (36%). As you consider brand strategies in 2021, take a careful look at who you’re leveraging and what role they play. Choose your experts carefully and ensure they are fully vetted. NCIA’s Marketing and Advertising Committee is developing an “experts directory” of carefully vetted industry professionals, this will be a key resource not only to event organizers, but CEOs and CMOs looking for credible, authentic experts.
Our industry has so much to offer consumers, we provide very real opportunities for consumers to enhance their lives. We have been active on numerous social justice fronts from the very beginning. We may come from a historical place of rebellion, but often, even that rebellion came from a place of empathy and not just income. Consumers today are responding to companies who double down on trust and an aligned brand value system. There’s every reason to think the cannabis industry can do this better than anyone. Together, let’s lean into our values and seed trust not just in our companies, but in our industry.
*All statistics come from Edelman Trust Barometer 2020, unless otherwise noted.
Tara Coomans is the CEO of Avaans Media (formerly known as Primo PR), which has been working with hemp and THC brands and services since 2015 from startup through IPO. Founded in 2008, Avaans Media brings a digitally forward and purpose-driven perspective to public relations. Avaans Media is based in Los Angeles with clients and team members distributed around the country including Washington D.C., New York and Denver.
Coomans is on NCIA’s Marketing & Advertising (MAC) committee and leads the MAC Experts Directory subcommittee for 2021. Coomans is a frequent writer and speaker on public relations, marketing, and social media topics.
A Message From Our CEO – Farewell 2020
Photo By CannabisCamera.com
In these last few days of the year, I’m as eager as anyone to put it all behind us in the rearview mirror, but I’m also so grateful of what our members have made possible in 2020.
As we close out NCIA’s 10th year as the cannabis industry’s largest and most respected trade association, I’m just in awe of all the progress that has been made for the cannabis industry in spite of so many challenges.
When state governments were first grappling with the response to the pandemic, most deemed cannabis businesses as “essential,” allowing our industry to stay open to serve patients and adult consumers. Just a few years ago, this level of recognition as a vital sector of the economy would have been unthinkable — even to me!
What’s more, legal cannabis sales broke records throughout the months of this pandemic. It should be no surprise that #CannabisIsEssential to getting through a global pandemic.
Although our lobbying operation went virtual this year, NCIA was able to move the ball further than ever in Congress. The House of Representatives ended the year by passing the groundbreaking MORE Act, marking the first time either chamber of Congress has approved legislation to legalize cannabis since its prohibition over 80 years ago.
Public support for sensible marijuana policy and the legal cannabis industry stands at its all-time high. During the most divisive election in modern U.S. history, voters from across the political spectrum support ending prohibition and putting cannabis behind a regulated counter. In fact, adult-use cannabis initiatives garnered more votes than President-Elect Biden in every state where both appeared on the ballot — including the two he decisively won (New Jersey and Arizona). The hundreds of forward-thinking businesses that support our advocacy and education efforts have made this incredible progress possible, in spite of an otherwise dismal year.
It’s been almost ten months since we have been able to host in-person events but NCIA has continued to keep our community connected and informed through our Industry Essentials educational webinar series, Cannabis Caucus (cyber) events, and the Cannabis Business Cyber Summit.
NCIA also launched a second weekly podcast offering, The Cannabis Diversity Report, and celebrated more than 200 episodes of The Cannabis Industry Voice podcast (also top 50 U.S. Business News charts for Apple Podcasts), plus monthly live video updates with NCIA Today. During this temporary break from face-to-face networking, we’ve created several digital sponsorship opportunities for savvy cannabis businesses to elevate their brand while also supporting the work we are doing to advance the industry.
Amidst our national reckoning over systemic racism and police brutality, NCIA launched our Equity Scholarship program which now provides membership benefits to over 100 equity operators. Thanks to the financial support of a growing number of businesses that have stepped up to support social equity in cannabis, this important program will continue to be a priority in 2021 and beyond.
2020 was also a great year to be a member of NCIA. As the only full-service trade association in the cannabis industry, we take pride in providing our members with the resources they need to gain a competitive advantage over the industry’s free-riders and isolated operators.
Over the past year, we’ve expanded our membership benefits with the launch of our exclusive online community, NCIA Connect, as well as significant member-only discounts onSimplifya’s compliance platform.
I take pride that NCIA is the only association in cannabis providing our members with this kind of direct ROI in addition to professional political representation in our nation’s halls of power.
Our members are building the next great American industry. It’s an honor representing them through the thick and thin. Progress takes time but the work we are doing to build support for that industry in the halls of Congress and among the voting public is paying off.
On behalf of the whole team at NCIA, I wish you a happy holiday season and new year! I hope you’re enjoying it safely with those you love. We have even more in store for 2021 as we continue to support our members through advocacy, education, and community, so stay tuned.
With gratitude,
Aaron Smith Co-founder & CEO
P.S. If you are not yet a member of NCIA but somehow read all the way to this point, please take just a couple of minutes more to join today. NCIA membership is a simple investment in the future of your business and our industry.
P.P.S If you are a member, reach out and say hello. I’d love to hear about your plans for 2021 and find out how NCIA can help your business succeed.
Member Blog: Four States Legalized Cannabis in November – Here’s What That Means for the Industry
Voters in New Jersey, Arizona, South Dakota, and Montana legalized adult-use cannabis sales during November’s election. So, what comes next?
Last month, Americans in four states voted to legalize adult-use cannabis.
If you’re an adult over 21 in Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota, or Montana, theoretically, you’ll be able to consume and purchase cannabis legally in 2021.
To many Americans, the end of cannabis prohibition in these states looks like a sudden act of voter mobilization. But industry insiders know it took years of work by activists, business people, and lawmakers to make legalization possible.
Before adults can legally purchase and consume cannabis, lawmakers in each state must outline rules and regulations, and dispensaries must go through intense licensing processes before opening their doors to the public.
The process won’t happen overnight.
In some newly legal states, it could take close to a year to iron out the details. And in the past, it’s taken even longer.
Take Massachusetts, for example. Voters cast their ballots in favor of legalization in 2016, but the first dispensary didn’t open until 2018.
Maine’s citizens also voted in support of legal weed in 2016, but it took four years for the first dispensary to open. The first two retailers – SeaWeed and Theory Wellness – opened on October 8 of this year.
“It has taken four years to move from referendum to retail sales since Mainers narrowly approved the legalization of recreational cannabis at the ballot box in 2016. Legislative rewrites, gubernatorial vetoes, a change in state administration, and then the impact of COVID-19 pandemic have combined to make Maine’s rollout the slowest in U.S. history.” – Portland Press Herald
Lawmakers in New Jersey are trying to speed things up. Democratic Senator Nick Scutari wants to move quickly to pass legislation modeled off a 2019 legal cannabis bill he sponsored. Still, legislators are fighting over the details. New Jersey’s Medical Marijuana licensing policies force applicants to pay large sums to compete for a limited number of licenses, allowing big businesses with deep pockets and holdings in other legal states to make millions.
Some New Jersey lawmakers are trying to keep the same from happening when adult-use dispensaries open their doors by prioritizing local businesses.
Arizona lawmakers anticipate legal cannabis sales to begin as early as March. The state plans to prioritize licenses for owners “from communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of previous marijuana laws.” Arizona’s 123 medical marijuana dispensaries will have the first opportunities to apply for adult-use licenses in January after the Arizona Department of Health Services writes the rules.
Entrepreneurs in South Dakota and Montana are ready to apply for dispensary licenses, but they, too, will have to wait.
In South Dakota, lawmakers say dispensaries will be open and selling legal adult-use cannabis by July 1. In Montana, people should be able to legally purchase cannabis on October 1, barring any bumps in the road.
Have we reached a tipping point?
The public’s view of cannabis is changing. One in three Americans now live in a state with legal weed, and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 68% of Americans support federal cannabis legalization. So, have we reached a tipping point?
That’s hard to say.
Thirty-six states now have a legal medical cannabis system. When sales begin in Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota, and Montana, more than twenty states will have fully legalized cannabis. And while federal cannabis reform might be a defining aspect of the incoming administration’s legacy, legalization is mostly dependent on congress, and it’s still unclear which party will control the Senate next year.
Democratic leaders have pledged to end federal cannabis prohibition. If the Democratic party wins Senate control, full legalization is almost a certainty. But if Republicans maintain their Senate majority, the Republican party’s past approach to cannabis doesn’t indicate their leaders are ready to support far-reaching reform. Still, federal cannabis legalization isn’t outside the realm of possibility, even with a Republican-controlled Senate.
Only time will tell.
And again, regardless of what happens politically, it’s obvious America’s opinion of cannabis isn’t what it once was.
Oprah asked former President Obama if he and Michelle indulged in “pizza, pot, or alcohol” on election night in a recent televised interview. When a television icon casually asks a former President if he smoked weed with the former first lady, you know attitudes are changing.
Could federal cannabis legalization be the key to healing our COVID-ravaged economy?
This year, COVID-19 slowed the progress of cannabis legalization for individual states, but the pandemic could help push federal legalization forward next year. Here’s why.
A federally legal cannabis industry would accelerate America’s economic recovery.
The pandemic has had a catastrophic impact on many industries, and while a lot of employees will return to work, many jobs will be forever lost. The longer it takes for people to find employment, the longer it will take for the economy to recover.
The end of federal cannabis prohibition would create thousands of new jobs and reverse the pandemic’s adverse economic impact.
Here’s a point to consider: according to estimates from New Frontier Data, America’s legal cannabis market could be worth nearly $30 billion by 2025 – and that’s without federal legalization. If government officials choose to end federal prohibition next year, the estimates will increase dramatically.
For cannabis dispensaries, cultivators, cannabis-adjacent businesses (like cannabis marketing agencies), and American citizens, a nationwide end to prohibition would be life-changing.
But again, what the immediate future holds is anyone’s guess.
Aaron Rosenbluth is Hybrid Marketing Co‘s Content Director, and he loves to write blogs. He’s written so many blogs that he’s lost count. And beyond his skills as a copywriter and storyteller, he’s an obsessive reader and researcher. Aaron writes on subjects ranging from cannabis to collaboration, social equity to HR software, interior design to cybersecurity. His words attract, engage, educate, and convert. Btw, Aaron hates the phrase “content is king” (even though content is king – and queen).
Hybrid Marketing Co is a Denver-based branding and marketing agency that specializes in building custom strategies that supercharge growth and drive revenue. Working with brands and businesses across the U.S. and Canada, Hybrid’s partners run the full-spectrum of the cannabis world including dispensaries, manufacturers, cultivators, and ancillary businesses. Visit hybridmarketingco.com to learn more about the Hybrid approach.
Senate Race Runoffs in the Peach State
By Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations
As you’ve probably heard by now, which party controls the Senate won’t be known until January 5 — but those results could quite literally determine if marijuana will become federally legal over the next few years.
In Georgia, no candidate can advance through a primary or a general election system without first earning more than 50% of the votes. If no one does, the top two vote getters advance to a runoff election, ensuring that one will earn the majority of votes cast.
This year, the state’s two Senate races — one regular, the other a special election to fill the remainder of a retired senator’s seat — have gone to a runoff. The first will be between incumbent Sen. David Perdue (R) and Democrat Jon Ossoff; the latter will be between Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler and Democrat Rev. Raphael Warnock. If Democrats win both seats, the Senate will be tied 50-50, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would be the tie breaking vote.
It can’t be overstated that the Democrats have an uphill (but not impossible!) battle ahead. In November, Sen. Perdue garnered 86,000 more votes than Ossoff, while Warnock benefited from the fact that two Republicans — both Sen. Loeffler and Rep. Doug Collins — were on the ballot in his race, splitting the party’s votes.
And of course, it’s 2020, so I would be remiss not to mention the pandemic! The runoff is taking place in an off-election year in (what will likely still be) the middle of a serious surge of COVID-19 cases. On top of that, Republicans historically have a stronger track record of turning out in runoffs in the state.
Despite all of that, Democrats are working hard to turn out the vote and organize early. In addition to relying heavily on both first-time voters and Black voters, Democrats are also hopeful that young voters will be the key to winning the runoff in January. Ossoff recently said:
“There are 23,000 young people here in Georgia who will become eligible to vote just between the November election and this January 5 runoff, and a decade of organizing, much of this work led by Stacey Abrams, has put the wind in our sails here in Georgia. What we’re feeling for the first time in four years is hope.”
As I said before, which party controls the Senate could quite literally be the difference between whether or not cannabis could become federally legal in the next one to two years. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was interviewed in October and said:
“I’m a big fighter for racial justice, and the marijuana laws have been one of the biggest examples of racial injustice, and so to change them makes sense. And that fits in with all of the movement now to bring equality in the policing, in economics, and in everything else. Our bill is, in a certain sense, at the nexus of racial justice, individual freedom and states’ rights.”
Schumer was referencing the bill he introduced, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act, which would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, allowing states to set their own policies. It also includes provisions to help funding to cannabis businesses owned by women and people of color through the Small Business Administration; funding studies on traffic safety, impairment detection technology, and health effects of cannabis; restricting advertising that could appeal to children; and setting aside $100 million over five years to help states develop streamlined procedures for expunging or sealing prior cannabis convictions.
Time is of the essence. Voters must be registered by December 7 in order to participate in the runoff election. If you’re in Georgia, or know anyone who is a resident, please check out the Cannabis Voter Project to learn more and make sure you’re ready to vote. If you can, consider making a donation to the Ossoff campaign or the Warnock campaign. The future of cannabis legalization in this country depends on it!
Election Night 2020: Victories For Sensible Cannabis Policies
by Morgan Fox, NCIA’s Director of Media Relations
While the country waits for the outcomes of national elections that could very well impact the future of cannabis policy reform advocacy, we do have a LOT to be happy about today!
Last night, adult-use and medical ballot initiatives SWEPT the elections, passing in every state in which they were considered!
Voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota all passed measures making cannabis legal and regulated for adults. South Dakota also approved a medical cannabis initiative by an even greater margin, and was joined by Mississippi where an overwhelming majority of voters not only supported medical cannabis but chose the much more comprehensive of two competing options.
You can learn more about these initiatives here and how they fared in the elections here.
There are a lot of important milestones and lessons to observe from these historic results.
First, let’s talk about New Jersey. Roughly two thirds of voters in the state approved this ballot measure, which was referred to them after lawmakers were unable to pass similar legislation last year. This is a big jump in ballot approval margins; before now, the most popular legalization referendum was in California, which approved Proposition 64 in 2016 with 57% of the vote. That’s a 10% margin increase in just four short years! The large population and huge market potential (more than $1.5B by 2025) are sure to have a major impact on the industry. Regionally, passage of this initiative is certain to add urgency to adult-use cannabis regulation efforts in states like New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island.
South Dakota also set a record by becoming the first state to approve an adult use law before having an established medical cannabis system, and in a very conservative state no less! Voters supported both medical and cannabis initiatives despite strong opposition from the governor and other officials.
In Arizona, after voters narrowly defeated a legalization initiative in 2016, a significant swing brought a 10% increase in support resulting in passage. This long-overdue change is especially important because Arizona is the only state where simple possession is a felony and nearly 15,000 people are arrested every year.
So what does this mean for future reform efforts?
First and foremost, the passage of the adult use initiatives means nearly 34% of Americans now live in states with laws making cannabis legal and regulated for adults. These four states account for roughly 60,000 marijuana arrests every year, mostly for simple possession. Congressional representation of states where cannabis is legal for adults will increase by 29 representatives and eight senators. This doesn’t guarantee their support for cannabis legislation, but it certainly increases the chances.
Second, passage of cannabis policy reform initiatives in conservative states like Mississippi, Montana, and South Dakota should send a signal to Republican lawmakers in Congress that this is an issue that they can support, and one which they will face political consequences for impeding. The fact that all three of these states had multiple cannabis-related issues on the ballot and voters were not swayed or confused is a testament to the will for change in these areas and a growing understanding of the issue.
Long story short: more and more states will continue to enact sensible, modern cannabis policies in the coming years, and every state that does so will help add to the chorus of voices from the public and in Congress calling for an end to outdated federal prohibition policies.
Video: NCIA Today – #Election2020 Special Episode
Did you miss the special live stream of NCIA Today this Election Day morning on Facebook? Get caught up to speed with this recording of the episode while we prepare to see results the results coming in as Americans cast their votes all across the country.
Cannabis is on the ballot in states across the country and a new Congress will be elected today, possibly the one that will end federal cannabis prohibition. Join NCIA staffers for an exclusive power hour of cannabis conversations with elected officials, Hill staffers, campaign directors, and more.
Movement for Marijuana Marks Major Milestones in Montana
by Madeline Grant, NCIA’s Government Relations Manager
Over the last month, we’ve featured many blogs focused around key congressional races and cannabis policy reform ballot initiatives taking place in various states. As we are days away from the 2020 election, we can’t stress how important it is to get out and vote. We’ve heard from our peers, families, social media influencers, celebrities, news mediums, and much more about how each and every single vote counts – so do your civic duty and make sure that your voice is heard! If you need help determining if you’re registered, or need more information about anything election related, you can click here for some great resources.
This week, I want to dive a little deeper and discuss the two ballot initiatives that Montanans will vote on this November: Initiative 190 and Initiative 118. Initiative 190 would regulate cannabis for adults age 21 and older. Initiative 118 would allow legislation or a citizen initiative to set the legal age limit for possession at an age higher than the state definition of adulthood (18 years old).
First, let’s take a look at statutory Initiative 190, which legalizes, regulates, and taxes marijuana in Montana. I-190 legalizes the possession and use of limited amounts of marijuana for adults over the age of 21. The initiative also requires the Department of Revenue to license and regulate the cultivation, transportation, and sale of marijuana and marijuana-infused products and to inspect premises where marijuana is cultivated and sold. Additionally, it requires licensed laboratories to test marijuana-infused products for potency and contaminants. This initiative also establishes a 20 percent tax on non-medical marijuana, 10.5 percent of the tax revenue goes to the state general fund, with the rest dedicated to accounts for conservation programs, substance abuse treatment, veterans’ services, healthcare costs, and localities where marijuana is sold. The initiative would allow a person currently serving a sentence for an act permitted by the initiative to apply for resentencing or an expungement of the conviction. Lastly, I-190 would prohibit advertising of marijuana and related products.
Of course, when you look at any state that has legalized cannabis, there is the ability to generate millions of dollars in new tax revenue. According to the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Montana will generate $236 million in marijuana tax revenue by 2026. The general fund will net four million dollars. As ballot initiatives pass it is important to allocate the tax revenue to important causes that help communities and people and this is exactly what this initiative does as it would contribute to accounts for conservation, veterans’ services, substance abuse treatment, healthcare, and local governments. On top of that marijuana fees will fund program administration and enforcement.
The constitutional Initiative 118 allows the minimum legal age for marijuana to be set at 21 years old. Currently, under the Montana Constitution, a person 18 years of age or older is an adult, except that the legislature or the people by initiative may establish the legal age of purchasing, consuming, or possessing alcoholic beverages. This initiative amends the Montana Constitution to allow the legislature or the people by the initiative to establish the legal age for purchasing, consuming, or possessing marijuana.
When learning more about New Approach Montana, the main backer of Montana’s cannabis initiatives, they clearly stated why legalizing cannabis is a step in the right direction. Along with the significant tax revenue, Montana can improve access to medical marijuana for veterans and rural Montanans. They stated that despite Montana’s medical marijuana law, doctors at the VA are prohibited from recommending medical marijuana to their patients. By legalizing marijuana for all adults, veterans will be able to safely access it to treat chronic pain, PTSD, and other serious health conditions. Montana can stop wasting law enforcement time and resources on arresting people for personal marijuana possession. Treating marijuana as a criminal issue wastes law enforcement resources and needlessly cycles people through the criminal justice system. In states that have legalized marijuana for adults, police have more time to solve serious crimes.
As we gear up for election day it is important to note just how important these ballot initiatives are in our laboratories of democracies: the states. As more states reform their outdated cannabis laws, it puts more pressure on the federal government to fix our broken laws surrounding the war on drugs. With more states moving forward, it is evident that constituents have spoken in support of legalization; therefore, more representatives and senators on Capitol Hill must support their cannabis reform. If you would like more information on these ballot initiatives or would like to donate to the cause please do so here. Please stay tuned for more blogs coming your way post-election. If there is anything you have questions about feel free to contact our Government Relations team at madeline@thecannabisindustry.org.
2020 Senate Races To Watch
by Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations
Photo By CannabisCamera.com
As you may have heard by now, Election Day is just around the corner! Let me take this opportunity to remind you to vote, to do so safely, and come up with an election plan! If you need help determining if you’re registered, or need more information about anything election-related, you can click here for some great resources.
Over the last two years, NCIA and the cannabis industry have had some success in Washington, D.C.: passing the SAFE Banking Act out of the House, passing the MORE Act out of committee (we expect a full House vote during the lame duck session!), and even getting the language of the SAFE Banking Act included in three proposed COVID-19 relief packages. But, the same challenge has remained: the upper chamber of Congress, the Senate.
This year, there are 35 Senate seats up for election, and the results will impact cannabis policy for years to come (remember, Senate terms last for six years). Let’s take a look at three races that could not only impact cannabis policy, but the makeup of the Senate as a whole.
Arizona
Incumbent: Sen. Martha McSally – Republican
Challenger: Mark Kelly – Democrat
The Details: Senator Martha McSally, Mark Kelly, and seventeen other write-in candidates are running in this year’s special election in Arizona. The winner will fill the rest of the 2017-2022 term that former Sen. John McCain (R) won in 2016. You may remember McSally’s name– that’s because back in the 2018 general election, McSally ran for Arizona’s other Senate seat and lost to Kyrsten Sinema (D) 47.6% to 50.0%. After the 2018 election, interim Sen. Jon Kyl (R) announced his resignation and Gov. Doug Ducey (R) announced McSally as Kyl’s replacement in December 2018. Easy to keep up with, right?!
On Cannabis: This year, Arizonans will vote on Proposition 207, which would legalize adult-use cannabis in the state. During a debate in October, the candidates were asked about the initiative. Mark Kelly responded, “I think I’m gonna vote yes. It has some provisions in there to decriminalize it and address some incarceration rates for marijuana offenses — I think that’s good. I think there’s a funding source there. So I’m probably gonna vote yes.” When asked if he’d support removing marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic were such federal legislation to come before him, Kelly replied, “Based on my vote here in Arizona, I would seriously consider removing it.”
Senator McSally, on the other hand, has been essentially silent and inactive on this issue since assuming office. Last month, when asked about the initiative, McSally said “I’ll let the Arizona voters decide that [Proposition 207].” During her time as a Congresswoman prior to being appointed to the Senate, McSally voted against several cannabis-related appropriations amendments. She has not co-sponsored any cannabis-related legislation in the Senate.
Colorado
Incumbent: Sen. Cory Gardner – Republican
Challenger: Former Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper – Democrat
The Details: This race is one of the most contested in the country– both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) have added it to their election target lists. The previous three U.S. Senate elections in Colorado—2016, 2014, and 2010—were decided by margins of 5.7, 1.6, and 1.7 percentage points, respectively. Gardner was first elected in 2014 after defeating incumbent Mark Udall (D) 48.2-46.3%.
On Cannabis: Sen. Gardner has long been touted as one of the most pro-cannabis Republicans in the Senate. He has sponsored and co-sponsored a number of cannabis bills, including the STATES Act and the SAFE Banking Act. However, Sen. Gardner has been unable to convince his colleagues to bring SAFE Banking up for a committee vote, or even have a simple hearing on the STATES Act. That being said, if Republicans retain control of the Senate, but Gardner loses his seat, it may have adverse consequences for the cannabis industry.
During his time as governor, Hickenlooper actively opposed cannabis legalization, even going so far as to unsuccessfully campaign against the state’s marijuana legalization ballot referendum. He then went on to implement it after voters approved the measure. During his last year as governor, he also vetoed proposals to add autism as a medical marijuana qualifying condition, to increase flexibility for investments in the cannabis industry, and to allow dispensaries to operate tasting rooms. But Hickenlooper has come a long way since then– his campaign website states, “As U.S. Senator, I will fight to remove cannabis from classification as a Schedule I drug.” Plus, he even responded to an op-ed penned earlier this year by NCIA’s own Social Media Manager, Vince Chandler, tweeting, “Yes, I support decriminalizing & descheduling marijuana. Colorado set the gold standard, and I’m eager to work with you and Colorado’s cannabis industry and entrepreneurs to get this done in Washington.”
Montana
Incumbent: Sen. Steve Daines – Republican
Challenger: Former Governor of Montana, Steve Bullock – Democrat
The Details: Incumbent Sen. Daines was first elected in 2014 with 58% of the vote. Bullock was first elected Governor of Montana in 2012 with 49% of the vote to his opponent’s 47%. His margin increased in 2016 when he won 50% to 46%. That same year, Donald Trump (R) won Montana in the presidential election with 56% of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s (D) 36%.
Both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic PAC, have targeted the race. Prior to announcing his bid for Senate, Bullock joined the crowded Democratic presidential field before dropping out in 2019.
Implications: This year, there are two cannabis-related initiatives on the ballot in the Treasure State. Montana I-190, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, is on the ballot and would legalize the possession and use of marijuana for adults over the age of 21, impose a 20% tax on marijuana sales, require the Department of Revenue to develop rules to regulate marijuana businesses, and allow for the resentencing or expungement of marijuana-related crimes. The second initiative, Montana CI-118, the Allow for a Legal Age for Marijuana Amendment, would amend the Montana Constitution to allow for the legislature or a citizen initiative to establish a minimum legal age for the possession, use, and purchase of marijuana, similar to the regulation of alcohol in the state constitution.
While neither Senate candidate has weighed in on the state’s cannabis initiatives, we do have some understanding of their views on the issue– Sen. Daines has consistently voted in favor of appropriations amendments related to hemp, medical cannabis, and banking. In 2015, he co-sponsored an industrial hemp bill. It’s important to note that all of these votes were more than three years ago. On the other hand, while running for president last year during July 2019, Bullock stated, “I think this [cannabis legalization] should be left up to the states. I think the federal government should get out of the way and this is a state-by-state decision.”
Now, remember to get out there and VOTE! Here at NCIA, we’ll be analyzing other initiatives, candidates, and what it all means for you and your business as we get closer to the election, and doing the same once we get the results!
2020 Marijuana Ballot Initiatives – Time to Make History!
by Madeline Grant, NCIA’s Government Relations Manager
With the election coming up just around the corner, 2020 could be another big year for our movement. It is imperative that we all head to the polls, send in our mail-in ballots and make our voices heard in this monumental election. This week I will briefly go over each ballot initiative that has officially qualified for the November ballot. As we continue to get closer to the election, I will get into detail about what each ballot initiative does for each state. 2020 has been a year of uncertainty and as we approach the election it is our duty as U.S. citizens to get out and vote and as members of the cannabis industry, it’s important that we support the expansion of markets by donating to initiative campaigns.
Without further ado please see marijuana ballot initiatives below:
More information provided by the Marijuana Policy Project here.
Nebraska – Medical marijuana ballot initiative is no longer happening due to the Nebraska Supreme Court deeming the legalization of medical marijuana on the November ballot as unconstitutional. Following over 180,000 signatures by Nebraskans in support of the measure, the Supreme Court decided to not include the vote on November’s ballot on the day before the deadline. The justification of unconstitutionality came from Nebraska’s single-subject rule for a ballot measure, which bans multiple issues into yes-or-no questions for voters to address.
It is more important than ever to get out and vote. Our government relations team works hard in our nation’s Capital to achieve legislative victories at the federal level; however, achieving legislative victories at each state is just as important. It is through each successful ballot initiative at the state that provides the proof and support for legislative change and policy reform at the federal level. States are moving forward; therefore, we must be on Capitol Hill. We must keep fighting the good fight and get out and show our support for cannabis policy reform.
Are you interested in any of these states or want to learn more about one of these ballot initiatives? If so, please feel free to reach out to me to set up a meeting to discuss the information in more detail or contact the campaigns directly to find out how you can support them.
Member Blog: GMPs – A Way Ahead for Hemp and CBD Firms
The hemp industry is the marijuana industry’s half-sister. Both are variations of the plant cannabis sativa and both were made illegal in 1937 with the passing of The Marijuana Tax Act. Flash forward to the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (known as the 2018 Farm Bill) that was signed into law by Congress on December 20, 2018. One year later, The USDA issued interim regulations that entitled Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program for the cultivation of hemp on October 31, 2019. Both were huge steps forward for public access to hemp and hemp products. FDA legalized the growing of hemp in states with a state-mandated hemp program and removed hemp and its derivatives from Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Schedule I status and the U.S. Domestic Hemp Program aims to approve cultivation plans issued by states and Indian Tribes.
Even so, then FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb issued a statement hours after the signing of the Farm Bill reiterating that “Congress explicitly preserved the agency’s current authority to regulate products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.”
Still today, two years later and counting, FDA only permits CBD products submitted as an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application as a pharmaceutical and there remains only one such accepted CBD product, Epidiolex, manufactured by G.W. Pharma. All other CBD products are illegal for interstate shipment.
In-state production and sales may be a different story, provided that state has a mandated hemp program. In those cases, provided state law is followed, production and sales are legal and protected, but the minute products cross state lines, they become the jurisdiction of the federal government and, more specifically, the FDA. At least 47 states have enacted legislation to establish hemp production programs or allow for hemp cultivation research.
Section 10113 of The 2018 Farm Bill states that (c) Nothing in this subtitle shall affect or modify:
(1) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.);
(2) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262); or
(3) the authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services- ‘‘(A) under- ‘‘(i) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or ‘‘(ii) section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262); or ‘‘(B) to promulgate Federal regulations and guidelines that relate to the production of hemp under the Act described in subparagraph (A)(i) or the section described in subparagraph (A)(ii).”
The mission of the FDA is “to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices.” As such, FDA categorizes every product for sale in the U.S. which is either ingested or applied to a human or animals into categories. That means hemp-derived CBD products will have to lawfully fit into one of those categories, however, while there has been positive movement towards the legal sale of hemp products on the USDA cultivation side, the FDA has authority over foods and dietary supplements, and the FDA’s position is that the addition of hemp/CBD to a food or dietary supplement is “violative.” In a Consumer Update statement revised on November 25, 2019, the FDA clearly stated that “it cannot conclude that CBD is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) among qualified experts for its use in human or animal food.”
That being said, FDA has indicated it would be open to review of safety data for submission of a cannabinoid as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for Food or as a New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) in a supplement as the lack of any federal regulation runs the potential of putting people at risk. That has sent the industry scurrying to design and initiate studies in the hopes of demonstrating levels of safety that meet FDA’s satisfaction.
In the meantime, those currently operating in states where hemp manufacturing is legal, must ensure Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) are adhered to closely. Should the FDA ever allow hemp products with CBD to be sold in the future, a manufacturer’s ability to demonstrate understanding and compliance with GMPs will be critical. Each FDA regulated industry has its own set of GMPs for the development and implementation of quality systems.
21 CFR 117, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventative Controls for Human Food
21 CFR 507, Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventative Controls for Food for Animals
21 CFR 111, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements
21 CFR 210, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Processing, Packing, or Holding of Drugs; General
21 CFR 211, Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals
FDA Draft Guidance for Industry, Cosmetic Good Manufacturing Practice, June 2013
As the industry waits in the hopes that FDA will come on board with those states that have already legalized CBD’s use in products, it important to take the necessary steps to develop GMP protocols and quality systems as part of documented Standard Operating Procedures and record-keeping that those procedures are being followed, products are being tested and those tests are being validated.
Ensure as you begin to develop or strengthen your GMP programs that you do so with a full understanding of the requirements set forth in 21 CFR 111. Whether these programs are designed in-house or with the assistance of an outside consulting firm, ensure your GMPs are specific to your manufacturing procedures as opposed to a stock one-size-fits-all program. A reputable consulting firm with demonstrable expertise in FDA regulations and in helping to develop these GMPs is a good place to start, one that listens to your questions and concerns before providing you their stock answer. A good consulting firm can walk you through your unique processes.
Ensure your quality systems are robust and documented, including your demonstrations that your cGMPs are being followed.
Charlotte Peyton supports EAS Consulting Group CBD and hemp clients as well as that of dietary supplements and pharmaceuticals. As an independent consultant, she assists with projects ranging from startup through manufacturing and support. Her expertise includes quality, regulatory and management, method development, and method validation for FDA regulated drug, dietary supplement, and bioanalytical samples. She has extensive experience in writing validation protocols, reports, and SOPs and assists with implementation of stability programs and report writing for finished products.
EAS Consulting Group, a member of the Certified family of companies, is a global leader in regulatory solutions for industries regulated by FDA, USDA, and other federal and state agencies. Our network of over 150 independent advisors and consultants enables EAS to provide comprehensive consulting, training, and auditing services, ensuring proactive regulatory compliance for food, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, cosmetics, tobacco, hemp, and CBD.
Looking Back On #10YearsOfNCIA: 2018-2019
Photo By CannabisCamera.com
by Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations
Over the last several weeks, I’ve been taking a retrospective look at the progress NCIA has made in the ten years since its inception. This is our last installment, detailing 2018-2019, and brings us up to 2020 (the year that shall not be spoken of). While this timeline is by no means a comprehensive look at everything that’s happened in cannabis policy during those years, here are some highlights:
January 2018
On January 4, 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared in a one-page memo that he had rescinded the Cole Memo, a similar memo related to cannabis activity on tribal land, and two other older memos. Sessions directed U.S. Attorneys to instead “follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions,” which require federal prosecutors to “weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community.”
February 2018
This month was filled with the political fallout of the rescission of the Cole Memo. First, a letter was written by the U.S. Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs to Congress that said, “We are reviewing the [cannabis banking] guidance in light of the Attorney General’s announcement [to rescind the Cole Memo] and are consulting with law enforcement”. Then, following Sen. Gardner’s (R-CO) decision to block the Department of Justice’s nominees over the rescission of the Cole Memo in January, he released his holds on nominees for U.S. attorneys in a dozen federal districts and U.S. marshals in every district. Holds continue on the nominations of seven top Department of Justice nominees.
March 2018
In March, Attorney General Sessions spoke at an event where he acknowledged that the Department of Justice cannot use its limited resources to enforce cannabis prohibition against everyone who violates federal marijuana laws. He said, “We’re not going to be able, even if we desired, to take over state enforcement of routine cases that might occur.”
April 2018
The Trump administration officially began accepting online comments about whether marijuana should be rescheduled under international agreements. That same month, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed a hemp legalization bill.
May 2018
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) quietly issued a document saying that businesses that work with the marijuana industry aren’t eligible for federally backed loans. Fast forward to 2020, this document is largely what prohibited both direct and indirect marijuana businesses from receiving PPP money or federal assistance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
June 2018
Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Gardner (R-CO), introduced the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act. Shortly thereafter, President Trump was asked if he supports new Senate legislation to let states set their own marijuana laws without federal interference, to which he replied, “I really do. I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he’s doing. We’re looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes.” The STATES Act has never had a congressional hearing or moved in any way through the legislative process.
July 2018
In a slight change of tone, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that “states have a right to set their own laws and will do so” but that “the American republic will not be better if there are marijuana sales on every street corner” and “we’ll [Department of Justice] enforce the federal law.”
August 2018
A group of the top financial regulatory officials from 13 states sent a letter urging congressional leaders to solve the marijuana industry’s banking access issues. The regulators wrote, “It is incumbent on Congress to resolve the conflict between state cannabis programs and federal statutes that effectively create unnecessary risk for banks seeking to operate in this space without the looming threat of civil actions, forfeiture of assets, reputational risk, and criminal penalties.”
September 2018
NCIA worked with Congressman Lou Correa (D-CA) to send a letter to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen that urges the department to develop clear guidance concerning the entry into the United States of foreign nationals with authorized work visas who are associated with the cannabis industry.
October 2018
Well-known pollster Gallup found that sixty-six percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana. Support has remained near that number to the present.
November 2018
This month, midterm elections were held, and a number of states voted on setting their own cannabis policies. Residents of Michigan and North Dakota both voted on adult-use measures, one passing and one failing, respectively. Additionally, Utah and Missouri both passed medical cannabis ballot initiatives. While the Senate remained in control of the GOP, the House of Representatives switched from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority.
December 2018
Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill which included hemp legalization. The bill did not create a completely free system in which individuals or businesses can grow hemp whenever and wherever they want — there are numerous restrictions — and the programs are still being adjusted today.
January 2019
The 116th Congress was sworn in and quickly filed a number of cannabis-related bills, including:
H.R. 420: Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, H.R. 493: Sensible Enforcement of Cannabis Act, and H.R. 127: Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act of 2019
February 2019
In February, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions held its first-ever hearing on marijuana and financial services, entitled: Challenges and Solutions: Access to Banking Services for Cannabis-Related Businesses. Up for discussion was the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act.
March 2019
Quickly following the subcommittee hearing, the House Financial Services Committee scheduled a full markup for the SAFE Banking Act. The bill passed out of committee with a bipartisan vote of 45-15.
April 2019
During a House appropriations subcommittee hearing, several lawmakers asked Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin about what could be done to provide state-legal cannabis businesses with access to financial institutions. Mnuchin replied, “Let me just say, I hope this is something that this committee can on a bipartisan basis work with since there are people on both sides of the aisle that share these concerns. I will just say I don’t believe this is a failure of the regulators. I want to defend the regulators on this issue.”
May 2019
NCIA hosted our 9th Annual Cannabis Industry Lobby Days, bringing hundreds of professionals to Washington, D.C. Over the course of 48 hours, attendees met with nearly 300 congressional offices to share their stories and experiences and dropped off informational materials to 200 offices that we did not schedule meetings with. In addition to these meetings, we had two briefings, held a PAC fundraiser, and hosted our first-ever VIP Day for members of our Leadership Circle.
June 2019
In June, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing entitled “Challenged for Cannabis and Banking: Outside Perspectives.” NCIA was proud to have Sen. Jeff Merkley introduce for the record the testimonials of nearly 100 NCIA members during the hearing.
July 2019
The Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on ending cannabis prohibition in America. The hearing, entitled “Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform” will focus on the need to deschedule cannabis, the importance of equity, diversity, inclusivity in this burgeoning industry, and will also cover issues pertaining to cannabis and public health, law enforcement, and the failings of prohibition.
August 2019
When President Trump was asked at the end of August whether or not marijuana will be federally legalized during his administration, he said, “We’re going to see what’s going on. It’s a very big subject and right now we are allowing states to make that decision. A lot of states are making that decision, but we’re allowing states to make that decision.”
September 2019
For the first time in history, a standalone cannabis policy reform bill was brought before the House of Representatives for a vote and passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. The Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019, or H.R. 1595, was approved 321-103, including nearly half of voting Republicans, in a suspension vote.
October 2019
The U.S. Tax Court ruled this week that the tax code ban on business deductions by medical marijuana companies is constitutional. The case is Northern California Small Business Assistants Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, docket number 26889-16.
November 2019
In a vote of 24-10, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would effectively end marijuana prohibition. The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act of 2019, or H.R. 3884, was introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and has been moving through the legislative process steadily. The MORE Act is anticipated to be voted on by the full House of Representatives this month.
December 2019
The Federal Reserve released guidance allowing banks to work with the hemp industry. Financial institutions are no longer required to file suspicious activity reports on customers operating a hemp business.
It’s been a wild ride to look back at the last 10 years of NCIA, and we are looking forward to serving you and your business for another 10 more!
Member Blog: Drug Testing In Legal States – Corporate Policy vs. State Law
Currently, 33 states have legalized medical marijuana, and 11 others have given the green light to marijuana’s recreational use; however, the federal government still classifies any use of marijuana as illegal. This disparity creates a rift when employers go to test new employees for drugs.
Workplace drug testing began in the 1980s as part of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s “War on Drugs” campaign. At that time, employers wanted to ensure their workers were fit to do the job at hand. Since marijuana has become legalized in many states, employers in these states are unsure of new drug testing protocols; so are the states and legal systems themselves.
The resulting situation is a Catch-22.
Without testing, there would be more applicants for any given job and a larger pool of prospective workers. Therefore, employers would potentially get the strongest candidates. However, with testing, employers can assure they get drug-free employees who will be safe on the job.
But if marijuana is legal in some places and not others, who gets to decide where to draw the line?
Safety on the Job
Safety on any job is paramount, which requires workers who are alert and capable of completing the intricacies of the job.
According to Business News Daily, “The problem for employers is that impairment, because of marijuana, is usually much more difficult to detect and test for than alcohol. Unlike alcohol, it is very difficult for employers to determine if a positive drug test for marijuana is the result of drug usage during work or on non-work hours, so it is logistically simpler to just have an outright ban.”
Making the issue cut and dry is much easier on employers compared to making case-by-case decisions.
Additionally, any companies that accept federal money or hold contracts with the federal government will have to maintain drug testing protocols. In other business sectors, the line is not clear, which calls the legality of testing into question.
Legality of Testing
With the ever-changing state cannabis laws and the potential for cannabis to be legalized on the federal level, the nation is basically in a “trial and error” situation. Regardless, employers must keep current with these ever-changing circumstances to protect themselves and their employees.
The medical nature of marijuana usage further complicates the matter. Currently, 33 states issue medical marijuana cards, which permits users to use marijuana to treat medical issues. Business News Daily says, “Several states have specific laws protecting medical cannabis patients from employment discrimination. Typically, employers can require drug testing before employment and at random times, so long as there is no discrimination against medical marijuana users [who] are legally allowed cannabis for medicinal reasons.”
Besides the debate over medical marijuana cards, employers are stymied about what to do regarding recreational use as it pertains to the workplace. Since testing results can return positive weeks after the person smokes, there is really no way to tell if someone is a habitual user or it was a one-time event.
The states are divided. Currently, about 20 states will not allow discrimination in the workplace. But there is only one state that has gone so far as to say that recreational use of marijuana use is acceptable: Maine. Other states are starting to follow suit. Nevada law ensures that there can be no adverse outcomes for positive tests. And New York City will soon get rid of pre-employment testing altogether.
Other states are not so quick to change. For instance, workers in Illinois can still be disqualified as applicants or terminated as employees for a positive test. Currently, Illinois allows for the “good faith belief” that employees can consider workers under the influence if their speech or actions seem impaired.
Unfortunately, even the court systems do not agree. In some recent cases, the judge has sided with state rights, and in others, the federal appeal was victorious.
Moving forward, employees and employers need to continue the “wait and see” approach until federal and state employment laws catch up to the legalization of cannabis. For now, employers must determine their comfort levels with recreational marijuana use as it pertains to safety in the workplace.
Samantha Vanegas retains a MBA from the University of Florida Warrington College of Business. She works with the leaders of small start-up and growth-stage companies and non-profit organizations who seek temporary leadership to support growth and transitions. Whether for project-based work or as an interim manager, she is fabulous at supporting individuals and teams who are passionate about their work and need help bringing order to all the moving parts. She addresses common issues such as: how to build effective organizational infrastructure and systems; and, how to create and implement a strategy that will carry your business forward. She is a problem-solver who is able to envision the sum of the parts during and through transitions. She has a strong background in sales, operations, HR and marketing which elevates her expertise in assisting organizations with compliance intelligence and also with user, customer and employee experience surveys and solutions.
ath Power Consulting is an all-in-one resource for multi-modality survey and mystery shop research, competitive intelligence, compliance auditing, market analyses, employee training, and strategic consulting. Since 1997, we have helped our clients improve customer retention, build brand loyalty and advocacy, deepen employee engagement, measure compliance, maximize performance, and increase profitability – distinguishing them from their competition and giving them a commanding edge in the marketplace.
SAFE Banking Not Included In Newest COVID-19 Relief Package
by Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations
Today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the GOP caucus unveiled the text of their long-awaited coronavirus relief package. The initial draft text of the bill did not include any cannabis provisions, namely, the SAFE Banking Act.
If you’ll recall, back in May, the House of Representatives passed the HEROES Act, which included the text of H.R. 2215, the SAFE Banking Act. The language included in the House-passed HEROES Act would make it easier for financial institutions to work with cannabis businesses that are in compliance with state law, as well as help address serious public health and safety concerns caused by operating in predominantly cash-only environments. After the House passed the bill, it remained in the Senate while the GOP-controlled chamber came up with their own version.
But, a lot can change in a few months. Since HEROES passed the House in May, NCIA has been hard at work (from home!) talking to House and Senate leadership, as well as other key Senate offices. The good news is that those conversations have been overwhelmingly positive and we feel incredibly hopeful that the discussion about SAFE Banking will continue to be a part of the conversation as negotiations progress.
Make sure you stay engaged and continue to tell your lawmakers that you are a cannabis voter and that these issues are important to you! Contact your Senators today and ask that they support SAFE Banking as a necessary piece of legislation that can help the tens of thousands of cannabis workers stay healthy by allowing our industry access to legitimate banking and end our cash-only operations.
Want to make sure you hear the latest about what’s happening in cannabis policy? Follow NCIA on social media and be sure to share important information and resources as we release them with your networks, because we’re going to need all of us in this together!
The most important thing anyone can do to make sure SAFE Banking and other important reforms are realized in Congress is to ensure that their cannabis business is a member of NCIA. If you are not yet a member, please support our work by joining today. If you already are a member, thank you for making our advocacy work possible.
Looking Back On #10YearsOfNCIA: 2014-2015
by Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations
Earlier this month, I took a retrospective look at the progress NCIA made in its early years (2010-2013). I started with the organization in 2014, so I’m excited today to take a walk down memory lane and look back at another era of NCIA history: 2014-2015! While this timeline is by no means a comprehensive look at everythingthat’s happened in cannabis policy during those years, here are some highlights:
February 2014
Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) published its own expectations regarding marijuana-related business guidelines. These guidelines, issued on February 14 and commonly referred to as the Valentine’s Day guidance, attempted to clarify Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) expectations for financial institutions seeking to provide services to marijuana-related businesses. FinCEN issued this guidance as states continued to set their own cannabis policies, and just months after the Cole Memo was issued.
May 2014
The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment passes the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time ever with a vote of 219-189. While I had not started with NCIA just yet, I was in touch with our Director of Government Relations, Mike Correia, that night. Mike spent that evening doing two things: lobbying in the Capitol and running to the hospital to be with his wife, who was in labor! I remember waking up the next morning to learn two things: first, that states with medical cannabis programs and patients were going to be protected, and second, to find that Mike was the father of a baby girl!
June 2014
NCIA hosts our 1st Annual Cannabis Business Summit & Expo in Denver, bringing hundreds of cannabis industry professionals together.
October 2014
NCIA hires their second government relations staffer, ME! At the time, I was hired to be the Government Relations Coordinator and it changed my life forever.
November 2014
Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. all vote to legalize adult-use cannabis. However, because Congress has the final say over D.C. policies, the District still does not have any adult-use dispensaries.
March 2015
For the first time ever, pro-cannabis legislation is introduced in the U.S. Senate as S. 683, the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act of 2015. I remember that day well– Mike and I were there at the press conference with the architects of the bill, Sens. Booker (D-NJ), Gillibrand (D-NY), and Paul (R-KY).
April 2015
NCIA hosts its Fifth Annual Cannabis Industry Lobby Days in Washington, D.C., and brings dozens of cannabis industry professionals to the halls of Congress to talk directly with members of Congress and their staff. That same month, Mike and I moved into the first NCIA-DC office.
June 2015
The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment passes the U.S. House of Representatives for the second time by a wider margin of 242-186. Later that month, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee passed the companion Mikulski medical cannabis amendment by a vote of 20-10.
NCIA hosts its 2nd Annual Cannabis Business Summit & Expo in Denver. This also marked the first time a Presidential contender (Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY), hosted a private fundraiser with the cannabis industry.
July 2015
NCIA hires two well established D.C. lobbying firms to represent the industry on Capitol Hill. This was the first time in history that a “white shoe” firm worked to further pro-cannabis legislation. Nowadays, there are dozens of lobbying firms involved in this space!
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the Senate version of the Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act. This bill was the precursor to the SAFE Banking Act, and to this day, Sen. Merkley is our biggest advocate for banking in the chamber!
September 2015
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) gives the opening keynote speech at NCIA’s Fall Regional Cannabis Business Summit. That same month, GOP presidential contenders were askedabout cannabis policy at a CNN Debate, showing the mainstream acceptance of this issue.
October 2015
Democratic presidential contender and Senator Bernie Sanders introduces the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2015 (S. 2237), becoming the first major-party presidential candidate to support the legalization of adult-use cannabis. Also that month, United States District Judge Breyer lifted an injunction against a California medical cannabis dispensary, citing the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment.
November 2015
NCIA celebrates its 5th Anniversary in Las Vegas and honors Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) with the 2015 Legislator of the Year Award.
Photo By CannabisCamera.com
Looking back, those early years of NCIA were without a doubt integral to where we are now in cannabis policy. Make sure you keep an eye on future issues of NCIA’s Cannabusiness Leader to learn more about 2016-2017 and all the progress we made during those years!
A Different Kind Of Season: Gearing Up For Appropriations
by Morgan Fox, NCIA’s Director of Media Relations
It’s that time again on Capitol Hill: appropriations season, when Congress determines how to spend – or not spend – your tax dollars for the next year. As you can imagine, this year will be unlike any in recent memory as a cash-strapped nation struggles with how to weather the economic storm caused by the pandemic while finding the funds to support important government functions and programs. Appropriations are also a time when our champions in the legislature are once again introducing sensible cannabis policy reforms through an avenue that historically has been effective. Many of these reforms would actually save taxpayers money!
What’s in:
For the second year in a row, language that prevents the Department of Justice from using resources to target state-legal medical cannabis programs was included in the original language of the commerce, justice and science funding bill. If approved or continued, this would be the sixth year that Congress has told federal law enforcement to leave medical cannabis patients and providers alone.
Language that would prevent the Department of Treasury from using resources to penalize banks and other financial institutions for working with legal cannabis businesses was included in the financial services and general government funding bill. While not as comprehensive as the SAFE Banking Act, which was approved by the House last year and included in its most recent coronavirus relief bill, this provision would give financial services providers more assurances needed to encourage working with the cannabis industry and would help improve public health and safety.
A measure that would protect public colleges and universities from being denied federal funds due to conducting research on cannabis was included in the bill funding agencies related to education, labor, health, and human services. Many institutions have cited the potential loss of funding as a major discouragement to research. This also makes it easier for universities to study cannabis products available in regulated state markets. An additional provision to this bill also prevents federally funded schools from engaging in any advocacy in support of making any Schedule I substances legal.
Additional funding would be made available through the agriculture and FDA appropriations legislation for research, regulation, and consumer protection related to hemp, CBD, and other cannabis components.
Language that asks the Office of Personnel Management to reconsider allowing federal employees to legally consume cannabis in accordance with applicable state laws without fear of retribution was added to the financial services and general government funding bill. While this is non-binding, it would hopefully encourage the federal government to review its employment practices and not punish law-abiding employees who choose to use cannabis outside of work.
What’s not:
A provision that has prevented the District of Columbia from regulating cannabis after voters there approved a ballot initiative making adult use legal in 2014 was left out of the new spending package. So long as it is not added again in either the House or Senate, the nation’s capital will finally be able to fully carry out the intent of the voters more than half a decade after residents decided this issue. Currently, adult possession and limited home cultivation are permitted in the District, but non-medical sales are not.
What could be added:
While the spending bill that funds the Department of Veterans Affairs did not originally contain any cannabis-related provisions, supporters are leaving open the possibility that language which would allow doctors in the VA system to recommend medical cannabis to their patients in accordance with state laws to be included before the process is complete.
Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Tom McClintock (R-CA), joined by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), are considering the introduction of a rider which would prevent the Department of Justice from interfering in any state cannabis program, extending the previously-approved protections for medical cannabis programs to regulated adult-use systems that exist in 10 states and counting. This legislation was approved in last year’s House spending bills but was not included in the final legislation.
It is difficult to tell what will happen with the various appropriations bills this session. There is still time for members of the House to amend funding legislation. While the House is moving forward with these bills, the Senate has yet to introduce any of their own. However, the upper chamber is in the process of considering a new coronavirus relief package. NCIA has been working with that chamber to have cannabis banking reform language included in that bill as it was in the last relief bill approved by the House, but it is by no means certain at this point. It is also possible that Congress won’t reach an agreement on the new spending bills and will simply decide to continue with the prior year’s budget outlays, which would at least continue medical cannabis protections for another year.
Stay tuned for more updates and be sure to join us next Wednesday, July 29, for an exclusive members-only fireside chat with NCIA’s dedicated government relations team!
Recently, we had the pleasure of joining a webinar hosted by NCIA in which they discussed the state of the Illinois market. The #IndustryEssentials presentation covered topics such as Illinois House Bill 1438, social justice reform, licensing and social equity.
Social equity just so happens to be a topic near and dear to my heart and is something we advocate for in everything we do in the industry. So let’s talk about it. What exactly is social equity and why is Illinois always in the social equity conversation? Well, social equity came about as an answer, if you will, to the many unfair statistics we see in the industry as a whole. What statistics, you ask? Well, 80% of the cannabis industry is owned by white males, even though minorities are four times as likely to be arrested for cannabis-related offenses. Social equity is an intentional effort to lessen the gap and provide all people the opportunity to operate and work in the cannabis industry.
One misconception people tend to have is that social equity is diversity. This couldn’t be further from the truth. By definition, a diverse team is a team of people that represents differing racial and ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, disabilities, and military status. Diversity is about pulling together a well-rounded team to be more successful in solving the customers’ needs.
Social equity is purely about socioeconomic barriers. While that may be written in cannabis regulations differently depending on the state, here in Illinois, a social equity cannabis organization is defined as:
A cannabis organization that is at least 51% or more owned by individuals who hold social equity status.
OR a cannabis organization that has at least 51% or more of employees who hold social equity status.
How do we determine if a person holds social equity status here in Illinois? The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) surveyed census records to determine what areas had poverty levels 20% above the national average, what areas had 20% or more of families on food assistance programs and what areas that had schools with 75% or more of their students on the free lunch program. These particular areas were then surveyed for the prevalence of high drug-related arrests and this map was created.
If you type in an address and the address is covered in blue, that means that area is a disproportionately impacted area or “DIA”. Now there’s yet another layer to social equity; the war on drugs. If you received a charge, conviction, or arrest related to cannabis in Illinois, that now is expungable under the new Illinois bill you have social equity status. But wait, there’s more. If you have a parent, spouse, or child who received a charge, conviction, or arrest, that means you have been affected by the War on Drugs and also have social equity status.
Families who weathered the trauma of the war on drugs saw it in lost opportunities, barriers to entry, and constant judgment because of possessions, distribution, or consumption of a plant that is now legal in the state of Illinois. Far too often, these charges affected people already living in disproportionately impacted areas.
So what are the rules?
For principal officers applying for licenses:
You must have lived in a DIA for at least five years and have two forms of identification proving this, including, state ID, driver’s license, pay stubs, voter registration cards, utility bills, or anything else the state may deem acceptable forms of residency.
You, your parent, your spouse, or your child has a charge, conviction, or arrest that is now expungable under the bill. This too must be proven with proper documentation of such arrest, charge, or conviction.
For employees:
You must currently live in a DIA and have two forms of identification proving this, including state ID, driver’s license, pay stubs, voter registration cards, utility bills, or anything else the state may deem acceptable forms of residence.
You, your parent, your spouse, or your child has a charge, conviction, or arrest that is now expungable under the bill. This too must be proven with proper documentation of such arrest, charge, or conviction.
While this all sounds very complicated, it is an effort by the state of Illinois to balance the scales. HB1438, although not perfect and never claimed to be, strives to right the wrongs of the war on drugs. While social equity holds 25% weight in the application process, we’re yet to see how it will be regulated for licensees in operation. With that said, many organizations in Illinois intend to keep those scales balanced and celebrate the most equitable cannabis market yet.
Rashaunah “Shawnee” Williams is the co-founder at Illinois Equity Staffing, a minority, disabled and woman-owned business based in Chicago, that supports the cannabis industry in education, job placement, human resources, payroll and compliance. While a south suburban native, Shawnee has also lived in Florida, Tennesee, Missouri, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma and California. She holds a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in business and has worked in industries such as entertainment, recruiting, tech, higher education, marketing and sales.
Shawnee and her business partner Lynette Johnson founded Illinois Equity Staffing because they understood the barriers to entry for lower and middle class people, minorities and women in the cannabis industry. Both having the Corporate America background, Shawnee and Lynette, understand the pain points of this population, as they both grew up in disproportionately impacted areas and are minority women. It’s this perspective that has allowed Illinois Equity Staffing to bridge the gap and create a more equitable cannabis industry in Illinois.
Shawnee also brings another unique perspective to IES, as she suffers from Lupus and Sjogren’s Syndrome, two disabilities that involve the immune system. As a Black woman suffering from two autoimmune diseases, Shawnee advocates for those with debilitating diseases seeking more knowledge on alternative and holistic approaches to symptoms causes by autoimmune diseases. She also is an advocate for those suffering from disabilities that seek to find more uplifting, supportive and progressive employers.
The cannabis industry has the opportunity to show older, more traditional industries the areas of opportunity to improve and to be more responsible. As such, Shawnee Williams and the team at Illinois Equity Staffing seek to be a leader in promoting a more socially equitable and diverse industry within the cannabis space in Illinois and nationally.
Member Blog: IRC Section 471(c) of the TCJA May Mitigate the Curse of 280E for the Cannabis Industry
On March 30, 2020, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a report titled “The Growth of the Marijuana Industry Warrants Increased Tax Compliance Efforts and Additional Guidance.” The 53-page report discussed several different topics, including that the IRS should conduct more audits under Section 280E, and this discussion focuses on Section 471(c).
The report states that certain qualifying cannabis taxpayers, who would otherwise be subject to business expenses being disallowed under Section 280E, could potentially account for their inventory under Section 471(c) using a method that would classify most or all of their expenditures as inventoriable costs and avoid Section 280E’s disallowance of such expenditures. Accordingly, as all the costs would be capitalized into inventory, they would then reduce taxable income as the inventory was sold. In other words, expenditures previously disallowed under Section 280E would be part of the cost of goods sold and allowed as a reduction of gross receipts. There was no public comment from the IRS in the report on the potential that 471(c) may eliminate 280E.
Before continuing to provide our additional comments, it is important to mention the impact of Section 471(c) on Section 280E has not been reviewed by the Courts and the Inspector General also stated that necessary guidance addressing 471(c) is lacking from the IRS. As such, the impact cannot be stated in certain terms.
The curse of Section 280E on the cannabis industry cannot be overstated – some businesses actually end up paying more in tax than they make and Section 280E can turn an economic loss into a taxable gain. This seemingly unconstitutional result has been justified by the courts and IRS under a very old principle of taxation that “deductions are a matter of legislative grace.” New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934) Legislative grace, according to these authorities, means the legislature has the power to deny all deductions, if they so choose, and it should be said that the limitation of such grace, under the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, is that 280E cannot disallow costs of goods sold. With Section 471(c), however, legislative grace appears to be on the side of the cannabis industry because, as discussed below, Congress created Section 471(c) and it appears to allow inclusion of deductions into the cost of goods sold where they can’t be disallowed under Section 280E.
The Code states that Section 471(c) allows a small taxpayer, one with less than $25 million in revenues, who is not a tax shelter or public company to account for inventory according to their applicable financial statements, or absent applicable financial statements, according to the actual books and records of the taxpayer. For a qualifying business that doesn’t have applicable financial statements, if their books and records include deductions in COGS, then these deductions may not be subject to 280E.
Question #1 – What are applicable financial statements, what does it mean to have them, and if a taxpayer does not have applicable financials statements what are the books and records of the taxpayer prepared in accordance with the taxpayer’s accounting procedures?
It is our opinion that under IRC § 451(b)(3) if a taxpayer is required to issue audited financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for credit purposes, to owners, or for any other nontax purpose, they have applicable financial statements. It would seem that “any other nontax purpose” would include audited GAAP statements required to be issued to state regulatory agencies. As such, because GAAP requires accounting for inventory in a manner similar to Section 471(a), taxpayers who have Applicable Financial Statements appear to be precluded from adding costs disallowed under Section 280E into COGS pursuant to Section 471(c). Of concern are states that require license holders to provide their licensing agency with audited financial statements. However, if the state doesn’t require GAAP financials, then the “Applicable Financial Statements” provision shouldn’t be a problem.
If the taxpayer does not have applicable financial statements, then they are allowed to account for inventory for tax purposes in the same way as they account for inventory on their internal books and records. Thus, their books and records would have to mirror their method of accounting for tax purposes.
Question #2 – Could a small cannabis company, who is not issuing applicable financial statements in accordance with GAAP and is subject to 280E, establish a method of accounting for inventory in which they consider all or most expenditures of the company to be inventoriable costs? If so, does characterizing these otherwise nondeductible costs as inventoriable costs change the nature of the expenditures from non-deductible business deductions to deductible costs of goods sold when the inventory is sold?
As noted above, there is currently no guidance from the IRS regarding this question and, we should assume, that the IRS will not acquiesce to the position that 471(c) eliminates 280E. So, let’s consider the arguments the IRS might make. First to consider is the Service’s conclusion in Chief Counsel Memorandum Number 201504011 regarding Sec 263A. Early on, cannabis taxpayers attempted to use Sec 263A to capitalize general and administrative costs, otherwise subject to 280E, into inventory and then deduct them as part of COGS. This does sound somewhat similar to the approach we are looking at under 471(c).
The IRS concluded in CCA 201504011 that Sec. 263A would not allow an expense disallowed under Section 280E to be added to COGS because of “flush language” added to Sec. 263A(a)(2) in a subsequent congressional amendment. The flush language states:
Any cost which (but for this subsection) could not be taken into account in computing taxable income for any taxable year shall not be treated as a cost described in this paragraph.
The U.S. Tax Court agreed with the Chief Counsel memo in several opinions including Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corporation d.b.a. Harborside Health Center v. Commissioner.
However, where this language was fatal to the cannabis industry’s attempt to use Section 263A to its benefit – it may help in the case of Section 471(c). It appears to have been necessary for the U.S. Congress to add the Flush Language to Section 263A to prevent the inclusion of otherwise disallowed expenses into COGS. There is no equivalent language added to Section 471(c) and so the argument is that in the absence of an equivalent provision, Section 471(c) can be used to include expenses disallowed under 280E into COGS where they can be used to reduce taxable income.
Another argument the IRS may make is that Treas. Reg. § 1.61-3(a) prevents the inclusion of deductions into cost of goods sold because the regulation states that Gross Income is determined without subtraction of “…selling expenses…” However, Section 1.61-3(a) is part of the Treasury Regs defining gross income and its reference to the non-inclusion of “selling expenses” is from the regulations under Section 471(a). Section 471(c) specifically states that Section 471(a) does not apply (which include the regulations) and a taxpayer’s method of accounting for inventory under Section 471(c) does not fail to accurately reflect income. And, Section 471(c) is a higher authority than the regulations. Thus, it appears that Section 471(c) trumps Treas. Reg. § 1.61-3(a).
Question #3 – Should a taxpayer, eligible to use 471(c) to account for inventory file their tax return taking positions regarding 471(c) as described in this article?
Every taxpayer is different, and accounting for inventory under Section 471(c) is not right for everyone in the cannabis industry. It is also important to understand that it may not work and for taxpayers who use the method to do so with caution and understanding. However, below is a list of issues to discuss with your tax professional:
What is your tolerance for risk and a legal dispute with the IRS? Such a dispute could be time-consuming and costly.
If 471(c) is proven not to eliminate 280E – how will you manage additional tax, interest, and possibly penalties?
Should the position be disclosed as part of your tax filing?
Does the entity have applicable financial statements?
Is the cannabis business a tax shelter?
How aggressive does management and ownership want to be regarding the position?
How will management accomplish the necessary accounting and records to support such a position?
In summary, 471 (c) has left the cannabis industry with several questions and definitive answers are probably not immediately available. License holders should work closely with their advisors as they navigate these questions. But, there is a possibility that Section 471(c) eliminates Section 280E for qualifying taxpayers. Cannabis businesses should take the necessary steps to understand it and protect their ability to benefit from Section 471(c) if it does work.
The Bridge West and GreenspoonMarder teams work tirelessly to understand the tax and accounting issues facing businesses in the cannabis industry and provide the best possible solutions to their clients.
To discuss any of the questions within this article please feel free to contact Calvin Shannon, Nick Richards or any of their team members.
Calvin Shannon is a Pricipal of Bridge West and has over 17 years of experience providing tax, audit, estate planning and trust services. Calvin is skilled at understanding client’s challenges and working with them to develop and implement innovative and unique solutions. Assists organizations to address the industry’s unique and ever-evolving issues. He enjoys having the opportunity to work with cannabis clients to understand their business needs, and to provide timely solutions
Nick Richards is a Partner in the Tax practice group at Greenspoon Marder LLP. He represents individuals and businesses in tax audits & trials, M&A, in managing tax debt, and he advises cannabis companies, owners and investors regarding tax and regulatory compliance matters. Mr. Richards has been a tax attorney for more than twenty years beginning his career with the IRS where he was a leading trial attorney, a Chief Counsel advisor, and a Special Assistant United States Attorney.
With his broad experience and understanding at all phases of the tax system, from reporting and assessment through appeals, court, and tax debt resolution, Mr. Richards achieves successful legal solutions tailored to his individual client’s needs. Mr. Richards also teaches tax attorneys and CPAs throughout the US and he is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Denver, Graduate Tax Program, where he teaches State and Local Tax and Civil and Criminal Tax.
Webinar: NCIA Committee Insights – Illinois Market – What’s Happening and What’s Next
Join us on Monday, May 11 at 1:00 PM MT for this webinar.
How is the 11th state to permit adult-use cannabis doing, and what’s coming next? Want to get your foot in the door? Join us in a lively conversation about Illinois application and licensing.
Considering expansion to Illinois from another market? Learn how Illinois differs from other markets on some key issues. Think it’s essential that states successfully innovate to promote social equity?
We’ll discuss what Illinois is doing well and where the gaps are in regards to their Social Equity program. Join industry thought-leaders from NCIA’s State Regulations Committee as they discuss these crucial topics and more.
Legal cannabis, for all of its promise, has failed – in some markets spectacularly – to live up to its economic potential. But while each self-contained state market faces its own combination of political and regulatory challenges, the core of the problem everywhere is basic economics. Legal markets exist to efficiently move goods from where they are best produced to where there is the greatest demand. But cannabis, straddling the line between emerging state regulation and the remnants of federal prohibition, has negotiated that legal chasm by violating the inviolable laws of supply and demand, with predictably disappointing results. Perhaps now, in the face of a disastrous recession, with legal and legalizing states in desperate need for jobs and economic stimulus, is the time to get it right by allowing licensed commerce between legal markets.
The inability to move cannabis across state lines creates myriad problems for legal cannabis market operators that have far-ranging effects for all stakeholders in the cannabis industry, from investors to employees down to the patients and consumers who use the end products. The hindrance to economic activity also slows economic growth, employment, and tax revenues to states that have legal cannabis sales.
Oversupply Vs. Undersupply
Oversupply of cannabis in states like Oregon, which has excellent growing conditions and a favorable regulatory environment, are completely artificial and created not by the true excess of cannabis, but by the current inability to export to more populous states. This oversupply causes prices to plummet, which benefits consumers in the short term but is disastrous for small and medium-sized businesses and has far-reaching impacts on the communities that rely on this agricultural cash crop. Long term, the effect of these artificially low prices is that small businesses fail and large businesses take their assets to scale, which reduces employment and revenues in the communities that produce cannabis and extract the profits for investors in the large firms. This reduces competition and diversity in the industry, which hurts the same consumers in the long run who briefly benefited from the low prices. This is not a theoretical or academic argument, as we have seen these exact dynamics play out in Oregon over the past three years, with a staggering failure rate and rapid consolidation across the industry. Hundreds of millions of dollars of local capital have been eradicated as small businesses funded by friends and family have been forced to sell out to larger operators just to cover the worst of their debts.
In states which experience undersupply of cannabis, whether due to poor growing conditions or unfavorable regulations (or both) prices rise, hurting legal customers and patients of state-legal operators right away. Businesses can ultimately suffer losses of potential revenue, even as prices climb when consumers turn to cheaper cannabis from the illicit market. This undermines the legal systems set up by these states and pushes consumers to less-safe, unregulated products. As consumers drift from the legal to the illicit market, again the small and medium-sized businesses that currently represent the majority of the industry become financially unsustainable will suffer most, with the same end result to cannabis stakeholders as an oversupplied market.
Meanwhile, the artificial boundaries make scaling a business nearly impossible without access to an unlimited pool of capital. If a company from Washington, for example, wished to scale up and access new markets, they would have to completely recreate their entire supply chain, and most of their administrative operations, equally increasing their overhead with physical space and labor, for each new state that they wanted to enter. Effectively, they would have to create a brand-new small business in each state instead of scaling their operations efficiently and just expanding sales efforts to new territories. This is complicated in the extreme, both logistically and financially. What is worse, those redundant operations will become completely obsolete when cannabis is de-scheduled and interstate commerce allowed. This will almost certainly lead to a mass lay-off in the cannabis industry for all multi-state operators seeking to consolidate their operations. This will improve their cost competitiveness and further accelerate price drops that particularly hurt small businesses and stakeholders across the industry.
In fact, the extreme difference between the current state of the industry and a future in which interstate trade is allowed creates perverse incentives to investment, as opportunities that may be attractive in the short-term will ultimately prove disastrous long term. For example, massive energy and water-intensive indoor growing operations would be needed for New York to supply its population locally, and those facilities would require billions in investment dollars. These investments would look fantastic if one could be assured that the current regulatory environment would not change. But, if de-scheduling or other federal action allows for interstate trade, these facilities would have only a few years to reap the benefits of high margins before having to compete on cost with cannabis grown outdoors in the fertile Emerald Triangle of Northern California and Southern Oregon, which can produce much larger quantities of high-quality cannabis with a fraction of the inputs.
Newly legal net consumption states like New York and New Jersey will struggle to match supply to demand for years after initial legalization, resulting in millions of dollars of lost revenue, lost employment opportunity, and lost tax collections as the state struggles to develop the capacity to meet demand in a place that has no history of large scale production. If states that have historically been net importers plan for interstate trade from the outset, they can have a thriving retail industry with fully stocked shelves by taking high-quality products from producer states like California, Oregon, and Colorado within months of being able to import. The rapid change from essentially no legal industry to a robust, rich, and diverse retail environment would provide immediate economic stimulus in the form of jobs, thriving small businesses, and tax revenues. If new states are forced to rely solely on cannabis that is grown, harvested, processed, and distributed within state lines, it could take many years to develop the full economic benefits that a legal market could bring to bear.
All of these issues can be avoided, or at least mitigated, by a shrewd approach to incremental interstate trade instead of an instantaneous switch from 25 or more siloed industries to one national, or potentially international, market. The dynamics of how different state regulations interact can be tested and worked out thoughtfully, allowing for a more seamless transition and a clear roadmap for federal regulation when cannabis is de-scheduled. Successful interstate trade on any scale, between even just two states, will clearly signal to investors that the future of interstate trade is of pressing urgency to incorporate into their investment strategy. An investor in New York could then focus on opportunities related to local product development with the promise that affordable raw materials would be available from California and skip investing in indoor agriculture. Consumers and patients in states that allow for trade across their borders will instantly have access to a wider array of products, and as the size of the market that the industry has access to increases the dramatic supply and demand swings will be dampened by a larger and more diverse base of both consumers and producers.
Ultimately, the purpose of markets is to maximize the efficiency and utility of the flow of goods. They should move from the places where they are cheapest to produce to the places where the demand is highest. This is most effective with commodities and consumer goods, like cannabis. The current restrictions against moving cannabis across state lines completely hobble the market’s ability to perform this critical function. The result is bad for producers, consumers, regulators, and state governments. Interstate commerce for cannabis means better markets for producers, more choice for consumers, and a massive economic stimulus for all participating states in the form of job creation and increased tax revenues.
Gabriel Cross is a Founder and CEO at Odyssey Distribution, LLC, a distributor for locally-owned craft cannabis producers and processors in Oregon. Gabe worked in the sustainable building industry for a decade before starting Odyssey and brings his experience with sustainability and systems thinking to his work in the cannabis industry. Odyssey manages logistics, sales and marketing for boutique producers so they can focus on creating great craft cannabis products for the Oregon market.
Gary Seelhorstof Flora California has a passion for developing high-quality cannabis products so their most therapeutic effects can be realized. His 25 years in pharmaceuticals and medical devices helps him bring scientific rigor to the cannabis industry. Gary is very active at both the State and Federal level as an advocate for policy reform/higher quality standards. He enjoyed lengthy stints at Eli Lilly and Pfizer (in clinical development and corporate development) and worked with several start-ups developing corporate and compliance strategies. Gary has a B.S./B.A. from UC San Diego in Biochemistry/Psychology, an M.S. in Clinical Physiology from Indiana University, and an MBA from the University of Michigan.
From The Hill: The Emergency Cannabis Small Business Health and Safety Act
by Morgan Fox, NCIA’s Director of Media Relations
Legislation to give legal marijuana businesses, which have been declared essential in a majority of states with regulated cannabis markets, access to resources being made available by congressional COVID-19 emergency response packages was introduced in the House of Representatives last week by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO).
The Emergency Cannabis Small Business Health and Safety Act would stop cannabis businesses and those that provide services to them from being excluded from further federal relief funding provided through the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Specifically, this bill would impact the following programs: Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), and EIDL emergency grants. It would also protect SBA employees from prosecution for administering relief funds to cannabis businesses.
Under current policy, businesses that deal directly with cannabis production and sale, as well as many that provide services to them, are ineligible for most SBA programs. And the definition that the SBA uses to define which ancillary businesses are eligible is very vague. You can find a useful primer on federal relief eligibility from our friends at Vicente Sederberg LLP.
Let’s be clear: the fact that many cannabis businesses have been permitted to remain operating during this difficult time will not be enough to sustain the industry or allow for an effective and timely recovery once this nightmare is behind us. Lack of access to federal funds is just one of the many stressors facing cannabis businesses, which is why it is vital that we become eligible for relief as soon as possible.
Many indirect businesses have not been declared essential and have been forced to close. Cannabis businesses that have remained open must contend with declining sales, supply chain disruptions, onerous tax rates, lack of access to banking services, and the costs incurred by implementing additional health and safety measures to protect employees and customers.
Thankfully, the chorus of voices calling for fair access has been steadily growing. Earlier in April, Rep. Blumenauer and nearly three dozen of his colleagues sent a letter to House leadership urging them to make cannabis businesses eligible for SBA programs. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) along with eight co-signers sent a similar letter to Senate leadership last week. They have been joined by cannabis industry advocates, the Marijuana Justice Coalition, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, state officials including Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, and others.
NCIA and our allies will continue to put pressure on Congress to treat cannabis businesses fairly during this crisis, but we need your help.
Please email and then call your congressional representatives today and ask them to support the legal (and essential) cannabis industry during this critical time. Talking points and instructions for calling your representatives are available on our website.
“Hi, I am calling/writing today to ask that you co-sponsor Congressmen Blumenauer and Perlmutter’s recently introduced Emergency Cannabis Small Business Health and Safety Act. This important piece of legislation would stop cannabis businesses and those that provide services to them from being excluded from further federal relief funding provided through the Small Business Administration. This current lack of access will undoubtedly lead to unnecessary layoffs, reduced hours, pay cuts, and furloughs for the workers of cannabis businesses who need support the most. As your constituent, I ask and urge that you sign on as a co-sponsor for this Act as soon as possible. Our industry, our businesses, and our employees cannot wait.”
The situation on Capitol Hill is extremely fluid as you might imagine. This bill could move forward as standalone legislation or could be incorporated into the next round of federal relief funds, which is being called CARES 2. Stay tuned for updates and be on the lookout for additional ways you can help us protect our essential industry.
Webinar Recording: In the Weeds – Cannabis Advocacy from the Statehouse to Capitol Hill
Watch this recent webinar from March 31 for a lively discussion about how to leverage your company, customers, and industry partners to achieve your state, local, and federal advocacy goals. Whether cannabis is already legal in your state or on the path to being so, learn the advocacy basics to ensure the industry’s, and your company’s, long-term success.
This panel of industry experts discuss:
– What types of activities and interactions with government officials trigger lobbyist registration requirements;
– Best practices for forming coalitions to achieve your advocacy goals, whether at the ballot box or in the statehouse;
– How to form a PAC or other advocacy vehicle; and
– What types of gifts to public officials may be off-limits because of the nature of your cannabis business.
Speakers
Moderator: D. Michael Stroud, Jr.
Partner at Nossaman LLP
Michael Stroud, Jr. brings more than 15 years of legal and legislative policy expertise in border security, infrastructure, national security, tax, transportation, trade, state and local municipal government, and water and wastewater utility. He has advised clients on federal campaign and lobby laws, gift rules, ethics compliance and investigations. Michael has also led efforts on appropriations legislation to obtain legislative changes to advance clients’ interests in the cannabis industry.
Amber Maltbie
Partner at Nossaman LLP
Maltbie is a campaign finance and election law attorney who advises clients in the cannabis industry, including trade associations, private, and publicly traded companies. She advises them on the permissibility of making contributions at the state and local level, preparing and filing campaign finance reports, tracking and notifying public officials who have received client gifts. She has helped develop a banking relationship and facilitated getting its PAC banked. She also advises on support and promotion of ballot measures and legislative advocacy. Amber’s practice covers all 50 states.
William Powers
Partner at Nossaman LLP
William Powers focuses his practice on political law and campaign finance issues. Drawing on his decade-long career in government, including as a top enforcement official at the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Bill helps clients navigate laws related to campaign finance, lobbying, ethics, gift and gratuities and pay-to-play. His clients include companies and nonprofits at the cutting edge of their industries, and he brings a collaborative and flexible approach in helping them achieve their advocacy goals in elections, the legislative arena, and the ballot measure and initiative process.
The Importance of PACs and Political Involvement
by Madeline Grant, NCIA’s Government Relations Manager
Like the Olympics, we only have a presidential election every four years. Usually, this means more voters are engaged and paying attention to the political process than normal. It’s more important now than ever for voters to get involved, and there are many ways to do just that. Some people campaign by making phone calls and knocking doors to get out the vote, others simply vote on election day. Some choose to make financial contributions to candidates or issues-based PACs (political action committees) that they care about.
As a trade association, NCIA has a PAC (the NCIA-PAC) that collects and contributes funds to candidates that support cannabis reform on Capitol Hill. In recent years, you may have heard that PACs are considered “special interest” or part of the “D.C. swamp.” Some candidates go so far as to not accept contributions from PACs to their campaigns. However, many small PACs, like the NCIA-PAC, are misrepresented by these characterizations and are fully funded by the hard-working members of their associations. The NCIA-PAC gives our cannabis professionals a united voice in the political process. Keep reading below to learn more about NCIA’s PAC and how you can get involved.
There is a common misconception that political contributions buy votes, however, the reality is that political contributions gain access. Of course, a politician’s goal is to get elected or re-elected and campaign contributions are a vital component of that goal. The NCIA-PAC helps support our champions and politicians that will fight for us on Capitol Hill so that they can continue fighting for our industry in D.C.
Another common misconception people have is that a one-time contribution will get you a friend for life, but unfortunately, that is not always the case. As long as a member stays in office, they will continue to ask for financial support. Think of it like this: supporting the NCIA-PAC lets us support elected officials who support the cannabis industry, and it’s imperative that they continue to be re-elected! Even the smallest donations make an impact.
At this point, you may be asking yourself: why should I support the NCIA-PAC? Well, your dollars support candidates who understand the cannabis industry’s concerns and who focus their attention on issues important to NCIA. A donation also affords you opportunities to collaborate with other concerned and politically active members to ensure our industry’s involvement in the legislative process and provides engagement, support, and information that is helpful to you, our cause, and your business.
NCIA’s government relations team works year-round to build relationships on Capitol Hill and represent the cannabis industry. As a team, we reiterate the importance of access to banking, fixing the 280E tax provision, the necessity of descheduling cannabis, and ensuring that our industry is diverse and equitable, among other issues. Our efforts here in D.C. make an impact, but members of Congress and their staff also need to hear from you. So, we hope you will consider joining us and NCIA’s PAC Leadership Circle at our 2nd Annual VIP Day in Washington D.C., on May 19.
Through a donation of $1,000 dollars or more, you will participate in an exclusive day including briefings, a luncheon and meetings with members of Congress, meetings with committees of jurisdiction, complimentary entry to the NCIA-PAC Fundraiser, and networking with NCIA’s most politically active members. Additionally, you will receive even more benefits all throughout the year, such as complimentary registration for our annual conferences, prominent listing and link to your company website featured on NCIA’s PAC page, customized branding opportunities at NCIA’s Cannabis Business Summit & Expo, and much more. If you are interested in attending VIP Day or hearing more about the NCIA-PAC, please fill out an interest form here or contact Maddy Grant at Madeline@TheCannabisIndustry.org.
It was January 28, 2020: It’s a full house at the Berkeley City Council meeting, with comprehensive changes to the city’s marijuana regulations on tonight’s agenda. The biggest issue, with supporters of both sides attending, is the vote to consider legalizing cannabis consumption at specially designated licensed dispensaries.
The proposal to allow smoking, vaporizing, and consumption of edible goods is supported on one side by a phalanx of marijuana advocates and dispensary operators, and on the other side, it’s the city Health Department and Berkeley’s famously NIMBY neighbors. This conflict runs deep; cannabis users want dignified, legal facilities where they can gather and use marijuana, and several dispensary neighbors and the health department want this idea squashed, full stop.
Fact is, people have long gathered together to share cannabis, as shown by an extensive recorded history of use. This spans from ancient Sumerians, who built huts and vaporized cannabis on burning coals inside, to underground marijuana smoke-ins in the 70s and 80s, to now, where cities are licensing legal cannabis consumption facilities for adults.
California is helping lead the United States consumption lounge movement. For example, California’s Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) regulations (Section 5025) explicitly contemplate the possibility of consumption lounges, stating that “this section shall not be interpreted to prohibit cannabis consumption on the premises of a licensed retailer or licensed microbusiness authorized to engage in retail sales,” as long as they are locally licensed and approved.
The state law also created Temporary Cannabis Event Licenses, where onsite consumption is allowed at festivals like the High Times Cannabis Cup and the Emerald Cup. Yes, with city or county and state permission, it is possible to throw your cannabis dream event, but there are a limited number of locations in only a handful of places that allow these uses (including my hometown, Oakland). This makes it hard to get these licenses, and the costly and complicated regulations are hard to meet once you have one. Anyone hosting a Temporary Cannabis Event can expect to interact closely with the BCC regulators, who will surely attend to ensure compliance.
Cannabis consumption facilities are nothing new in California. They have long existed, ever since Dennis Peron opened his first dispensary in San Francisco in the early-1990s. His famous location on Market Street was five stories high, literally, as each floor contained tables, couches, and chairs where patrons could hang out and consume cannabis. When the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 passed, collective dispensaries started opening across the state, despite federal illegality and the occasional raid because of it (Dennis was raided by the feds and forced to close in 1998).
I opened my first cannabis consumption lounge at Berkeley Patients Group in 1999, which was long before it was legal to do so. This was under the cover of tolerance provided by Proposition 215; after all, not even dispensaries were actually made legal by this groundbreaking initiative. That didn’t happen until the state legislature passed the aptly named SB 420 in [year], after which most cities grandfathered in their existing cannabis dispensaries. (Not all, though. Some municipalities used this transition as an excuse to ban dispensaries, or to close existing ones, during long periods of regulatory contemplation.) Berkeley allowed onsite consumption until the early 2010s, when the local regulatory processes changed. Hence, the City Council vote tonight to decide the fate of onsite consumption here once again.
Now, I own Magnolia Wellness dispensary in Oakland, where local regulations have allowed cannabis consumption at specifically licensed dispensaries since 2017. Magnolia’s Dab Bar and Vapor Lounge was the first legal consumption lounge in the East Bay. We have café style tables, a gorgeous full, copper top bar, glass dab rigs with e-nails, Vapexhale and Volcano vaporizers, and a variety of tasting events where people can try samples. Unfortunately, Oakland’s dispensary law only allows vaping, edibles, and topicals, limiting smoking to additionally permitted outdoor patios, none of which currently exist. (Full disclosure: I also co-own Hi Fidelity dispensary in Berkeley, too.)
San Francisco, on the other hand, has more than a dozen shops where cannabis smoking, vaping, and edibles consumption are all allowed. SPARC, one of the first lounges in the city, has tasteful tables and chairs right in the main dispensary, where volcano vaporizers can be used onsite. Vapor Room, a few blocks away, is a smaller neighborhood joint, with a handful of seats for people to sit and enjoy smoking or vaping. According to owner Martin Olive, it was a costly HVAC system, at a near six-figure expense, that allowed his facility to host its cannabis smoking patrons. Moe Greens, the latest licensed lounge to open in the city, took four long years to get licensed, but is now a beautiful facility, with cushy booths for smoking and a counter service dab bar with top-of-the-line e-nails and dab rigs for patrons to use.
West Hollywood is the biggest news on the California consumption lounge scene, as the city recently licensed 16 facilities for on-site consumption. Half of these facilities will allow retail sales and consumption, while the others are allowed to sell only single-use items, designed to be consumed café style, while patrons are on-site. This plan has been controversial, though, because in issuing these licenses, the city took permits away from several of the long-existing dispensaries, re-issuing them to new operators. The ensuing lawsuits and legal battles will surely play out through 2020.
There is another big problem in West Hollywood: the state law does not match up with their rather forward-looking ideas for cannabis cafes. For example, cannabis cannot be blended into café food and served on the spot, as the city imagined when creating this law; Cannabis can only be sold pre-packaged and tested, per BCC regulations. Furthermore, state-licensed cannabis businesses are not allowed to sell anything but cannabis products (and a shortlist of branded items like mugs, lighters, and pipes). In other words, they can’t sell non-infused foods or beverages like coffee, soda, or tea (or, since we are talking West Hollywood, kombucha and smoothies).
Until state law changes, the plan is stuck in limbo, with facilities looking for creative workarounds to allow food and beverage service.
So, despite the West Hollywood ordinance passing in late 2018, only one facility has opened there, and even this has hit roadblocks. In fact, they recently re-branded after only a short time in business, from Lowell’s Café to the Cannabis Café, after a regulatory crackdown hit the Lowell’s brand hard. It remains to be seen when the other 15 cannabis lounges will open there.
Back in Berkeley, staff from the Health, Planning, Police and Economic development offices joined forces with the Berkeley Cannabis Commission to present the City Council with a comprehensive plan to update the city’s cannabis ordinance. Diverging opinions meant that the agenda contained competing proposals on several of the ten proposed ordinance changes, with the Cannabis Commission leading efforts to create progressive changes, and the Health Commission stuck on the old trope, “we need more research.”
Elizabeth Greene, City of Berkeley Senior Planner, explained to Council that these proposals have been in development since 2017, with the goal of expanding the rules to protect the entire cannabis supply chain, from seed to sale. This includes development of two new license types, cannabis consumption lounges and non-retail dispensary licenses.
“State law allows for consumption lounges as part of a retail license, as these are the only facilities open to the public,” Greene says. “Currently, consumption lounges are not permitted in the City of Berkeley.” Her presentation made it clear that city staff recommended cannabis lounges be permitted, despite the worries of the Health Commission, whose representative commented that “legalization is new,” despite that cannabis sales have been regulated by the city for around 20 years.
Long time senior advocate, and ICANN dispensary owner, Sue Taylor spoke eloquently in support of the proposal to allow lounges. “Seniors need a place to learn about cannabis, how to use it and dosing, and you could do that in a vape lounge. I can’t go into their homes, but I can provide this education at a lounge,” says Taylor. “It’s not like a bar; at a bar, you just get sicker. A vape lounge helps people.”
Ultimately, the City Council agreed. By 11:30 PM, Mayor Jesse Arreguín called the vote, with the Council unanimously approving the entire proposal. Supporters filled the room with cheers, and long-time advocates like myself reflected on the fact that, yes, hard work and determination do pay off. Together, we may just end prohibition, once and for all — and have some fun, too.
The Illicit Cannabis Market Puts Consumers At-Risk and Is an Existential Threat to the State-Legal Cannabis Industry
by Andrew Kline, NCIA Director of Public Policy
Photo By CannabisCamera.com
The illicit market is not working for anyone. The illicit market puts consumers at risk by offering untested, unregulated, and dangerous products, including “vape cartridges” filled with additives that are not intended for inhalation. These illicit vape products alone have caused 2,768 injuries and 64 deaths to date nationally. Pop-up dispensaries are selling illicit, unregulated, and untested products to unwitting consumers. Unscrupulous people are unlawfully selling cannabis products over the internet in violation of state and federal law, and online platforms are enabling the illicit market by advertising for illegal online and brick and mortar stores. Counterfeit and ready-to-fill packaging is being sold with fake lab results, batch numbers, and barcodes. Illegal growers are causing serious environmental harms. Even illicit market operators with the best intentions still put consumers at risk when they sell untested products produced in unregulated facilities.
And these illicit operators pose an existential threat to the regulated markets that voters have demanded. Operators are laying out significant funds for licenses and compliance to compete against an illegal, untested, unregulated, untaxed marketplace. Law enforcement is playing whack-a-mole. Consumers are often unaware of which operators are legal, particularly where illegal operators often have a veneer of legitimacy or have stolen the intellectual property of these regulated businesses to gain consumer trust. We need to make certain that reliable and safer products (tracked, tagged, and tested) are being sold in the regulated market. Trust in the safety of the supply chain is key here, with laboratory testing, traceability, and safeguards (eg: ability for recalls) as mandatory prerequisites.
On February 19, 2020, NCIA, along with NCIA’s Policy Council, former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, and Commissioner Britte McBride, public safety appointee on the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, partnered to facilitate an important discussion with law enforcement, advocates, and industry stakeholders seeking solutions to the illicit cannabis market. The summit brought together federal, state and local law enforcement; state regulators, cannabis entrepreneurs and multi-state operators, ancillary technology companies, and social equity experts. The purpose of the summit was to dialogue about the illicit cannabis market with the goal of developing recommendations on resources, policies, best practices, and public-private partnerships to share information.
Here are some key takeaways:
First, the cannabis industry needs to help law enforcement find alternatives to arrest and incarceration. Some states have been creative in their approach to combating the illicit market, by locking doors and shutting off electricity and water, levying fines, and prosecuting tax evasion. It is essential that we rely most heavily on alternatives to arrest and prosecution so that we don’t perpetuate the myriad problems associated with the “war on drugs.”
Second, the industry must better define the illicit market. The illicit market looks very different in Idaho than it does in Colorado. In Idaho, all sales are illegal and diversion from legal states into Idaho is a serious problem. In Colorado, state regulators are concerned about unsafe products being manufactured and sold outside of the state regulatory regime. So, we need to take a hard look at the products that are causing the most significant problems (injuries and deaths) and focus our attention on the most serious of those cases. Until we prioritize what we deem to be illicit market activity, it will be difficult to prioritize limited law enforcement resources.
Third, the industry needs to definitively determine the root cause of the illicit market. We know that three probable causes of illicit market activity are: (1) lack of legal access to cannabis and cannabis products and (2) price disparity between legal and illicit markets, largely due to high taxes of legal products, and (3) a lack of economic opportunities in marginalized communities causing people to turn to illicit sales. But, what are other causes and effects?
Fourth, the industry needs a forum for collaboration with law enforcement. The middle of a crisis is not the time to develop relationships.
Fifth, the industry needs a pathway for illicit market operators to enter the legal market. We can’t displace the illicit market unless we create a pathway for previous illicit market entrepreneurs to enter the legal market. That means that states must create realistic pathways to enter the regulated market for legacy illicit market actors. There are an increasing number of potential models here, from the states such as Massachusetts (which has led on attempting to prioritize social equity during license application processes) and Illinois (which made such pathways a key point in the legislation to create a legal market) to industry groups such as the Minority Cannabis Business Association (which has published recommendations for state regulators intent on incorporating social equity requirements into their licensee applications).
Sixth, law enforcement has competing demands and needs help prioritizing cases. What are the most egregious cases that warrant criminal arrest and prosecution? What are the cases that warrant automatic expungement? And what do we do with the cases that fall in between?
Finally, the industry needs to speak with one voice and start rowing in the same direction. The industry needs national messaging from states that have a regulated market to help dispel myths and prepare warnings for responsible use. We need to share information on packaging and labeling, testing, universal symbols, etc., nationally. And most significantly, the industry needs to start speaking with one voice and work to bring legacy businesses into the regulated market. NCIA’s Policy Council is committed to continuing efforts to create a safe place for everyone in the industry to begin that dialogue.
Andrew Kline is the Director of Public Policy for the National Cannabis Industry Association and leads NCIA’s Policy Council. He can be reached at Andrew@TheCannabisIndustry.org
Committee Blog: Ending The Ban On Interstate Commerce (Part 1)
Oversupply and shortages, high prices and lack of choice for patients and consumers, illicit markets, tainted products, and the inability to access banking and capital all plague the burgeoning cannabis industry. While cannabis advocates and industry leaders are working on each of these problems, there is one solution that would ease the burden on all of them. Allowing for interstate trade between states with legal cannabis markets would improve each of these issues while supporting the individual solutions to each that the industry has been working on. This is the first post in a series that explores the benefits and barriers to setting up a legal framework for interstate trade, even before wholesale legalization at the federal level.
Since the beginning of legal, adult-use cannabis, when Colorado and Washington passed the first ballot measure allowing for adult-use, the industry was guided by the Cole Memo, which laid out the parameters for the federal government staying out of the states’ cannabis experiments. Among other things, the Cole memo stated that the DEA could crackdown on cannabis moving from states with well-regulated systems to states that do not allow cannabis. This statement has been interpreted conservatively to mean that no cannabis should cross state lines for any reason, ever, based on the fact that at the federal level, cannabis is still a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.
Today, there are 10 states which have legalized adult-use, another 19 which allow for medical use, and six more which allow the use of CBD products only. Many of these states share borders, and producer states could serve several nearby markets without ever entering a state that does not allow cannabis in any form. Furthermore, the Cole Memo, which was rescinded by Jeff Sessions in 2018, has not been replaced by any guidance whatsoever. This means that each U.S. Attorney’s office is free to set their own enforcement priorities around state-legal cannabis activities, and there is no official overriding policy at the DOJ on interstate trade between states with medical or adult use. Corresponding guidance from FinCEN, however, remains in effect and similarly discourages the transfer of cannabis between states.
Cannabis markets vary widely from state to state with regard to the underlying market dynamics and challenges that they face. Some states produce too much while other states experience shortages. Meanwhile, new states pass legislation or have voter initiatives that allow medical or adult-use every year without any infrastructure in place to supply that state’s demand. In each new legal market, the vast majority of demand had long been met through illicit market supply, and generally from outside of the state’s boundaries.
The artificial boundaries around cannabis markets have far-reaching impacts for local economies, patient access, illicit market activity, and social equity. Later posts in this series will take a deep dive into each of these issues, and in this post, we will look at how this has impacted states, the industry, and consumers so far.
Lessons Learned:
Washington State chose to take the strictest possible reading of the Cole Memo, and insist that not only must cannabis not cross state lines but also sources of funding must come from within the state. Combined with their high capitalization requirement for licenses, the result was a disaster from an equity standpoint: only wealthy and well-connected individuals in the state (which are overwhelmingly white males) were able to even attempt a license. This decision was based substantially on the fact that interstate trade was not allowed.
In Oregon, which has an ideal growing climate and a long tradition of exporting cannabis (albeit in the illicit market), the artificial boundaries created by the ban on interstate trade lead to a massive oversupply for its small population, which crippled the industry and tanked many small businesses. Despite the fact that Oregonians consume more cannabis per capita than any state, their climate and culture have led to growing massive quantities of world-class cannabis that cannot reach patients and consumers, even in neighboring states that might have under-supply issues. The result is that hundreds of small, mom-and-pop shops and family farms have gone out of business, eradicating millions of dollars of local capital, and accelerating mass consolidation of the industry into the hands of a few foreign corporations. Meanwhile, in medical markets like Illinois and Michigan, patients have had sporadic access to quality cannabis-based medicines.
When Nevada originally launched, due to the influence of local liquor distributors, it was almost impossible to get products to market, and the state’s dispensaries sold out on the first day of sales. After ironing out some of the kinks, sales are going strong, but the practice of growing thirsty plants indoors in the desert is of dubious value when the same plant can be grown with a fraction of the inputs in northern California and southern Oregon.
California’s legal system is a perfect example of how over-regulation fuels illicit market activity. Because of the structure of their regulatory framework and high taxes, the state is served by only 800 licensed dispensaries, whose prices are double and triple those found on the illicit market for similar products. This has led to the emergence of thousands of “pop-up” or unlicensed dispensaries, selling untested products tax-free in a thriving illicit market. The booming illicit market in California has also led to massive wholesale markets of hardware, branded packaging, and flavoring and cutting agents (all technically legal) to supply the illegal operators with everything they need to look legitimate. This is a major contributing factor to the wide-spread vaping related illness cases popping up all over the country, as many illicit market operators purchase their supplies in downtown Los Angeles.
The ban on interstate trade promises to continue to create new and novel problems as well. If New York, the 4th most populous state in the union, legalized adult-use (which seems likely in the near future), and interstate trade were still banned, it would require a massive investment, on the order of billions of dollars, to create enough indoor and greenhouse grow facilities to supply the demand created by its 19 million inhabitants. The recent legalization of hemp under the last Farm Bill has created a number of legal dilemmas as well, as some individual states that do not recognize any difference between hemp and cannabis flower have seized products and arrested individuals taking hemp legally grown in one state to a market where it is legal to sell.
Some suggest that these issues will be sorted in local markets, and in each state individually this approach might seem to make sense. When you add these problems together, though, a much more elegant, efficient, and obvious solution emerges: let states that have always exported cannabis send it to states that have always imported it. A set of different and seemingly unconnected problems become each other’s solutions.
Historically, people across the country have consumed cannabis, and the vast majority of it was grown in a few locations that are particularly well-suited to the plant. It is highly likely that a fully-matured nationwide legal market (one which must account for not only interstate, but also international competition) will ultimately be best served by the same general market dynamics. The only question is: how long will we allow the artificial market boundaries around each state to decimate local capital, curb access for patients and consumers, encourage investments that are attractive short-term but disastrous long-term, and prop up the illegal markets that pose a public health risk?
Interstate trade between states that allow some form of legal cannabis would provide much-needed relief on a number of fronts for cannabis businesses, and could be structured in such a way to support social equity efforts. With a little guidance on enforcement and thoughtful programs and agreements between states, there is a path to legal interstate commerce even before cannabis is removed from the Controlled Substances Act. The state of Oregon has already passed legislation allowing for the export and import of cannabis products provided that the Federal Government allows it. This could be either through legislation such as the proposed Blumenauer/Widen State Cannabis Commerce Act, or though DOJ enforcement guidance (whether from the Attorney General or the relevant local U.S. Attorney’s). There are multiple paths that can lead to the end of banned interstate trade, and it seems increasingly inevitable that we will see legal cannabis trade across state borders in the near future. For most operators in the cannabis industry, and for all patients and consumers, this will be a good thing, and can’t come soon enough.
Gabriel Cross is a Founder and CEO at Odyssey Distribution, LLC, a distributor for locally-owned craft cannabis producers and processors in Oregon. Gabe worked in the sustainable building industry for a decade before starting Odyssey and brings his experience with sustainability and systems thinking to his work in the cannabis industry. Odyssey manages logistics, sales and marketing for boutique producers so they can focus on creating great craft cannabis products for the Oregon market.
This site uses cookies. By using this site or closing this notice, you agree to the use of cookies and our privacy policy.
Charles J. Messina is a Partner at Genova Burns LLC and Co-Chairs the Franchise & Distribution, Agriculture and Cannabis Industry Groups. He teaches one of the region’s first cannabis law school courses and devotes much of his practice to advising canna-businesses as well as litigating various types of matters including complex contract and commercial disputes, insurance and employment defense matters, trademark and franchise issues and professional liability, TCPA and shareholder derivative actions.
Jennifer Roselle is Counsel with Genova Burns LLC and Co-Chair of Genova Burns’ Cannabis Practice Group. She has unique experience with labor compliance planning and labor peace agreements in the cannabis marketplace. In addition to her work in the cannabis industry, Jennifer devotes much of her practice to traditional labor matters, human resources compliance and employer counseling.
Daniel Pierre is an Associate in Genova Burns’ Newark, NJ office and a member of the Cannabis and Labor Law Practice Groups. In addition to labor work, he likewise assists clients in the cannabis industry, from analyzing federal and state laws to ensure regulatory compliance for existing businesses to counseling entrepreneurs on licensing issues.
The last few weeks have seen quite a bit of excitement for the possibility of comprehensive federal cannabis policy reform being closer than it has ever been, but what about the states?
Jimmy Young is the founder of 
As a country, the U.S. is experiencing what can best be described as the “age of distrust.” While public distrust in institutions has been escalating for at least a decade, according to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer which has tracked trust in media, governments, businesses, and nonprofits since 2000. Social unrest and a global pandemic have escalated this distrust. Never has the public eyed institutions or businesses with such suspicion. 
Tara Coomans is the CEO of 
Aaron Rosenbluth is 
Over the last month, we’ve featured many blogs focused around key congressional races and cannabis policy reform 
Samantha Vanegas retains a MBA from the University of Florida Warrington College of Business. 
Calvin Shannon is a Pricipal of Bridge West and has over 17 years of experience providing tax, audit, estate planning and trust services. Calvin is skilled at understanding client’s challenges and working with them to develop and implement innovative and unique solutions. Assists organizations to address the industry’s unique and ever-evolving issues. He enjoys having the opportunity to work with cannabis clients to understand their business needs, and to provide timely solutions
Gabriel Cross is a Founder and CEO at 
Gary Seelhorst
