As more and more states legalize cannabis in some form or another, and as more and more Senators and Representatives introduce legislation that would relax the federal pot laws, it’s important not to lose sight of reality: cannabis is still a Schedule I drug and is unlawful under federal law. That said, in the years since cannabis has become legal in various states, the federal government has taken an increasingly less active role in enforcement in those states. Sure, the feds could start ramping up enforcement even against state-lawful operators, but it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen any time soon.
To understand the future of federal pot enforcement, we need to look back a few years. Most readers of this blog are familiar with the Cole Memo, an Obama-era Department of Justice policy memo which essentially says that the federal government wouldn’t prioritize marijuana enforcement where operators follow state laws and would instead follow focused enforcement priorities. Since President Trump took office, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo but didn’t go full-enforcement, instead leaving it up to more local federal authorities to decide whether to enforce. But Sessions was removed, and the newly appointed William Barr has indicated that he probably isn’t going to spend federal resources enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against state-lawful operators.
What is clear about future enforcement is that until the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) is amended to de-schedule cannabis, the feds will still be targeting cannabis businesses that don’t follow state laws. Just last month, an owner of an unlicensed cannabis company in Washington State pleaded guilty to crimes in federal court stemming from the operation of a dispensary without a state license. This plea followed an investigation, which obviously means that federal offices are investigating what they view to be criminal activities. We wouldn’t expect this to stop anytime soon, and so unlicensed operators (either in state which still have prohibition or in states with licensing regimes) will need to worry about federal--and state—enforcement.
It’s less clear how the federal government will handle state-lawful operators who violate state law—in other words, will the federal government allow the states to deal with violations of state law, or will they step in and interfere? Because of the CSA, any sale of cannabis is federally prohibited, so state-licensed cannabis businesses that make illegal sales risk both federal and state enforcement. It seems, however, that unless there is serious or egregious misconduct by a state-licensed operator, the federal government will keep deferring to the states.
One agency that those rules may not apply so much to is the federal Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”). After President Trump signed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (or “Farm Bill”), the FDA (the same day) released a memo saying it retains jurisdiction over hemp and other cannabis products in foods. Pretty much immediately thereafter, the FDA began enforcing its position. It’s certainly plausible that the FDA could step in if manufactured cannabis products (especially edibles) contain what the FDA views as prohibited hemp-derived CBD, or if manufactured cannabis products make false health claims (we already know that the FDA has in the past sent a number of warning letters to state operators).
The future of federal enforcement isn’t completely hashed out. Until the CSA is amended, however, it’s not going to end. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more updates.
The Feds Aren’t Done With Cannabis was first published on Felicia Sullivan's Blog
As ardent followers of this blog are well aware, one of my favorite pastimes is keeping tabs on who is suing whom in the cannabis industry for trademark infringement. These lawsuits serve as great examples for my clients of what NOT to do when choosing a brand for their company. The last couple of years have provided a couple of big-name cannabis trademark lawsuits, including the Gorilla Glue dispute and the Tapatio Foods lawsuit.
This time, it’s the United Parcel Service (UPS) suing a group of cannabis delivery companies for trademark infringement. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 13, 2019 and alleges trademark infringement against United Pot Smokers, UPS420, and THCPlant, all of which market and sell cannabis products. These companies, according to the complaint, offer delivery and logistics services via the websites www.upsgreen.com and www.ups420.com.
In its complaint, UPS accuses the defendants of infringing its family of trademarks, which includes its famous shield logo, and states that the defendants “intended to capitalize off UPS’s extensive goodwill and reputation.” UPS allegedly sent multiple cease and desist letters to the defendants, which were unwisely ignored.
The lawsuit includes claims for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, deceptive advertising, and unfair business practices, and includes a request for damages, an end to defendants’ infringement, and control over defendants’ websites.
We’ve made this point many times before, but it warrants repeating: Cannabis companies are not immune from trademark infringement claims, and must choose brands that do not infringe the rights of third parties, including third parties outside of the cannabis industry. For ease of reference, here are several past blog posts relating to trademark infringement, and how to choose a brand that won’t get you sued:
And here are the factors a court will consider in assessing whether one mark is likely to be confused with another, proving trademark infringement (AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats):
The two most basic factors I recommend our cannabis clients evaluate before they select a brand are 1) is your mark similar to or the same as an existing mark, and 2) are you intentionally “riffing” off an existing brand? Remember that parody is not a defense to trademark infringement that will typically fly in a commercial setting. When you choose a mark as a “parody” of an existing brand, chances are you’re actually infringing a registered trademark, and possibly diluting a famous mark, which is exactly what is alleged here, in the UPS case. And the fact that you knew of the senior trademark would absolutely play against you in litigation, as your infringement would be deemed willful.
These two factors are only the beginning of the analysis. There are instances where similar, or even the same brand names can coexist if the goods those brands are used on are completely different and marketed through separate channels to disparate groups of consumers. The analysis for likelihood of confusion can be quite complex.
Before adopting a new brand name, we recommend consulting with an experienced trademark attorney and we also recommend having them perform a trademark clearance search to ensure your brand won’t be infringing any existing registrations.
UPS Sues Multiple Cannabis Delivery Companies for Trademark Infringement was originally published on Felicia Sullivan
Some critics claim that consuming any cannabis whatsoever as a parent is irresponsible. In which case, you have to say the same about every parent on earth who ever indulges in a glass of wine or the occasional beer. It’s exactly the same thing – complete BS on both accounts. Just because you’re a parent […]
Responsible Cannabis Consumption as a Parent was originally published to FeliciaSullivan.com
On January 31, the Oregon Secretary of State released an audit of Oregon marijuana regulation. The audit is a hefty 37 pages, but its core findings are listed right there on the cover sheet: “Oregon’s framework for regulating marijuana should be strengthened to better mitigate diversion risk and improve laboratory testing.” Now: we would all like to see less diversion and better testing, but those findings are not exactly surprising. And no one should expect big fixes anytime soon.
Below is some straight talk about the audit’s two primary conclusions, and a few thoughts about where things are headed.
The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) was passed over 20 years ago, in 1998. As we explained a few years back, OMMA was (and is) little more than an affirmative defense for designated marijuana possessors and distributers from state criminal prosecution, and from federal hassles to the extent possible. Those are commendable goals, but the program never made sense from a commercial perspective. Thus, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has always found itself in the unenviable position of struggling to write rules around legislation that creates a marketplace while ignoring the market itself.
When the legislature did decide to build a primitive market, it did so in fits and starts. It took seven years to put a grow site registry together, and fifteen years for dispensary licensing. Heck, even the first grow site inspections (and there haven’t been many) didn’t occur until 2016. All of this was toothpicks and BAND-AIDS. And all the while, many people made money trading in the “medical” market. Did a lot of that weed and cash make its way across the country? You bet.
Even if Oregon were to follow the audit recommendations, however, and ramp up funding for inspections and enforcement in both the OHA and OLCC (adult use) programs, there are inherent and well documented limits to supply-side efforts when it comes to federally controlled substances. Oregon can invest heavily in keeping its cannabis under seal, but its energy would be better focused on federal lobbying to de- or reschedule marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act, or even on longshot solutions like promotion of interstate marijuana exchanges.
The state should also continue to push medical marijuana regulation, including enforcement, into the OLCC purview. The audit briefly suggests as much, and we’ve been talking about that forever on this blog. It’s not such a political quagmire anymore, especially as more overlap comes with each legislative session. The fundamental question is this: why have a revenue raising agency and a health authority both focus on intensive regulation of the same plant, especially when both are under-supported? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Finally, here’s the part that administrators, legislators and even executive branch actors aren’t saying out loud: leakage into interstate commerce really doesn’t matter at this point, especially if the state is running its studies and making token efforts to stop it. There may be some federal enforcement against black market actors (which is great), but no one is shutting these state programs down. In 2019, cannabis leakage exerts more pressure on the feds to find legislative solutions than enforcement ones.
Back in the day, when OHA first started licensing dispensaries, there were no real rules around testing. People would take weed to labs with inadequate equipment and inconsistent practices. They would leave with unreliable results. In 2016, when OHA began accrediting the first laboratories for the medical and adult use (OLCC) markets, not many of them signed up. In the OLCC market, this meant bottlenecks for an extended period.
Nowadays, all cannabis making its way to retail sale is tested more strictly than other agricultural crops, but medical marijuana outside that channel typically goes untested (unless the flower is processed by a medical marijuana processor, which is pretty niche). That’s a shame because medical marijuana patients are the ones who would benefit from testing the most: many of these individuals have conditions like cancer and HIV that directly compromise their immune systems. And roughly 10% of Oregon’s medical marijuana patient community includes children under 18 years of age and seniors over 70.
As far as testing issues that affect our industry clients (OLCC businesses and financiers) the audit recommends expanding testing requirements to screen for microbiological and heavy metal testing, and it promotes “shelf audits” at dispensaries. In theory, those steps could drive up costs along the supply chain, but we wouldn’t expect significant variance. Altogether, the testing push is more about protecting vulnerable individuals in Oregon, including people in limited, patient-caregiver relationships. We can get behind that.
The following blog post Oregon Marijuana Audit: Everything is All Messed Up and Also Just Fine was originally seen on Felicia's Smokin' Blog
We’ve been writing a lot on this blog about the regulation and sale of cannabidiol (“CBD”) products at the state and federal levels. The United States is not the only international actor, however, that is concerned with regulating the sale of CBD products, including CBD-infused foods. The European Food Safety Authority (“EFSA”), the European equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), recently changed guidance on cannabinoids, declaring that all new food products infused with the plant or its derivatives should receive a pre-market approval under the European Union “novel food” regulation.
Regulation 2015/2283, which is the latest food regulation adopted by the European Parliament and the European Union (“EU”), defines “novel food” as “food that was not used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Union before 15 May 1997, irrespective of the dates of accession of the Member States to the Union.”
The EU Novel Food Catalogue entry for CBD, which contains a non-exhaustive list of ingredients that inform member nations on whether a product will need an authorization under the Novel Food Regulation, now refers to a broader class of “cannabinoids” and provides that:
This new EFSA guidance drastically expands the categories of cannabinoids that would require pre-market approval–note, however, that hemp seeds, flour and seed oil remain permitted–and it suggests that CBD-infused food could be off the European market for some time. Generally, it takes 3 years for an ingredient to gain novel food status.
A handful of European countries such as Spain, Italy, and Austria have already taken enforcement actions against CBD products on the basis of being “novel foods.” As such, it seems likely that these EU member nations will adopt the new EFSA guidance and continue their efforts in regulating CBD-infused foods as “new foods.”
The EU or its affiliates are expected to provide further guidance on this issue; however, due to administrative procedures and time required for adequate data collection, such publication won’t likely be released until 2020.
This new EFSA guidance will further complicate U.S. CBD companies’ ability to export their products overseas. In addition to potential international law violations, CBD companies run the risk of FDA and Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) enforcement actions. The FDA has yet to release guidelines on shipping CBD products to other countries; however, the main FDA inquiry for the purpose of exporting CBD would likely be whether the CBD products were adulterated or mislabeled due to the fact that they were not manufactured or labeled in compliance with the target country’s law. Another risk in exporting CBD products is that Customs agents may not have a sophisticated understanding of the difference between hemp and marijuana, as demonstrated in recent state enforcement actions. If such confusion were to occur, Customs would likely seize the CBD shipment and potentially involve the Drug and Enforcement Administration.
In light of those regulatory changes, CBD companies should remain informed on domestic and international shipping laws and consult with experienced lawyers to assess the risks of exporting their products overseas.
For more on cannabis and international law, check out the following:
Exporting CBD Food Just Got Harder: The European Union Makes a Move See more on: https://www.feliciasullivan.com
We explain the basics of hemp wick and how and why to use it.
The post Hemp Wick 101: Is It a Better Way to Burn? was initially seen on https://www.feliciasullivan.com/
This post is part two of two on how New York is regulating CBD.
On Monday, I wrote about the New York City Department of Health’s (“DOH”) recent crackdown on Hemp-CBD in food and how it was consistent with the New York State Department of Agriculture’s (“Department”) FAQs on hemp-derived CBD (“Hemp CBD”). In summary, the Department’s FAQs state that any Hemp-CBD product sold in New York state must be labeled and manufactured as a dietary supplement. Today’s post focuses on the Department’s Template CBD Processor Research Partner Agreement (“CBD Agreement”) which elaborates on the dietary supplement classification.
The CBD Agreement is a research contract between Hemp-CBD processors, referred to as “Research Partners” in the Agreement, and the Department. Its provisions would not bind other actors including Hemp-CBD sellers or Hemp-CBD processors legally operating in other states. However, the CBD Agreement does shed light on what the Department is going to require for Hemp-CBD.
Research Partners cannot process or sell Hemp-CBD as food. A Research Partner must also obtain written approval from the Department if it intends to sell or distribute Hemp-CBD dietary supplements in a form other than “pill, capsule, caplet, tablet, tinctures, droplets or elixir, chewable, or isolate form[.]”
The CBD Agreement expands on how Research Partners, or CBD processors in other states hoping to sell products in New York, can comply with FDA’s dietary supplement standards:
The dietary supplement standards are in addition to THC testing for CBD products. Hemp-CBD intended to be consumed or absorbed into the human body must also be tested under New York’s medical marijuana program for “cannabinoid profile, solvents, pesticides, heavy metals, bacteria and molds.”
The CBD requirements requires that Research Partners must also provide a serving size and applicable warning on the label. According to the CBD Agreement, CBD products shall also include the following information:
“This product is neither reviewed nor approved by the State of New York; and has not been analyzed by the FDA. There is limited information on the effects of using this product. Keep out of reach of children.”
The CBD agreement also covers reporting, approved extraction methods, and sourcing hemp. According to the CBD Agreement, the Department may eventually require registration from entities selling Hemp-CBD.
Recently, I wrote about the FDA’s stated position is that Hemp-CBD is not a dietary supplement. As such, the Department’s position is contrary to the FDA’s. The following language in the CBD Agreement requires Research Partners to acknowledge the FDA’s position:
For CBD Processors in New York, the CBD Agreement must be carefully observed. For CBD Processors operating in other states who wish to sell products in New York, the Department’s position makes things a little more complicated. For example, the FDA has different standards for cosmetic products. CBD Processors may want to argue that they are selling a CBD cosmetic not a dietary supplement. However, if that CBD cosmetic is sold in New York, it must be labeled as a dietary supplement. This may mean that the CBD cosmetic distributor may need to avoid New York or adopt labeling and manufacturing requirements as if the product was a dietary supplement.
Though it may be hard to comply with the Department’s regulations, the FAQs and CBD Agreement at least provide guidance. If you want to sell Hemp-CBD in New York, it must be sold as a dietary supplement, at least for now.
The following post Beyond the Crackdown: New York Classifies Hemp-CBD as a Dietary Supplement (Part Two) is republished from The Felicia Sullivan Blog
Back on January 4, 2018, the industry was in a slight tailspin due to then acting Attorney General Jeff Session’s (renowned marijuana hater) rescinding of all marijuana enforcement guidance from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Reactions in the media ranged from treating the Sessions announcement as nothing more than an attempt to frighten the cannabis industry to claiming that it was the first step in an organized crackdown of the marijuana industry that could affect cannabis businesses and users. Both possibilities are arguably realistic. And the drama that followed Sessions’ moves was pretty satisfying, including when Cory Gardner vowed to (and did) block DOJ appointments until the issue was resolved in favor of the states, culminating in a deal with President Trump to back off of state-legal marijuana. However, now that Sessions is out at the helm of the DOJ, industry folks can breathe a little easier where new Attorney General nominee William Barr has gone on record stating that state-law abiding cannabis businesses will not be prosecuted by the DOJ and essentially that the 2013 Cole Memo will be back from the dead.
In rescinding all DOJ guidance on marijuana enforcement, Sessions torpedoed the famous 2013 Cole Memo, which outlined eight specific enforcement priorities of the DOJ in states with legal marijuana and which, between the lines, indicated that “robust” state regulations would keep the DOJ at bay regarding enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act. After that memo, entire states built their comprehensive cannabis licensing and taxation systems on those eight enforcement priorities, ensuring that compliance restrictions and barriers to entry were strong enough to support the same. Instead, Sessions put in place the “Sessions Memo,” which was short on specifics. It doesn’t contain an outright directive ordering U.S. Attorneys to go after marijuana businesses. It simply withdraws all of the earlier marijuana-specific guidance memoranda and directed U.S. attorneys to treat marijuana sales like any other federal crime. The withdrawn memos include, the 2013 Cole Memo, the February 2014 Cole Memo that extended low enforcement priority status to apply to banking activities (although the FinCEN guidelines are, importantly, still alive); and the 2014 Wilkinson Memo that was a sort of Cole Memo for tribal lands.
Right now, U.S. attorneys have full discretion to determine to what extent they can/should enforce federal law in the context of marijuana crimes in states with legalization and medicalization–which they always had anyway–but the 2013 Cole Memo helped them prioritize certain marijuana issues across the DOJ. In his memo, Sessions referred to the principles of enforcement in the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, but that document reinforces the level of discretion and authority that each U.S. attorney has already. The Cole Memo was ultimately useful in providing a consistent nationwide federal policy. Under Sessions Memo, we are back to the days of having potentially 93 different enforcement policies — one for each U.S. Attorney. To date, there haven’t been any reported incidents of the Feds going after state-law compliant cannabis operators in states that have legalized and regulated.
A new sheriff is coming to town though, and that could be a very good thing for the momentum of state-by-state legalization in that states will better know what to expect from Big Brother as will marijuana businesses and their investors. William Barr may end up becoming a very unlikely helper when it comes to state-legal cannabis. He was Bush I’s attorney general from 1991-1993, and he’s a dyed in the wool conservative who, as Attorney General, was “tough on crime” and put many, many people in prison. As reported by Marijuana Moment, Barr in a mid-January hearing with Congress testified that:
While Barr also testified that he wouldn’t go “after companies that have relied on  Cole memorandum . . . ,” he also didn’t completely kowtow to state legal cannabis. He further testified that “we either should have a federal law that prohibits marijuana everywhere, which I would support myself because I think it’s a mistake to back off marijuana. However, if we want a federal approach—if we want states to have their own laws—then let’s get there and get there in the right way.”
In reading the tea leaves, it sounds like, personally, Barr would have no issue with continuing the War on Drugs as it relates to cannabis. As a department under his watch and command, however, the DOJ probably wouldn’t spend time and valuable resources on state-legal operators — even if Barr is concerned that the current dynamic is breeding “disrespect for the federal law.” Reasonable minds can differ, but I’d say that most cannabis operators and states are very mindful of federal law enforcement and it’s really Congress, the DOJ, and the President to blame for creating legal confusion because of varied enforcement over the years.
In the end, Barr’s testimony ultimately serves to show the country that Congress has been woefully impotent and ignorant when it comes to cannabis as a whole and especially as the topic relates to states’ rights. What’s good to know though is that if Barr is confirmed, we’re very likely returning to the 2013 Cole Memo principles, which will at least create a political atmosphere of certainty in that the DOJ has bigger fish to fry than state-legal marijuana. Right now, Barr is pretty much a lock for U.S. Attorney General, so hopefully he’ll make good on his cannabis compromises.
The following blog post ICYMI: U.S. Attorney General Nominee (Likely) Won’t Harsh Your Mellow was initially seen on FeliciaSullivan.com
This post is part one of two on how the State of New York is regulating CBD.
Last week, New York City’s Department of Health (“DOH”) quarantined a number of edible products that contained hemp-derived CBD (“Hemp-CBD”) and announced that Hemp-CBD would not be allowed in food products in the City. Eater first broke the story, but the crackdown made national news with the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, NBC, and Fox all publishing stories on the event. It is unsurprising that the DOH action drew such coverage. CBD is massively popular, New York City is the largest city in the United States, and the story is compelling because the DOH actually sent out agents to quarantine products, rather than simply issuing a statement. It seems to be this last point that garnered national attention based on the relative lack of coverage a very similar story garnered back in December 2018.
On December 18, 2018, shortly before the signing of the 2018 Farm Bill, the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (the “Department”) issued a series of frequently asked questions (“FAQs“) and a CBD Processor Template Agreement (“CBD Agreement“) that were both focused on Hemp-CBD. Unlike the DOH, the Department did not take any enforcement action. Coverage of the FAQs and the CBD Agreement was sparse. Now that New York City is taking action, it’s time to dig into the state’s position on Hemp-CBD.
The Department oversees New York’s industrial hemp program, which was promulgated under the 2014 Farm Bill. Rather than issuing licenses or permits, the Department enters into research agreements with individuals and companies who wish to process hemp into commercial products. The Department uses a number of template agreements available online. The CBD Agreement applies to processors who wish to create Hemp-CBD products intended for human consumption.
The FAQs and the CBD Agreement make it clear that the Department is intending to treat Hemp-CBD as a dietary supplement. The FAQs state that an individual cannot “sell any item for human consumption that has CBD as an ingredient unless” the two following standards are met:
The FAQs elaborate on its dietary supplement standard:
This dietary supplement classification applies to any “product that is a combination of ready-to-eat food with additional CBD infusions or CBD extracts, such as CBD chocolate syrup or CBD soda or CBD-infused frosting drizzled cookies.” The FAQs also make clear that they apply to products from other states: “products made from industrial hemp that are sold in NYS must meet NYS standards, regardless of where the product is processed or manufactured.”
It should be noted that the Department acknowledges that its jurisdiction over Hemp-CBD is limited. For example, the Department does not require businesses to apply to the Department to add pre-manufactured Hemp-CBD to another product such as a topical or to develop products using CBD is sourced from another state. There is also no requirement to obtain any authorization from the Department to sell Hemp-CBD products. However, if the product is sold anywhere in New York State, it must comply with dietary supplement standards.
You can agree or disagree with the New York City DOH’s decision to start quarantining CBD in food, however, it does seem to be inline with the Department’s guidance. The Department is a state agency and the DOH is a city agency so DOH’s decision may be it showing deference to the Department.
Later this week, I’ll analyze the CBD Agreement and how it provides additional insight into the state’s position on Hemp-CBD.
The following post Beyond the Crackdown: New York Classifies Hemp-CBD as a Dietary Supplement (Part One) Read more on: FeliciaSullivan.com
On February 1, it was reported that the World Health Organization (WHO) made some significant and long overdue recommendations with respect to cannabis. Those recommendations have not been formally released, but we expect that to happen soon. If adopted wholesale by the United Nations (UN), the recommendations will have a significant impact globally as to controls placed on cannabis and its constituent parts.
It is important to note that the WHO is not recommending the wholesale legalization of marijuana. Therefore, no one should expect the doors to swing wide on international cannabis trade overnight. Still, the WHO development is welcome news after nearly 60 years of unmerited and unexamined prohibition of cannabis under international law.
The WHO recommendations are reported as follows:
So what would all of this mean? First, cannabis containing more than trace amounts of THC would still be controlled. Whole plant marijuana would no longer be in the same class of drugs as heroin and fentanyl, but it would not be eligible for trade in the same way as coffee or even tobacco. Second, concentrated preparations of THC would be controlled more strictly than flower, but not at draconian levels. Third, penalties for distribution and possession of cannabis in any form would significantly decrease. And fourth, CBD would be treated like bonbons. In all, the WHO approach is measured and scientific, seeking to isolate various parts and preparations of the plant, and distinguish their effects.
When it comes to implications for U.S. law, the WHO’s assessment of CBD could have the most immediate impact. Readers of this blog may recall that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has taken the position that the U.S. would “not be able to keep obligations under the [Single Convention] if CBD were decontrolled under the CSA”. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ultimately fell in line with DEA’s interpretation, scheduled Epidiolex (an approved CBD drug), and recently issued a public statement warning that it is unlawful “to introduce food containing added CBD … into interstate commerce.”
If the WHO recommendation is adopted by the UN, though, the FDA may reverse course quickly. When FDA agreed to schedule Epidiolex, it advised: “If treaty obligations do not require control of CBD, or the international controls on CBD … are removed at some future time, the recommendation for Schedule V under the CSA would need to be revisited promptly.” Presumably, state health authorities would fall in line with the FDA’s ruling, and we would stop seeing things like last week’s raids in New York and Maine.
At some point this year, it is likely that the UN will vote on the WHO’s cannabis rescheduling recommendations. A really, really, really interesting question is where the United States will cast its lot on that momentous day. The U.S. has always been an international hardliner when it comes to cannabis, even as a vast majority of its states have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. These days, though, things are changing fast – both domestically and worldwide.
For more on cannabis and international law, check out the following:
The article The World Health Organization Steps Up on Cannabis was first published to Felicia's Smokin' Blog