WeedLife News Network

In a case that could have a dramatic impact on the state’s pot industry, the Florida Supreme Court made the unusual move Wednesday of hearing a second round of arguments in a challenge to a state law aimed at implementing a constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana.

Tampa-based Florigrown LLC is challenging the 2017 law, which created a regulatory structure for the state’s medical marijuana industry. Florigrown, whose owners include prominent strip-club operator Joe Redner, alleges that the law improperly carries out the amendment.

One part of the law requires medical marijuana operators to handle all aspects of the cannabis business, including growing, processing, distributing and selling products. But Florigrown maintains the requirement, known as a “vertical integration” system, runs afoul of the constitutional amendment, approved by more than 71% of voters in 2016. The vertical integration requirement limits the number of companies that can participate in the industry, the Tampa business contends.

Florigrown won in lower courts after initiating its legal challenge three years ago. Wednesday’s arguments came after Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration appealed an appellate-court decision that upheld part of a temporary injunction issued by Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson, who found that the 2017 law conflicted with the constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in May but, in a rare move, ordered a new round of arguments focused on whether the statute equates to an unconstitutional “special law.” The Florida Constitution bars “special” laws, which, generally, are intended to benefit specific entities.

Nearly 50 pieces of cannabis legislation have been introduced during the 2019-2020 legislative session of the U.S. Congress. These various bills, amendments, resolutions and laws represent a busy year for marijuana activity on Capitol Hill. While many have been introduced, much remains the same. With only the House of Representatives appearing remotely close to voting on anything, cannabis regulations aren’t likely to move at all before Election Day 2020. 

That said, several pieces of legislation could advance rules in critical areas from law enforcement to access. Sources tell High Times that of the proposed pieces of legislation, two stand out among the rest for their ability to influence America.

The SAFE Banking Act 

H.R.1595, better known as the Secure And Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019, was for some time in 2020, the most discussed and likely to pass piece of legislation cannabis has seen in ages. 

If passed, the bill would provide protections to banks, allowing institutions to work with the cannabis industry without fear of federal repercussions. The bill provides assurance to marijuana and hemp operators who continually face rejections from banks. Even when accepted as a customer, numerous operators have found their accounts shut down once the bank became aware of the operator’s business. 

Hans Enriquez, CEO of Dazed Inc. cannabis brand, stated that the SAFE Banking Act would be the most substantial piece of legislation for the industry. Enriquez highlighted the cannabis industry’s ability to bank like any other industry as the most substantial bill aspect. 

Most of us like to believe that scientific inquiry is governed by a spirit of curiosity and neutrality, investigating the subject of study from every possible angle. Unfortunately, when it comes to cannabis research in the United States, the approach has been largely one-sided.

According to a new analysis of cannabis research funding in the US, Canada, and the UK, about $1.56 billion went toward cannabis research between 2000 and 2018. Roughly half of that funded research focused on the potential harms of cannabis.

Individual years proved even worse. For example, in 2018, research on potential harms of cannabis received more than 20 times more funding than research on cannabis therapeutics.

What’s more, the biggest chunk of the money (about $1 billion) came from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a federal government agency. According to the analysis, NIDA put far more money to research cannabis misuse and its adverse effects than on the therapeutic potential of cannabis.

“The government’s budget is a political statement about what we value as a society,” Daniel Mallinson, a cannabis policy researcher at Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg, told Science Magazine. “The fact that most of the cannabis money is going to drug abuse and probably to cannabis use disorder versus medical purposes—that says something.” 

The coronavirus pandemic took a significant toll on New York, affecting the state and its residents physically, emotionally and financially. Through adherence to public health protocols, we have gone from being the epicenter of the outbreak to having some of the nation’s lowest infection and fatality rates.

Hopefully we will continue this trajectory. On the financial side, however, we have not even begun to assess the full extent of the damage. The state faces a staggering $14.5 billion budget shortfall this year alone and a projected $62 billion decline through FY 2024 due to COVID-19. Even if Congress and the White House pass a new stimulus package, whatever New York receives will not come close to filling its need

Hawaii will adopt a federal industrial hemp production program at the end of this month, signaling the end of the state’s two-year-long Industrial Hemp Pilot Program.

However, the changing programs have hemp farmers worried, with concerns that growing hemp will no longer be economically viable under the federal program.

Thanks to a bill passed by the state Legislature during the last session and signed into law by Gov. David Ige, the state legalized the growth of hemp throughout the state via the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s hemp production program. But while this bill ostensibly removed roadblocks for farmers seeking a license to grow hemp, farmers under the pilot program believe the USDA program is significantly more restrictive.

“I know some farmers are just waiting to see what happens before they apply at all,” said Gail Baber, a Big Island hemp grower who was one of the first in the state to be licensed through the pilot program.

While Shelley Choy, coordinator of the pilot program, said the federal program has much less stringent requirements for applications — being a program for commercial growers, rather than a research program as the pilot program is — Baber said the one-size-fits-all nature of the federal program has led to some serious concerns with how the program will be enforced.

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new bill last week that will help protect banks that do business with licensed cannabis companies.

Under Bill AB 1525, banks, credit unions, savings associations and other financial institutions wouldn’t be in violation of California state laws by providing their services to licensed cannabis businesses – similar to the SAFE Banking Act, the landmark cannabis banking bill that the House of Representatives passed last year.

The SAFE Banking Act was included in the latest Democrat-proposed coronavirus stimulus bill worth $2.2 trillion. 

Despite the local status of marijuana in states that have opted to legalize weed, the plant remains classified as a Schedule I drug on the federal level, resulting in a complex legal landscape for banks that wish to work with cannabis businesses.

These lenders could face money laundering charges, while companies that legally work in the cannabis industry are forced to operate as cash-only businesses, which in turn creates the perfect environment for fraud, theft and tax evasion.

Lawmakers in Virginia have passed two bills that prohibit law enforcement officers from conducting warrantless searches based solely on the odor of marijuana. The measures, Senate Bill 5029 and House Bill 5058, have been approved by both legislative bodies and await the signature of Democratic. Gov. Ralph Northam to become law.

Earlier this year, Virginia decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana by limiting penalties to a civil fine of $25. Jenn Michelle Pedini, the development director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the executive director of the group’s Virginia branch, said in a release on Monday that the two bills continue the state’s reform efforts, but more still needs to be done.

“While this will certainly decrease non-essential interactions between law enforcement and otherwise law-abiding Virginians, it is only by legalizing the responsible use of cannabis by adults that the Commonwealth can end its failed experiment with prohibition and begin repairing the decades of damage,” Pedini said.

According to the text of the bills, “no law-enforcement officer may lawfully search or seize any person, place, or thing solely on the basis of the odor of marijuana and no evidence discovered or obtained as a result of such unlawful search or seizure shall be admissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.” Other provisions of the legislation limit the power of police to issue summonses for minor traffic offenses.

Advocates for the bills argue that police have long used the smell of cannabis, real or otherwise, as pretense for conducting warrantless searches. Attorney Todd Zinicola said that the courts are insulated from the extent of the abuse of power.

Instituting cannabis laws will likely have little effect on students, suggests a new study out of New Zealand that found using weed is part of their culture and no amount of rulemaking and finger-wagging is likely to change that.

Researchers at the University of Otago wanted to explore drug acceptability views among students and find out whether or not cannabis law in New Zealand, where recreational weed is illegal, has any influence on their use of marijuana.

The answer? Not really, notes a university news release.

Published in Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment, the findings indicate that consuming cannabis has been normalized in student culture, says Kirsten Robertson, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of marketing at the university.

That seems borne out by the 82 per cent of students who report their peers had used cannabis before, and about half that, 39 per cent, who note their peers used weed regularly.

New Zealand was poised to make history this year by putting the national legalization of cannabis to a vote, but now advocates are concerned that it won’t make the cut in 2020 due to all the issues that have shifted the focus this year. 

If legalization does get pushed through, cannabis would be legalized for recreational use for those over 20, and there would be regulations as to the growing and selling of cannabis. People would be able to purchase up to 14 grams a day and grow two plants per person. A “yes” vote means that Parliament will be able to pass the law if they choose to, and legal cannabis would be a viable possibility in the country. 

New Zealand would become one of the few countries in the world to have legalized, including Uruguay and Canada. However, many have stated concerns over poll numbers dropping when it comes to cannabis support. 

Studies show that more than $1.4 billion New Zealand dollars could be gained each year from legalizing cannabis, a major boost to the economy. This is based on the country having 400 new stores, 5,000 new jobs, and a spike in cannabis use when it becomes legal. 

However, thanks to the combination of COVID and the other major issues coming up this year, including a vote on euthanasia, which has been a huge moral battleground in New Zealand, there hasn’t been the kind of hype around legalization that one would expect to see on an average year.

When voters head to the polls this November, they’ll decide on a marijuana legalization initiative that’s appearing on the ballot in Arizona for the first time since 2016.

Medical marijuana has been legal in Arizona since 2010. More than 250,000 Arizonans are medical marijuana card holders today.

This year’s Smart and Safe Act, or Proposition 207, looks to decriminalize recreational use. If passed, adults 21 and older could legally use and buy the product, and possess it in limited quantities.

A similar measure narrowly failed in 2016. Prop. 207 spokesperson Stacy Pearson said the new bill is informed by criticisms of its predecessor.

"The most important example [of that] is the criticisms from the business community, who thought that the 2016 initiative did not go far enough in allowing employers to prohibit use by their employees," she said.

The legal cannabis industry continued to make inroads against its illicit counterparts, as one-quarter of all sales took place among regulated players in the first quarter of the year, according to new data from the Ontario Cannabis Store.

The provincial pot distributor's quarterly review showed that the province controlled a 25.1-per-cent share of the cannabis market in the fiscal first quarter of 2020, a slight uptick from the 24.7 per cent share observed in the previous quarter. The number lagged behind the national share for the legal market, according to OCS and Statistics Canada calculations.  

The market share gains indicate that Canada's approach to legalizing pot for recreational use is gaining traction amongst consumers. Additional data showed household spending on legal cannabis in the second quarter of 2020 outpaced the illicit market for the first time 

"The growth of the market in terms of the volume of product sold and percentage of the illegal market captured are both inching upwards as a direct result of the collaboration between the OCS and its commercial partners – licensed producers and authorized cannabis retail stores," Cheri Mara, chief commercial officer of the OCS, said in a letter published with the agency's quarterly review. 

The OCS also said in its quarterly review that its $7.05-per-gram sale price for dried flower is now cheaper than the average price offered by illegal mail-order marijuana sites ($7.98). The discount comes as large-format 28-gram value offerings become increasingly popular in the legal retail market. Those products accounted for 3.9 per cent of all dried flower sales last quarter, nearly four times the total observed by the end of last year, the OCS said. 

Arkansans spent $154 million on 24,067 pounds of medical marijuana since the first dispensary opened in May 2019. This is according to Scott Hardin, who is a spokesperson with the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission.

In Northwest Arkansas and the River Valley specifically, 8,416 pounds of medical marijuana were sold since August 2019.

There are currently 29 dispensaries in Arkansas, and the state expects to open eight more.

83,779 Arkansans have a patient card for medical marijuana. Starting on September 30th, expired patient cards must be renewed to make new purchases.

A trip to the doctor's office for card renewal is not required. Patients can do a Telehealth appointment with a doctor to confirm their conditions and to receive a patient card.

Market research company OH Predictive Insights finds that the legalization of recreational cannabis in Arizona is almost split amongst voters.

The recent poll surveyed by 600 likely voters answered the question, “ Do you believe that marijuana should be legalized for adult use in the State of Arizona?” The survey was conducted between September 8-10.

As a result, 46% likely agreed, 45% opposed, and 9% remained undecided. The effort towards this survey is to see how Proposition 207 will do in November’s election. Under Prop 207, adults (aged 21 or older) would allow one ounce of marijuana for recreational use and up to 6 plants for cultivation; medicinal use is already legal in the state. Unfortunately, between the decline in support from a July poll and the failed initiative Prop 205, the shaky future of Arizona’s Prop 207 will come down to November’s election.

Not the first time Arizonians were split on a decision. In 2016, the proposed Proposition 205 failed to succeed to a 51.3%-48.7% margin, leaving the opposition with a lackluster defeat. The results from a July poll by OH Predictive have shown the swing with voters pro-legalization leading from 62%-32% to now at 46%. The most significant campaign obstacle to make this happen will be working on the 9% undecided.

“As election day nears, voters appear to be focusing on what’s on the ballot,” says OHPI Chief Mike Noble on OH Initiative blog, “And while the campaign to oppose marijuana legalization is anemic compared to 2016, voters still have concerns about the effort.”

Petitioners claim that a recent DEA rule is unlawful because it exceeds the DEA’s authority and violates the 2018 Farm Bill.

On August 21, the Drug Enforcement Agency (the “DEA”) released an Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”), which, in part, suggests that in-process hemp extract shall be treated as a schedule I controlled substance during any point at which its THC concentration exceeds 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. “Any point” includes even fleetingly during the processing phase and includes situations where the THC percentage is brought back into legal compliance for the finished product.

In response to this threat, close to 2,500 hemp stakeholders have already expressed their opposition to the Rule by submitting comments via the federal public docket. But some have taken their opposition one step further by suing the DEA. On Friday, September 18, the Hemp Industries Association (“HIA”) and RE Botanicals, a South Carolina hemp CBD manufacturer, filed a petition against the DEA and its acting administrator, Timothy Shea, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The petitioners claim that the Rule is unlawful because it exceeds the DEA’s authority and violates the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”). Specifically, the Rule contradicts the plain language and the intent of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp, its derivatives, extracts and cannabinoids so they could be regulated as agricultural commodities, and thus, fall outside the DEA’s jurisdiction.

In addition, HIA and RE Botanicals argue that the DEA failed to issue the Rule in compliance with administrative procedures imposed under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”). Indeed, Mr. Shea implemented the Rule without providing the public with notice and the opportunity to comment before the Rule went into effect. Instead, the Rule provides that its content “merely conforms DEA’s regulations to the statutory amendments to the [Controlled Substances Act] that have already taken effect, and it does not add additional requirements to the regulations.” (Emphasis added).

The Cannabis Control Commission filled in the blanks Thursday of its long-discussed marijuana home delivery rules, agreeing upon a framework that creates two types of delivery licenses and settling on a timeline that would have new cannabis industry rules in place in about a month.

The CCC adopted draft delivery regulations Thursday that would create two distinct delivery license types: a “limited delivery license” that would allow an operator to charge a fee to make deliveries from CCC-licensed retailers and dispensaries, and a “wholesale delivery license” that would let an operator buy marijuana wholesale from cultivators and manufacturers and store it in a warehouse. The licensees would augment retail stories and serve as a new means for people to acquire recreational marijuana.

“What we’ve done in addition to creating those two license types is also to establish new fees and fee structures, to require warehousing for wholesale delivery licensees, to authorize white labeling for wholesale delivery licensees, we’re defining specific operational requirements that will be in addition to the general operational requirements, and we are amending existing relevant regulations to incorporate the license types and the activities that they can undertake,” Commissioner Britte McBride, who led the regulation writing process, said

McBride said the limited delivery license “isn’t much of a change at all from the delivery-only license that had been included in our regulations.” When it started this latest round of regulatory revisions earlier this year, the proposed rules would have limited delivery operators to a courier role, sourcing marijuana and marijuana products from CCC-licensed retailers and making same-day deliveries. Several prospective cannabis delivery operators told commissioners during a public hearing that the framework for delivery would not work as initially written.

Last month, commissioners voted to allow delivery companies to source the marijuana and products they offer for delivery from CCC-licensed cultivators and product manufacturers on a wholesale basis, a change that one regulator said is key to equity in the newly-legal industry. That policy decision manifested itself Thursday in the form of the new wholesale delivery license type

The DEA recently issued an interim final rule addressing the implementation of hemp provisions of the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (aka the Farm Bill). But the rule has left many hemp companies confused and concerned. Specifically, the DEA seeks to criminalize certain cannabinoids in what appears to be a direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the Farm Bill. 

Many in the industry are specifically worried about the rule’s possible impact on Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the use of which has rapidly expanded lately due to its vast and therapeutic benefits, including appetite stimulation, nausea reduction, and relief from anxiety and pain. 

I believe that the DEA’s proposed criminalization of Delta-8 THC and other cannabinoids exceeds its authority and that the production and use of Delta-8 THC should remain compliant with the law. 

Some background of Delta-8 THC

Delta-8 THC is an isomer derived either from the hemp plant or from cannabidiol (CBD). Currently, most of the Delta-8 THC on the market comes from CBD because hemp extraction does not generally elicit high enough concentrations or quantities to make it a profitable option. But while Delta-8 THC is no doubt a cousin of Delta-9 THC, they are not the same.

Delta-9 THC is the most abundant and well-known cannabinoid. It produces the euphoric effects commonly associated with cannabis use. Delta-9 THC is significantly more psychoactive than Delta-8 THC, which is why it is still listed as a controlled substance in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The impact of the Farm Bill on Delta-8 THC is quite different from Delta-9 THC.