Cannabis Law Journal

The proliferation of cannabis-related businesses in states that have legalized marijuana – medical and/or recreational – has sparked a foreboding trend in the courts. Opponents have sought to use the heavy weapon of RICO, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, to prevent or close such facilities. Although these efforts to target cannabis-related businesses with the a statute originally designed to fight organized crime have so far failed, cannabis-related businesses are not yet in the clear and the specter of RICO liability remains.

This article provides a general introduction to the Australian medicinal cannabis product licensing and permit application regime. In particular, it considers the basic elements of an application under the NDA for a licence to produce or manufacture medicinal cannabis products. We also consider some of the issues associated with regulatory environment for medicinal cannabis in Australia.Australia’s medicinal cannabis industry continues to flourish. Between November 2016 and 15 January 2019, the Office of Drug Control (ODC) has granted a total of 26 medicinal cannabis (cultivation and production) and 20 manufacturing licences.

Minister of Ministry of Industry, Commerce, Agriculture and Fisheries, Audley Shaw, recently lauded Cannabis company, Jacana, for making a multi-million-dollar investment in the cannabis industry as the first local entity to export cannabis flowers from Jamaica.

  Welcome to Issue 12 of the quarterly online  Cannabis Law Journal where we collect the best articles submitted to us and written by legal professionals covering the ever growing world of regulated cannabis. When we published our first issue back in June 2016...

Although the growth and production of industrial hemp was recently heavily regulated by the federal government, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is actively reviewing and granting patents related to industrial hemp technology. In fact, the U.S. Department of Health obtained a utility patent relating to potential use of non-psychoactive properties of the cannabis plant to protect the brain from damage or degeneration caused by certain diseases.

Even when the government has fully regulated and legitimated the cannabis industry, from administrative licenses for the  cultivation and processing of psychoactive and non-psychoactive cannabis, to sanitary matters for the commercialization of cannabis derived products, unfortunately, financial institutions, and particularly banks, are still coming up with obstacles for cannabis companies to acquire financial services.

In Massachusetts and other states, perhaps the most common basis for a product liability lawsuit is that the manufacturer or seller did not adequately warn of a reasonably foreseeable risk arising from the product.

Cannabis companies have gone global, and with that expansion comes additional legal considerations. Canadian cannabis company Aurora cannabis just announced that they will now be operating in Germany, Italy, and Australia, expanding their current international portfolio. Tilray distributes its products globally across Canada, Europe, Australia and Latin America. This post will explore some of the key legal provisions to include in an international cannabis (or hemp) contract — whether it be for supply, consulting services, or a joint venture.

Cannabis, for medicinal purposes, was legalised nearly four months ago in the UK, but how many patients are actually reaping the benefits, and how far have we really come?

In recent years, inconsistency has become a major issue in the national debate on cannabis policy, not least because of pleas by local authorities for renewal, in particular to regulate the back door and to establish a closed circuit from cannabis cultivation to selling to consumers in coffeeshops.

The context of cannabis policy and enforcement practice in Denmark has been increasingly repressive, shifting from an environment of tolerance towards a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to the sale, use, and possession of cannabis. Political opposition to legalisation (and likewise, decriminalisation) so far outweighs support, and widespread media attention on the issue of medicinal cannabis since 2016 has not altered political positions on cannabis for recreational use.

The upshot of all this generally, and in North Carolina specifically, is that there is strong legal precedent that businesses may continue to sell products containing full-spectrum hemp extract derived from lawful hemp. Additionally, it appears that NC is primarily focused on health claims. In an “educational” letter to sellers of CBD products in NC, the DACS states…..

The practical result of the case is that the Defendants, Matthew Mallory, Commonwealth Alternative Medicinal Options LLC,  Gary Kale, and  Grassy Run Farms LLC, will be allowed to have their hemp processed into CBD extract in Pennsylvania.

If you wish to re-publish this story please do so with following accreditation AUTHOR: JORDAN ZOOT / A Biz In A Box PUBLISHER:  CANNABIS LAW REPORT Guidance – Micro-business – Multi-License Guidance – Micro-business – Multi-License – CDTFA has published a new notice...

We have discussed in other Posts our concerns about inadequacies in the information the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration [“CDTFA”] has distributed relating to the Cannabis Excise Tax [“CET”] and Cannabis Cultivation Tax [“CCT”] as well as inadequacies in the tax return CDTFA adopted[1].We have also regularly submitted questions to CDTFA. Frequently we have suggested answers to our questions.We are publishing this Post as the foundation for a series of at least three Posts in which we will suggest best practices in the financial record-keeping for cultivators, distributors, and dispensaries[2].

Back to the BRC – while 2015 seems like ancient history, however, that was when then Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome’s Blue Ribbon Commission published “Pathways Report – Policy Options For Regulating Marijuana in California” which contained a detailed analysis of the policy choices that were to be considered in what gave California Proposition 64 and subsequently SB 94 which led to the system of regulation for the legal cannabis industry that exists in California today.

At the end of February 2019, as well as concurrent with the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill in late December 2018, Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb made numerous public statements which offered hope to those waiting for the FDA to take affirmative leadership on hemp and cannabidiol (“CBD”) regulations. But, since then, further uncertainty has arisen as to what FDA’s position is and what happens next.

The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) is ramping up its rulemaking process pursuant to the Agriculture Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”). When the 2018 Farm Bill removed industrial hemp — and its derivatives — from the Controlled Substances Act, industrial hemp was placed under the USDA’s authority. The 2018 Farm Bill clarifies and affirms that hemp is to be treated as an agricultural commodity, rather than as a controlled substance.

Despite these commercial and environmental benefits, the cultivation of industrial hemp is still prohibited in Louisiana since the state has not designed nor received approval for a regulatory plan for the cultivation of the crop with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I argue that, especially because of industrial hemp’s distinctive capacity to alleviate the state’s particular environmental problems, Louisiana needs to follow in the federal government’s footsteps to repeal these legal restrictions as soon as possible.

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a naturally-occurring cannabinoid compound found in both cannabis and hemp. Its molecular formula is C 21 H 30 O 2 . Unlike THC, CBD does not have any psychoactive properties. The concentrations of THC and CBD vary greatly between cannabis and hemp, since “industrial hemp” will have a THC concentration of less than 0.3 percent.