marijuana civil rights

Happy MLK Day!

For our international readers, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is a federal U.S. holiday marking the birthday of its eponymous civil rights hero. Dr. King was the chief spokesperson for nonviolent activism in the Civil Rights Movement, which successfully protested racial discrimination in federal and state law. Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, four years after the passage of one of the great U.S. laws of the 20th century, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His death also came two years prior to one of the 20th century’s most controversial and insidious laws, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA).

As cannabis business lawyers, we write about cannabis law topics every day of the year on this blog, but we seldom address pure social issues. When it comes to cannabis, however, it is sometimes difficult to separate law and policy. This is because the federal prohibition of marijuana in the U.S. has had a racially disparate impact on non-white individuals, especially black and Latino Americans. That should come as no surprise to anyone: It is well documented that former president Richard Nixon wanted to link marijuana use and its negative effects to black people and hippies, who he perceived to be his enemies, when he signed the CSA.

That was almost 50 years ago, but in a way, not much has changed. Although the Trump administration has instated policies that make it more difficult to track drug arrests, publicly available FBI data reveals that 659,700 marijuana-related arrests occurred in 2017, comprising 40.4% of all reported U.S. drug arrests. This is nearly 12,000 more marijuana arrests than were made in 2016 (which, in turn, saw an increase from 2015). Thus, marijuana arrests are increasing, even as more states legalize possession and sale of the plant. It is profoundly regrettable that non-white individuals are arrested for marijuana crimes on a grossly disproportionate basis to whites, today and historically, despite lower levels of consumption overall. Most arrests are made for simple possession of small amounts of weed, and are made at the state and local level.

Last year at this time, Jeff Sessions was our attorney general. Although he is gone, his retrograde policies live on as Department of Justice directives with respect to marijuana and marijuana-adjacent issues. These policies include:

  • Support of draconian federal sentences for drug-related convictions (which affect blacks and Latinos disproportionately);
  • Support of federal private prisons (which impound blacks and Latinos disproportionately);
  • Support of the police tool of asset forfeiture, a legally problematic procedure which allows law enforcement to seize property of individuals who have been suspected of, but not charged with, crimes (in violation of everyone’s civil rights, but to affect blacks and Latinos disproportionately); and
  • Rescission of the Cole Memo, which gave some cover to marijuana businesses.

Today, it seems fairly certain that William Barr will be our next confirmed attorney general. He won’t be as bad as Sessions, but he is no friend of marijuana either. Barr commented last week that although he would not use federal dollars to chase state-compliant actors, “it’s a mistake to back off marijuana.” That’s not the type of leadership we need from the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

As to Congress, it recently passed the First Step Act, a mild reformation of the federal criminal justice system. That law is mostly a dud when it comes to marijuana, however. And none of the “straight” marijuana bills, from the STATES Act on down, have made it to a floor vote. All the while, marijuana arrests continue to increase, despite the facts that: a) two in three Americans now support legalizing marijuana, and b) new adult use and medical marijuana states are coming online in waves.

The War on Drugs started out as a war on minority groups, and not much has changed in 50 years. If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, it is almost certain that he would be advocating for an end to the War on Drugs, starting with removal of marijuana from Schedule I of the CSA. Until that happens, and in honor of Dr. King, here are some ways you can pitch in to reverse the racist, immoral and counterproductive state of federal law with respect to marijuana:

Dr. King died 50 years ago, but his legacy continues to resonate and expand. On this day honoring one of our greatest leaders, it is important to remember all of the reasons we strive to put an end to prohibition, including the most important ones. Let’s hope to finally see some meaningful progress on marijuana and civil rights in 2019, particularly at the federal level.

HEMP CBD FULL SPECTRUM HEMP FDA
… FULL SPECTRUM  HEMP?

In a recent post regarding the labeling requirements surrounding dietary supplements containing industrial hemp-derived CBD (“Hemp-CBD”), we alluded to a recent movement in the industry to rename Hemp-CBD products “full spectrum hemp.” We now take a closer look at the reasons behind this shift in nomenclature.

Part of the impetus behind this movement might be linked to a 2001 court decision pertaining to the status of lovastatin, a compound found in red yeast rice.

Although red yeast rice had been used for healing purposes for thousands of years, the isolated compound was approved by the FDA as a drug in the treatment of cholesterol. Despite the FDA approval, companies continued to sell and market lovastatin as a dietary supplement. One of these companies was Pharmanex. The FDA challenged the sale and marketing of Pharmanex’s product, Cholestin, and ultimately prevailed when Pharmanex challenged the FDA’s position in federal court.

The court held that the lovastatin found in Cholestin was not in its natural form (i.e., as naturally occurring in red yeast rice) because its manufacturer deliberately selected and used a method to produce specific levels of lovastatin that were greater than those naturally present in red yeast rice. In addition, the court determined that Cholestin was a drug because it was specifically marketed as the isolated lovastatin compound.

There may be some parallels between the case of red yeast rice and Hemp-CBD. Indeed, like red yeast rice, hemp and hemp extracts have been consumed for hundreds of years as food and for their medicinal value. Similar to red yeast rice, hemp contains hundreds of compounds, including CBD. And like lovastatin, CBD was recently approved by the FDA via a drug known as Epidiolex—although it is important to note that the CBD approved by the FDA as a drug is derived from the cannabis plant, not industrial hemp grown under an eligible state program, pursuant to the 2014 or 2018 Farm Bill.

Accordingly, if a Hemp-CBD product were to meet the standard laid forth by the court for red yeast rice (i.e., unadulterated full-spectrum hemp marketed as full spectrum hemp, not CBD), its manufacturer may be able to use the nomenclature “full spectrum hemp,” which might mitigate the risk of FDA enforcement action against Hemp-CBD products.

However, given the varieties of hemp strains, and the fact that each contain various levels of naturally occurring compounds, it might be challenging to specifically assess what constitutes “naturally occurring” levels of CBD. Nonetheless, “full spectrum” is generally understood to mean that all the natural constituents of the hemp plant are in product at the same percentages as they would be found in nature. Because advertising cannot be false or misleading, the nature of each product would be dispositive—i.e., whether or not the natural constituents are there in natural percentages—in determining whether those products might fall outside the scope of FDA scrutiny.

Accordingly, before manufacturers of Hemp-CBD products consider renaming their product “full spectrum hemp” they should consult with experienced attorneys to review their manufacturing process and determine whether switching from “CBD” to “full spectrum hemp” in labeling and marketing would be allowed and beneficial.

HR 420 marijuana blumenauer

On Wednesday, January 9, 2018, Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Or) introduced the aptly designated H.R. 420, or the Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol Act. The bill is still so new that it’s not yet up on Congress’ site, but the apparent text for the bill can be found online.

H.R. 420, if passed in its current form, would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act’s scheduling. The law wouldn’t allow complete legalization without regulation. It still makes clear that bringing cannabis into a jurisdiction would be unlawful where it would violate the laws of that jurisdiction. Instead of full-scale legalization, the bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a permitting scheme which could, like state law, involve different permits for each different kind of cannabis activity. It’s not yet totally clear how this would play out for permit holders in states with current regimes, i.e., whether they would have to get federal permits and/or what criteria they’d be held to.

Interestingly, these federal permits appear to last indefinitely until suspended and can be transferred if the transferee makes a timely request. There are of course disqualifying convictions, but those appear to be relatively narrow and exclude federal or state offenses if the underlying conduct was lawful in the state where the conviction was rendered. The bill also makes clear that applicants couldn’t get permits that would violate state law (this is an interesting flip where federal law bows to state law) or if an applicant wasn’t likely to commence operations within a reasonable period or maintain them in accordance with federal law.

One other interesting component of the bill is that it would transfer jurisdiction from the Attorney General over marijuana to the re-named Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms, and Explosives. The bill would also give the Food and Drug Administration the same authority over marijuana that it has over alcohol. The bill would also give the Treasury Secretary the authority to regulate certain elements of marijuana advertising to ensure that it was not false or misleading.

Ultimately, the bill leaves more unsaid than said, and if it is ever passes, it will be up to the regulators to figure out the mechanics. It’s not certain that this bill will go anywhere, especially in such a tumultuous and chaotic time. However, the approach of regulating marijuana more or less like alcohol, similar to what many states are already doing and with an element of federal oversight, is a compelling idea. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more details and updates.

oregon marijuana OLCC violation
Make it happen!

I’ve been suspicious the last few months that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) is starting to set a zero tolerance policy for marijuana rule violations. Unfortunately, the extrinsic evidence seems to be proving my suspicions.

As I’ve previously written, the OLCC settlement policies seemed to shift last September. In a first for the commission, they rejected a settlement proposal that would have allowed a licensee to keep its license and pay a fine. That particular licensee, Black Market Distribution, LLC, either needs to fight for its license at a hearing or surrender its license. The OLCC has not issued a final order related to Black Market Distribution yet and the company still have its license according to the approved license list. Only time will tell if Black Market Distribution is able to keep their license in light of the alleged violations.

As I wrote in November, if the OLCCs continued actions are any indication, Black Market Distribution may have little chance of keeping their license. In December, the OLCC seemed to continue down a path of refusing to settle cases unless the Licensee agrees to sell the business or surrender the license.

  • The OLCC alleged licensee Positive Vibrations committed four Category IV violations relating to advertising rules. The OLCC proposed a 34-day suspension or a civil penalty of $5,610. However, the OLCC and Positive Vibrations were able to reach a settlement agreement requiring Positive Vibrations to accept responsibility for the Category IV violations and either serve a 26 day suspension or pay a civil penalty of $4,290.00.
  • In the only other settlement agreement from December, the OLCC alleged licensee Greenway Ventures committed 10 violations, including two Category I violations. Even a single Category I violation is sufficient to revoke a license. Based on the violations, the OLCC proposed license cancellation. Greenway and the OLCC entered a settlement agreement that required Greenway to sell the business or surrender its license by March 30, 2019. Greenway must also accept a Letter of Reprimand for the violations that will become a permanent part of its file and may be considered in future applications. Further, the Greenway  had to forfeit 21 totes of marijuana to the OLCC for destruction.

Not only have we seen the OLCC entering into stricter and more stringent settlement agreements, but our office has seen a significant influx of charging documents issued by the OLCC. These usually come about after anonymous complaints are made to the OLCC regarding potential rule violations of the licensee. After an anonymous complaint is received by the OLCC, the OLCC assigns the complaint an investigator. The investigator then conducts inquiries and visits the licensed premises. The investigator will not only investigate the allegations of the complaint, but will also look into other practices of the licensee. This can often result in multiple rule violations.

So, what’s the takeaway? As we’ve said in the past (and will continue to say), the only way to avoid OLCC charging document exposure is to ensure compliance with the rules. How do you do that? The best way is to create a compliance position for your license, and designate or hire a compliance person. This might not be cheap but it will probably save you in the long run. That person’s job will be to keep up to date on OLCC rules (which are still being updated frequently), and to ensure that every aspect of the license is in compliance with those rules. Alternatively, split up the job among several experts. If you have someone running your Instagram account, for example, make it their job to ensure that every Instagram post and every marketing item that stems from the license complies with the rules. Have someone become an expert in CTS, tagging, and manifest. Etc. The bottom line is, make sure you have someone or a team of someones that know the rules inside and out, and isn’t shy about speaking up when practices are lax. If you and the compliance expert cannot figure something out, hire an attorney to review your practices. At the end of the day, it’s better to pay up front to ensure rule compliance rather than to pay the OLCC in penalty fees or lose your license altogether.

california cannabis final regulations

Yesterday afternoon, on January 16, 2019, the California Office of Administrative Law (“OAL) finally approved the sets of final regulations under it had been reviewing after submissions from the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) which regulates cannabis manufacturers, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (“CDFA”) which regulates cultivators, and the Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”) which regulates distributors, retailers, event organizers, and testing laboratories. You can find the final regulations here.

The three sets of regulations follow on the heels of final proposed regulations that the CDPH, CDFA, and BCC submitted to the OAL for its review in December. We will be providing some overview of the key components of the final regulations shortly, but it looks upon initial review like these regulations adopted most or all of what was submitted for review in December.

These regulations are “final”, meaning cannabis operators and applicants no longer need to worry about discrepancies between emergency regulations (which as of now are no longer effective per the OAL’s statement) and whatever version of proposed regulations were then out in the ether. But though these regulations are “final”, we’re pretty positive that there will be changes and modifications—probably on a more incremental level—in the future.

Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for further insight and analysis into these final regulations and any final regulations that will come.

We have spilled a lot of ink on this blog related to the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp at the federal level. It’s huge news. And there are so many ramifications, from food law to trademarks to the financial services environment. This blog post is going to cover financial institutions and hemp at about 10,000 feet. Since late December, we’ve had many clients come to us with frustrations about the ongoing lack of access post-Farm Bill, and questions about how things will play out in 2019.

To frame this issue, it’s important to summarize what the Farm Bill actually is and does. In a recent post, we explained that “the 2018 Farm Bill modified the Controlled Substances Act (the ‘CSA’) to exempt hemp from the definition of marijuana. Not only is hemp now clearly excluded from this definition and thus not a scheduled drug, but states and tribes also cannot prohibit the distribution of hemp.” Seems easy, right?

industrial hemp bank credit unionIf only. Going forward, hemp will be subject to stiff regulation at the state and federal levels. For example, although hemp is no longer a controlled substance under the CSA, the Farm Bill reserves certification rights to the Department of Agriculture over state and tribal industrial hemp production “plans.” Those plans will be nuanced, and what any given state’s plan will look like next year is unknown. That fact alone may be the biggest reason that most financial institutions are still on the sidelines.

Financial institutions are also conservative by nature. We represent a handful of banks (and a larger handful of credit unions), and we give those outfits advice on banking hemp and marijuana. A few of these clients are relatively nimble and bold, but at the end of the day they are still banks. They have directors who worry about individual liability, lawyers and officers who worry about byzantine state and federal laws and policy, and shareholders and members who may see outsized risk and steep learning curves. When banks move into these areas, they tend to offer limited services, which are seldom more than basic merchant accounts.

Financial institutions also understand that when a new piece of federal regulation is enacted, it takes some time for rules to be written in support of the new law (both federally and by states), for programs to be staffed and built, for guidance to issue, etc. Finally, there is often a wave or two of litigation to interpret the administrative environment. All of that happens over the course of years, not months, and all of that will happen with hemp and the Farm Bill. Like the rest of us, financial institutions cannot see around corners and will be watching closely.

So what does all of this mean? Ultimately there will be banking, but banks and credit unions will not come in all at once. When they do come in, early actors will likely provide services for hemp clients that look similar to what is out there today in states like Washington and Oregon for hemp and marijuana businesses. This means limited access to institutional lending, ongoing compliance reporting and audits, and short leashes overall. Everything that happens will be fluid and consistent with best practices for high-risk industries.

Ending prohibition is a lot of fun, but then you get to wake up and go to work. We are optimistic that the hemp industry will have ample banking options. It will take some time, though. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor this issue and other hemp-related matters closely. Stay tuned.

fda cbd food
Not OK per FDA.

On January 3rd, according to the owner of a smoke shop in Yuma, Arizona, officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seized a variety of CBD products from the store’s shelves. The officials took fewer than fifty items and told the owner to anticipate follow-up paperwork within seven to ten business days.

According to the owner’s account, FDA officials had stopped by the shop a few days earlier and asked what products were edible and intended for humans. When those officials returned, they informed the owner that CBD cannot be sold for human consumption.

This squares with what we have written about extensively, and also with what FDA Commissioner Scott Gotlieb has stated:

[I]t’s unlawful under the FD&C Act to introduce food containing added CBD or THC into interstate commerce, or to market CBD or THC products as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived. This is because both CBD and THC are active ingredients in FDA-approved drugs and were the subject of substantial clinical investigations before they were marketed as foods or dietary supplements. Under the FD&C Act, it’s illegal to introduce drug ingredients like these into the food supply, or to market them as dietary supplements. This is a requirement that we apply across the board to food products that contain substances that are active ingredients in any drug.”

Gottlieb also made clear that things like claiming CBD or cannabis products cure diseases prior to undergoing FDA approval are not lawful, and that the FDA will not hesitate to warn consumers and initiate enforcement actions against CBD companies. The enforcement against the Yuma store seems to indicate that those enforcement actions have begun in earnest.

There seems to be a good amount of misunderstanding about how the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (or the “2018 Farm Bill”) affects the legality of selling industrial hemp-derived CBD products. But to reiterate, nothing in the 2018 Farm Bill alters the FDA’s position on CBD pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Here are some additional highlights from that statement:

  • The FDA will continue to enforce the law, including the FDCA, in an effort to protect patients, the public, and to promote the agency’s goals of promoting public health;
  • Products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds, including CBD, will be subject to the same regulations and requirements as other non-cannabis FDA-regulated products;
  • Hemp or hemp-derived CBD products that are “marketed with a claim of therapeutic benefit, or with any other disease claim” must be approved by the FDA before being introduced into interstate commerce;
  • Hemp or hemp-derived CBD products marketed “for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of diseases” are considered drugs and must be approved by the FDA before they are marketed for sale in the United States; and
  • It is “unlawful under the FDCA to introduce food containing added CBD or THC into interstate commerce, or to market CBD or THC products as, or in, dietary supplements, regardless of whether the substances are hemp-derived.”

It remains to be seen whether the FDA will introduce new regulations pertaining to the sale of hemp-derived CBD products intended for human consumption. For now, the agency has indicated that its position on CBD products is clear. We’ll be watching closely to see if this enforcement action constitutes a ramp-up of enforcement against CBD companies nationwide.

california hemp CBD
We’ve got you covered on California, hemp, FDA and CBD.

A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about the precarious state of industrial-hemp derived CBD in California. Since then, as everyone knows, President Trump signed the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (or “Farm Bill”). A lot of people think that in the wake of the Farm Bill, hemp-derived CBD (“Hemp CBD”) is now completely legal. This is in many cases a wildly inaccurate misconception—especially in California. Now, the legal status of Hemp CBD is arguably even more confounding than it was then. And it was pretty bad.

What did the 2018 Farm Bill Actually Do?

Before getting into California Hemp CBD laws, it’s important to discuss what the new Farm Bill even changes. If you follow us here at the Canna Law Blog, you know we’ve written pretty comprehensively on this topic. For a brief overview, the 2018 Farm Bill modified the Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”) to exempt hemp from the definition of marijuana. Not only is hemp now clearly excluded from this definition and thus not a scheduled drug, but states and tribes also cannot prohibit the distribution of hemp. However, as I explain below, that doesn’t necessarily mean hemp or Hemp CBD can be sold without state restrictions.

The current Farm Bill also gives the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture (the “USDA”) authority to oversee state hemp regulatory programs. For example, states and tribes must submit plans to the USDA for implementing regulatory schemes, and these plans must be approved by the USDA. In the event that they aren’t, the USDA can implement its own plan.

One other interesting component of the Farm Bill is that crop insurance coverage could be extended to hemp, meaning hemp crops could actually gain federal insurance. In a state like California that is prone to natural disasters, this is critical.

These aren’t all the changes that the new Farm Bill brought along, but they are some of the key ones. Now, on to California.

Hemp CBD in Food/Beverages in California

Over the summer, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) issued its now infamous FAQs (the text is here), which took the position that:

[A]lthough California currently allows the manufacturing and sales of cannabis products (including edibles), the use of industrial hemp as the source of CBD to be added to food products is prohibited. Until the FDA rules that industrial hemp-derived CBD oil and CBD products can be used as a food or California makes a determination that they are safe to use for human and animal consumption, CBD products are not an approved food, food ingredient, food additive, or dietary supplement.”

Under California law, “food” is defined as “[a]ny article used or intended for use for food, drink, confection, condiment, or chewing gum by man or other animal” and “[a]ny article used or intended for use as a component of any article designated” in the foregoing definition. What this means is that the CDPH views anything that counts as food or drink that’s intended for human or animal consumption as unlawful.

On an important side note, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (or “MAUCRSA”) defines “cannabis” to exclude industrial hemp (and therefore doesn’t regulate industrial hemp), and instead incorporates provisions of the California Health and Safety Code which leave the regulation of hemp cultivation to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (“CDFA”). The CDPH expressly cited this issue in MAUCRSA back in response to the 45-day comment period for its proposed regulations to note that the CDPH doesn’t have jurisdiction over regulating industrial hemp. This doesn’t mean that the CDPH can ban hemp in other things (like manufactured cannabis, see below), but it just means that under MAUCRSA, the CDPH can’t start issuing hemp regulations.

Back to the main story, it was pretty clear after the FAQs were issued that the CDPH wouldn’t continue to tolerate sales of foods or beverages with Hemp CBD for long. But we weren’t aware of any sort of enforcement efforts or actual regulations by the CDPH regarding Hemp CBD in foods or beverages. However, after the Farm Bill wound its way through Congress but before Trump signed it, there was some question on whether the Farm Bill would negate the CDPH FAQs.

A few days before the Farm Bill was signed, I wrote a post predicting that the 2018 Farm Bill would not do away with the FAQs. This was because the FAQs are based on the CSA’s prohibitions on hemp as well as the federal Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) stance that Hemp CBD foods are not permissible. The Farm Bill changed the CSA, but not the position of the FDA.

In fact, while the ink from Trump’s signature on the Farm Bill was still drying, the FDA issued a statement (see here) telling companies to pump the brakes and that it still regulates hemp and CBD in at least medicines and foods. In an accompanying Q&A document, the FDA takes the fairly unequivocal position (see response to Q.13) that it is illegal to introduce into interstate commerce food that has CBD in it.

So what is going to happen now? As noted above, we aren’t yet aware of any enforcement actions in California. We’re also unlikely to see any sort of new guidance from the feds during the shutdown or in the immediate future thereafter. But localities may be taking a very different approach.

For example, the L.A. County Department of Public Health’s Environmental Health Division (“LADPH”) published an undated PDF concerning industrial hemp in food and saying that the LADPH will begin actually enforcing them: “Effective July 1, 2019, prohibited use of industrial hemp derived products in food will be considered adulterated and cited by [LADPH] as a violation resulting in a deduction of two (2) points on the official inspection report.”

This is one of the first instances we’ve seen of a county taking an official enforcement position on CBD food products, and interestingly comes on the heels of the L.A. Department of Cannabis Regulation (“DCR”) creating an attestation (which I wrote about here) for businesses who sell hemp products to advise that those products don’t fit within the legal definition of cannabis.

Now it seems like we have our first glimpse of what is going to happen when companies sell CBD foods or beverages. While this is only in L.A., we can assume that other counties will follow suit and may be even more aggressive in their pursuit of these hemp CBD food companies.

What is much less clear though is what this means for simply manufacturing or distributing food products that contain hemp CBD. The CDFA’s website Q&As still say that “California law does not currently provide any requirements for the manufacturing, processing, or selling of non-food industrial hemp or hemp products.” It seems like we will need to wait and see what the final answer is.

Licensed Cannabis Products

Cannabis products will generally contain at least some level of CBD naturally. But what about adding CBD from an industrial hemp source to a manufactured product under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act? Well, the CDPH (which governs the manufacture of all cannabis products in California) says no.  In the proposed final regulations (no. 40175(c)), the CDPH states pretty clearly that, “A manufacturer licensee shall only use cannabinoid concentrates and extracts that are manufactured or processed from cannabis obtained from a licensed cannabis cultivator.” With this regulation, the CDPH has effectively cut Hemp CBD out of the manufacturing process altogether.

Alcohol Products

In 2018, the California legislature passed a piece of legislation that prohibits cannabis or alcohol licensees from introducing Hemp CBD (or THC) to alcoholic beverages. You can read more about that here.

Dietary Supplements and Medicinal Products

The FDA’s statement makes clear that it will retain jurisdiction over CBD products making medicinal claims, and the accompanying Q&A (see response to Q.12) says that the FDA views dietary supplements containing CBD as unlawful. That said, the FDA notes that there is at least a path towards FDA approval. For what it’s worth, the FDA’s not all talk—see the case of Epidiolex (and see subsequent statement by California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, on Epidiolex). Also, the same day that it issued the statement discussed above, the FDA issued a companion statement listing as generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) hulled hemp seed, hemp seed protein powder, and hemp seed oil. The FDA is making clear that it’s willing to work with the CBD industry, but it will probably not be cheap.

Vaporizers and Other Products

We recently wrote a comprehensive post about Hemp CBD in vape cartridges. What we said then still holds—it’s a grey and undefined area. This is probably another area that the FDA may eventually regulate given its similar work with nicotine-based vape products. But given the shutdown and just the general speed of regulators, we’re unlikely to know anytime soon.

For what it’s worth, the FAQs are only tailored to food, but it’s possible that regulators could view all products containing Hemp CBD intended for human consumption as unlawful. This seems a bit less likely to happen right away because the CDPH and other agencies have had ample chance to do this but haven’t. But it’s certainly possible, and we’ll make sure to keep you informed of any developments.

Cultivation

We know that at least for cultivation, California’s recent bill SB-1409 (which we’ve written about here and here) was intended to create an application and registration scheme for cultivators. Now that the Farm Bill will require states to submit plans to the USDA for hemp production, it’ll be interesting to see what happens with SB-1409.

Packaging and Labeling

Anyone in the California cannabis game knows that the packaging and labeling regulations are tough, ever-changing, and hard to comply with. The point of these laws seems straightforward—regulators want people to know what they are consuming, and to ensure that cannabis products are properly labeled so that people don’t unwittingly ingest cannabis. They also want to avoid false and misleading claims in labeling.

Because CBD products in California are either in grey or quasi-illegal areas, things aren’t so clear. There aren’t specific packaging and labeling laws for it here, so people who still are selling these products are operating in a labeling wild west. This is different from states like Oregon or Indiana, which have actually begun to figure out how some CBD products should be labeled. We published a post recently on the complexities of and in many cases lack of instruction for hemp labeling laws at the FDA level—and the fact that there may not be guidance for another year or two.

The FDA’s Q&As (see response to Q.15) note that in deciding whether to institute enforcement actions, the FDA will now consider factors, such as “agency resources and the threat to public health.” This may be the FDA’s way of saying that in light of its limited resources, it’s going to spend its enforcement power on those companies selling dangerous products or making false or misleading health claims. One thing we do already know is that the FDA has already sent warning letters to companies that have marketed CBD as new drugs, in the FDA’s view. So in post-shutdown mode, we may see the FDA step in more aggressively on enforcement, especially for products and claims that it views as unlawful.

With the passage of the Farm Bill comes the possibility of a completely new playing field for industrial hemp producers. It appears that the question of whether IRS Code 280E (which prohibits deductions for any amount paid or incurred in carrying on any trade or business that consists of trafficking in a Schedule I or II controlled substance under the CSA) will apply to hemp producers is now settled.

But what about issues like banking or federal intellectual property protections? While it seems like these may be a reality soon, the answer is not as clear cut. If the FDA starts using its enforcement powers against companies that make Hemp CBD foods, for example, it’s certainly possible that banks will still stay away from those companies or that the USPTO won’t register their trademarks. It’s all too soon to say how this will play out, so stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog.

It may seem difficult to understand why cannabis, which is still prohibited federally, is at the state level treated more liberally than Hemp CBD. But the reason is clear—there are strict regulatory testing and quality assurance requirements for cannabis, there will be a track-and-trace system in place to ensure that only white market sources are used, and there are tight packaging and labeling rules that create uniformity in how cannabis products are identified to consumers.

That level of regulatory security doesn’t really exist yet for Hemp CBD and so regulators and lawmakers are naturally more concerned about products that they cannot trace, that may not be labeled at all, and that have undergone zero testing. When Hemp CBD is regulated more like cannabis, regulators may very well relax some of their positions.

Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog as we will be sure to follow and interpret each and every development in this complex and fast moving space.

Congratulations to Canna Law Blog’s Hilary Bricken, recently named one of the cannabis industry’s top lawyers by Business Insider!

The cannabis industry is volatile and deals are growing more complex as markets evolve. Having worked with clients in the cannabis industry for over eight years, though, and in multiple jurisdictions, there is no deal too complex for Hilary. In 2018 alone, she closed an estimated $100 million in industry transactions.

Because Hilary has been in the industry for so long, she is also uniquely equipped to make observations regarding its changes. As she states in the article, the field is now more diverse, including among service professionals. Among the other attorneys listed were lawyers from large international firms such as Dorsey and Whitney and Fox Rothschild.

With an industry “set to skyrocket to $194 billion,” the diversity and complexity of cannabis transactions will only increase over time. All in all, we are super proud of Hilary and our growing L.A. office, and looking forward to big things in 2019.

cannabis trademark scamWe hear from clients on a regular basis who receive fraudulent notices pertaining to their U.S. federal trademark applications, and because we’ve seen an uptick in these scams over the last month, we thought it would be prudent to publish a PSA on the topic, together with what to look out for if you are a trademark applicant or owner.

These trademark scams often come in the form of an official-looking letter or invoice requesting payment related to the trademark application. These letters can come via mail or via email, are formatted to look like an official government document, and list specific details about your trademark application, including an image of your trademark. All of this is public information and readily available, for better or worse, to potential scammers.

A client of ours recently received a letter from a company called Trademark Selection, Inc. that requested a “Registration Fee” of USD 1,360. The letter also provided wire instructions to an account in Florida, and in very fine print at the bottom stated, “By paying the indicated amount you accept this offer that will approve listing this information in the ‘TM SELECTION 2018 / The International Trade Marks and Service Marks’ catalogs.” This letter is a scam.

For clients that utilize our firm for their trademark filings, all correspondence related to those filings come directly from us. We pay filing fees and invoice our clients accordingly. No official U.S. federal trademark-related correspondence will ever come from an agency other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Some of these third-party letters include official-sounding words, like “Trademark,” “Patent,” “Registration,” “Agency” or “Office.” Most of them, if you read the fine print, provide for worthless services like those stated above in the Trademark Selection letter, or may offer to provide you updates on renewal deadlines (something you’ve probably already paid your trademark attorney to do). Some of them list no services at all.

Unfortunately, because these notices can look quite official, some companies end up paying them, believing they are legitimate. If you do receive third-party correspondence, it’s always best to check in with your trademark attorney, but chances are, you can and should disregard it.

Here are a few of the companies we’ve seen fraudulent notices from lately:

  • Trademark Selection, Inc.
  • Patent and Trademark Institute
  • Register of Protected Patents and Trademarks
  • ITP Service
  • S. Trademark Compliance Office
  • ITR Register
  • Trademark Edition Ltd.
  • TPP Trademark & Patent Publications

And this list only scratches the surface of what is out there in terms of trademark scams. Again, official correspondence will come from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with an address in Alexandria, Virginia, or will come directly from your trademark attorney. If you receive any official emails, they will come from the domain “@uspto.gov.” If you ever receive one of these suspicious notices, you should contact your intellectual property attorney immediately. The USPTO is also available to answer questions regarding the status of your application.