cannabis – Cannabis Industry

August 15, 2024 by Danielle M. Dwyer

Employers Must Engage in the Interactive Process with Medical Marijuana Users and Cannot Refuse to Hire a Job Applicant Based on Marijuana Use Alone.

By: Kathleen O’Malley and Danielle Dwyer

Recently, Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced a Finding of Probable Cause by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) against Prince Telecom LLC (Prince) for declining to hire a medical marijuana user as a cable installation technician. The DCR found the job applicant was subject to disability discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The basis for the DCR’s determination was Prince’s rescission of a job offer after the applicant, a medical marijuana user, tested positive for cannabis in connection with a pre-employment drug screen.

Prince, a company that constructs and maintains telecommunications and cable systems, offered a technician job to the applicant pending a drug test. The applicant informed the company that he had a medical marijuana prescription and used marijuana to treat a disability. When the applicant tested positive for cannabis, he provided his medical marijuana prescription card to the company, after which Prince rescinded the job offer. Prince maintained that it could not provide the applicant with any accommodation given the safety-sensitive nature of the job duties of the position (such as, driving company vehicles, operating machinery, working with electrical wires, climbing ladders and lifting 50 pounds or more). According the DCR, Prince assumed that hiring a medical marijuana user to perform such tasks would expose the company to “enormous” liability.

The DCR issued a Finding of Probable Cause because Prince did not ask the applicant for additional information about the nature of his disability; how often and what time of day the applicant used marijuana; and what effect, if any, his medical marijuana use might have on him during work hours. By failing to initiate discussions of that nature with the applicant, the DCR concluded that Prince did not meet its obligation to engage in the interactive process. Under the LAD, employers have an affirmative duty to consider reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees. Broadly speaking, this means an employer should have a dialogue with a disabled applicant or employee and should ask questions to determine whether the individual can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Once the employer has sufficient information from the individual and/or the individual’s healthcare provider about the disability and any proposed accommodations, the employer can evaluate whether it is able to offer a reasonable accommodation without posing an undue burden on the company. Employers who fail to engage in this interactive process violate the LAD—which is exactly what the DCR has accused Prince of doing.

While the LAD protects individuals with disabilities, it is also worth noting that both medical and adult marijuana use are legal in New Jersey and the state has enacted protections for the use of marijuana. The Jake Honig Compassionate Use Medical Cannabis Act (CUMCA) prohibits an employer from taking an adverse employment action against an employee or applicant (e.g., terminating or refusing to hire) based on the fact that the employee is registered as a medical marijuana user. The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) protects adult use of marijuana and prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions due solely to a positive drug test for cannabis. CREAMMA also has specific and stringent protocols with respect to drug testing in the workplace. Because CREAMMA went into law after Prince rescinded the applicant’s job offer, the DCR did not review Prince’s conduct to determine whether it violated that statute as well.

Notably, the DCR did not find that Prince had to accommodate the applicant’s use of marijuana in workplace or that it had an obligation to hire him. The agency found that Prince had an obligation to engage in the interactive process—to gather information sufficient to consider whether it could have reasonably accommodated the applicant’s disability. If Prince had learned the applicant used medical marijuana after work hours and would not be impaired or under the influence when reporting for duty, Prince may have been able to reasonably accommodate the applicant’s disability. The laws in New Jersey are clear that employers have a right to maintain a drug-free workplace and do not have to accommodate use of medical marijuana in the workplace or during work hours. Based on the DCR’s finding, Prince’s error was that it made too hasty a decision and did not gather any information from the applicant to determine whether it could have accommodated his disability.

Of note, a Finding of Probable Cause is not a final determination on the merits. It means the DCR determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings against Prince. The parties will now have the opportunity to resolve the case voluntarily through conciliation. If the parties cannot resolve the matter, the case will move to the Office of Administrative Law or the Superior Court for further adjudication.

August 14, 2024August 14, 2024 by Seth A. Goldberg

Weighing the Risks of Marketing Delta-8 and Similar Substances

I originally published the blog below with the title “Delta-8 Bans Are Having a Moment,” which on reflection seems a bit flip. The reality is that the ambiguities in the 2018 Farm Bill and the lack of federal regulation of such substances have created a conundrum for those who market Delta-8 and similar substances, as well as for the cannabis industry, and for states that are weighing public safety against financial interests.

Just as those who were participating in the cannabis industry in its early days – before federal cannabis policy was so transparent – had to weigh the risk of federal enforcement and criminal penalties, purveyors of intoxicating substances manufactured from hemp cannabinoids must weigh the risk that the 2018 Farm Bill could be read by some, including Congress and state governments, as not legalizing those substances simply because they have some relation to legal hemp.

As a lawyer who represents clients who manufacture and market cannabis and hemp products, I have seen them weigh the risks attendant to the unclear regulatory landscapes for both cannabis and hemp, and I have not been surprised – and have been disappointed – when some have opted not to make the leap into cannabis or hemp.

Even today, where cannabis is legal and where federal cannabis policy has de-prioritized enforcement against state cannabis activities that comply with state law, the cannabis market is too risky for the vast majority of businesses to expand into. Think about all of the consumer packaged goods companies that have been watching cannabis and hemp, but have not made the move, not even to CBD, not to mention almost the entire financial institution market.

Thus, when those who have decided to market Delta-8 and similar intoxicating substances on the basis that the 2018 Farm Bill legalized them, I can’t help but think about whether they were advised about and accepted the risk that the 2018 Farm Bill could be read differently, or they simply jumped into the market blindly or on poor advice. Yes, the market for those substances has grown and is in the billions, but that does not somehow make the 2018 Farm Bill less ambiguous or somehow make the substances any safer.

The fact that cannabis companies are increasingly moving to hemp and even Delta-8 and similar substances also does not change the ambiguity in the 2018 Farm Bill. It does, however, underscore the risk cannabis market participants took when they entered a space burdened by the capital restraints resulting from federal prohibition and 280E. Many of these companies are now desperately in need of another source of revenue, and hemp is a logical choice, but there is still a risk when it comes to Delta-8 and similar substances.

The tack of saying there is a cannabis and hemp “civil war,” or that state bans against Delta-8 and similar substances and clarifying changes to the 2018 Farm Bill will “kill the hemp industry” seems to miss the mark. This does not seem to be about the “hemp industry” or “hemp farmers,” but rather about a market that has developed for intoxicating ingestible products that may be manufactured using hemp cannabinoids and other chemicals. Every intoxicating substance poses a public safety risk, and the public safety risk resulting from Delta-8 and similar substances should outweigh financial interest. As such, the emphasis should be on whether and how to regulate Delta-8 and similar substances in a way that ensures public safety.

That state legislators and regulators are imposing restrictions in that direction does not seem surprising. States should have the right to govern these types of intoxicating substances. While bans may be undesirable, in the absence of clarity in federal law or federal regulation, it appears to be the solution for some states. As a result, those manufacturing and marketing Delta-8 and similar substances must continue to weigh the risks and manufacture and market their products knowing there is uncertainty as to the legal/regulatory landscape.

******

My original blog posted under the title “Delta-8 Bans Are Having a Moment.”

Ingestible products containing substances that are manufactured using naturally occurring hemp cannabinoids, such as CBD, and other chemicals to creating intoxicating hemp substances, such as Delta-8 THC, have become increasingly available throughout the U.S., being sold at gas stations, vape shops, and convenience stores. Such substances are often as or more intoxicating than marijuana, but by and large they have not been regulated with the same product safety requirements as marijuana that has been legalized in states for adult or medical use. The FDA views such intoxicating substances as prohibited in food and beverages, and while the FDA may take enforcement action, which it has done, it has not created a regulatory framework for the manufacture and ingestion of intoxicating hemp substances. Instead, it is waiting for Congress to clarify what some perceive to be a loophole in the 2018 Farm Bill that has allowed the proliferation of such substances, because of language legalizing hemp and its “derivatives.”

Safety concerns have been raised about the intoxicating potency of these substances, as well as about the chemicals used to manufacture them, resulting in state regulations restricting or banning their use. Regardless of where you stand on whether the 2018 Farm Bill legalized intoxicating substances that can be manufactured using cannabinoids from legal hemp, in the absence of federal regulation, states have been banning or heavily restricting them in the name of public safety. While advocates of such substances decry those bans and limits, states who view them as a safety risk are taking action to protect their citizens.

In middle America, where cannabis legalization is spotty, foods and beverages containing intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp seem to have flourished, and those states have treated cannabis and intoxicating hemp substances differently. For example, in Minnesota, marijuana has been decriminalized for personal use, but has been legalized and regulated for medical use and can be sold in a handful of state-licensed dispensaries to medical marijuana card holders, whereas Delta-8 THC and Delta-9 THC artificially derived from hemp may be consumed in foods and beverages with certain serving size limitations that can be sold in stores that register with the state prior to sale.

In contrast, whereas Missouri has legalized and regulates the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes, on August 1, Missouri Governor Michael Parson issued Executive Order 24-10, which bans “unregulated psychoactive cannabis products,” including “delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), delta-10 THC, hexahydrocannabinol (HHC), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-O), tetrahydrocannabiphoral (THCP), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), and other similar compounds.” As the Executive Order states, “there are currently no safety standards, packaging requirements, or other regulations related to the safety of consuming unregulated psychoactive cannabis products in Missouri,” and “actions must be taken to protect consumers, including children, from the sale of foods that include unregulated psychoactive cannabis products.”

In Iowa, like Missouri, marijuana has been legalized for medical use, and the sale and consumption of marijuana is governed by Iowa’s medical regulatory program, and, like Missouri, Iowa recently issued regulations, effective July 1, 2024, banning “synthetic consumable hemp products,” including “Delta-8 THC, Delta-10 THC, Hexahydrocannabinol (HHC), Tetrahydrocannabiphorol (THC-P), and Tetrahydrocannabinol-O-acetate (THC-O).” Iowa’s ban of synthetic consumable hemp products was challenged in Climbing Kites LLC, et al., v The State of Iowa, et al., et al., 4:24-cv-202 (SD IA), by a low-dose THC beverage manufacturer, along with other low dose-THC beverage manufacturers, but after the Court refused to enjoin the ban, the lawsuit was withdrawn.

As we have previously written, Wyoming, which has not legalized marijuana in any respect also bans substances that have been converted from naturally occurring hemp into a synthetic substance, such as Delta-8, and in South Dakota, where medical marijuana is legal, but recreational marijuana is not, a federal court recently upheld a ban, like Iowa’s, on Delta-8 and other intoxicating substances converted from hemp. Hemp Quarters 605 LLC v. Governor Kristi Noem, et al., 3:24-CV-3016 (SD SD).

South Dakota HB-1125 went into effect on July 1, 2024, and provides that no person may “(1) chemically modify or convert industrial hemp as defined in § 38-35-1, or engage in any process that converts cannabidiol, into delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, delta9 tetrahydrocannabinol, delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol, or any other tetrahydrocannabinol isomer, analog, or derivative; or (2) Sell or distribute industrial hemp or an industrial hemp product that contains chemically derived cannabinoids or cannabinoids created by chemically modifying or converting a hemp extract.” HB 1125 includes the following definition for the term Chemically Derived Cannabinoid: “a chemical substance created by a chemical reaction that changes the molecular structure of any chemical substance derived from the cannabis plant. The term does not include: (a) Cannabinoids produced by decarboxylation from a naturally occurring cannabinoid acid without the use of a chemical catalyst; (b) Non-psychoactive cannabinoids; or (c) Cannabinoids in a topical cream product.”

Clearly, the manufacture and sale of intoxicating substances using hemp cannabinoids, such as Delta-8, is being scrutinized. As such, manufacturers and sellers of such products need to be mindful of the regulatory landscape.

August 2, 2024August 13, 2024 by Jim Hearon

Federal Court Affirms Crackdown on Intoxicating Substances Synthesized from Hemp

In the absence of federal enforcement action, state legislatures have stepped into the breach, enacting laws regulating products containing intoxicating substances that are chemically synthesized versions of chemicals in hemp. Those substances are referred to here as hemp-synthesized intoxicants or HSIs. Challenges to state authority to regulate HSI are being filed. In a recent decision that may foreshadow what is to come, a federal court declined to enjoin Wyoming’s hemp law.

As we have previously reported, the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act, commonly referred to as the 2018 Farm Bill, opened the floodgates to unregulated intoxicating hemp products across the country. Though the 2018 Farm Bill authorized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate hemp-derived products intended for human consumption, the FDA has yet to promulgate rules for such products or HSIs. In the absence of federal regulations, states have begun to enact their own rules.

In Green Room LLC, et al. v. State of Wyoming, et al., a group of HSI wholesalers, retailers, and manufacturers filed a federal suit challenging amendments to Wyoming’s hemp laws and requesting a preliminary injunction. In pertinent part, the amendments expanded the definition of THC to include any psychoactive structural, optical, or geometric isomers of THC, encompassing both CBD and the popular Delta-8 THC. Because cannabis remains illegal in Wyoming, the amendments effectively prohibited the possession, sale, transport, and production of intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp. The plaintiffs argued, in part, that the amendments were unconstitutional because they were preempted by the 2018 Farm Bill, which they claim legalized all hemp substances, including intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp, for intrastate and interstate purposes.

On July 19, 2024, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ request to enjoin enforcement of the new law, finding that they do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Specifically, the court found that the 2018 Farm Bill does not prevent states from regulating HSIs. The court found the 2018 Farm Bill did not confer any right on plaintiffs to manufacture or sell intoxicating products resulting from hemp, but merely redefined the term hemp. Most important, it held the 2018 Farm Bill contains an express “no preemption” clause permitting states to regulate hemp more stringently than federal law. The no preemption clause expressly permits a state to enact laws regulating intoxicating substances synthesized from hemp in a manner “more stringent” than the 2018 Farm Bill. The court further concluded that Wyoming’s amendments do not violate the dormant commerce clause, do not amount to a regulatory taking, and are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

Green Room is not the first challenge to state restrictions on HSIs. In Bio Gen LLC et al. v. Sanders et al., the State of Arkansas appealed a trial court decision enjoining Arkansas regulations that restrict the manufacture and distribution of products that contain synthetic cannabinoids that could be intoxicating, such as Delta-8 THC. In Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture LLC, et al. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., the plaintiffs, an HSI product manufacturer/distributor and consumer, appealed a trial court decision that denied their motion to enjoin the State of Virginia from enforcing Virginia regulations that restrict the manufacture and distribution of products that contain synthetic cannabinoids that could be intoxicating, such as Delta-8 THC.

Those pending appeals present the possibility of a federal circuit split on the question whether the 2018 Farm Bill legalized intoxicating substances that could be derived from hemp. On behalf of the American Trade Association for Cannabis & Hemp, Duane Morris filed an amicus brief in each case that asserts that the 2018 Farm Bill did not legalize hemp-synthesized intoxicants, and it reserved for states the right to regulate such substances in the interest of public safety.

As more states roll out new restrictions on intoxicating hemp products and operators, we expect to see more challenges. Though not a final ruling on the merits of the suit, the court’s decision suggests these plaintiffs and others challenging state intoxicating hemp laws have an uphill battle ahead.

July 29, 2024July 29, 2024 by Seth A. Goldberg

Cannabis/Hemp Product Mislabeling Creates Legal Risk

A recent study by ASTM International’s Journal of Testing and Evaluation published a study entitled Market Audits Combat Cannabis Misinformation demonstrates through “off the shelf” testing that the labels of cannabis products are very often materially inaccurate with respect to THC potency, microbial contaminants, and heavy metals. While the study advocates for using periodic off the shelf testing and forensic data from seed-to-sale tracking systems to identify bad actors and police such conduct, the public safety risks from mislabeling raise the likelihood of products liability and consumer fraud lawsuits as another check on mislabeled cannabis (including hemp) products.

A number of consumer fraud class action lawsuits have been filed in California and other states arising out of the alleged mislabeling of infused pre-rolls. Such claims assert that consumers were duped by the THC potency claims on packaging and labeling, and should be compensated for being duped. In contrast, a products liability action would result from a physical injury caused by an improperly labeled cannabis product. Improperly labeled THC potencies, microbial contaminants, and heavy metals could all lead to such injuries, and state laws would give rise to claims for damages, including punitive damages, for such injuries.

Manufacturers who sell and the labs who test products that are labeled inaccurately are exposed to this litigation risk, and should consider incorporating risk mitigating compliance protocols into their quality assurance and control programs.

July 23, 2024 by Seth A. Goldberg

Overwhelming Support for Rescheduling or De-scheduling Cannabis in DEA Comments

The public comment period for the DEA’s proposed rulemaking to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug has ended. Approximately 43,000 comments were submitted! As Headset reports, this is the most comments received in response to a DEA proposed rule, and the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of cannabis either being moved to Schedule III or being de-scheduled and fully legalized altogether. According to Headset, 9 out of 10 comments were in favor of removing cannabis from Schedule I, with 35% of commenters supporting rescheduling and 57% supporting de-scheduling. Of course, many of the proponents of de-scheduling would support rescheduling as opposed to leaving cannabis under Schedule I. In contrast, just 7% of commenters advocated no change.

June 26, 2024 by Paul P. Josephson

Cases We’re Watching: Constitutionality of State Restrictions on Cannabis Advertising

By Paul Josephson and James Hearon

State cannabis advertising bans are getting their day in court, albeit before the federal Fifth Circuit, a court that has been increasingly hostile to regulation.

In February 2022, Mississippi enacted the Medical Cannabis Act, legalizing medical marijuana within the state. The Act granted the Mississippi Department of Health (“MDOH”) authority to establish and promulgate rules and regulations governing the advertising of medical cannabis.

The Act made clear that any proposed rules or regulations could not prohibit a cannabis operation from engaging in certain types of marketing and advertising, including displaying appropriate signage on the licensed premises, listing in business directories and other publications, or displaying logos or other branding materials. In promulgating its proposed regulations, MDOH prohibited licensees from advertising or marketing in any form of media (i.e., broadcast, electronic, print, etc.)

In November 2023, Tru Source Medical Cannabis, LLC challenged MDOH’s advertising restriction as a violation of the First Amendment. In January 2024, the Northern District of Mississippi federal court upheld the advertising ban and dismissed the lawsuit, entitled Cocroft, et al. v. Graham, et al., in its entirety. The district court relied extensively on the Montana Supreme Court’s analysis in Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. State of Montana, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016), rejecting a similar challenge to cannabis ad regulations. The district court agreed that “an activity that is not permitted by federal law—even if permitted by state law—is not a ‘lawful activity’” and, thus, does not qualify for commercial speech protection. Tru Source appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit.

We are closely watching the Fifth Circuit’s decision to see whether antipathy for cannabis or regulatory overreach will prevail. The circuit, which embraces Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, has been making headlines lately for rulings hemming in the authority of federal agencies. In recent cases, the Fifth Circuit rejected FDA rules permitting use of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone (just overturned by the Supreme Court late last week), tossed out the SEC’s system for adjudicating enforcement cases, and declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism unconstitutional (also reversed by the Supreme Court). The Fifth Circuit has been in the legal spotlight, and its rulings have been keeping the Supreme Court busy.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision is also likely to implicate a much broader and unsettled legal question; that is, whether constitutional protections apply to state-legal, but federally prohibited, conduct. In 2022 and 2023, we saw a number of constitutional challenges to residency requirements in state cannabis regulations alleging that such requirements discriminate against out-of-state operators and violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Several courts, including the First Circuit and the Eastern District of Michigan, have held that discriminatory residency requirements likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. Other federal courts, such as the Western District of Washington and the District of Maryland, have found that, because cannabis is federally illegal, the Dormant Commerce Clause likely does not apply—the same rationale relied on by the district court in Cocroft.

The Fifth Circuit’s recent history as a venue where regulators have fared poorly suggests Mississippi’s outright ban on commercial speech by state-legal businesses will get a hard look. Briefing will be complete shortly, and we would expect oral argument and a decision before year end.

June 19, 2024 by Seth A. Goldberg

Diamond Shruumz Shows Why Intoxicating Products Should be Regulated

Recently, FDA announced issued an alert warning consumers that a brand of ingestible chocolate bars, cones, and gummies called Diamon Shruumz has been linked to a variety of severe heath symptoms, including seizures, central nervous system depression (loss of consciousness, confusion, sleepiness), agitation, abnormal heart rates, hyper/hypotension, nausea, and vomiting. As the name suggests, Diamond Shruumz products are marketed as a product that allows consumers to microdose – take in small doses – psilocybin and other psychoactive chemicals in mushrooms. These products are not subject to strict federal and state regulations, and can be purchased in gas stations and c-stores, or online by anyone who passes a simple age-gate. They are marketed with names that could easily be confused by consumers as products that do not contain intoxicating chemicals, such as “Hawaiian punch,” “cookies & cream,” “birthday cake,” and “cookie butter,” and their packaging is colorful and attractive. It seems obvious that intoxicating products like these need to be regulated in the interest of public safety. Regulation does not mean prohibition. It means safeguards that enable consumers to use products without unnecessary health risk, and they can protect manufacturers and supply chain participants from liability risk.

May 17, 2024May 22, 2024 by Duane Morris

DEA Rescheduling, Pa. Legalization Efforts May Breathe New Life Into Cannabis Practices

Duane Morris cannabis industry group team lead Paul Josephson spoke with The Legal Intelligencer on Pennsylvania cannabis legalization as the Drug Enforcement Administration has officially moved to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance.

“There’s not a legal practice area that hasn’t touched or worked for our cannabis practice here,” he said, although he and other attorneys emphasized the potential growth in financing work should rescheduling and local legalization efforts go through.

“Removing this from Schedule I … it provides immediate tax relief to companies in the cannabis business,” Josephson said, explaining that as the law currently stands, cannabis businesses aren’t allowed to deduct business expenses when they calculate and pay taxes, resulting in razor-thin profit margins. “When rescheduling happens, when that monkey comes off the back of the industry, it will improve cashflows for everyone in the business and allow for more investment.” Read more on the Duane Morris website.

May 3, 2024May 6, 2024 by Duane Morris

The American Lawyer Features Duane Morris on Cannabis Rescheduling

Seth Goldberg, partner and team lead of Duane Morris’ Cannabis Industry Group, spoke with The American Lawyer about how the firm is preparing for cannabis rescheduling.

“What makes reclassification a watershed event is that it frees up capital and allows for more growth and allows for potential consolidation and more successful companies, more competition with respect to multistate operators and get back to a place of equity investment,” said Goldberg.

“We have been preparing for that, and lawyers in each of our practice areas—whether IP, corporate, employment—who have cannabis practices are already thinking about how they‘re going to advise clients in the cannabis industry and also outside of the cannabis industry with respect to how reclassification impacts that type of law.” […]

The combined impact on cannabis businesses of tax liabilities and lack of access to financing “can’t be overstated,” Goldberg said. Removal of 280E “will have an immediate impact on operator balance sheets,” he said. Continue reading “The American Lawyer Features Duane Morris on Cannabis Rescheduling”

April 30, 2024 by Seth A. Goldberg

DEA Recommendation to Reschedule Cannabis is Imminent

Multiple news sources reported today that the DEA will be recommending rescheduling cannabis to a Schedule III drug. The recommendation will then lead to a public comment period and then a Final Rule will be issued, so the actual reclassification of cannabis is months away. However, as with recent moves toward rescheduling, such as the HHS recommendation and President Biden’s directive to study whether to reschedule, today’s news and the forthcoming recommendation will boost the cannabis market, as operators and investors look forward to a better performing industry resulting from the reclassification. The actual reclassification will have an immediate impact on operator profitability, as IRS Code 280E, which prevents cannabis operators from deducting normal business expenses, will no longer apply to cannabis businesses. This is just one of the very significant changes to the industry that will spur more capital and more growth. Banks and other sources of capital that have been reluctant to enter the space may finally get off the sidelines and join the game, which would obviously be the shot in the arm the industry has needed for some time.