Cannabis: In Focus

  • Election Round-up: Two States Approve, Three Reject Adult-Use Cannabis Referendums
  • Northern District of New York Rules on Dormant Commerce Clause and Adult-Use Retail Licenses in New York
  • Kansas Federal Court Dismisses Hemp Seizure Suit
  • Federal Court Dismisses Florida Lawsuit Seeking Gun Rights for Medical Cannabis Patients


Continue Reading Cannabis Legal Report – Week of November 14, 2022

Cannabis: In Focus

  • Federal Court Allows State To Import Cannabis-Related Paraphernalia
  • Biden Announces Pardons of Federal Convictions for Simple Cannabis Possession and a Plan To Review the Current Schedule Status for Cannabis
  • California Struggles To Tame Thriving Illicit Market


Continue Reading Cannabis Legal Report – Week of October 17, 2022

Cannabis: In Focus

  • Cannabis Testing Companies Facing State Regulatory Scrutiny in Nevada and Florida
  • FDA Appoints Former State Cannabis Policy Regulator as New Cannabis Advisor
  • DOJ Responds to Florida Lawsuit Challenging Federal Regulations Regarding Firearm Purchases by Medical Cannabis Patients


Continue Reading Cannabis Legal Report­­ – Week of October 3, 2022

A California state appeals court affirmed a bong maker’s win in a suit alleging it violated California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its products expose them to marijuana smoke that could cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Prop. 65 is a California initiative approved by voters in 1986 and enacted into law as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act that same year. The law prohibits knowingly and intentionally causing exposure to substances, including cannabis smoke and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), that are known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm, without first providing a clear and reasonable warning. California maintains a list of substances that trigger Prop. 65 warnings. To comply with Prop. 65, businesses must provide consumers with a compliant warning, unless they can ensure that their product does not expose consumers to a listed substance at levels that may cause cancer or reproductive harm.

Plaintiff-appellant Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (EHA) filed a private enforcement action against Sream, Inc. (Sream) on November 12, 2020, alleging Sream violated Prop. 65 when Sream failed to provide a warning that their water pipe products—more commonly known as bongs—exposed consumers to marijuana smoke. EHA’s enforcement action sought “injunctive relief against Sream, from manufacturing, importing, selling, and/or distributing the products without a clear and reasonable warning.”

Continue Reading California State Appeals Court Affirms Bong Maker’s Win in Prop. 65 Suit

Research recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives describes the public health risks associated with the lack of national standards for cannabis lab testing. Researchers from Arizona State University’s School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences partnered with labs that conduct cannabis testing to data mine compliance testing records, review publicly available medical cannabis use reports, and examine regulations in all 37 U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized medical and/or recreational cannabis.

Continue Reading Study Shows Lack of Uniformity Among States’ Cannabis Testing Laws Could Lead to Public Health Risks

On Wednesday, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit panel applied the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) to the medical cannabis industry in a 2-1 decision, striking down local laws requiring state residency as unconstitutional and protectionist. While cannabis remains federally illegal, Maine legalized medical cannabis in 2018 and imposed limitations on who could own state-legal cannabis businesses in the state.

Continue Reading First Circuit Strikes Down Maine Residency Requirement Under Dormant Commerce Clause