Operational compliance has become paramount to the success of many cannabis businesses following new state regulations that went into effect earlier this year. For others, non-compliance has been a great downfall. Following the legalization of commercial cannabis, the state of California hastily drafted and passed emergency regulations which outlined licensing and operational requirements for cannabis businesses under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). These emergency regulations went into effect in December of 2017 to provide a temporary solution for the lack of cannabis legislation until more thorough regulations could be drafted and adopted by state agencies. Just three months ago, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved new regulations which were immediately adopted by all three state licensing agencies. The new regulations include many significant changes from the previous emergency regulations and introduce more restrictive guidelines for cannabis businesses. Further, the new regulations define serious implications for businesses who violate the new guidelines – from fines up to $250,000 to loss of licensure. In recent months, a rapid number of compliance enforcement agencies have emerged at both the local and state level. Licensed cannabis businesses in California have experienced a peak in random compliance inspection visits, raids from local and state law enforcement, and seizure of cannabis products. With the commercial cannabis industry now in full effect, local and state agencies are beginning to focus less on setting the framework for the industry and more on enforcement of regulations.
A majority of licensed cannabis businesses are in some way in violation of current regulations despite their intentional efforts to comply. This is largely due to the cumbersome location-dependent nature of cannabis regulations. Although cannabis is legal in the state of California, commercial cannabis businesses are still federally illegal, and there is no federal legislation governing the licensing and operational compliance of cannabis businesses. As a result, cannabis regulations vary between states. Further convoluting the concept of cannabis compliance, regulations also vary within-state and are dependent on legislation issued by local authorities. All California cannabis businesses must adhere to statewide regulations enforced by the three state agencies – the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) – in addition to guidelines enforced by local agencies. For instance, outdoor cultivation is legal at the state level per the CDFA, but it is prohibited within the City of Los Angeles per the local Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR). Cannabis businesses must also comply with local Fire Department safety codes which also vary by jurisdiction.
With compliance enforcement on the rise, it is crucial for all cannabis businesses to stay informed about both state and local regulations in order to avoid high penalties or business closure. Our firm offers full-coverage compliance counseling to licensed cannabis businesses. Our team is in regular attendance of local city hall and county government meetings pertaining to commercial cannabis in all areas of California and maintains current knowledge of the ever-changing regulations. We provide counsel in all areas of business compliance for cannabis retailers, distributors, cultivators, and microbusinesses. Our attorneys have a combined 20+ years of experience in the commercial cannabis industry and are active in compliance consulting throughout the state. We are able to provide our clients with expert contractors in building safety code pre-inspection, packaging and labeling compliance, product inventory and storage, advertisement restrictions, etc. We would love to help ensure that your cannabis business is successful and in compliance with all local and state regulations, giving you one less thing to worry about. If you have any questions or would like to speak with our attorneys to further discuss our compliance services, please feel free to reach us via email (firstname.lastname@example.org) or phone (323-253-9700).
Wednesday, April 17 - The City of Los Angeles Rules, Elections, and Intergovernmental Relations Committee discussed and approved an April 12, 2019 report and proposed ordinance from the LA City Attorney regarding cannabis licensing, with recommendations to make some amendments.
All recommendations were approved and will be redrafted for Council consideration and presented on Tuesday, April 30.
Today’s meeting moves the City closer to the opening of the highly anticipated Phase 3, which is the first chance that will allow the general public to receive dispensary licenses. The City Attorney was directed to make requested changes to the proposed new ordinance, to present for City Council consideration on April 30.
Notable Takeaways from Wednesday’s Meeting
The City of Los Angeles and the DCR have been hard at work in recent months, particularly as they sort through the specifics of Phase 3. While Phases 1 and 2 focused on existing cannabis dispensaries, non-retailers (i.e. growers and manufacturers), and social equity applicants, Phase 3 has been the main attraction for many entrepreneurs and would-be business owners looking to break into the industry.
In an earlier April meeting, the fate of Phase 3 was largely unknown due to funding. The DCR claimed that licensing was on hold as they awaited the Fee Deferral Program, which would allow Phase 3 to commence.
While a date has not been announced for the opening of Phase 3 applications, Wednesday’s meeting shed some light as to the direction the City and DCR are taking to solidify the process.
Among the notable new details that are coming out through these recent meetings and reports are:
● Changes to the Los Angeles Municipal Code establishing a first come, first served application process for retailer commercial cannabis activity licenses, with details regarding what is required for an application to be considered complete
● A proposal to allow applications for retail storefront dispensaries beginning January 1, 2020, in neighborhoods that have already exceeded Undue Concentration caps, with City Council approval
● Modifications to the process for issuing non-storefront retail licenses
● Allowing the Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) to grant Temporary Approval to Phase 3 storefront retail applicants
● Exempting Phase 2 applicants from the Undue Concentration requirements
● Setting deadlines for Phase 2 applicants to finalize their business location (May 15) and obtain Temporary Approval (substantial progress by July 1)
● Revising various requirements to qualify as a Tier 3 Social Equity Applicant and revising various benefits provided to Tier 1 and Tier 2 Social Equity Applicants
● Adding an additional reason to deny a license application — if the City has taken enforcement action against unlicensed cannabis activity at the same address since January 2018
● Clarifying the definition of license ownership relative to management companies
In addition, one of the recommendations to the draft ordinance that was approved on Wednesday was to instruct the DCR to finalize a timeline for all Phase 3 and Type 9 Pilot activities and post the information on the Department’s website. This indicates that an exact date for Phase 3 licensing could be established by April 30, if not sooner.
February 28th, 2019
These two words were expressed throughout last week’s city council meeting on the current state of cannabis affairs in the city of Los Angeles. Business owners, hopeful entrepreneurs, private citizens and council members reverberated this sentiment from the city’s long delayed licensing process and yet to be fulfilled promise of a social equity program.
The Department of Cannabis Regulation (DCR) held its regular meeting before city council on February 28th to report on the progress the department has made to date and forecast expectations for the future of cannabis licensure in Los Angeles and the long awaited opening of phase 3. Executive Director Cat Packer sat before the council and highlighted the department’s substantial progress since its commencement in 2017, but made clear that “we still have a long way to go.”
A call was made for a more inclusive social equity program to expand the demographic of eligible applicants to other disenfranchised communities impacted by the war on drugs particularly, hispanics. However, strains on resources and available funding have left little for the social equity program to get off the ground.
To date, 55 temporary approvals have been granted to phase 2 applicants and 178 to phase 1 applicants. There are hundreds left to wade through pushing back the opening of phase 3 to sometime in spring or summer. The DCR proposed a bifurcated application process for phase 3 general processing when the time comes that would split the application process in two parts. Part One would establish a lottery or first-come first-serve process and Part Two would be a merit based system. The two part process is suggested to mitigate fairness and allow those who do not have access to resources a fair chance to participate for a license.
Cat also pointed out the large disparity between the number of retail licenses that will be available for phase 3 eligible program applicants. To comply with the city’s regulations for undue concentration, in the city that is home to some 4 million residents, granting one license per 10,000 residents allows for approximately 200 retail licenses available to some 10,000 plus people who are eligible for the social equity program.
An immediate need was called for increased enforcement to shut down illegal and unlicensed cannabis businesses from operating in the city. The black market is not only harming licensed businesses by taking customers from paying high dispensary prices but the city. In order for the city to provide funding generated from tax revenues requires a crack down on the black market.
With all eyes on Cat Packer for answers, she in turn responded to city council asking for direction and guidance on how the department is to proceed. A motion was submitted in support of immediate funding to implement the program and expand the demographic of eligible applicants to participate in the Los Angeles cannabis market and increased enforcement to crack down on the black market.
March 5th, 2019
The Cannabis Regulations Commission met on March 5th and presented their recommendations to the City Attorney that would establish policies for processing of phase 3 applications. Phase 3 would begin with a 60 day pre-vetting process of Social Equity applicants to verify Tier 1 or Tier 2 qualification. Verified Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will then be eligible to move forward into the first phase of the licensing process. The DCR will issue 100 licenses in this initial phase allocating 75 to qualified Tier 1 applicants. Qualified Tier 1 applicants would receive priority receiving 75% of the available licenses during this initial phase so long as all basic application requirements are met, including:
A signed lease with proof of payment or deposit, or a property deed
Meet all sensitive use requirements, including undue concentration
Payment of required license fees
Ownership organizational structure
Proposed staffing plan
Complete and detailed diagram
Proposed security plan
Labor peace agreement
Current Certificate of Occupancy
Compliance with the Equity Share Rules
The second phase will allocate an additional 100 licenses establishing no priority between Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants. The second phase will establish a “first-come, first-serve” process that will allow the first 100 qualified applicants will move forward. Basic qualifications required to be met are payment of the required license fees or deferment approval; ownership organizational structure; financial information; indemnification; and, labor peace agreement. The remaining qualifications mentioned above would be required within 90 days.
The Commission also recommended the implementation of a pilot program for Type 9 Retail Non-Storefront delivery services. A total of 40 licenses would be available allocating 20 licenses to pre-vetted Tier 1 Social Equity applicants. The pilot program will also allow verified applicants who could not obtain a Type 10 retail license due to undue concentration limits will receive priority for a Type 9 delivery license. This will allow licensees to remain in their building and operate as a non-storefront retailer in lieu of having to locate and secure another compliant location. Eligible phase 2 applicants will also have an opportunity to amend their application to include delivery so long as they are compliant with the city’s zoning and regulatory requirements.
Phase 3 Licensing Estimated Timeline
Phase 3 Application Processing
60 day Pre-Vetting Period
Basic Tier 1 or Tier 2 qualification
14 day application window
Qualified Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will be processed for 100 retail licenses (75% reserved for Tier 1 applicants). Pre-vetted applicants will receive 15 days notice of when the first phase application window is to open.
Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications.
30 day application window
Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants who meet basic qualifications (see above) on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.
Applicants will have an additional 90 days to submit the remaining application requirements
Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications.
Delivery Pilot Program:
Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants will receive 15 days notice for when Type 9 delivery licenses will become available
Pre-vetted Tier 1 or Tier 2 applicants subjected to undue concentration limits will have priority
Eligible phase 2 applicants will have opportunity to amend their application to include delivery
Deficient applications will have 5 days from the start of their application to rectify insufficiencies or issues with the basic qualifications.
Are we about to see more enforcement against unlicensed cannabis?
California Governor Gavin Newsom recently announced he is calling for the California National Guard to work with federal officials to target the California illicit market. Given the history of the war on drugs and the current federal laws imposing harsh criminal and civil sanctions for cannabis, the involvement of the National Guard and the federal government in a new crackdown is concerning. Governor Newsom’s announcement of this increased enforcement, however, comes amid growing frustration with perceived dysfunction in the state regulatory system and a persistent illicit market that crowds out regulated cannabis.
California has a thriving illicit market in cannabis, estimated by New Frontier Data to be valued at $3.7 billion last year. This is due to many factors, including California’s unregulated cannabis collectives and cooperatives that operated for years before licensing came, the slow speed at which state and local governments in California have issued licenses, the high taxes and burdensome regulations of the new licensing system, and the demand for California cannabis products throughout the country.
In a sense, the entire cannabis market is an illicit market, as cannabis remains illegal under federal law, which makes any inconsistent California state law allowing cannabis invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. This federal illegality has caused most banks to refuse to do business with cannabis-linked companies, resulting in a largely cash business that is more difficult to track and regulate than it would be if banks were involved. Federal illegality also makes it so the entire interstate market is illegal and unregulated, though lucrative.
The California Bureau of Cannabis Control, tasked with regulating cannabis retail sales, has issued a few enforcement actions against some unlicensed dispensaries, but the efforts have been largely symbolic, against only a tiny fraction of the unlicensed operators. Los Angeles and other cities have also filed misdemeanor cases against unlicensed operators for violations of local licensing laws, but unlicensed dispensaries seem to pop back up faster than they are shut down.
In order for California’s regulatory project to succeed going forward, the state will need to convince more operators to move to the regulated market, through some combination of greater enforcement and lower taxes and regulatory burdens.
The large illicit market and slow roll-out of the licensing process have shaken the confidence of many people who are attempting to comply with California laws. Hopefully, state and local regulators will take advice from frustrated operators, learn from their mis-steps and continue to develop a functioning system. The state and local governments are trying to find the right regulatory balance. Over-regulation makes it so difficult and burdensome to comply that only rich people and companies with lots of resources can operate, and an expensive final product that leads many consumers to buy from the illicit market.
For now, many license holders are playing the long game, hoping the illicit market will shrink over time, and more consumers throughout the state (and eventually the country and world) join the regulated cannabis market. Governor Newsom says that he expects it may take at least five years to develop its complex regulatory system. If the state gets it right, this can be an industry that drives the state economy, creating more resources and jobs for everyone.
One approach that could be successful would be to offer a more simplified and inexpensive process to get new cannabis businesses up and running. More burdensome regulations and higher taxes could kick in only after businesses have gotten through the startup phase and adapted to the regulations. There could be a tiered or graduated system of compliance, taxes, and enforcement that is welcoming to new operators. Startup costs for new businesses are already very expensive, and high licensing expenses and a burdensome application process can dissuade many people from pursuing licenses who might otherwise want to follow the law. Lowering the tax rates in the beginning, while businesses get off the ground, could also encourage new entrants to the regulated market. Once businesses become established and there is a healthy regulated market, taxes could be increased to desired levels. The government has many tools available to help establish a functioning market. We are optimistic that the future is bright for the cannabis economy in California.
The House Committee on Agriculture is in the process of finalizing the 2018 Farm Bill, which is expected to go into effect later this month. It’s likely that the bill’s provisions will include the legalization of hemp, in the form of the removal of the plant from the government’s list of Schedule I Controlled Substances. Not only will this mean that hemp can be grown much more widely, it will also affect the production of hemp derivatives, including hemp-derived CBD. However, the legality of CBD products remains more complicated than this news may suggest.
As discussed in a prior blog post, the legal status of CBD can be very confusing to consumers, businesses, and lawmakers alike. As a substance that is derived from the cannabis plant, but is not cannabis’ main active ingredient, CBD currently occupies an unclear middle ground – particularly in California, where the state has imposed additional rules affecting how the various types of CBD may be legally used.
The legalization of hemp, though a step forward in the overall process of cannabis legalization, doesn’t do much to resolve the confusion surrounding CBD products. Even after hemp is legalized, CBD will be considered a drug and therefore subject to regulation by the FDA. Though the FDA has approved certain cannabis-derived CBD medications, CBD’s status as a drug makes it illegal to use as an ingredient in any kind of food or food additive.
Topicals, oils, and other non-edible forms of hemp-derived CBD, on the other hand, may not necessarily be banned once hemp is legalized. However, the FDA has yet to make a statement regarding this possibility – though they have sent unambiguous legal warnings to CBD businesses that make unsubstantiated or false claims about their products, indicating that they plan to regulate all CBD products to some degree, they’re less clear about the future legal status of hemp-derived CBD and non-edible hemp derivatives in general.
In California, the law on CBD edibles will remain paradoxical even after hemp is legalized. While CBD products with THC levels of 0.3% or more will be treated as cannabis edibles and therefore legal, CBD products with lower THC levels – or no THC at all – will be considered food products and therefore banned, regardless of whether they’re derived from cannabis or hemp. However, hemp-based non-edible CBD products are not currently regulated by any state agency, meaning their legal status remains unclear. For the sake of the state’s cannabis consumers and businesses, hopefully California will respond to the new Farm Bill by clarifying the legal status of these products.
- Disconnecting DWP utility services to unlicensed businesses
- Issuing citations to certain employees working in unlicensed businesses
- -Sending cease and desist letters to businesses and landlords
- Requiring all licensed retailers to display an emblem so the public knows whether a given business is licensed
- Sending letters to creditors and contractors of unlicensed businesses
- Bringing civil and criminal cases against unlicensed businesses
2. Opportunity to Appeal Rejected Dispensary Permits
Applicants who applied in Phase 1 and were found to be ineligible based on failure to qualify as an Existing Medical Marijuana Dispensary were given a chance to appeal the written findings of the DCR. These parties were given an opportunity to present their points, with back-and-forth discussion on the points of the appeal with members of the commission.
Each Applicant appealing was allowed either have a single person present the appeal or to have multiple witnesses – each side was allowed to submit any documents up until a week before hearing, and given 10 minutes to present arguments and evidence. The DCR was then allowed to present its case and findings for 10 minutes. The hearing officer could grant either side more time if appropriate, and the applicant was allowed 5 minutes at the end of the session to address DCR’s comments, followed by discussion and questions.
The main issues in the appeal were whether the Applicant had a 2017 L050 BTRC or, if no 2017 BTRC, if the Applicant had a L050 2015 or 2016 BTRC and met all the pre-ICO requirements, including registering for the ICO in 2007. One applicant was rejected who met all the requirements other than registering for the ICO in 2007 (the City reviewed records of office of city clerk regarding who was on the ICO registry), even though the business had BTRCs from 2007 to 2015 and had been paying taxes all along.
One applicant claimed another applicant mis-used the applicant’s ICO filing, applying under it for priority registration even though he was not an officer or director of the ICO registered entity. However, it turned out the ICO registered entity had registered as a sole proprietor “doing business as” a name similar to the current applicant, and the current applicant corporation was just using a similar same name as the 2007 entity but had a different legal name and different tax history and was a separate legal entity.
There were disputes during the appeals involving BTRCs issued with different account numbers or different entities, BTRCs that had been erroneously issued for addresses outside LA and then closed out, and BTRCs issued to related entities that had failed to follow merger process with the city. As a rule, only the same business entity that meets the eligibility requirements is eligible for priority processing.
Parties found ineligible for priority processing were encouraged to re-apply in Phase 3 general licensing, anticipated to open in 2019. Going forward, the DCR will prioritize annual licensing for Phase 1 and 2 applicants first, then registration for social equity applicants, and then Phase 3 will open.
For more information on the cannabis licensing and social equity process in Los Angeles, keep checking this blog or reach out to our cannabis attorneys at email@example.com.
Twilight is approaching in the state of commercial cannabis in California. Pursuant to the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulations and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), Business and Professions Code Section 26050.1, each of the state licensing authorities regulating commercial cannabis are subject to a Sunset Clause that prohibits the issuance or extension of temporary state licenses starting January 1, 2019.
What does this mean for you?
As a reminder, California has a dual-licensing system regulating commercial cannabis in the state. To operate legally, you must have both a local license issued by the local jurisdiction where your business is established, and a state license issued by one of the three state licensing agencies, the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Pursuant to MAUCRSA, the state temporary license enable business to operate while the state processes the annual license application. If you have already received a state temporary license and it expires prior to this date, you must submit an application for an annual license in order to receive the extension.
Each agency has set their own requirements dependent on the license type applied for and may be subject to compliance with ancillary agencies at the state level. Look through the application materials thoroughly, and consider consulting with an attorney to ensure you are in compliance with the necessary documentation.
To apply for a state temporary license, at a minimum you will need:
Evidence of Legal Right to Occupy
Should the state deem any part of your application incomplete, they will notify the primary contact with an opportunity to rectify any insufficiencies. This will inevitably delay the review of your application until all deficiencies are rectified. We would like to reassure our readers this is a normal part of the licensing process and is common practice to go back and forth with the state to ensure your application is in line with the regulations.
DO NOT DELAY
We advise sticking to the state’s December 1 recommended deadline to submit your application for a temporary license. The review period can take up to several weeks so make sure to submit the application timely to ensure there is sufficient time to receive the license. You may still apply for an annual license after the new year, but are subject to the state’s review period until they issue the annual license. The review period of the annual application can take up to several months. If you do not hold a valid local and state license you are prohibited from conducting commercial cannabis operations in the state.
This can have an significant repercussions for businesses to take into consideration. For example, if you are paying rent on the property and cannot operate can cause significant financial strains. We recommend consulting with an attorney in preparation of the annual license.
California Department of Public Health - Regulates Cannabis Manufacturing
California Department of Food and Agriculture - Regulates Cannabis Cultivation
Bureau of Cannabis Control - Regulates Cannabis Retail, Delivery, Distrbution, Testing, Microbusiness
Cannabidiol (CBD for short) is a naturally-occurring element of the cannabis plant that has recently exploded in popularity and availability. Like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), CBD is believed to have therapeutic and medical benefits, but unlike THC, CBD has no intoxicating effects. Across the country, people can now find CBD products everywhere. But are they safe and legal?
Many products advertised as CBD are imported from other countries or produced in unregulated, unlicensed operations, with no verification that they are free from toxic compounds or that they even contain CBD. Even if the products contain “pure” CBD, knowledgeable experts contend that CBDs have little or no benefits when they are stripped from THC and other cannabinoids and compounds naturally occurring in the marijuana plant. CBDs appear to exhibit their medical and healing properties only when they are left combined with the other cannabinoids like THC, as they are found in nature.
CBD Production and Sales Remain a Federal Crime Without FDA Approval and a Doctor's Prescription
The law on CBD products is confusing, due to conflicts among local, state, federal, and international laws. Under the Supremacy Clause to the US Constitution, federal law controls to the extent it conflicts with state or local law. State law also controls to the extent it conflicts with city or county laws. Federal law in this area is moving, but it is not clear in what direction. Some predict the federal government will relinquish all regulation of CBDs and cannabis generally to the states, and keep a hands-off approach. Others expect the federal government to strictly regulate CBDs and cannabis as they do with prescription drugs through the FDA, leaving the states with little control. This approach was foreshadowed by the DEA’s recent memo announcing that drugs including CBD with THC content below 0.1% will be taken off of Schedule 1 of the controlled substances schedules, and moved to Schedule 5, which allows CBD products to be sold through traditional pharmacies with a doctor’s prescription so long as the particular product is first approved by the FDA. The order also disallows any importing or exporting of CBD products without a permit.
Under federal law, CBD with THC content above 0.1% remains classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, subject to severe criminal sanctions. The Rohrbacher-Farr amendment creates a limited exception, preventing the DOJ from prosecuting anyone in strict compliance with state medical marijuana laws (adult-use or recreational uses of CBD products may still be prosecuted).
Without Commercial Cannabis License, CBDs Are Banned in California Food Products
In California, the Department of Public Health recently issued a memo confirming that CBD products are not allowed in any food products in the state (unless the products are regulated as commercial cannabis edibles, which by definition contain THC levels of at least 0.3%). Thus, under state law, CBDs are allowed to be sold and ingested as long as they include THC, and are banned in food if they come from industrial hemp with little or no THC. The reason CBD products with no THC are banned by state law is that California incorporates federal law regarding food additives, dietary use products, food labeling, and good manufacturing practices for food. Currently, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that it is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which THC or CBD has been added.
This is regardless of the source of the CBD – i.e., whether the CBD is derived from cannabis or industrial hemp. CBD used as a topical or smokeable product could arguably be allowed under either federal or state law as it may not be considered to be a food that is ingested.
Los Angeles Allows CBD Businesses Without a Cannabis License to Register for Business Tax Certificate to Engage in Commercial Activities
The City of Los Angeles recently issued a form for businesses seeking a Business Tax Registration Certificate to engage in commercial activities related to industrial hemp and/or CBD derived from industrial hemp in the City of Los Angeles. This form allows your business to pay local taxes, but it does not protect you from criminal prosecution under state or federal law. It likely also signals that enforcement of state CBD laws is not a high priority of the Los Angeles Police Department.
International Treaties Ban All Cannabis Extracts Including CBDs
In addition to local, state, and federal law, international treaties place obstacles to the sale of CBD products. The United Nations has had a series of International Drug Control Conventions (treaties of which the US and Canada are part), and while CBD is not specifically listed in the schedules of the Conventions, "extracts" of cannabis are apparently included within Schedule 1, meaning they are prohibited.
Given the controls required by the UN Conventions, the US would be unable to keep its obligations under the treaties if CBD products were de-controlled under federal law. The Federal Controlled Substances Act, moreover, indicates that scheduling decisions will be made in accordance with treaty obligations. For example, under section201(d)(I) of the CSA, if control of a substance is required under an international treaty or convention in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General is required to impose controls on the substance by placing it under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations.
The World Health Organization Expert Committee on Drug Dependence is scheduled to review the UN’s classification of CBD, THC, and cannabis in general at its November 2018 meeting, which could lead to a change in the international treaty.
The result of all these different layers of law leave many confused. We expect that the laws will adapt over time to allow for open sales of CBD products, whether or not they also contain THC. For now, however, the law is full of problems for CBD products and cannabis in general, and we applaud those working to reform the laws for these products that are all around us.