Washington Cannabis: The Proposed Hemp Overhaul is Here

In light of the recent federal legalization of industrial hemp, Washington lawmakers are taking a hard look at the state’s hemp program. Senators Bob Hasegawa (D) of Beacon Hill, Steve Conway (D) of Tacoma, and Karen Keiser (D) of Kent recently introducing Senate Bill 5719. The stated purpose of SB 5719 is as follows:

Authorize the growing of hemp as a legal, agricultural activity in this state. Hemp is an agricultural product that may be legally grown, produced, processed, possessed, transferred, commercially sold, and traded. Hemp and hemp products produced in accordance with this chapter may be transferred and sold within the state, outside of this state, and internationally. Nothing in this chapter is intended to prevent or restrain commerce in this state involving hemp or hemp products produced lawfully under the laws of another state or country.”

The bill requires Washington comply with the 2018 Farm Bill, which removed industrial hemp from the federal Controlled Substances Act, and which provides for state- and tribe-level programs for the cultivation of industrial hemp. As such, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (“WSDA”) would need to submit a plan to US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) pursuant to the 2018 Farm Bill. The plan would need to cover licensing, THC testing, enforcement, and a host of other topics required under federal law.

It’s too early to tell whether SB 5719 will ultimately become law, but it’s worth keeping an eye on at this point (and will be covered in our upcoming free CBD Webinar on February 21 at 12:00 PST).

Food and Hemp

SB 5719 would repeal Washington’s Industrial Hemp Research Program (RCW 15.120 et seq.) completely. This program was created under the 2014 Farm Bill, which was fairly light on details and limited to hemp cultivation for “research” purposes. Washington’s hemp program is fairly limited and has never really taken off like it has in Colorado, Kentucky, and Oregon. Washington’s hemp law is also extremely confusing thanks to RCW 15.120.020 which prohibits the “production of any part of industrial hemp, except seed, as food, extract, oil, cake, concentrate, resin, or other preparation for topical use, oral consumption, or inhalation by humans[.]” This provision only refers to the production of hemp, not the sale of hemp products, including widely popular hemp-derived CBD (“Hemp-CBD”) products. However, it has also stunted the retail sale of hemp products intended for human consumption under the idea that if it’s illegal to produce hemp for human consumption it is also legal to sell hemp products for human consumption. This would no longer be an issue if SB 5719 passes. However, SB 5719 does come with some ambiguity.

Under, SB 5719 “CBD and CBD products derived from hemp are considered a food product that must be tested and treated in accordance with other agricultural crop derived food products for human and animal consumption.” This could lead to confusion. For example, a Hemp-CBD topical cream would still have to be “tested and treated” as food. That is inconsistent with FDA regulation which treats food and cosmetics differently. Additionally, what does it mean to “treat” something as food? I read it to refer to things like manufacturing, labeling, and storing Hemp-CBD, but I could be wrong.

Licensing and Seeds

The WSDA would issue hemp producer licenses. Current hemp licensees could transfer into Washington’s new program once it’s up and running.  Hemp producers will only be allowed to use seeds listed in SB 5719 or approved by the WSDA. The bill also contains a clever provision that distinguishes seed varieties based on THC percentage. Certain seed “cultivar” (i.e., “a variation of the plant Cannabis sativa L. that has been developed through cultivation by selective breeding”) will be exempt from THC testing. WSDA will have the authority to approve seed cultivar and determine whether THC testing is required. Cultivar that were brought into Washington state before January 1, 2022 so long as “the state has planting, growth, and stability records covering at least three years.”

Even though seeds will be regulated fairly robustly, SB 5719 does not indicate the need for seed-to-sale traceability as the WSDA will not be responsible for determining whether a hemp product was derived from an approved hemp cultivar.

Regulatory Authority

Though SB 5719 is a major overhaul, WSDA would still have authority over hemp in the Evergreen State. Both marijuana and hemp are ways to describe cannabis so it’s natural to wonder what is the LCB’s role in regulating hemp under SB 5719? SB 5719 specifically states that “all rules relating to hemp, including any testing of hemp, are outside the control of the [LCB].” However, the WSDA is mandated to consult with the LCB to establish rules and policies to prevent cross pollination between marijuana and hemp crops. In the event that a documented cross-pollination erupts between two farms growing hemp or marijuana, the farm operating first will be the victor. This first-in-time law would give marijuana farmers a massive upper-hand, at least initially, as Washington’s marijuana program is older and much larger than the hemp program. The WSDA and state lawmakers will undertake a task force for determining the need for crop insurance.

Bottom line

SB 5719, if passed in its current form, would drastically change Washington’s hemp laws. Like the 2018 Farm Bill, it’s a much more commercial friendly scheme. If you agree or disagree with the current version of SB 5719, you can submit comments here.

If SB 5719 becomes law, it will take effect immediately. Given that there are several time-sensitive provisions in the bill, it makes sense to start planning now. We’ll keep an eye on this and other hemp-bills in Washington and other states.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/washington-cannabis-the-proposed-hemp-overhaul-is-here/

The Future of Cannabis in Washington and Oregon

In late January, Portland hosted the Cannabis Collaborative Conference (“CCC” or “Conference”), an annual forum created by cannabis industry leaders, aimed at addressing the most pressing issues facing this emerging market. This year’s conference focused on the future of the cannabis industry.

Rick Garza, Director of the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (“WLCB”), was one of the key speakers at this year’s Conference. Mr. Garza discussed the possibility of Washington state allowing small cannabis farmers to sell directly to consumers. This practice would be comparable to that allowed for wineries, breweries and distilleries. If approved by the Washington State Legislature, this move would afford small growers an opportunity to increase their sales and, consequently, boost the local economy. This initiative would mirror the practice adopted by several Canadian provinces, which allow licensed producers to sell marijuana to consumers at cultivation facilities, and states like Colorado and Oregon, which authorize licensed cannabis growers to concurrently hold retailer licenses.

The Washington cannabis regulator was also joined by Steve Marks, Executive Director of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (“OLCC”). Both discussed upcoming changes to the Washington and Oregon programs, which respond to the ongoing and growing issues of oversupply. As we previously discussed, Oregon’s supply has far exceeded local demands: the state is currently sitting on approximately 1.4 million pounds of marijuana that state and federal laws prohibit from selling outside state lines. This tremendous oversupply in Oregon has caused prices to crater, putting many licensed growers on precariously thin ice. In 2018, the wholesale price of Oregon flower dropped from $3.90 per gram at the beginning of the year to $1.86 as of the end of the summer. Washington growers find themselves in an equally challenging situation.

In addressing the overproduction issue and interstate leakage, the OLCC leader said he expected more discussion about legislation capping the number of cannabis business licenses in Oregon. However, as we explained before, controlling supply by capping Oregon licenses as a fearful response to interstate leakage could also incentivize black markets, especially for Oregon sales, because a cap would increase the prices of cannabis.

Mr. Marks also shared that he has seen an infusion of capital into Oregon cannabis companies from investors who believe marijuana will become federally legal. Similarly to those investors, we believe federal legalization is merely a matter of time and that it will help put an end to unapproved interstate leakage. Indeed, the federal prohibition of cannabis is encouraging unscrupulous and desperate cannabis businesses to cut their losses and sell their surplus in the black market.

Although solving the issue of oversupply and interstate leakage will inevitably require the federal legalization of cannabis, it is encouraging to know that Washington and Oregon cannabis regulators are actively exploring ways to improve the industry and insure its sustainability. We expect to see some very important developments in both states in 2019, in addition to any federal law updates.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/the-future-of-cannabis-in-washington-and-oregon/

The California Bureau of Cannabis Control’s Final Regulations Immigration Impact on Foreign “Owners”

On January 16, 2019, each of the three California cannabis agencies dropped a final set of regulations. In many senses, the Bureau of Cannabis Control’s (“BCC”) regulations were the most comprehensive and expansive (we summarized some of the highlights here, and summarized the highlights of the California Department of Public Health’s final regulations here). In one area in particular, the BCC’s regulations may have some unintended and far-reaching effects: immigration.

For some reference, one of the biggest changes to the BCC’s regulations is in the “ownership” disclosure requirements, which now will require disclosure of persons as potential owners who may be far removed from the actual licensed entity. To recap, in the post linked above, we wrote:

[The BCC’s] entity ownership requirements kick in in any situation in which a company owns a licensee—not only where the ownership is based in equity (remember that ownership can also be based on direction, management, or control of a licensee or other grounds). If an entity is considered an owner, then anyone with a financial interest in that entity must be disclosed to the BCC and may be considered an owner.

This is a tremendously significant requirement and means that virtually everyone in the corporate chain must be disclosed (and probably must provide all of the many significant and burdensome disclosures). For example, if John Smith directly owns 1% of the BCC licensee ABC Retailer and does not exercise any control over ABC Retailer, he will be considered a financial interest holder as opposed to an owner.  But if he owns 1% of XYX Holdings, which has a 20% stake in ABC Retailer, he will need to be disclosed to the BCC and may be considered an owner.”

What this could mean in other words is that more people, and people higher up a corporate chain, may need to make “ownership” disclosures. One of those disclosures is the requirement per BCC Regulation 5002(c)(20)(D) to provide a Social Security Number (“SSN”) or individual taxpayer identification number (“ITIN”), and another is the requirement to obtain a live scan. These are significant requirements for foreign persons who “own” cannabis businesses and, as described below, could affect their immigration status.

SSNs are available for residents and citizens of the United States. ITINs may be available in limited circumstances to foreign persons who have a need for tax identification purposes in the United States, but they are somewhat complex to obtain and require certain documentation (either a federal income tax return or some “exemption” documents). And live scans are federal background checks that land in federal databases, and as a result, in hot water.

The reason background checks for foreign nationals are problematic is that any direct or peripheral involvement in the cannabis industry is incompatible with the immigration laws of the United States. This applies to everyone who is not a United States citizen, including lawful permanent residents (i.e., green card holders), those living, studying, and/or working in the United States under an authorized nonimmigrant visa, those temporarily visiting the United States for business or pleasure, and of course, those who have no legal status in the United States.

As explained previously, even where a foreign person is traveling to a state where marijuana is legal, federal law applies at all U.S. ports-of-entry and preflight clearance locations (the “border”). The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officer at the border has the legal authority to question the foreign person about the purpose of the visit and has advance access to the list of airline passengers on each flight and the license plate of each vehicle waiting at a border checkpoint.

By the time a foreign person is greeted by the CBP officer, seemingly unrelated dots between a web search and live scan and other databases have already been connected for the officer to use in questioning the foreign person about his connection to a cannabis business.

If the foreign person wants lie about his involvement, he should absolutely not. The CBP has broad authority to search electronic devices, including cell phones and laptops. If the CBP officer finds any information to contradict the foreign person’s statements, it can potentially permanently ban him or her from entering the United States because of fraud or misrepresentation, and not just for violating the Controlled Substances Act.

Under the BCC’s new ownership regulations and its live scan requirement, a few things are clear. First, persons who earlier may not have qualified as owners now might. This may include a host of foreign citizens who now need to obtain ITINs and undergo live scans. Second, live scans are part of a federal database, so federal agents may be able to stop and ask clients questions about why they have undergone live scans. Moreover, and third, under the BCC’s live scan memo (linked above), live scan forms won’t be sent until an application is made, so foreign persons entering the United States to undergo a live scan will by definition already have applied for a cannabis application and thus may risk being turned away.

What’s clear is that ownership of a cannabis business is a risk when it comes to immigration. The BCC’s newest regulations may pass that risk on to a host of new persons. Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for more developments. In the meantime, for more on immigration and cannabis, check out the following:

• Bumps Ahead: The U.S. Border after Legalization of Cannabis in Canada
• Canada Cannabis Legalization Today: U.S. Customs and Border Protection Update

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/the-california-bureau-of-cannabis-controls-final-regulations-immigration-impact-on-foreign-owners/

Cannabis and International Trade: Never the Twain Shall Meet?

Recently, we’ve been getting tons of questions from clients regarding the international import and export of cannabis around the globe. 2018 was a historic year for the cannabis industry not just in the United States, but also internationally. Canada legalized recreational marijuana for the entire country. Many countries (e.g., Thailand, New Zealand, Mexico, Lithuania, U.K.) took significant steps to decriminalize or legalize medical or recreational marijuana. In December, Israel became the fifth country to pass legislation legalizing the export of medical marijuana (after the Netherlands, Canada, Uruguay, and Australia).

Despite these advances, international trade in legal marijuana currently is limited. Under a 1961 international treaty (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs), cannabis is classified as a controlled substance with no medicinal use or value (we explored this recently here). Most countries are signatories to this and other international treaties that set forth the ground rules for the international drug control regime for controlled substances. Individual countries, however, can and have begun to make their own determinations on whether cannabis should be treated as a narcotic substance. Countries that have legalized marijuana can agree to allow trade in marijuana between those countries. Dutch and Canadian companies have gotten a head start in the global marijuana trade with medical marijuana being exported to Germany, Italy, Croatia, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Chile. Currently, Israel, Australia, Uruguay, and others are also pushing to get into the medical marijuana export game.

While other countries have begun to legalize cannabis, the United States federal government still classifies “marijuana” as a Schedule I controlled substance with no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Thus, federal law effectively prohibits importation of marijuana into the United States. In September 2018, however, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) granted permission for a Canadian marijuana company (Tilray) to export medicinal cannabis to University of California San Diego for clinical trial. Although DEA’s approval of this importation may be just a one-off, this one approval could signal an eventual broader opening of the U.S. market to imported marijuana.

If (or when) the U.S. finally allows the importation of cannabis products from other countries, it seems likely that some type of trade dispute will likely occur. Legalization of marijuana has often resulted in supply and demand imbalances that result in prices rising or falling sharply. In Oregon, prices for licensed marijuana plummeted with overproduction, and nearly 70 percent of the legal recreational marijuana grown has gone unsold. In Canada, medical marijuana dispensaries faced shortages as licensed producers shifted to selling to the much larger legalized recreational marijuana market. Italy faced consistent shortages of medicinal marijuana and ultimately permitted imports from Canadian companies to ease the supply shortages.

Trade disputes often result when producers in one country complain that imports from another country are being sold at unfairly low or subsidized prices and harming the domestic industry. Domestic producers can petition their government to investigate imported products and often antidumping or countervailing duties are imposed. If imported cannabis products are allowed into the U.S., it would not be surprising if U.S. marijuana producers resort to U.S. trade laws in order to fend off import competition. Which countries might be likely targets of a cannabis trade dispute?

• Canada –Given the head start that Canadian cannabis companies already have in developing international distribution networks in a number of countries, bigger and better funded Canadian companies could swoop in and aggressively price their product to overwhelm U.S. competitors and take over a dominant market share in the United States. U.S. cannabis companies could try to seek trade protection from Canadian imports by filing antidumping or countervailing duty petitions like those filed against Canadian softwood lumber in multiple rounds going back to the 1980s.
• Mexico – Mexico’s new President Lopez Obrador has proposed legislation to legalize marijuana. If Mexico ever legalizes exports of licensed marijuana, Mexico’s relatively lower farm labor rates could provide significant cost advantages over U.S. or Canadian licensed suppliers.
• China – Although marijuana is illegal in China, China is nevertheless the world’s leading producer of industrial hemp cultivation. China likely will have a significant advantage in producing more cost-effective hemp fabric and medicinal products than any other country. As of 2017, Chinese companies hold more than half of the 606 patents filed around the world that relate to cannabis. These patents could trigger plenty of litigation as companies try to attack or defend the intellectual property rights of their hemp products.

It’s hard to think of international trade disputes involving cannabis when it is still illegal for marijuana to cross U.S. state borders, let alone international borders.  But as the trend of marijuana legalization continues globally, it is likely a matter of time before licensed marijuana products become treated like any other commodity subject to competitive market forces and resulting litigation over fair and unfair competition. Once imported marijuana products are allowed, it is not difficult to foresee the day when import competition in the legal marijuana markets may trigger some type of international trade dispute either in the form of an antidumping or countervailing duty petition or a patent infringement action.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/cannabis-and-international-trade-never-the-twain-shall-meet/

Should U.S. Cannabis Companies Seek Trademark Protection in Canada?

With Canada’s new trademark law set to take effect on June 17, 2019, U.S. cannabis companies should be considering whether it makes sense for them to file for trademark protection in Canada.

Most significantly for foreign applicants, a Declaration of Use will no longer be required, meaning that you do not need to actually use your mark in Canada in order to qualify for trademark protection. This is in contrast to the United States, where trademark registration requires proof of lawful use in commerce. The upside to this regulatory shift is that U.S. companies can get a jump on procuring Canadian trademark protection prior to entering the Canadian market. But the inevitable downside is that trademark trolls will now have an open door to “squat” on trademarks that are used by companies in other countries. These trolls often aim to force companies into negotiations for use of trademark rights to their own brand. Filing for protection in Canada will be an important tool for U.S. cannabis companies to avoid such a scenario.

Furthermore, cannabis goods can be specified in any Canadian trademark application. “The following terms are, at this time acceptable by the Office: ‘dried cannabis’ or ‘dried marijuana,’ ‘live cannabis plants,’ ‘medicinal marijuana for temporary relief of seizures,’ ‘medicinal marijuana for temporary relief of nerve pain.’” “Cannabis oil,” however, is not acceptable. It is important that the language used in your specification comports with the Canadian Goods and Services Manual.

Another notable change to Canada’s trademark law is that a range of non-traditional types of marks will now be registrable, including scents and tastes, holograms, moving images and textures.

Remember, though, that even though it is relatively straightforward to obtain a trademark for cannabis goods or services in Canada, there are many restrictions placed on how those cannabis trademarks can be used via the cannabis regulatory framework. For example, cannabis trademarks may not be used to promote cannabis goods:

• In a manner that appeals to children;
• By means of a testimonial or endorsement;
• By depicting a person, character or animal, whether real or fictional;
• By presenting the product or brand elements in a manner that evokes a positive or negative emotion about or image of, a way of life such as one that includes glamour, recreation, excitement, vitality, risk, or daring;
• By using information that is false, misleading or deceptive, or that is likely to create an erroneous impression about the product’s characteristics, value, quantity, composition, strength, concentration, potency, purity, quality, merit, safety, health effects or health risks;
• By using or displaying a brand element or names of persons authorized to produce, sell or distribute cannabis in connection with the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity or facility, or on a facility used for sports, or a cultural event or activity; and
• By communicating information about price and distribution (except at point of sale).

Because of the removal of the Declaration of Use requirement in particular, we strongly urge all of our cannabis clients to consult with their trademark attorney to discuss applying for trademark protection in Canada. If you fail to do so, someone else may beat you to it, preventing you from obtaining any right to use your brand in the Canadian market.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/should-u-s-cannabis-companies-seek-trademark-protection-in-canada/

Portland Awards Cannabis Grants to Minority Owned Cannabis Businesses

We have been skeptical of cities being involved in the licensing cannabis businesses in the past. Cannabis businesses are taxed and regulated heavily enough at the state level–why involve cities as well? We have always thought that if a city is going to be involved in the licensing process, it might as well do some good along the way. Portland, Oregon has provided one example of what a city can do with those tax funds.

As many cities in Oregon have done, Portland imposes a 3% local tax on retail cannabis sales. The City allocated $500,000 of the taxes to support neighborhood small businesses, especially women-owned and minority owned businesses and to provide economic opportunity and education to communities disproportionately-impacted by cannabis prohibition. Of that $500,000, $150,000 was allocated to specifically reinvest in minority- owned cannabis businesses.

To receive a City Grant, a Cannabis Business must complete a Cannabis Tax Allocation Grant Application. The Grant Application requires the cannabis business to identify a project/program that meets the “Record Clearing” or “Workforce Development” goals of the grant. The Record Clearing goals focuses on awarding money to those that have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition by removing barriers to housing, employment and education through legal support including, expungement, fine reduction, and charge reduction. The Workforce Development goals focus on creating pathways for people disproportionately impacted by previous cannabis laws to obtain family-wage jobs, including training, mentorship, and other workforce reentry support.

The application is detailed and requires the applicant to explain the background and mission of their organization, specific examples of activities to be completed, major milestones, along with questions regarding budget. The Portland City Council then reviews the applications and allocates the grants.

The first recipients of grants intended to help communities historically harmed by cannabis prohibition were awarded on January 21, 2019. Green box, an African American owned cannabis delivery company, was awarded $30,000. Adrian Wayman has reported he intends to use the money to hire his first employee.

The second recipient of $30,000 is Green Hop. Green Hop is an African American owned dispensary in North Portland. Green Hop also runs the “Green Hop Academy”, an apprentice program that provides training to individuals who hope to one day own their own cannabis business.

The City plans to keep moving forward with the grants and has increased its allocations for the grants to $700,000 for the fiscal year 2018-2019. It is comforting to see money from cannabis taxes being reinvested into the community. While the grant application can seem daunting, it can certainly make a huge difference in the Portland community to assist those that historically have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. Here’s to hoping other cities follow in Portland’s footsteps and reallocate taxes and other fees to good causes.

source https://www.cannalawblog.com/portland-awards-cannabis-grants-to-minority-owned-cannabis-businesses/

Oregon’s New Industrial Hemp Rules and the 2018 Farm Bill