Earlier this week, Governor Murphy, Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-3rd District, and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, D-19th District, reached a tentative agreement on key pieces of adult use marijuana legislation, overcoming one of the key sticking points of how to tax the product sales, reaching a collective consensus of a $42 an ounce tax.
According to a recent Monmouth University Poll, 6 in 10 New Jersey adults support legalizing recreational marijuana. The February poll interviewed 604 New Jersey adults between Feb. 8 and 10, found that 62% of respondents favored legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use, compared to 32% of adults who said no to the prospect of legal marijuana in New Jersey.
68% of respondents said it would support the state economy, while 40% of respondents who support legal cannabis said it would boost tax revenue for New Jersey.
From an age perspective, 81% of millennials (i.e., ages 18 to 34), support legalizing marijuana, compared to 74% of adults ages 35 to 54, and 67% of adults 55 and older.
One of the other bones of contention that was overcome involved who will control the oversight commission. The current agreement would create a 5-member Cannabis Regulatory Commission to oversee the state’s marijuana industry, and Governor Murphy would be able to appoint 3 of the members without requiring Senate approval.
A earlier New Jersey marijuana legalization bill that was advanced by Assembly and Senate commitees in the fall of 2018 included a 12% sales tax. Under the Monday compromise, adult use marijuana purchasers will pay the same tax rate no matter what amount they purchased – meaning, $42 for an ounce, $21 for a half-ounce, $10.50 for a quarter-ounce or $5.25 for an eighth-ounce.
The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee vote was 7-4 in favor, while the Assembly Appropriations Committee voted 7-3 to advance the bill. If legislation is moved, the “Marijuana Legalization Act” would allow users 21 years old and up to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.
Last year was a record year for cannabis. Canada passed the Cannabis Act, making adult-use cannabis legal there. The FDA approved a cannabidiol-based medicine, Epidiolex. And the President signed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, aka the 2018 Farm Bill, into law on December 20, 2018.
While the 2018 Farm Bill granted the U.S. Department of Agriculture the ability to regulate hemp, it also preserved the right for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate products containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. The FDA regulates products such as human and animal drugs, biological products, cosmetics, food and animal feed, among other things. So any inclusion of cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds, like CBD, in any of those types of products would be regulated by the FDA. The FDA has stated that this is true regardless of the source of the cannabis substance, be it hemp or marijuana.
The first public hearing on New Hampshire House Bill 481, which would legalize the adult use of cannabis in the state, is scheduled for February 5, 2019. The bill outlines how New Hampshire would regulate cannabis products,including recreational “adult use” products, the licensing and regulation of sales establishments, and the taxation scheme.
Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont all have legalized the “adult use” of cannabis, leaving New Hampshire as the only state in northern New England that has yet to do so.New Hampshire’s economy is very integrated into the New England and Metro Boston economies and serves as a valuable new market for the cannabis industry.
The February 5 public hearing will begin at 1:00 p.m. at Representatives Hall in the State House before the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. The committee will amend the bill the following day, vote on the bill on Thursday, February 7, and send the bill to the floor of the New Hampshire House for its consideration in February.
Although Governor Christopher T. Sununu has said he will veto the bill, the bill is receiving bipartisan support and is expected to easily pass the House and Senate in the coming weeks, setting the stage for a potential veto override. It is also anticipated that the legislative effort will take a couple of months. Duane Morris will continue to follow these developments.
On 1-9-19, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced H.R. 420, the “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act.” Blumenauer, the co-sponsor of the Rohrabacher–Blumenauer amendment, better known as the on-going appropriations provision that prohibits the Justice Department from spending federal funds to enforce federal law that is in conflict with state medical cannabis laws.
Proposed Bill 420 is a total overhaul of the federal government’s treatment of marijuana. Among other things, the bill:
1. Decriminalizes marijuana by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act;
2. Amends the Federal Alcohol Administration Act to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to issue permits to those who want to to manufacture, distribute, or sell marijuana;
3. Transfers jurisdiction from the DEA to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
4. Prohibits widespread advertising for marijuana; and
5. Grants to the FDA the same authority for marijuana as it has for alcohol.
Rep. Blumenauer noted: “Congress cannot continue to be out of touch with a movement that a growing majority of Americans support. It’s time to end this senseless prohibition.” In this vein, per a Pew Research Center study released last fall, nearly 66% of Americans support legalization at the federal level.
The new co-chairs of the 2019 bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Conference are Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Dave Joyce (R-OH), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Don Young (R-AK).
On December 27, 2018, the Northern District of California dismissed a civil RICO claim brought against the owners and operators of a Sonoma County cannabis growing operation and the operation’s landlord. See Bokaie v. Green Earth Coffee LLC, 3:18-cv-05244-JST, 2018 WL 6813212 (N.D. Calif. Dec. 27, 2018). The lawsuit was filed by neighbors who alleged that the operation’s “skunk-like stench” interfered with the enjoyment of their property and drove down their property values. The Bokaie court found that such alleged harms did not constitute a “RICO injury,” and thus dismissed plaintiffs’ claim (albeit without prejudice, allowing 30 days to amend).
The Bokaie case is part of a growing trend of RICO lawsuits filed in legalized states—to date, roughly a dozen have been filed in California, Colorado, Massachusetts and Oregon—that seek to exploit the tension between state law and the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). RICO defines “racketeering activity” to include CSA violations, and a civil lawsuit can proceed upon allegations that an enterprise’s pattern of racketeering activity caused damage to the plaintiffs’ business or property. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1962(c), 1964(c). RICO’s civil remedy provision awards prevailing plaintiffs triple damages and attorneys’ fees, id. § 1964(c), thus giving “not in my backyard” plaintiffs and their attorneys a powerful tool against their neighbors. By alleging that the smell of cannabis interferes with the enjoyment of their property and drives down their property value, plaintiffs in these cases are effectively elevating common law nuisance claims into federal RICO lawsuits.
With the rapid spread of marijuana legalization in the US, lawyers are discovering that the tangled web of regulations guiding the rapidly growing industry is a boon for business. …
There are several key reasons lawyers are attracted to the marijuana industry. For one, as cannabis companies grow, merge, and start getting the attention of Fortune 500 corporations as acquisition targets, they need more sophisticated advice on financing, tax planning, corporate structure, and M&A. …
That’s an opportunity to a select group of lawyers who have cut a trailblazing path into the industry. Once reluctant, some of the biggest law firms, like Duane Morris, Baker Botts and Dentons, are building out specialized cannabis practice groups as the industry continues to grow in profitability and complexity. …
Business Insider has pulled together a list of the top lawyers who’ve worked on the largest deals in the past year in the growing marijuana industry.
“This is a very good opportunity for our firm,” said Seth Goldberg, the chair of the firm’s practice in Philadelphia. Cannabis is one of the “few emerging markets that has multibillion-dollar potential.”
Goldberg, a seasoned trial lawyer with decades of experience, said he spearheaded the firm’s involvement in the industry in 2014 after Colorado became the first state to allow recreational pot shops.
Duane Morris represented iAnthus, a US cannabis company, in its $640 million merger with MPX Bioceutical, also the first public-to-public transaction in the US cannabis industry. Further, the firm has advised investors on real-estate acquisitions.
Update: The Senate passed this bill on December 11, 2018; the House of Representatives passed it on December 12, 2018. It was signed into law on December 20, 2018.
Duane Morris will be following further developments and issuing updates.
Key Points:
The 2018 Farm Bill removes hemp from the Controlled Substances Act;
The 2018 Farm Bill confers on the Department of Agriculture (“DOA”) authority over hemp, including CBD derived from hemp;
States desiring to have primary regulatory authority over hemp must submit a plan to DOA pursuant to which the state will establish hemp regulations to provide for the growth and use of hemp, including CBD derived from hemp;
No laws will be erected to prohibit the interstate transportation of hemp, or CBD derived from hemp;
The Food and Drug Administration may intensify its involvement with CBD as more products for human consumption hit the market;
Banking and insurance for hemp derived CBD products should become increasingly available as those products are no longer “unlawful”; and
CBD derived from unlawful marijuana is still unlawful.
Enter the 2018 Farm Bill, known as the “Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018,” set forth in final form in a Conference Report yesterday, and which will be voted on as early as this week and could be signed into law next week. The 2018 Farm Bill defines hemp as follows: The term ‘hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. It goes on to explicitly remove hemp from the Controlled Substances Act, as follows:
SEC. 12619. CONFORMING CHANGES TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘(16) The’’ and inserting ‘‘(16)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the’’; and (2) by striking ‘‘Such term does not include the’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘(B) The term ‘marihuana’ does not include— ‘‘(i) hemp, as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; or ‘‘(ii) the’’. (b) TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL.—Schedule I, as set forth in section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)), is amended in subsection (c)(17) by inserting after ‘‘Tetrahydrocannabinols’’ the following: ‘‘, except for tetrahydrocannabinols in hemp (as defined under section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946)’’.
The 2018 Farm Bill confers on the DOA the regulation of hemp, and contemplates federal regulations that would allow for states to become the “primary regulator” of hemp. Importantly, the 2018 Farm Bill explicitly provides for the interstate transportation of hemp and prohibits states from restricting the interstate transportation of hemp, stating “nothing in this title or an amendment made by this title prohibits the interstate commerce of hemp (as defined in section 297A of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (as added by section 10113)) or hemp products…No State or Indian Tribe shall prohibit the transportation or shipment of hemp or hemp products produced in accordance with subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (as added by section 10113) through the State or the territory of the Indian Tribe, as applicable.”
Significantly, the 2018 Farm Bill does not remove CBD derived from THC-containing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act. Consequently, the DEA’s pronouncement as described above is still in effect, CBD derived from unlawful marijuana is still unlawful. However, there is now clarity. CBD derived from “hemp,” as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, and grown pursuant to state regulations established pursuant to the 2018 Farm Bill, is lawful and may not be the subject of federal prosecution.
Banking: It should be underscored that banks and other financial institutions, such as investment firms and insurance companies, that have been cautious or reluctant about CBD products because of their connection to unlawful marijuana may view the 2018 Farm Bill as a green light for banking, investing and insuring hemp derived CBD products as hemp and CBD derived from hemp are no longer “unlawful.”
Most importantly, the 2018 Farm Bill does not eliminate the regulation of hemp or CBD derived from hemp. Rather, it envisions the promulgation of additional federal regulations and state regulations intended to promote its growth and use, and federal agencies like the FDA may increase their involvement with CBD. Those interested in participating in the hemp and hemp derived CBD markets should retain counsel well-versed in the pertinent state and federal regulations to provide guidance that will allow for the achievement of business objectives.
These investments demonstrate the strengthening gravitational pull of the cannabis space on non-cannabis companies. The significant involvement of major companies like Altria and Constellation likely comes as no surprise to those following the burgeoning cannabis space, and should have their competitors considering similar moves. There are innumerable legal hurdles to clear in entering the space, but there are few markets today that offer new ground to plow.
On October 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico (Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación) ruled in favor of two constitutional challenges (amparos) against the prohibition of the recreational consumption of marijuana. This now marks the fifth ruling on this subject and establishes jurisprudence. As a result, this precedent will now have to be followed by Mexican courts.
Although the consumption of marijuana remains illegal, the rulings under amparos 547/2018 and 548/2018 have effectively made laws prohibiting recreational use of marijuana unenforceable by Mexican courts.
The decision is based on the protection of the constitutional right to personal development. This right, held the court, permits adults to freely decide what recreational activities they wish to undertake and extends to protect any action that is necessary for the exercise of said freedom, without interference by the state. While the court recognized that there are necessary limits to this freedom, it nonetheless held that the effect of consumption of marijuana did not rise to the level of a justifiable interference with a constitutional right. Furthermore, this right does not extend to the commercialization of the drug, nor to the right to consume any other type of drug. …
The Controlled Substances Act defines “marijuana” as: all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.
Just like THC-containing products that are lawful under a state’s marijuana laws, CBD that may be lawful under a state’s marijuana laws, is still federally unlawful if sourced from the parts of the plant included in the definition of marijuana.
