Cannabis attorneysToday’s Cannabis Case Summary looks at a novel example of the intersection between state-legal  cannabis and employment law. The plaintiff, Bobbie Henry, worked at an Outback Steakhouse in Flint, Michigan, from 1997 to 2014 when she was fired along with four other employees because of drug-related activities. Henry, a registered medical marijuana caregiver under Michigan law, sued Outback, alleging her medical marijuana activities were used as a pretext for age discrimination and her termination on that basis was defamatory. Unfortunately for Henry, a federal judge disagreed and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted Outback’s motion for summary judgment.

The meat (pun intended) of this case is in its facts, which involve two different groups of Outback employees involved in two very different kinds of “drug activity.”

One was made up of Henry and a second Outback employee who was a registered medical marijuana cardholder and a patient of Henry’s. Henry transferred cannabis to the co-worker patient in her role as a registered medical marijuana caregiver permitted by state law.

The second was a group of four employees the kitchen manager had observed exchanging a “small black object” he suspected was an illegal substance for cash. The employees claimed it was a “bridge card,” but after an investigation and a conference call with management the four employees were terminated for cause. The four employees did not go quietly, however, and in exit interviews alleged Henry was “selling drugs” and “dealing dope” at the restaurant. When confronted, Henry claimed that though she did sell medical marijuana to her co-worker patient she did not sell medical marijuana to her co-worker patient on company property. She was terminated the same day for behavior “unbecoming” of the company.

Henry sued Outback, first alleging that her medical marijuana-related activities were used as a pretext for age based discrimination. Henry’s claim was based on the fact that she was the longest-tenured member of the team and had been there for fourteen years before being terminated, despite winning service awards for “Top Performing Bar Team.” She also pointed to an unlitigated situation where a second employee had been terminated for what he felt was age-based discrimination.

The court looked at the pretext issue and was unsympathetic towards Henry, pointing out that she admitted to having a medical marijuana card and to selling drugs to a co-worker. Based on these two things, the court concluded there was a legitimate, non-pretextual reason for Outback to terminate Henry. The court secondarily found that Outback, as Henry’s employer, had a qualified privilege to discuss allegations that she sold medical marijuana to co-workers, which she did not dispute.

This case is just another example of how a state’s permissiveness of medical marijuana or adult-use cannabis will usually not impose a duty on an employer to tolerate marijuana use or override other legal doctrines that give power to employers. Even though Henry was apparently correct that she was in compliance with Michigan law, a little discretion could still have gone a long way. We cannot resist noting the foolishness of an employer terminating a good employee for helping a co-worker.

NOTE: The above is part of our plan to summarize all cannabis civil cases with a published court decision. By civil case, we mean any case that involves cannabis or the cannabis industry that is not a strictly criminal law matter. These cannabis case summaries are intended both to keep you up to date on cannabis laws as interpreted by the courts and also to serve as a resource for anyone conducting cannabis law research. We also will seek to provide key unpublished cannabis law decisions as well, when available.

Cannabis attorneysThe owners of a vineyard in Yamhill County, Oregon, filed a lawsuit in April to block a neighboring property owner from using his land to grow and process cannabis. The plaintiffs alleged that the odor and runoff from the cannabis farm will negatively affect their grapes and claim to have already lost one buyer. Another neighbor, who has plans to turn its property into a vineyard as well, has joined the lawsuit.

The case is interesting because it is in response to a novel fact situation that has not been the subject of much real-world study or legal precedent.

The idea that the odor of cannabis plants could materially alter the quality of grapes in an adjacent parcel of land is a significant divergence from more typical odor-related lawsuits that allege a neighbor’s cannabis activities create a nuisance. Those lawsuits have sometimes succeeded, but in this instance the trier of fact will need to determine whether there actually is an impact on the grapes. Though the plaintiffs say they have already lost a buyer, it is unclear whether that was because the buyer speculated there could be an impact on the grapes or whether there was in fact such an impact. The case has not gotten far enough along for discovery to reveal exactly what kind of evidence the plaintiffs actually have.

As for the cannabis farm owner, he states that he can grow cannabis on his property without seeking permission because it is zoned for that kind of agricultural use and because he is following all rules and regulations. He also asserts that he uses cannabis processing techniques to minimize the smell from his property.

Depending on the results of this case, the issue of adjacent cannabis farms and wine vineyards may be an issue for the Oregon state legislature. Both the cannabis and wine industries are important components of Oregon’s economy and there is significant overlap between locations.

The lawsuit was filed in Yamhill County earlier this week so there is a long way to go for it to reach resolution. If it goes to trial, the court’s reasoning when it comes to the interaction between the two crops and the relationship with their owners’ property and economic rights could be instructive for similar conflicts in the future. We will keep an eye on this case and update you as the lawsuit progresses.

Is CBD legalThe DEA announced a new Final Rule late last year regarding “marihuana extracts” that left many in the industrial hemp and CBD industries concerned. The new rule created a separate classification for “marihuana extracts,” which it broadly defined as “any extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus Cannabis.” This definition facially includes hemp-based goods running the gamut from hemp rope sandals to hemp lotion to therapeutic CBD oils, but critics have countered that such a definition exceeds the prohibition of “marihuana” created by the Controlled Substances Act. Some fear the DEA’s broadening of what constitutes marijuana extracts foreshadows a more aggressive federal enforcement posture that could devastate hemp-related companies the DEA now (and always) regards as criminal enterprises.

The DEA’s rule will soon be put to a court test as The Hemp Industries Association, Centuria Natural Foods, Inc. and RMH Holdings, Inc. last week filed a challenge to the DEA rule in the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Whatever the result, this court’s ruling will likely significantly impact the future of the hemp-related industry and implicate key components of the burgeoning cannabis reform movement as well.

The core of the plaintiffs’ argument is that the DEA rule conflates “marihuana”—the substance prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act—with all cannabinoids and all parts of the cannabis plant, which it lumps into “marihuana extracts.” Plaintiffs point to legislative history that in 1937 Congress chose to use the term “marihuana” because at the time there was no meaningful and scientifically valid way to distinguish between the plant itself and the constituent parts Congress sought to outlaw. Plaintiffs also point to the 2014 Farm Bill, which permitted industrial hemp production so long as the plants remain below a threshold THC level, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which prohibited using federal funds to enforce the Controlled Substances Act against certain cannabis business. Plaintiffs contend that these legislative moves, along with greater scientific understanding of the cannabis plant and the ability to isolate specific components of the cannabis plant, all indicate Congress’s intent to carve out space for these businesses to operate legally. Plaintiffs also contend that the Ninth Circuit itself, in a 2004 case, recognized that not all naturally-occurring cannabinoids are per se prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act.

Plaintiffs contend the DEA exceeded its scheduling and enforcement authority under the Controlled Substances Act by undertaking a “de facto scheduling” of substances not contemplated by the Controlled Substances Act and that Congress views as distinct from marijuana as a “drug.” Plaintiffs essentially allege that with this rule the DEA is attempting to enforce a law Congress never enacted. This is a common challenge to expansive administrative rulemakings, but its application to any particular situation can be hard to predict and it usually hinges on the court’s reading of the underlying statute and the level of deference the agency’s action deserves.

We will keep an eye out as this case progresses and pass along any important updates as they come in.

Cannabis lobbyingNot much gets done in American politics, especially in Congress, without the influence of the hundreds of lobbyists that represent industries, labor, and other interest groups before Congress and federal agencies. The overwhelming role of lobbying has so far been seen as a net negative for the cannabis industry. Powerful alcohol, tobacco, private prison and pharmaceutical lobbies have every incentive to block federal cannabis reforms that could displace demand for competing products and certain prescription medication or cut down on prison time. Pessimists for the future of marijuana prohibition point to these groups as a primary impediment to generating the political will necessary to legislate an end to cannabis prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act.

In an effort to level the playing field, a coalition of cannabis industry leaders recently formed the New Federalism Fund (NFF). NFF aims to wield the increasing popular support and financial success of state-level cannabis programs to bring pressure on federal lawmakers to support progressive reform.

Who is NFF? Support for the group comes from a wide variety of cannabis industry stakeholders, both recreational and medical, and it runs the gamut from dispensaries to private equity funds. The most widely recognizable company on its founding board is Scotts Miracle-Gro, which entered the ancillary cannabis market in 2016. Other notables include LivWell EnlightenedHealth, Privateer Holdings, Native Roots, and Medicine Man.

NFF is organized as a 501(c)4 non-partisan lobbying organization.

What are NFF’s specific priorities? NFF’s website outlines the group’s founding initiatives for particular reforms and the following priorities:

State-first cannabis regulation. NFF advocates for a state-first approach to cannabis policy, emphasizing that it is the best framework for enhancing local economic prosperity through tax revenue and job creation, ensuring patient access, and diverting cannabis from the criminal market. NFF emphasizes the success of early cannabis states and their potential to serve as policy laboratories to serve as examples for other states as envisioned by the Tenth Amendment.

Codification of the Cole Memo. The tenuous legal authority of the Cole Memo is probably the most immediate threat to the cannabis industry. To that end, NFF advocates for codifying the memo’s hands-off approach to state marijuana legalization. Though Jeff Sessions recently signaled that the Cole Memo is still good authority, codification would provide the cannabis industry greater certainty.

Equitable taxation. NFF argues for changing IRC 280(e), the infamous tax provision that greatly limits cannabis businesses’ ability to take advantage of the tax advantages afforded other legal businesses.

Will NFF succeed? Who knows, and, for that matter, defining “success” in this context is tricky. So long as the federal government does not crack down on existing state cannabis programs, NFF may be able to claim victory simply for having helped to maintain the status quo. But, if the question is whether NFF will secure federal legalization of cannabis, the prospects for success dim significantly. Nonetheless, having a strong pro-marijuana lobby is in the interest of all cannabis stakeholders and is an important sign that the legalization movement is maturing.

Oregon cannabis lawyersOregon lawmakers are considering legislation to protect Oregon cannabis consumers and patients against potential federal government enforcement actions. Proposed legislation, Senate Bill 863, would require marijuana retailers to purge patients’ personally identifiable information and would prohibit dispensaries from “record[ing] and retain[ing]” such information. This bill seeks to shield individual cannabis patients and consumers from federal authorities by eliminating a potentially damning piece of evidence. Oregon dispensaries currently keep much of this information, in contrast to other states where purges are commonplace by law or custom.

SB 863 defines “information that may be used to identify a consumer” to include information found on a consumer’s passport, driver’s license, or other identification document.” The information is protected whether it is on a physical copy of the identifying document or stored otherwise, such as in a customer database. Though dispensaries may collect aggregate non-identifying information, the bill would make it unlawful for dispensaries to “record or “retain” individual customer data. The legislation would further limit the spread of personally identifiable information by prohibiting dispensaries from requiring customers to produce any other form of identification.

In addition to preventing the recording of personally identifying information, the bill would also prohibit transferring any personally identifying information in the dispensary’s possession. On its face, this would appear to prevent dispensaries from cooperating with federal enforcement against customers, though it remains to be seen whether a state law requiring something like this would hold up in a federal court.

What personally identifying information does the bill not cover? The bill does not cover other forms of record-keeping that could contain personally identifying information. For instance, the bill would not prevent dispensaries from retaining recorded security footage that could include recognizable images of its customers or from capturing license plate numbers of cars coming and going from the parking lot. The bill also would not cover information received incident to credit and debit card-based transactions.

What about data retained for marketing purposes? A dispensary may record and retain the name and contact information of a consumer for the purpose of notifying them of products, services, discounts, etc. if the consumers gives informed consent. Even then, however, the dispensary may not transfer the information to another person — good news for those wary of their personal data being sold to third party marketers.

Will the bill pass? It seems likely some form of the bill will succeed and our Oregon cannabis lawyers are predicting passage. SB 863 enjoys bipartisan support and lawmakers are moving quickly to consider the proposal. Of course, the bill may change significantly as it gets through committee.

The next action on the bill should come this week of March 20, so keep an eye on this fast-moving issue.

Georgia CannabisGeorgia lawmakers agreed to a compromise bill Thursday to expand the state’s medical marijuana program. The deal comes after competing bills in the Georgia State House and Senate clashed over the direction of the program. If passed, the legislation would open the door for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, AIDS, autism, epidermolysis bullosa, peripheral neuropathy, and Tourette’s syndrome to receive medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.

We ranked Georgia at number 34 among the states for cannabis. If this bill passes, Georgia would likely leap up around ten spots in our next state ranking go-round.

Background. The Georgia legislature approved medical marijuana with the passage of HB1 in late 2015. In its original form, Georgia’s medical marijuana law allowed patients with eight specific conditions to possess up to twenty ounces of cannabis oil with a doctor’s recommendation. The law also permitted only low-THC cannabis oils capped at 5% THC concentration. The combination of these factors has contributed to significant access issues for patients in the state. A 2016 bill failed to solve the problem.

Divergent legislative responses. This session, the Georgia House and Senate each took up efforts to reform the state’s medical marijuana program. The House proposed and passed a bill to expand the program to include the diseases found in the compromise bill. In contrast, the Senate put forth a bill that only added one of these conditions (autism) to the list. The Senate bill would also have lowered the maximum allowable THC concentration to 3%.

The compromise bill looks to include nearly all the House provisions with respect to adding additional qualifying conditions. The 5% THC concentration limit also looks to be safe.

What else is in the bill? In addition to augmenting the list of qualifying conditions and maintaining status quo concentration limits, the final bill could also mold the legal framework for Georgia’s medical marijuana program in other ways. The extent to which many of these provisions – all from the House bill – will survive in the final legislation is uncertain but they are illustrative of Georgia lawmakers’ sentiments and the ways in which medical marijuana programs can be iteratively refined.

  • Delineating qualifying conditions
    • The House legislation would strike the requirement that cancer be in its “end stage” to qualify absent particular symptoms like vomiting. The bill would also strike language that would require patients with Parkinson’s or sickle cell to be in the “severe or end stage” of the disease before being eligible to receive medical marijuana treatment.
  • Removing barriers to access
    • The House legislation would also remove the residency requirement that limits access to medical marijuana for patients who are new to the state. The bill would additionally provide reciprocity for medical marijuana patients with proper documentation from other medical marijuana states qualifying them as such.

Next steps? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the bill would reach committee late Thursday. The bill is, of course, tentative until a final version is passed by both houses and signed into law, but indications are that the bill has significant support from both chambers and is likely to be signed by the governor.

 

 

American lawyer in BarcelonaAs we have written previously (See Marijuana in Spain: Our on the Ground Report), the Catalonia region of Spain — particularly its flagship city of Barcelona, home of our Spanish outpost — is a major European cannabis hub. Despite this, the laws in Spain and in Catalonia and in Barcelona are complicated and their enforcement is uneven, and all of this makes for difficulties and risks for cannabis businesses and even ancillary companies there.

The following should give you a quick “lay of the land” regarding cannabis in Spain:

  • Spain has emerged as a prominent center for cannabis culture in Europe
  • Barcelona is home to 200-plus private cannabis clubs
  • The Spanish government is not terribly interested in enforcing its national cannabis laws, especially in Catalonia
  • Cities in Catalonia have already taken steps towards sanctioning cannabis legalization, despite foot-dragging on the regional and national levels

In 2016, the regional Parliament of Catalonia proposed reforms in line with a 2014 initiative advocated by the Rosa La Verda platform in advance of the 2014 elections. The initiative’s aim was to create a framework for national reform of cannabis laws to permit regions like Catalonia and cities like Barcelona to set their own cannabis policies.

Though the 2016 legislative initiative stalled, our Barcelona attorneys report that this issue has recently reemerged and anticipation is building for a revised version of the bill.

So, what are the key points of the earlier legislation as proposed in 2016? The aim of the 2014 effort was to advocate for reforms to allow adults in Spain age 21 and over to safely and legally obtain and consume marijuana. How has the legislative rules proposal manifested in the most recent legislation?

  • The proposal would define what a cannabis association is under the law.
  • The proposal would set standards requiring the business to disclose the chemicals used on cannabis products.
  • The proposal would obligate the supply chain to document the cultivation of cannabis distribution to consumers.

It remains to be seen how – and to what extent – these policy goals will take form in new legislation. It is also uncertain whether such legislation would actually pass, and how its success or failure might interact with other regional and local action on the issue.

Nonetheless, Catalonia, Spain – and Barcelona in particular – are certain to remain at the forefront of cannabis reform and reform-minded culture both in Spain and in the Europe. The success of progressive cannabis policy in the Spanish government would undoubtedly accelerate cannabis reform in Europe and beyond.

Stay tuned as we keep you updated with the latest developments in Spain’s cannabis reform efforts.

Cannabis LawA litany of comments made by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and many other Tump administration officials have sent tremors through the cannabis industry in the weeks since Trump’s January inauguration.

Most alarming to many cannabis industry stakeholders was the administration’s uncertain position on state-legal cannabis programs. True to form, Press Secretary Sean Spicer predicted, “greater enforcement” of the Controlled Substances Act in recreational states under the Trump administration during a press conference two weeks ago. More recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reportedly reassured some GOP senators that he will not be moving away from Obama-era deference to state-legal cannabis programs. To many invested in the marijuana industry, however, Sessions’ statement is cold comfort coming from an Attorney General who harbors an irrational hatred of cannabis and intends to enforce existing federal drug laws to the letter.

Nevertheless, a glimmer of silver lining shines from the House of Representatives hopper for Democrats in the form of HR 1227 or the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017. The bill, introduced by Congressman Tom Garrett (R-VA), is co-sponsored by congressional Democrats Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Peter Welch of Vermont. This law would de-schedule cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and allow for states to self-regulate their own cannabis programs.

If passed, the Act would be an unprecedented win for the cannabis industry as a whole and fundamentally change the landscape of legal cannabis in the United States. Here are the details:

What would HR 1227 do?  Essentially, the Act would remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This is distinct from hints from the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2015 that it might consider re-scheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II of the CSA. Though de-scheduling cannabis would allow state marijuana programs to carry on essentially unfettered, re-scheduling could introduce new obstacles akin to those that other fledgling and experimental drugs must overcome.

What wouldn’t HR 1227 do? HR 1227 will not give blanket permission for transferring cannabis across state lines; states would be free to prohibit shipments of cannabis to and from their own jurisdictions. The bill also would not override state-level regulations that set standards for licensure, labeling, and purity. The status quo of state cannabis laws would therefore persist, but against a far less draconian backdrop of federal criminal law.

What are the bill’s prospects in 2017? Not great, unfortunately, but it is not all its fault. Congress has a lot on its plate this session – including still-pending confirmations of several presidential appointees – and cannabis reform is just not a high priority for lawmakers on either side of the aisle. Prospects for meaningful cannabis reforms on the federal level are dim under a unified Republican government absent an ideological shift. At least in the short term.

Why does this sound so familiar? The bill is identical to the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2015 introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VA). The 2015 bill was a hit among Sanders’ core supporters at the time but it failed to gain any significant traction in Congress.

 

 

Medical Marijuana ArkansasThe Arkansas Medical Marijuana Commission issued draft rules this week that outline the process and particulars for obtaining a cultivation or dispensary license. The rules dictate the number of licenses of each type issued and set the criteria for obtaining a license.

What are the new rules?  Arkansas’ medical marijuana program is just starting to get off the ground and, accordingly, many of the draft rules issued this week are familiar variations on the basic rules that underpin other states’ mature medical and recreational cannabis markets. Some features of the AMMC’s proposed rules do stand out, however.

License Cap. The draft rules mandate that a minimum of four cultivation licenses be approved, but limit the initial total number of cultivation licenses to eight. For dispensaries, the minimum number of license approvals is 20, not to exceed 40.

Dispensary licenses are to be allocated across eight geographic zones within the state, per the draft rules. This distribution, according to the AMMC, is to ensure patient access in regions throughout the state.

Transfer, Board, and Management Restrictions. The draft rules include tight restrictions on transfers of ownership interest in medical marijuana businesses. Licensees will be required to obtain permission from the AMMC before any transfer of ownership interest. Even more constraining is that licensees must get AMMC approval before making changes to their board of directors or to their officers. Together these aspects of the draft rules represent an extraordinary limitation on a medical marijuana business’s business judgment and corporate governance.

Ownership Restrictions. No one may have an ownership interest in more than one cultivation and one dispensary medical marijuana license. This rule precludes much horizontal expansion for medical marijuana businesses, but leaves open the possibility of at least some vertical integration.

What happens next?  The AMMC’s proposed rules remain draft rules, and they will be open to a public comment period before anything becomes final. There is slated to be a public hearing on March 31 at the University of Arkansas – Little Rock law school campus where stakeholders and other members of the community can share their input. Then the rules, pending any modifications, go to the state legislature for ultimate approval.

What else is going on with medical marijuana in Arkansas?  While the AMMC is busy with its rulemaking process, other Arkansas state agencies are formulating rules of their own to govern other aspects of the state’s new medical marijuana program. Medical marijuana also remains a hot topic in the state legislature. Medical marijuana-related legislation on the docket includes, among other bills, the following:

  • House Bill 1392, which would prohibit edibles as part of the medical marijuana program.
  • Senate Bill 238, which would delay implementation of the medical marijuana amendment to the Arkansas constitution until medical marijuana is federally legal.
  • Senate Bill 357, which prohibits smoking medical marijuana – a bill in slight tension with HB 1392 should both pass.
  • Other bills are also in the hopper that would increase license fees, force medical marijuana facilities farther away from schools, churches, and other designated locations, as well as impose a smattering of other restrictions on the fledgling program.

For more on medical marijuana in Arkansas, see the following:

 

Washington State cannabis delivery serviicesAre cannabis delivery services legal in Washington State? 

Strong demand for home-delivery cannabis services in Washington – and particularly Seattle – is apparent, as demonstrated by the numerous delivery services operating in plain sight, as revealed by a simple Google or Yelp search. Yet, such operations remain illegal following the passage and implementation of I-502. In 2016, Seattle proposed a law to permit a pilot project for legal delivery in Seattle (which failed in the state legislature). This year, Seattle officials are pushing for similar legislation, with certain modifications, that they hope will open the door to cannabis delivery throughout the state.

What’s the status quo in Washington State?

Cannabis delivery services are as old as old-school weed dealing itself. The common trope is of the marijuana dealer who delivers late (and stays past their welcome) – and only after multiple calls or texts. Today’s pot delivery services, particularly in states with legal medical or adult-use cannabis, are exponentially more professional operations – yet, in large part, they remain illegal under both state and federal law. Such is the case in Washington State.

What happened with the 2016 proposal?

Last January Seattle city officials supported Washington State House Bill 2368, which would have authorized a pilot plan for home cannabis delivery in Washington in cities with 650,000 or more people – effectively just Seattle.

HB 2368 was seen by as “Seattle-centric” and lawmakers outside Seattle and greater King County did not vote for the bill because it would not directly benefit their constituents. Also, Washington can be a deceptively conservative in general and in terms of cannabis, especially on outside its urban centers and especially on the East side of the mountains. Ultimately, HB 2368 did not become law.

How does the new proposal differ?

MyNorthwest.com reports that Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes intends to broaden support for the 2017 bill by allowing home cannabis delivery statewide. Such marijuana delivery services would still be subject to county and municipal regulations and prohibitions.

Will it pass?

The bill’s ultimate fate is unclear. City Attorney Pete Holmes said in January that the bill was in the early stages of finding a bill number and sponsor, though he was optimistic going forward. Ultimately, only time will tell if this or a different bill authorizing cannabis delivery eventually becomes law in Washington State. Though it is far from certain, I think pot delivery services will within the next few years become legal in Washington and I say this because the longer Washington legalization goes on without the sky falling down (and I do not foresee the sky falling down), the more Washingtonians will come to realize it is no big deal and the less they will care about restricting it by doing things like forbidding cannabis deliveries.

Why is this important for the future of cannabis reform in Washington State?

Other jurisdictions with legal medical or adult-use cannabis have experimented with home delivery, and “gray market” home delivery operations are thriving in Washington and other state-legal cannabis states since before legalization. This despite many arrests in Seattle.

The demand for cannabis delivery ensures and proves its durability as a market force. Allowing illegal delivery operations to prosper erodes the legitimacy of legal cannabis markets, and undercuts its economic rationale. Our cannabis clients resent having to pay big taxes and be subject to massive regulations while at having to compete with illegal operations that avoid both of those things. The solution is to permit legal home delivery for medical and/or recreational users and to license and treat those cannabis delivery services  as any other cannabis business.

Why is this important to medical patients and adult-use cannabis consumers?

The ability to legally provide home cannabis delivery services is particularly important to medical marijuana patients with limited mobility or other disabilities that make it impossible or unduly burdensome for them to personally go to a dispensary to obtain cannabis. Also, even adult-use recreational patients can benefit from the convenience and added value of a cannabis delivery service. Just look at Amazon Prime.

For its part, earlier this month a Seattle Times editorial endorsed legalizing cannabis deliveries.