How Biden’s rescheduling of marijuana could affect the US industry

Source: MJ Biz Daily | Author: Chris Roberts | Oct 14, 2022

After a half-century in which marijuana endured the strictest prohibition allowed under the law, President Joe Biden has set in motion a process that could lead to revolutionary changes for federal MJ policy.

It could mean struggling American marijuana companies can finally enjoy long-desired tax relief, or those same firms could lose cannabis entirely to big pharmaceutical companies.

Both outcomes – and many other scenarios – are all possible under the “administrative rescheduling” process the president activated last Thursday, according to legal and scientific experts.

At the same time, an act of Congress could cancel out whatever recommendations emerge from the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the alphabet soup of other federal agencies responsible for drug policy now tasked with reviewing how Washington DC handles marijuana.

“Anyone who says they know what will happen doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” said Andrew Kline, senior counsel in the Denver office of the Perkins Coie law firm and former public policy director at the National Cannabis Industry Association.

“There are just too many unknowns at the moment.”

Under federal law, drugs fall into one of six categories, ranging from Schedule 1 to unscheduled.

And there are the five steps of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ranging from most to least dangerous – and restricted.

There are also many substances understood to science as “drugs” that are unscheduled.

These include popular (and potentially deadly) tonics such as alcohol and tobacco as well as the intoxicating hemp-derived delta-8 and delta-9 THC products sold online and in barely regulated smoke shops and bodegas unleashed by the 2018 Farm Bill.

The situation is more complex than some observers realize, but here’s a brief review of the rescheduling process, where marijuana could finally end up and what it would mean for the current and future U.S. cannabis industry.

Schedule 1: status quo

Background: Since 1970, cannabis has been classified under Controlled Substances Act of the Richard Nixon era as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, the category for drugs with no recognized medical application, “a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence,” according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Other Schedule 1 drugs include heroin, LSD and peyote.

Even in 1970, the move was controversial. In 2022, this situation “makes no sense,” the president noted last week.

Very famously, marijuana has a “lethal dose” so high it’s never been definitively established in humans, while drugs classified as Schedule 2 have a large and growing body count.

Of the 107,622 Americans killed by a drug overdose in 2021, none died from cannabis while 71,238 died from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl that a doctor could theoretically prescribe, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There is also growing recognition that cannabis has medicinal applications, as former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy suggested in 2015 and as a 2017 National Academies review echoed.

Though the Schedule 1 status creates an infamous Catch-22 – studies are needed to justify a rescheduling, but Schedule 1 makes cannabis harder to study, a confounding logical pretzel Congress has thus far been unable to untangle – it seems certain that marijuana will be removed from this category, experts agreed.

“Schedule 1 is a fiction,” Kline said. “There’s clear evidence of its medical utility and little evidence of the high potential for abuse.

“There’s no question it should be removed,” he added. “The question is where does it go.”

Business impact: Under Schedule 1, marijuana companies are barred from taking traditional business deductions – thanks to Section 280E of the federal tax code. That has put a major crimp on their earnings. Scientific research involving marijuana also faces heavy restrictions.

Schedule 2: pharmaceutical model

Background: Schedule 2 drugs are like Schedule 1 drugs, with one exception – clinical application with legal availability through a prescription or under supervision from a physician.

These include Adderall and Ritalin as well as cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

Schedule 2 – the category sought by a rescheduling petition filed in 1972 by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and finally rejected in 1994 – is in a way the cannabis industry’s worst nightmare: legal relief and a relaxation of prohibition but availability only via the arduous and expensive U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process.

Business Impact: Federally legal marijuana would be “subject to tremendous testing and myriad regulatory requirements that are far beyond what states currently implement,” as The Brookings Institution scholars John Hudak and Grace Wallack wrote in 2015, when recreational cannabis sales were underway in several states in much the same fashion they are now across much of the country.

It would also quite likely still be heavily taxed, as Kline and other experts have said. Section 280E prohibits tax deductions for “trade or business” in Schedule 1 or 2 controlled substances that is “prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.”

Schedule 3-4: tax relief, but doctor’s orders

Background: Schedule 3 is where drugs with “a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence,” such as Tylenol with codeine, anabolic steroids and ketamine, live.

This is the threshold “where 280E tax exemption is no longer an issue,” said Shane Pennington, a Denver-based counsel with the Vincente Sederberg law firm.

This is also the classification sought after in the thus-far symbolic bills introduced by the Congressional Cannabis Caucus that have died in committee without a hearing. That is no huge tragedy, as they currently do not stand a chance of passage in the Senate.

Yet, as Pennington observed, this also isn’t what most existing cannabis companies would want, since Schedule 3 drugs are also only generally legally available with a doctor’s authority and, thus, some level of compliance with the FDA approval process.

The same is true with drugs in Schedule 4, which have a “low potential for abuse,” such as Ambien, Ativan and Xanax.

Business impact: It’s here that the fundamental problem with using the Controlled Substances Act to regulate marijuana appears, at least in the cannabis industry’s eyes: You can’t get rid of the FDA, and the FDA process isn’t something that the current industry is built to comply with.

“People need to understand that regardless of the schedule, you’re still subject to the FDCA (Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act),” Pennington said.

“The point is that the model is not built for cannabis.”

Schedule 5: over the counter, or unscheduled?

Background: Schedule 5 drugs are still FDA-approved and regulated, but they are sold over the counter in pharmacies, supermarkets, gas stations and convenience stores like low-codeine cough syrup.

That’s exactly where most big cannabis companies would love to have their products appear – except, as Pennington pointed out, Schedule 5 products are not considered recreational or adult use.

These include cough syrup formulations.

In that analysis, no place on the Controlled Substances Act is appropriate for marijuana at all, though most observers agree that a complete removal from the CSA is something federal authorities are unlikely to recommend.

Business impact: Better from a C-suite and investors’ point of view would be total removal from the CSA – the legal status enjoyed by delta-8 and delta-9 THC products (though some states currently ban hemp-derived products sold outside their state-regulated cannabis industries).

Rescheduling, then, “would have some benefits but could unintentionally impact the 37 state medical (marijuana) programs which could effectively be dismantled were it placed into Schedule 2 or 3,” said David Holland, a New York City-based cannabis attorney.

“There would need to be a tremendous amount of federal regulation and that would only permit medical usage, not responsible adult usage.”

The upshot

What Biden might have unleashed could turn out to be “an unintended shock wave were rescheduling undertaken, rather than descheduling, which would allow the states to decide the issue of medical legalization and how it may be used in each state – medically and/or recreationally,” Holland said.

In this way, administrative rescheduling could herald tax relief and bigger margins for existing publicly traded marijuana companies.

It could also just as easily lead to an end of federal prohibition packaged with U.S. regulations so onerous that newly burdened big firms disappear and cede marijuana to something like the state-recognized small cooperatives that thrived in the early days of medical cannabis.

About the only thing known is that Biden – in making the most consequential step on federal marijuana policy of any president since Nixon – has unleashed a very long, very complex and very unpredictable force on the world that might yet wreak unintended havoc.

Governor Newsom Signs Legislation to Strengthen California’s Cannabis Laws

Source: Gov.ca.gov | Author: Office of Governor Gavin Newsom | Sep 18, 2022

Governor signs bills to expand the legal cannabis market, address impacts from past prohibition of cannabis  

Governor calls on legislators and other policymakers to redouble efforts to tackle barriers to access

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that he has signed several measures to strengthen California’s cannabis laws, expand the legal cannabis market and redress the harms of cannabis prohibition.

Though the state has made significant progress since the legalization of cannabis, local opposition, rigid bureaucracy and federal prohibition continue to pose challenges to the industry and consumers. The Governor is calling on legislators and other policymakers to redouble efforts to address and eliminate these barriers.

“For too many Californians, the promise of cannabis legalization remains out of reach,” said Governor Newsom. “These measures build on the important strides our state has made toward this goal, but much work remains to build an equitable, safe and sustainable legal cannabis industry. I look forward to partnering with the Legislature and policymakers to fully realize cannabis legalization in communities across California.”

The Governor signed SB 1326 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced), which creates a process for California to enter into agreements with other states to allow cannabis transactions with entities outside California. SB 1186 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) preempts local bans on medicinal cannabis delivery, expanding patients’ access to legal, regulated cannabis products.

The Governor also signed two bills to further unwind California’s failed history of cannabis prohibition. AB 1706 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) ensures that Californians with old cannabis-related convictions will finally have those convictions sealed. And AB 2188 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) protects Californians from employment discrimination based on their use of cannabis off-the-clock and away from the workplace.

These bills build on the Administration’s efforts to strengthen California’s cannabis legalization framework. As part of this year’s state budget, the Governor signed legislation to provide tax relief to consumers and the cannabis industry; support equity businesses; strengthen enforcement tools against illegal cannabis operators; bolster worker protections; expand access to legal retail; and protect youth, environmental and public safety programs funded by cannabis tax revenue.

To expedite policy reforms that prioritize and protect California consumers’ health and safety, the Governor has directed the California Department of Public Health to convene subject matter experts to survey current scientific research and policy mechanisms to address the growing emergence of high-potency cannabis and hemp products. The Governor has also directed the Department of Cannabis Control to further the scientific understanding of potency and its related health impacts by prioritizing the funding of research related to cannabis potency through its existing public university grants.

A full list of cannabis-related bills signed by the Governor can be found below:

  • AB 1706 by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) – Cannabis crimes: resentencing.
  • AB 1646 by Assemblymember Phillip Chen (R-Yorba Linda) – Cannabis packaging: beverages.
  • AB 1885 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) – Cannabis and cannabis products: animals: veterinary medicine.
  • AB 1894 by Assemblymember Luz Rivas (D-Arleta) – Integrated cannabis vaporizer: packaging, labeling, advertisement, and marketing.
  • AB 2210 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) – Cannabis: state temporary event licenses: venues licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control: unsold inventory.
  • AB 2188 by Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) – Discrimination in employment: use of cannabis.
  • AB 2568 by Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) – Cannabis: insurance providers.
  • AB 2925 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – California Cannabis Tax Fund: spending reports.
  • SB 1186 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Medicinal Cannabis Patients’ Right of Access Act.
  • SB 1326 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Merced) – Cannabis: interstate agreements.

Minnesota hemp edibles law ushers in new rivals, upends marijuana market

Source: MJBizDaily.com | Author: John Schroyer | Aug 16, 2022

Minnesota’s two medical marijuana providers suddenly face droves of new rivals thanks to a groundbreaking state law that allows the sale of intoxicating hemp-derived THC edibles in mainstream retail outlets such as grocery and convenience stores.

The law – passed by state lawmakers in May – unleashed a cannabis boom when it took effect July 1 and reshaped the Minnesota market into what is likely the only one of its kind in the nation.

In effect, the sale of hemp-based, THC-infused food and drinks amounts to what is an adult-use marijuana market.

At the same time, Minnesota’s two licensed medical marijuana providers now confront an unknown and unlimited number of retailers peddling intoxicating hemp-derived edibles.

Moreover, the reinvigorated market is attracting interest from out-of-state hemp farmers and manufacturers.

Under the new law, essentially anyone with the money can set up shop and sell the hemp-derived products.

“The odd thing about our new law is there’s no license requirement whatsoever, so you don’t need anyone’s permission to start selling,” said Jason Tarasek, founder of the law firm Minnesota Cannabis Law.

“If you can afford to rent a storefront, you’re ready for business.”

By contrast, Goodness Growth Holdings, the parent company of Green Goods-branded dispensaries that is being purchased by Chicago-based Verano Holdings, and Green Thumb Industries, which runs Rise stores, together operate only 14 MMJ retail outlets across the state.

In addition, the two licensed MMJ companies are a month behind the hemp retailers in selling edible products.

While hemp-derived edibles went on sale July 1, Goodness Growth and GTI weren’t allowed to start selling marijuana-based edibles until Aug. 1.

“This may be a competitive setback for them in the short term,” Tarasek said, adding that a variety of new providers of hemp-derived edibles are likely to enter the market.

“You’re going to see consumption lounges. Bars … will start offering THC products right in their main area or perhaps have a little satellite THC area.”

Endless opportunities?

The new law allows both delta-8 THC and delta-9 THC products as well as other intoxicants derived from hemp.

It also limits the hemp-derived intoxicants to 5 milligrams of THC per serving, with a maximum of 50 milligrams of THC per package.

Other restrictions include:

  • Edibles must be in childproof and tamper-evident packages and carry the label, “Keep this product out of reach of children.”
  • Products can’t be “modeled after a brand of products primarily consumed by or marketed to children” or “packaged in a way that resembles the trademarked, characteristic, or product-specialized packaging of any commercially available food product.”
  • Products must be tested for mold, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers and solvents.

But since sales of the THC-infused edibles began, there has been an onslaught of demand from consumers, said Steven Brown, the CEO of retailer Nothing But Hemp and a co-founder of the Minnesota Cannabis Association (MCA).

That, in turn, has given immediate rise to a slew of entrepreneurs looking to capitalize on the wave of edibles-hungry Minnesotans.

“There’s definitely a miniature green rush,” said Brown, who has become both a retailer and a wholesaler of hemp-based, THC-infused edibles.

“The opportunity is endless right now.”

Combine that with a low entry threshold plus a surge in demand from Minnesotans, and the state is experiencing a cannabis revolution, according to Brown.

“What’s really nice about this is it gives the opportunity for minorities and low-income people to actually have an opportunity in the cannabis industry,” he added.

However, those opportunities already are facing limits.

Several Minnesota municipalities have imposed moratoriums on cannabis edibles, and others are considering bans.

Marijuana edibles, too

The edible products that Goodness Growth and GTI were allowed to begin selling on Aug. 1 are derived from marijuana versus hemp.

That change, implemented by regulators, was announced last December.

Goodness Growth and GTI have an advantage over their hemp counterparts in at least one respect: THC potency.

The two multistate operators are allowed to sell up to 100 milligrams of THC per edibles package, with 10 milligrams per serving.

That’s twice the potency limits of the hemp-derived edibles.

Spokespeople for Verano and Goodness Growth did not respond to MJBizDaily requests for comment.

A GTI spokesperson declined to comment to MJBizDaily.

But a GTI spokesperson told TV station KIMT that an advantage to regulated medical marijuana edibles is their proven lab-tested quality assurance, which means consumers know their products are free of contaminants.

The Minnesota medical marijuana market is projected to hit $70 million to $90 million in sales this year, excluding hemp-based edibles, according to the 2022 MJBiz Factbook.

That’s up from an estimated $60 million to $75 million in 2021.

The start of hemp-based edibles sales overshadowed the marijuana edibles launch, in part by beginning a month earlier.

That might have given hemp-focused businesses such as Brown’s a leg up with consumers, said Tarasek, the Minnesota attorney.

But, he added, “I don’t think it’s any secret that our two medical marijuana manufacturers are here, biding their time, waiting for the adult-use marijuana market to open.”

It’s unclear if and when the state might approve adult-use sales, however.

Legislators have so far failed to agree on legislation, and industry insiders are divided on whether full legalization will happen in the near future.

Once that comes to pass, Tarasek believes, it’s the two MMJ companies that are really positioned to be the big winners.

Either way, the future holds more cannabis regulatory changes, Tarasek and Brown agreed.

“Give it another six months. There’s going to be some real regulation behind hemp-derived THC,” Brown predicted.

When lawmakers return to the state capitol next year, Tarasek said, they could simply take the hint from their constituents and decide to fully legalize recreational marijuana: But that will entail the enactment of new rules – and probably taxes – for the hemp supply chain.

“The Legislature is going to need to address that,” he said, “and when they revisit that in January, they may just decide it’s time to legalize everything and make sure that there’s a regulated market, that kids can’t get their hands on it, and that we’re capturing some of the tax revenue.”

Out-of-state participants?

Another winner in the new Minnesota cannabis market are hemp farmers and edibles makers from out of state that are well-positioned to supply CBD stores and other retailers with the new types of hemp edibles, since all hemp is federally legal and can be shipped anywhere in the nation.

Both Brown and Tarasek said they’ve heard from out-of-state business interests offering to help restock shops that have sold out of hemp-based edibles.

“They sold out of inventory in a matter of hours,” Tarasek said of Twin Cities-area CBD stores that sold hemp gummies on July 1.

“It’s been a matter of connecting them with more inventory.”

Brown said he’s had conversations with out-of-state marijuana manufacturers that are exploring the possibility of entering the Minnesota market, in part because there aren’t many existing companies that can handle the new demand.

“What I’ve been hearing is there’s a lot of out-of-state marijuana companies that have an interest in coming into the state and working in the hemp-derived industry,” Brown said.

“There are just so many companies interested in selling these products.”

Creators of Muscle Milk release hemp-infused fitness beverage

Source: HempIndustryDaily.com | Author: Hemp Industry Daily | Jun 30, 2022

The creators of Muscle Milk, a popular protein drink, on Wednesday released a new energy drink infused with hemp.

According to a news release, Gym Weed, made by Alternative Biologics, does not contain THC.

Instead, the pre-workout beverage contains 20 milligrams of hemp extract and 200 milligrams of caffeine as well as other natural supplements.

The release did not say if the hemp extract contains cannabinoids such as CBD. The makers of Gym Weed formulated the recipe for Muscle Milk but do not produce it. Muscle Milk is owned by PepsiCo, which bought the protein drink company in 2019 for $465 million, according to Food Business News. The release marks another instance of retail products containing hemp that target the fitness-supplement market.

PepsiCo’s new US hemp drink aimed at younger, female customers

Source: HempIndustryDaily.com | Author: Hemp Industry Daily | Feb 2, 2022

PepsiCo has younger female consumers in mind with the U.S. launch of hempseed-infused energy drinks.

Rockstar Energy, a drinks brand owned by PepsiCo, says its three flavors of Rockstar Unplugged with hempseed are aimed at younger females who don’t gravitate toward energy drinks as commonly as males.

The drinks launched nationwide Tuesday and retail for $1.99 for a 12-ounce can, the company said. They contain no cannabinoids.

“Ninety-one percent of our consumers told us they wanted a beverage that lifts their mood,” said Fabiola Torres, PepsiCo general manager and chief marketing officer of its energy business.

PepsiCo released a line of hemp-infused energy drinks in Germany last year and was pleased with the results.

Last summer, PepsiCo joined its rival Coca-Cola and consumer product goods giants including Kellogg in appealing to U.S. health regulators to get going on regulations to allow over-the-counter CBD.

The letter from the Consumer Brands Association argued that current U.S. policy on CBD “is not working” because CBD is not allowed in foods, drinks and dietary supplements, but such products are nonetheless commonly sold by companies flouting regulations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

PepsiCo planto promote its new hemp drink with a three-concert series in conjunction with MTV’s Unplugged franchise.