This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has once again pledged to take action to better facilitate clinical cannabis research. In 2016, the DEA similarly announced the adoption of new rules to expand to supply of research-grade cannabis, but failed to take any further action.
Marijuana industry operators were left unfazed when Jeff Session’s marijuana enforcement memorandum was released in January and the Obama era “Cole Memo” was rescinded, which relaxed the use of federal resources to prosecute marijuana businesses in compliance with statelaw.
For starters, this case clarifies that the federal government can neither force the states to enforce federal marijuana policy, nor can they prohibit the states from implementing or revising their own marijuana policies. Murphy holds that state-law repeals are not pre-emptible.
Although 18 states have fully legalized, cannabis is still a sticky issue for banks and other financial institutions because it remains illegal at the federal level. The cannabis industry might look like just another business for local police, where legal, but the DEA and other federal agencies have a different outlook.
Especially after passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which clarifies and affirms that hemp – including hemp-derived cannabinoids are lawful — there is confusion as to why edible CBD products would be the subject of enforcement actions and why state and local health departments would even care in the first place.
The Commission believes this “narrow timeframe” is an “unnecessary obstacle for compliance.” On January 31, 2020, NCDA sent a letter to hemp licensees stating that the future of the state’s hemp program was uncertain due to the decision not to submit a plan to the USDA.
D-8 is legal federally, and most statelaws don’t specifically address it. There’s big enthusiasm [for Delta-8] in the Southeastern states, the Carolinas, the Dakotas, Texas, anywhere…where people can’t get high legally.”. States already closing loopholes. But how long will that last?
or less is within the distribution or range, then the sample will be considered to be hemp for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of State, Tribal, or USDA hemp plans. Labs that test cannabis for THC levels must be registered with the DEA. Because 0.3% Because 0.3% Interstate Transport. ” What is 7 U.S.C.
Such a definition, coupled with the fact that Delta-8 has a potency of about 75% of that of Delta-9, suggests that Delta-8 would be considered a “controlled substance analogue,” regulated under federal law. Is Delta-8 legal under statelaw? The Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board recently stated , “products exceeding 0.3%
Navigating local, state, and federal regulations Although state-licensed cannabis labs are legal under statelaw, the federal government sees them in violation of federal law. In cannabis testing, this role is moved from the FDA to the local state authority.
Though ABA specified that it was not taking a position on marijuana legalization generally, it recognized that conflicting federal and state cannabis policies are untenable and have created complications for cannabis businesses operating in compliance with statelaw.
[Note: while we don’t believe that anyone in Congress has proposed it yet, the Federal government could legalize cannabis for medical use [and perhaps for recreational use] and preempt many of the statelaws. See The Murky Part of the STATES Act: Tribal Rights ]. What agencies will have oversight at the Federal level ?
In The Weeds welcomes the new year, as well as a number of new cannabis laws and policies taking effect around the country in 2022. Below is a list of statelaw updates to look forward to this year. This DEA guidance and the Kansas opinion both suggest legality for some hemp-derived delta-8 products under the 0.3
In February of this year, the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (“CBCC”) sent a letter to Weedmaps.com alleging that the website was “engaging in activity that violates state cannabis laws.” Because cannabis remains illegal under federal law, 7 and Section 230 explicitly does not “impair the enforcement of.
This is all very bad and we collectively need to figure out how to get people to comply with statelaw rather than penalizing everything. The issue of enforcement or compliance is probably the biggest one most states face at the policy level. compliance tradeoff. This left enforcement to state regulators.
Five of them used an age verification form , which is in compliance with the FDA age requirements and statelaws, where the customer has to upload a photo of a government ID, and the other required a signature on delivery of the package. The second argument is based on a DEA interim final rule on the topic of synthetic THC.
The inevitability of enforcement actions, civil penalties, loss of licensure, and even potentially criminal liability (depending on the nature of the violation) mean that cannabis businesses must get in the mindset of compliance. The point is that compliance means more than just not engaging in criminal or openly unlawful conduct.
Many people in the cannabis industry are convinced that this HHS recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) means that the DEA will undertake this rescheduling (and fairly quickly, too–which would be a huge departure from its refusal to reschedule back in 2016). Just my two cents; feel free to disagree.
This summer, the DOJ and the DEA sued the BCC because the BCC refused to comply with a DEA subpoena about the alleged extracurricular drug trafficking above. The BCC has refused to provide that information to the DEA. In the January subpoena (which is standard and boilerplate), the DEA wrote that “the information sought.
law are forced to petition the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to do so. The petition process is set out in a set of interim guidelines published by the DEA (Interim Guidelines). I imagine the DEA will be sued over those, too. said controlled substance.
This is definitely an issue with these piecemeal cannabis bills: there will always be collateral effects regarding compliance with other, existing federal laws. This is definitely an issue with these piecemeal cannabis bills: there will always be collateral effects regarding compliance with other, existing federal laws.
Olsen issued a memorandum entitled “Memorandum Opinion for the Chief Counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration” (the “ Olsen Memo ”) to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). The Peyote Regulation requires that peyote uses would be required to comply with all other laws—including statelaws.
Until recently, CBD resided in a legal penumbra where hemp was still scheduled on the federal Controlled Substances Act and could not be cultivated without a permit from the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). Option 2 would likely be hugely expensive: we would see increased business failure as well as market consolidation.
To expand the number of manufacturers, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) submitted a notice in the Federal Register on August 11, 2016, soliciting applications for licenses to manufacture marijuana for research purposes. However, over two years have passed without any new schedule I marijuana manufacturer registrations.
Cannabis cannot be lawfully prescribed by physicians; physicians can only “recommend” its use to patients based on individual statelaws that identify who qualifies as a patient for its use. This answer depends on statelaw. That’s about it though. Can anyone own and operate a ketamine clinic? Source: [link].
Back in August 2020, the Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”) released its Interim Final Rule (the “ IFR” ) in which the agency stated, in part, that “[a]ll synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols remain schedule I controlled substances.” This chemical conversion is at the root of the legal confusion.
As of this writing, cannabis remains a prohibited Schedule 1 drug, defined by the DEA as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” . Most Americans have access to either medical or adult-use cannabis under statelaws. Since 2012, 18 states and Washington, D.C.,
In accordance with statelaw, all CannaMD doctors hold an active, unrestricted license as either an allopathic physician or osteopathic physician and are in compliance with all state-mandated education requirements. MORE DETAILS: As medical marijuana physicians ourselves, this one is easy!
Although the DEA refuses to remove marijuana from the schedule 1 list, the Farm Bill is considered to be the most important victory in the history of U.S. Only CBD products produced in compliance with the Farm Bill would be legal by federal law. This does not however, mean that all CBD products are now legal.
Congress could pass a law that would legitimate marijuana activities, but only to the extent an individual or commercial enterprise acts within the letter of statelaw. The DEA has made previous requests–in 2001 and 2006–to the FDA for an evaluation of marijuana. Emphasis added).
And it’s not so much the case anymore that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or Department of Justice (DOJ) are coming to knock down your door and arrest and prosecute you as a cannabis business owner for open violations of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). And that is what made last week’s new so interesting.
On the other hand, the Act does allow states to opt-out of participating in the regulation of a legal hemp market through an explicit “no-preemption” clause written into the Act. The Act positions it will not prevail over statelaws that are more stringent than those expressed by Congress on the regulation of hemp.
In the event a Tribe or State doesn’t develop a plan or the plan is rejected by USDA, then growers will just follow the overall system put together by USDA (these directives are very similar to the standards set out in the 2018 Farm Bill, legalizing hemp). The enforcement role moves from DEA to ATF. Age limits (21).
Even if the feds step down, and allow the states to step up, strict compliance with statelaw is more important now than ever for industry operators. The states and their constituents must demonstrate state regulation of marijuana is attainable and under control. Now is the time to redouble our efforts.”
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 14,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content