Like many others, we were caught up in filing a slew of Minnesota adult use cannabis applications for our clients by March 14 (which, if you were paying attention, that deadline was extended to March 15 by midnight because of a crash with the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) website). Every time a licensing window opens in a state with a new adult use cannabis program, there are lessons to be learned for clients, attorneys, and regulators, alike.
Selection Sunday marked the start of the NCAA Division I basketball tournaments this week and this year “March Madness” comes with a lessened degree of “Reefer Madness”. Since the 2024 March Madness season, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has made a clear departure from its former position on cannabis. Last June the NCAA voted to remove cannabis from the banned drug class for NCAA championships and postseason football.[1] At the same time the growing popularity of low-does THC beverages and an increase in state legalization provide fans more of an opportunity to include cannabis in their experience.
Based on a recent article in the Green Market Report (and corresponding public filings), “$1.83 billion of . . . debt is set to come due by 2026” for a number of publicly traded multi-state cannabis operators (“MSO”s). While this public cannabis company debt is not a pretty sight, it might be the tip of
The Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (“OCM”) has begun issuing final denials to the overwhelming majority of previously qualified social equity applicants (“SEA”s) ahead of its first statewide cannabis lottery on December 2 for 280 available “preapproval” cannabis licenses.
As the 2024 Minnesota Legislative Session came to a chaotic close on May 20, numerous changes to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 342 were sent to the Governor’s desk to build on the already existing cannabis regulatory structure. On May 24, Governor Tim Walz signed the amendments to Chapter 342, which address social equity provisions, preapproval process for social equity applicants, the larger application and licensing process, and consumer safety.
While the cannabis industry is closely following the recently published notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), which will move cannabis from a Schedule 1 controlled substance to a Schedule 3 controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”), a very important federal cannabis litigation matter is making its way through federal court. That case is Canna Provisions, Inc., Gyasi Sellers, Wisacre Farm, Inc., and Verano Holdings Corp.v. Merrick Garland, case no. 23-cv-30113. Filed in October of last year, the Canna Provisions case is more important than ever in the context of rescheduling (in my opinion) and this post serves as an update on what’s happening in court.
Due to federal illegality, the cannabis industry has long been plagued by federal agencies taking a variety of different enforcement approaches to cannabis businesses. From the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to the National Labor Relations Board to the Bureau of Reclamation, the cannabis industry has not really received consistent treatment across the board. All that to say that a new threat has entered the chat–cannabis qui tam actions. Not many people know what a “qui tam” action is. And with good reason as it’s fairly antiquated and an obscure means through which the federal government (potentially) seeks financial recovery from individuals and businesses that defraud it. In addition to the “gotchas” of IRC 280E and banking, cannabis qui tam actions are now on the table.
If you’re in house counsel at any company, you’re likely looking to cut down on the day to day, high volume minutia posed by a variety of commercial agreements and transactions that come your way time and again. Doubly so in the cannabis industry given the fact that you have bigger fish to fry with labor and employment issues, day to day operational issues, fundraising and finding more capital, and dealing with the precarious legal environment created by the current federal law conflict (even with possible rescheduling on the horizon). To alleviate some of that in house stress, general counsels should be considering instituting cannabis corporate playbooks (or alternative language libraries) to make the company’s contracting process more turnkey, predictable, and efficient while cutting down on risk.
On October 6, 2022, President Biden made a statement in which he asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Attorney General to review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. In his statement, the President appeared to express disappointment that marijuana is listed in the same schedule as “drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic” (Id.). It was highly anticipated that this review would lead to the rescheduling, or even de-scheduling, of marijuana. On August 29, 2023, HHS submitted its recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that marijuana be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to jump leaps and bounds in 2024. As a lawyer, I’m always curious about how to integrate AI into my practice in order to better serve my clients. And now and then I check in with this seemingly omnipotent technology to ask what it deems top of mind for the cannabis industry. Given that we’re fresh into the new year, I logged into ChatGPT to ask it “What are the most asked questions about cannabis law”, and its answers honestly surprised me. Mainly because, after almost 14 years of practice in this area, it seems that the same questions remain despite all of the legal progress and reform in the area state by state.