On Thursday, November 7th, Vince Sliwoski, Aaron Pelley and Fred Rocafort held a post election discussion “Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em”. Watch the replay!

Key Takeaways from the “Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em – 2024 Post Election Cannabis Wrap” Webinar:

1. Panelists:
   • Vince Sliwoski: Oregon Business lawyer specializing in cannabis and commercial real estate.
   • Aaron Pelley: Experienced in cannabis law since Washington’s legalization in 2012.
   • Fred Rocafort: Trademark attorney working closely with the cannabis team.
2. Election Results Overview:
   • Most 2024 cannabis ballot measures did not pass.
   • Florida, South Dakota, and North Dakota saw failures.
   • Nebraska became the 39th state to legalize cannabis for medical use when it passed two cannabis initiatives, Initiatives 437 and 438.
3. Federal and State-Level Developments:
   • Medical use is currently legal in 38 states, and 24 states allow recreational use.
   • Republican support for marijuana legalization is growing.
4. Federal Policy Implications:
   • Schedule III Rescheduling: The process to move cannabis to Schedule III is ongoing, which could significantly impact the industry.
   • Importance of Federal Appointments: The future of cannabis policy depends heavily on who is appointed to key positions in the administration.
5. International and Domestic Trade:
   • Schedule III status could ease import/export restrictions on cannabis.
   • Unified control of House, Senate, and presidency might expedite legislative progress.
6. Economic and Industry Impact:
   • Cannabis stocks experienced volatility post-election, reflecting investor uncertainty.
   • Federal legalization and banking reforms are crucial for industry stability and growth.
7. Future Outlook:
   • The potential for federal rescheduling remains strong, with hearings scheduled for early 2025.
   • State-level initiatives and regulatory developments will continue to shape the industry.

Watch the replay!

Is kratom addictive? Discover the potential for dependence on Kratom, the risks involved with its use, and how to approach its consumption responsibly.

From 2011 to 2017, over 1,800 calls to poison centers involved kratom in the U.S. This significant number highlights the concern regarding kratom addiction.

However, without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, and due to various consumption methods like teas and capsules, there are significant health risks. Safe use of kratom is now in question due to these issues.

Research debates how dependence develops, outlining signs like loss of control and withdrawal symptoms. These signs are seen in regular kratom users. Ironically, some people switch from drugs like heroin to kratom, looking for a legal alternative.

Understanding Kratom: Origins and Prevalence

The legal status of kratom in the U.S. is complicated and changing. It’s a hot topic because some worry about its misuse. It’s still legal in several states. This shows how different places handle drug rules. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is looking into its medical benefits. But, the FDA hasn’t approved it for medical use yet. The DEA calls it a “drug of concern,” which means policies might change.

• From 2011 to 2017, poison control centers in the U.S. got over 1,800 reports about kratom. This shows it’s widely used and might pose health risks.

• Kratom’s main ingredients bind to opioid receptors very strongly, stronger than morphine even. This fact is key to understanding its effects.

• As more people use kratom, more are reporting serious health problems. These include liver and heart issues, and tough withdrawal symptoms, particularly in those already sick.

The statistics show mounting worries about kratom in the U.S. As its use grows, it’s becoming more important to health policies and laws. What happens next will depend on further research and legal decisions.

Is Kratom Addictive: Investigating the Substance’s Nature

How Kratom Works in the Brain

Patterns and Consequences of Long-term Use

Assessment of Addiction Risks

Physiological Effects: Kratom’s Impact on the Body

Conclusion

WHAT IS KRATOM AND WHY ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT IT NOW?

Oregon’s Measure 119 passed last week, as expected. This means that as of December 5^th, every OLCC licensed retailer, processor, researcher and testing lab must secure a labor peace agreement before OLCC will approve a new or renewal license application. The labor peace agreement must be with a “bona fide labor organization.”

I previewed M119 back in September, explaining:

Compulsory peace agreements aren’t anything new in cannabis, although it would be something different here in Oregon. California, for example, requires labor peace agreements for many of its cannabis licensees, and has for many years. We had clients struggle with the concept initially, and we saw some fumbled rollouts, but people eventually adjusted.

Measure 119 further provides that retailers and processors would be required to remain neutral, under the peace agreements, when labor organizations communicate with employees about collective bargaining rights “with any licensure or renewal application.”

M119 may be legally problematic

I’m not a First Amendment lawyer, but it’s not clear to me that an Oregon business can be constrained from speaking with employees– regardless of what M119 provides. Oregon’s speech protections are extremely broad, which is why we have a naked bike ride, tons of strip clubs and no campaign finance restrictions.

I’m also not a labor lawyer, but I’m told M119 could hit a snag on the National Labor Relations Act.

I’ve run these concepts by an Oregon First Amendment lawyer and a couple of labor lawyers, and all confirmed to me that M119 has real exposure. I found that feedback interesting, because M119 sponsors would have understood this when they set out signature gathering. Back in September, I wrote:

The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555 spent a good deal of money to get Measure 119 on the ballot, rounding up some 163,000 signatures when only 117,173 were required. This follows on a stymied effort to get House Bill 3183 passed last year, which would have accomplished the same thing legislatively.

HB 3183 failed after a couple of advisory letters from the State of Oregon, Legislative Counsel Committee (see here and here). Those letters discussed preemption exposure for what is now M119 under the National Labor Relations Act, The Taft Hartley Act, and other federal laws. Oregon Business and Industry, the largest business group in the state, also submitted opposing testimony, highlighting legal exposure.

As to the First Amendment issues, anyone watching this is advised to follow litigation recently brought by Ctrl Alt Destroy, Inc., on a similar requirement in California.

So let’s see how that goes, and let’s see if anyone in the Oregon cannabis space wants to make a run at litigating M119. For now, credit to UFCW Local 555, I guess, for not giving up and for getting this thing on the ballot. And for having some fun by slipping a Rickroll into the voter pamphlet. I’m sure that won a few people over.

The OLCC process

I don’t have any information yet on what OLCC is going to do ahead of the December 5^th deadline. It’s worth noting that, in addition to California, other recreational cannabis states including New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware all have similar requirements. Most likely, OLCC will put out an FAQ page very soon that looks something like this and licensees will need to upload something or other to CAMP with respect to any post-December 5^th application or renewal.

As far as OLCC licensees negotiating these agreements, the best approach would be to speak with experienced labor counsel. Labor law is highly specialized, and negotiating a labor peace agreement with any outfit claiming to be a “bona fide labor organization” is not a typical exercise.

For now, this is just one more thing for licensed cannabis businesses to comply with. Please reach out to us if you have any questions or need a referral.