Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

Noting political pendulums swinging back on modern marijuana reforms ... to tax and regulate more

The morning after Election Day 2024,  I stated in this post, titled "Initiative results in states show political pendulum swinging back on sentencing and drug policy reforms," that the results of various state initiatives suggested voters have started grown less interested in progressive drug policy reforms than in past elections.   Today, Stateline has this new lengthy piece, headlined "Marijuana legalization hits roadblocks after years of expansion," focused on how the political pendulum is swinging back in legislatures when it comes to marijuana reform.  I recommend the piece in full, and here are excerpts:

As every state surrounding Idaho legalized marijuana, state Rep. Bruce Skaug started to view it as inevitable that the Gem State would follow suit. Not anymore.... He believes other states are starting to regret liberalizing marijuana use, because of potential health concerns and lackluster revenues from marijuana sales....

Idaho’s not alone.  After years of expanding legal access, lawmakers in several states this year have targeted marijuana in various ways.  To help close budget gaps, officials in Maryland, Michigan and New Jersey have proposed raising marijuana taxes.  Health concerns have pushed lawmakers in states including Colorado and Montana to attempt to cap the level of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the primary psychoactive component in cannabis, in marijuana products sold at dispensaries.  And some lawmakers have even tried to roll back voter-approved medical marijuana programs....

Polling from the Pew Research Center has found little change in support for legalization in recent years: 57% of U.S. adults say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes.  Colorado and Washington state began allowing recreational marijuana sales in 2014.  Today, 24 states and the District of Columbia allow recreational sales, and 39 states and the district have sanctioned medical marijuana.

In several states, lawmakers have aimed to restrict the potency of marijuana products.  Montana state Sen. Greg Hertz, a Republican, said he doesn’t want to end recreational marijuana sales, which voters approved in 2020. But he said today’s products are much stronger than people may realize.  “People were voting for Woodstock weed, not this new high-THC marijuana,” he said.

A bill he sponsored this year would have banned sales of recreational marijuana products, including flower and edibles, exceeding THC levels of 15%.  Montana currently allows up to 35% THC in flower, with no limit on other products.  That legislation stalled, but Hertz said he plans to pitch a similar measure during Montana’s next legislative session in 2027.

A separate bill reducing the state’s dosage of THC for edibles just passed the legislature last week.  The measure, which now heads to Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, would change the individual dosage limit on edibles such as gummies from 10 milligrams to 5 milligrams....

With many states facing gaping budget holes this year, marijuana has proven a popular target from Democrats and Republicans looking to raise revenues without across-the-board tax increases.

Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore in January proposed hiking the cannabis tax from 9% to 15% to help close the state’s $3 billion budget hole. In March, lawmakers agreed to a budget framework that would raise the state marijuana tax to 12%.  Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine proposed doubling marijuana taxes from 10% to 20% — a notion that has so far faced opposition in the legislature.

In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer proposed a new 32% wholesale tax on marijuana growers to help fund road improvements.  That tax would be on top of the 10% excise tax on recreational marijuana and the state’s 6% sales tax.  Whitmer said it would close a loophole that has exempted the marijuana industry from wholesale tax, which is applied to cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Michigan lawmakers, split sharply along partisan lines, have until Sept. 30 to approve a state budget.

Especially as one who has long been particularly troubled by the (inequitable) crminalization of cannabis and the (inequitable) consequences of criminalization, I see these recent developments as a (healthy) outgrowth of state-by-state reforms and  laboratories of democracy in the US.  Notably, according to FBI data, we have seen a precipitous decline in arrests for marijuana activity over the last decade, but we do not see voters or their representatives urging the return of widespread criminalization and mass enforcement.  But public health concerns and tax/business issues are now the focal point for discussions and debates over potential revisions to existing state marijuana regimes.  And rightly so, as there are plenty of public health and tax/business issues that we are still coming to undestand better as modern marijuana regimes continue to develop.

"Where Will Weed Win?"

The title of this post is the title of this new report authored by Robin Goldstein with lots of data and analysis about state cannabis markets. Here is part of the report's introduction:

When legal interstate weed commerce arrives to America, what will happen?  Where will cannabis thrive, and where will it wither?

The answers are complex and mostly unknown, but the first and most straightforward answer is that the businesses who win will come from the places where weed is cheap.

Interstate commerce will bring local, state industries into competition in a national market.  Costs and prices vary widely by state, but states’ current costs and prices do not necessarily reflect what they will be when weed is federally legal.  Most weed sold in America is inexpensive, near the bottom of the retail price range.  The locations most likely to win in a national price competition will be places where weed can be grown and sold most cheaply....

Consider this report a guidebook to the future of the United States weed market.  My aim is to provide some insights into the answers to the questions above by comparing state-by-state costs, prices, and other data and information that can help industry participants, investors, and regulators understand what will happen to national and state weed markets in the first years after US interstate trade is legalized.

Local costs currently hinge, to a significant degree, on state and local cannabis policies, which is why my colleagues and I sometimes think of national cannabis competition in terms of competition among states, not just competition among farms and other businesses.  Many answers come down to geography, utility costs, and the general costs of doing business — any kind of business — in a state.

I hope that the broad patterns summarized here can help cast light on where weed is most likely to win, and how future regulatory outcomes may change the landscape.

"Potential Loss of Host Community Cannabis Fund Revenue: Ohio Municipalities Give Their Two Cents"

The title of this post is the title of this new report, authored by Jana Hrdinova, Maria M. Orsini and Dexter Ridgway, from the the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  Here is part of the paper's introduction:

When Ohio voters legalized adult-use marijuana in November 2023, they voted not only for the right to legally purchase and use marijuana, but also for how to spend resulting tax revenue.  The ballot measure passed by voters directs 36% of the 10% marijuana tax to municipalities that host adult-use dispensaries.  However, while tax revenue has been collected since the start of legal sales in August 2024, it has not yet been dispersed because the ballot measure did not include appropriation language.  The Ohio legislature could pass an appropriation for these funds at any time but has not yet chosen to do so.

Shortly after the election, Ohio lawmakers began their efforts to change the law passed by voters, including the approved tax revenue allocations.  To date, the 136th session of the Ohio General Assembly has seen the introduction of three bills that would change the current adult-use marijuana statute in various ways, including the marijuana tax revenue allocation to localities.... 

To assess the impact of these proposed revenue allocation changes, we contacted the majority of municipalities that currently host a dispensary and asked them a simple question: “Would you be able to share how you planned to use any expected marijuana tax revenue and how would the elimination of such funds impact your city?”  This report compiles the responses we received, highlighting potential effects on Ohio communities.

DEPC event on March 5: "Balancing Act: Regulating Intoxicating Hemp Products in Ohio"

I am pleased to be able to spotlight another great Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) event focused on cannabis reforms and regulations.  This online event,  titled "Balancing Act: Regulating Intoxicating Hemp Products in Ohio," will take place on March 5, 2025 from 12 noon to 1:15 pm EST.   The event is described this way on this event registration page (where one can directly register):

The rapid proliferation of intoxicating hemp products in many retail outlets and settings in Ohio and elsewhere has raised concerns among policymakers and public health experts about their safety and marketing. Amid calls for more federal oversight, many states have taken various steps under state law to regulate or significantly restrict these products. Just this week, a new bill, SB 86, was introduced in the Ohio Senate addressing the production, sale, and use of intoxicating hemp products.

Join the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center for a webinar featuring experts discussing the national and Ohio landscape for intoxicating hemp regulation. Panelists will address how to best balance the interests of Ohio’s hemp and marijuana industries with concerns about underage use of intoxicating products as well as the safety and quality of these products.

And here are participants in this great event:

Panelists

Jonathan Miller, General Counsel, U.S. Hemp Roundtable

Michelle Minton, Senior Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation

David Bowling, Executive Director, Ohio Cannabis Coalition

Moderator

Patricia J. Zettler, John W. Bricker Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Acting Academic Director, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center

"Tinkering with Taxes: Contextualizing Proposals to Alter Ohio's Marijuana Tax Rate and Revenue Allocations"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper that I helped produce along with my co-authors, Jana Hrdinova amd Dexter Ridgway, from the the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  Here is the paper's abstract:

On November 7, 2023, Ohio voters approved a statutory ballot initiative making Ohio the 24th state to legalize recreational marijuana. The marijuana legalization initiative included a specific tax rate and tax allocation provisions. Some Ohio legislators have expressed concern about transgressing the will of the voters when discussing proposals for reforming various aspects of current law, but the recent introduction of Senate Bill 56 and the Governor’s budget proposals suggests that Ohio policymakers remain eager to have their own say about marijuana tax rates and the allocation of marijuana revenue. This report analyses these proposals to change Ohio’s marijuana tax rate and allocation and compares them to other states. Based on Ohio’s market performance, we estimate the projected revenue for fiscal year 2025 to be over $60 million from the 10% marijuana excise tax and an additional $35 million in the state sales tax. While the present Ohio tax rate of 15.75% is slightly lower than the median state marijuana tax rate of 17%, the newly proposed tax rate of 20.75% under Senate Bill 56 would make Ohio’s marijuana tax rate the fifth highest. The proposed tax rate under Governor’s Proposed Budget, which would raise the total point-of-sale tax rate to 25.75%, would make Ohio the third highest tax rate state. Both proposals would also result in Ohio being nearly 5% or 10% above the effective tax rate of our neighboring state, Michigan, where the prices of marijuana products are already significantly lower than current prices in Ohio’s dispensaries.

"High Returns: The Effects of Legalizing Recreational Marijuana on Local Economic Activity and Household Finance"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by John Manuel Barrios, Jared N. Jennings and Jung Min Kim now available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

We examine the impact of recreational marijuana legalization and distribution on local economic activity, household finance, and personal creditworthiness across eight U.S. states from 2001 to 2019.  Utilizing a staggered difference-indifference model at the county level, we observe significant improvements in local economies and household finances following the opening of marijuana dispensaries.  These improvements are reflected in increased population growth, GDP, personal income, and housing prices.  Additionally, personal creditworthiness also improves, as evidenced by a reduction in derogatory accounts and a rise in credit scores.  Importantly, the benefits of legalization are more pronounced in underprivileged counties, underscoring a potential social equity dimension in the economic gains arising from recreational marijuana legalization.  Our findings offer valuable insights to the ongoing debate over the economic implications of marijuana legalization, particularly concerning its role in promoting financial stability and reducing economic disparities.

DEPC releases "Considerations for Regulating Intoxicating Hemp Products"

I am happy to highlight the release of this new report, titled "Considerations for Regulating Intoxicating Hemp Products," authored by the research team at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Ohio, which currently has no laws addressing intoxicating hemp products, is in the midst of a legislative discussion regading possible new laws.  This law give particular attention to Ohio laws, but it ought to be of interest to anyone following regulatory developments in this space.  Here is the report's abstract:

The 2018 Farm Bill removed legal barriers to industrial hemp production by removing hemp, defined as the plant cannabis sativa L. with a Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3%, from the federal Controlled Substances Act. In response, Ohio enacted Senate Bill 57 in July 2019 and subsequently received one of the first hemp production approvals from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in December 2019.  But unlike production in the 19th and early 20th century, the vast majority of today’s hemp industry revenue is derived from the plant’s production of cannabinoid metabolites.  These metabolites are used not only in their original form as non-euphoric additives in a variety of products, but also to extract psychoactive substances such as Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol. Delta-8 THC and similar compounds are used to produce intoxicating consumer products that currently exist in a legal gray area under federal law.  The resulting proliferation of these products in many retail outlets has led to concerns among policymakers and public health experts about their safety, quality, and marketing.  Amid calls for more federal oversight in this arena, many states have taken specific steps under state law to regulate intoxicating hemp products in various ways, but Ohio is currently among a minority of states with no or minimal regulations for these products.  This report highlights the main areas of concern in respect to intoxicating hemp products including use by youth and children’s accidental exposure, consumer safety, and interests of the hemp and adult-use marijuana industry.  The report concludes with various steps Ohio can take in trying to balance the various concerns and priorities.

Rounding up various accounts of Election 2024 on drug policy and reform

I flagged in this post at my Sentencing blog the morning after Election Day 2024 that the results of various state initiatives on sentencing issues and drug policy reform showed that voters have grown much less interested in progressive reforms than in past elections.   And here is a round up of some press pieces covering these stories:

From the New York Times, "Voters in Red and Blue States Repudiate Lenient Drug Policies"

From Reason, "This Week's Election Results Are a Discouraging Sign for Drug Policy Reformers"

From the Washington Examiner, "Drug legalization takes massive hit in state referenda"

From the Washington Post, "State votes on marijuana and psychedelics signal drug policy concerns"

Florida marijuana legalization initiative gets majority support, but not 60% needed for passage

In Florida, a ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution needs 60% support from the voters for passage, and it appears that the marijuana legalization initiative could not reach that level.  Here is an early local report: 

The ballot measure would have allowed companies that already grow and sell medical marijuana to sell it to adults above 21 for any reason.

Florida voters rejected a ballot measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana for adults at least 21 years old and allowed them to possess up to 3 ounces of marijuana. It failed to obtain the required 60% threshold at a time when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is making moves to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Florida’s Republican-dominated government has a lengthy history of opposing marijuana legalization....

The committee had raised an overall total of $152.27 million in cash and $959,000 in in-kind contributions since being created in 2022, according to the latest report on the state Division of Elections website.

The approval of the marijuana measure wouldn’t have immediately made marijuana legal in Florida. It would have allowed the Florida Legislature to create regulations or decide how to implement the amendment during the legislative session that begins in March.

Florida Republican officials were mixed on their support for this ballot measure. Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican legislative leaders opposed the measure, with DeSantis saying it only benefits large marijuana corporations and would leave a marijuana stench in the air.

But former President Donald Trump signaled support in early September for the measure and a potential federal policy shift to reclassify marijuana. He said he’d vote in favor of the initiative, one of the few positions where he and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris agreed.

"State Drug Laws"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Mason Marks now available via SSRN.  Here is its abstract:

States have long enacted drug laws that depart from federal laws and regulations. In the early twentieth century, several states prohibited marijuana while it remained federally unregulated.  In the 1960s, states started criminalizing psychedelic substances.  Shortly thereafter, in the early 1970s, they started reversing the trend to criminalize drugs by reducing or eliminating criminal penalties associated with personal marijuana use.  State-level decriminalization accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s.

More recently, states have extended drug policy reforms to other substances, including psychedelics, stimulants, and opioids.  Some states have eliminated criminal penalties while others have replaced criminal penalties with fines or diversion to drug treatment programs and other support services.  Some have funded clinical trials or policy research. Others have legalized facilities where people can consume federally controlled substances socially or with support from medical professionals. Meanwhile, many states have shifted away from decriminalizing federally illegal drugs to regulating their manufacture, testing, distribution, and sale.

This Essay provides a typology of state drug laws comprising thirteen categories, including decriminalization, recriminalization, adult use, supported adult use, medical use, supported medical use, religious use, social consumption, safe consumption, clinical research, policy analysis, trigger laws, and food and agricultural laws.  Several states have enacted hybrid legislation that blends features from different categories.  A higher-level categorization can also be imposed onto the typology, dividing the categories into three broader groups, including laws regarding independent drug use, supervised drug use, and drug policy or procedure.

DEPC releases "Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program at Six Years: Evaluating Satisfaction and Perception"

I am happy to highlight the release of this amazing report, titled "Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program at Six Years: Evaluating Satisfaction and Perception," authored by my colleague Jana Hrdinova of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  This latest insallment of DEPC's annual reporting on Ohio's medical marijuana program is showcased on this DEPC webpage which provides this overview:

Since the inception of the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program (OMMCP) in 2019, the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) has surveyed medical marijuana patients and potential patients to evaluate their experiences and satisfaction.  These surveys aim to fill in a critical gap in our understanding of the medical marijuana program in Ohio and to find out how the people being served by OMMCP evaluate its performance.

In November 2023, Ohio voters approved a ballot initiative to join 23 other states in legalizing cannabis for recreational use.  The initiative went into effect on December 7, 2023, legalizing possession of marijuana for personal use of up to 2.5 oz and allowing for home cultivation.  Following a licensing process, official recreational sales in Ohio dispensaries started on August 6, 2024, leaving the medical marijuana program largely unaffected in fiscal year 2024 [which ended in June 2024].  This sixth annual report thus provides a unique snapshot of a medical marijuana program on the brink of recreational sales and provides insights into patients’ opinions about the medical program and its future.

Here are just a few of many notable key findings from the report:

1. Increased patient satisfaction: Our survey recorded a considerable increase of patients reporting being extremely satisfied with the Ohio medical marijuana program, increasing by 12 percentage points from 19% in 2023 to 31% in 2024. A total of 74% of respondents reported that they were either extremely or somewhat satisfied with OMMCP, and only 20% reported being either somewhat or extremely dissatisfied....

2. Falling participation for both patients and physicians: Despite high levels of patient satisfaction, this year was the first year that OMMCP recorded a decline in the number of active patients (patients with active recommendation and registration), decreasing by 10% from its peak in October 2023 (184,958) to 165,746 in June 2024....

3. Flat sales receipts and tax revenue despite increases in sales: In a year-to-year comparison, Ohio medical marijuana market continued to experience a robust growth in the number and weight of product sold. In FY24, sales of plant product increased by 30% compared to the previous fiscal year, going from 71,506 pounds sold in FY23 to 92,979 pounds sold in FY24. Sales of manufactured products also recorded solid growth of 20%, going from 6,794,542 units sold in FY23 to 8,182,377 units sold in FY24.... Despite the robust growth in total sales, sales receipts remained largely flat due to declining prices, increasing only by 2% from $478,067,435 in FY23 to $487,589,380 in FY24....

Former Prez Trump suggests he is supportive of marijuana legalization in Florida and elsewhere

As reported in this New York Times article, "Donald J. Trump on Saturday signaled his support for a ballot measure that would legalize recreational marijuana in Florida, stopping short of a full endorsement but saying that he did not believe marijuana should be criminalized in his adopted home state when it is legal in others."  Here is more (with links from the original):

In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump portrayed the passage of the ballot measure, known as Amendment 3, as inevitable and raised concerns about its implementation. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Florida voters favor the measure.

“Whether people like it or not, this will happen through the approval of the Voters, so it should be done correctly,” Mr. Trump said. “We need the State Legislature to responsibly create laws that prohibit the use of it in public spaces, so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go, like we do in many of the Democrat run Cities.”

Mr. Trump, who votes near his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, had previously avoided taking a position on the question. His position pits him against Gov. Ron DeSantis and most of the state’s Republican leaders, who are working to defeat the proposal.

Mr. Trump’s statement appeared to walk a line meant to keep him from fully upsetting those opposed to the measure. He did not say how he personally would vote on Amendment 3, and he did not explicitly back the legalization of marijuana even as he again suggested he supported decriminalizing it.

Florida has been trending Republican, but polls show that Amendment 3 is more popular in the state than even Mr. Trump is — indicating that many voters intend to split their ticket and vote both for the former president and for marijuana legalization.  Polling suggests that most Americans now say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.

Some new certainty and continued uncertainty in latest state and federal marijuana reform developments

After a lot of uncertainty about when adult-use sales would begin in Ohio, some timeline certainty emerged yesterday in the Buckeye State: "Ohio Cannabis Dispensaries Will Start Adult-Use Sales Aug. 6."  Here are some of the particulars:

Ohio will be the 21st state to launch adult-use cannabis sales when licensed dispensaries open their doors to those 21 and older at 10 a.m. Aug. 6.

The Ohio Division of Cannabis Control (DCC) hasn’t officially issued dual-use certificates of operation—allowing existing dispensaries to serve both medical patients and adult-use customers—to store owners just yet, but the division plans to make a formal announcement Aug. 5, a Department of Commerce spokesperson told Cannabis Business Times....

Ohio’s imminent launch represents a catalyst for the cannabis industry: Ohio will be the fourth most-populated state to commence adult-use sales after California, Illinois and New York.  Ohio is also the first to roll out an adult-use program since Maryland did so on July 1, 2023.

In addition, millions of adults 21 years and older residing in bordering Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia—who don’t have access to adult-use cannabis in their home states—will now live within driving distance of licensed and regulated cannabis products.

Meanwhile, there is still continued uncertainty concerning the timeline for potential federal refrom in the form of rescheduling. But, as reported in this Marijuana Moment article, a collection of US Senators are urging the Drug Enforcement Administration  to "promptly finalize" the proposed rule to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.  Here are the basics:

In a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on Friday, Schumer and Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and others implored the administration to follow through on a proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as the Justice Department formally proposed in May.

“The proposed rule to reclassify marijuana to schedule III recognizes the medical benefits of marijuana, will improve access for studying the health effects of short and long-term cannabis use, and will provide relief to cannabis businesses that continue to navigate a patchwork regulatory system to conduct legal business,” they said.

The full letter from the seven Senators (all Deomocrats) is available at this link.

DEPC event: "Implementing Issue 2: Ohio Dives into Adult-Use Marijuana"

I am pleased to be able to spotlight another great Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) event focused on the implementation of marijuana reforms in the Buckeye State.  This online event,  titled "Implementing Issue 2: Ohio Dives into Adult-Use Marijuana," will take place on July 16, 2024 from 12 noon to 1:15 p.m. EDT.  The event is described this way on this event page (where one can register):

After months of rulemaking, following the template Ohio voters put into law through passage of Issue 2, the Ohio Department of Commerce has established a licensing process for the state’s first adult-use cannabis operators.  Ohio medical marijuana operators have a priority in obtaining adult-use licenses, and Ohio could have adult-use stores operating around the state as soon as this summer.  Yet many questions about industry regulations and operations remain unanswered, including what legal changes might move forward in the Ohio General Assembly, when and how Issue 2’s social equity provisions will be implemented, and the impacts of an adult-use market on the state’s medical marijuana program.  Join the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and our panel of experts on Tuesday, July 16 as we discuss these topics and more.

Panelists:
Thomas Haren, Partner and Cannabis Practice Chair, Frantz Ward
Megan Henry, Reporter, Ohio Capital Journal
Shaleen Title, Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, The Ohio State University; Founder and Director, Parabola Center for Law and Policy

Moderator:
Douglas A. Berman, Newton D. Baker-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law, executive director, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University

Rounding up some recent notable marijuana legal news and commentary from various quarters

I have not blogged in this space much latety as I have been consumed with activity by the US Supreme Court and other legal developments in recent weeks.  In addition, I do not usually cover much day-to-day marijuana news because all sort of outlets cover this news (and Marijuana Moment covers it especially well).  But as these streams come together, I though it useful to do a quick post highlighting some notable marijuana legal news and commentary.  So:

From the AP, "Brazil’s Supreme Court decriminalizes possession of marijuana for personal use"

From Bloomberg Law, "Federal Cannabis Law Dispute Tossed by Massachusetts Judge"

From Harris Sliwoski, "Cannabis Law and Gun Rights: News from SCOTUS"

From Marijuana Moment, "South Dakota Law Banning Intoxicating Hemp Products Takes Effect After Judge Declines To Block It"

From Marijuana Moment, "DeSantis Seems To Concede He Vetoed Hemp Ban Bill, In Part, To Engage Industry In Marijuana Legalization Opposition Campaign"

From MinnPost, "Court decision ending cannabis odor as sole reason for search codified by Minnesota lawmakers"

From the Missouri Independent, "Missouri courts still slogging through marijuana crime expungements, long after deadline"

From MJBiz Daily, "How will Supreme Court ruling affect marijuana rescheduling?"

"Local Moratoriums for Ohio Adult Use Marijuana Operators"

The title of this post is the heading for this terrific new resource page just posted along with other Policy and Data Analyses at the website of The Ohio State University's Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (which I help direct).  Here is how the resource is introduced:

In November 2023, 57% of Ohio voters voted for Issue 2, a ballot initiative which legalized adult recreational marijuana use and tasked the Ohio Departments of Commerce and Development with implementing a legal recreational cannabis industry in the state.  As of December 7, 2023, individuals 21 years and older can legally consume and possess marijuana throughout Ohio, although recreational dispensaries are not expected to open until the summer or early fall of 2024.  Like most other states that have legalized cannabis for recreational use, Ohio allows local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to prohibit or limit the operation of adult-use cannabis businesses within their boundaries.  This page presents information on 47 local moratoriums that have been enacted by Ohio jurisdictions as of March 31, 2024.

Student presentation examines marijuana legalization and local regulations

Sadly, we are now into our final few weeks of students presentaions in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar.  Excitingly, we still have nearly a dozen more presentations coming.  As I have explained before, students are expected to provide in this space some background on their presentation topic and links to some readings or relevant materials. The first of our presentations taking place in class next week will be looking at "Legalized Marijuana and Local Regulation." Here is how my student has described his topic along with background readings he has provided for classmates (and the rest of us):

The growing trend towards full legalization of recreational marijuana throughout the United States has resulted in a variety of quirks in different states’ legislative schemes. One important quirk is laws that allow municipalities to ban or heavily regulate legal marijuana in conflict with state-wide legalization.

Local control can be broadly grouped into two categories.  First, there is existing local control that applies neutrally to marijuana vendors and other businesses within a municipality as implemented through local health and zoning codes.  Second, there are proposed or implemented laws that allow localities to ban or heavily restrict the establishment and operation of marijuana vendors within municipal limits that would otherwise be permissible under state law.  While the first method of regulation should be allowed, the second method of regulation threatens to perpetuate the issues with illegal marijuana that full legalization aims to solve.  Between existing zoning rules and state-specific local bans, this issue affects most people in states with legal marijuana.

My presentation will focus on the background behind local marijuana bans, the interaction between federalism and localism, and the problems that legalization seeks to address.  I will then review the laws in states that have either allowed for local bans or are proposing local bans and the measurable effects of those laws.  Finally, I will analyze the effects of allowing bans on a local level versus blanket legalizations and develop recommendations for policymakers.

Suggested Sources:

Article: Cannabis Legalization In State Legislatures: Public Health Opportunity And Risk, 103 Marq. L. Rev. 1313 (2020)

Article: Cannabis Capitalism, 69 Buffalo L. Rev. 215 (2021)

Resource Page:  Investopedia, Marijuana Laws by State (2024).

Article: American Edibles: How Cannabis Regulatory Policy Rehashes Prohibitionist Fears and What to Do About It, 44 Seattle U. L. Rev. 915 (2021)  

Resource Page: Curate, Local Government Impact on Cannabis Industry (2024)

Student presentation exploring Delta-8 THC products

As noted in this prior post, there is an on-going debate in Ohio (as well as in many other jurisdictions) about so-called Delta-8 or "intoxicating hemp" products.  Helpfully, the last planned presentation for this week in my Marijuana Law seminar is going to cover issues surrounding Delta-8, and here are some resources that she provided for some background:

Background information about Delta-8:

Leas, EC. The Hemp Loophole: A Need to Clarify the Legality of Delta-8-THC and Other Hemp-Derived Tetrahydrocannabinol Compounds. Am J Public Health. 2021 Nov;111(11):1927-1931.

FDA and DEA Regulation:

FDA advises against use: 5 Things to Know about Delt-8 Tetrahydrocannabinol – Delta-8 THC. Food and Drug Administration. May 5, 2022.

Coverage of warning letters sent to Delta-8 brands by FDA.

Good summary of case interpreting "hemp" to include Delta-8 products under Farm Bill 

Good summary of possible DEA Interpretation

Coverage of the push from the states for federal regulation

Report on study regarding Delat-8 use and state regulation

Student presentation examines the cannabis appellation program in California

Following a well-derserved Spring Break, students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar get back to "taking over" my class through presentations on the research topics of their choice.  As I have explained before, students are expected to provide in this space some background on their topic and links to some readings or relevant materials.  The first of our presentations taking place in class next week will be looking at the cannabis appellation program in California. Here is how my student has described his topic along with background readings he has provided for classmates (and the rest of us):

Barrowing a powerful tool from California’s native wine-industry, marijuana-renowned regions in the Golden State will soon be able to cash in on their reputations as high-quality cannabis cultivators.  A state program will permit the creation and enforcement of unique appellations of origin for cannabis products.  According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, an appellation of origin is a protected designation that identifies the geographical origin of a product and typically includes production requirements.  As the rules take effect, the various terroirs of Humbolt County may become as widely recognized for marijuana as the subregions of the Napa Valley have become known for wine.  North Mendocino Coast Cannabis may eventually pack the promotional punch of Bordeaux, Gruyere Cheese, and Prosciutto di Parma.

My research will examine how an appellation program works as well as the general benefits and costs of one to producers, consumers, and other stakeholders.  While California is the first state to launch a Cannabis Appellation Program, this paper will discuss whether the legal tool of appellation would benefit other states given the current political, legal, and economic forces at play across the country.  California’s unique status as a first mover in the space, its legislative and regulatory knowledge of wine appellation programs, and the likely high value of its appellations compared to other states will be considered.  In the legal context, the impact of increased state legalization and federal rescheduling will be explored.  While potential federal rescheduling of marijuana may not immediately lead to interstate commerce, the federal government’s softer stance on the substance along with an increase in states legalizing recreational marijuana, may lead to a rise in legal products illicitly transported across state borders.  As more products from places like California and Colorado find their way across the country, producers in those states may desire to prevent the misrepresentation of a cannabis good’s origin to protect the brands of cultivators at home.  This paper will explore these dynamics and others to establish whether an appellation program makes sense outside of California.

Additional reading:

Mabi Vásquez, 3 Benefits And 3 Disadvantages Of The Designations Of Origin, Agavache (2021)

Cannabis Appellations Program (CAP), California Department of Food and Agriculture

Cannabis Appellations Program Proposed Text of Regulations, California Department of Food and Agriculture (2024)

Designation of Origin Regulations Comment Letter, Origins Council (2022)

Marcus Crowder, New appellations would celebrate individual terroir of cannabis strains, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept 22, 2020

A pitch for how the Buckeye State should plan to use marijuana green

When Ohio voters approved full legalization of marijuana in November 2023 through passage of Issue 2, the initiative included a specific tax rate and a defined allocation for marijuana tax revenues.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, as members of the Ohio General Assembly have discussed further marijuana reforms, both the tax rates and allocation of revenues have been a subject of debate. Bailey Williams of Policy Matters Ohio has authored this helpful new blogpost on this topic titled "Cannabis tax revenue can help communities. Legislators have other ideas." I recommend the full piece, and here is an excerpt:

Over two million Ohioans voted to legalize marijuana sales and use tax revenue from those sales to benefit communities where dispensaries are located (called “host communities”), fund substance-abuse research, and create restorative justice programs to remediate some of the harm done by the war on drugs.  Changes by the legislature should focus on regulating the market to ensure product safety or improving the collection and use of tax revenue to redress racial disparities created by the discriminatory enforcement of recreational marijuana prohibition.  Any other changes to the statute risk subverting the will of the voters.

Ohio lawmakers have floated two such changes, both of which should be rejected: Tax revenues from legal marijuana sales should not be used to fund broad rate cuts to the state income tax, nor should they be earmarked for policing.  Either change would divert funding that should be used to help those harmed by the failed war on drugs, and clear the criminal records of Ohioans being punished for actions that are no longer crimes....

The Ohio Senate has already passed changes to state marijuana laws. These changes include raising the tax levied in addition to the state sales tax on legal sales from 10% to 15%; diverting hundreds of millions of dollars away from restorative justice programs and communities that host dispensaries and into policing and jails; tighter restrictions on home growth of marijuana; and piecemeal funding for expungement efforts for marijuana-related offenses that are no longer illegal.

The Ohio House has not yet proposed its version of the changes, but representatives have expressed some priorities.  At least one has proposed using a portion of the tax revenue raised from marijuana sales to finance broad income tax rate cuts.  This policy choice should be rejected now and in the future.  Broad cuts to income tax rates typically result in the wealthiest taxpayers receiving most of the value of the cut....

Similarly ill-conceived is the idea — recommended by members of both chambers and included in the Senate bill — of earmarking marijuana tax revenue specifically for policing.  The Senate would divert over $200 million a year in tax revenue from marijuana sales into investigative unit and drug task force operations, police officer training, and the construction of new jails.  This ignores the fact that Issue 2 already takes into consideration any increase in policing needs that may arise from the end of recreational marijuana prohibition.  Localities that host marijuana dispensaries will receive tax revenue from that business; this revenue can be spent on policing if need be. It also could be used on other public goods, such as parks and public transit.  Communities should be able to decide for themselves how that funding is used....

Clearing criminal records for what is now legal marijuana possession is an important step toward restorative justice.  Issue 2 required and funded research on expungement and record sealing but did nothing to simplify the often cumbersome process.  Ohioans seeking to expunge or seal their marijuana convictions face a waiting period and possible prosecutorial objections, and may be required to pay expensive legal fees and court costs.  They must also prove they are rehabilitated before they can have their records officially expunged.  These Ohioans are often subject to collateral sanctions, which limit an individual’s earning potential and increase the likelihood of recidivism....

When Ohioans overwhelmingly passed Issue 2, we sent a clear message to our representatives in Columbus: Legalize the sale of recreational cannabis, and use the revenue it generates to help the people and communities harmed by the failed war on drugs.  Some representatives appear poised to disregard those explicit instructions — as they have done with increasing frequency.  There are better options available; our representatives should listen to the voters.