Monday, September 30, 2019

CBD producer sues Oregon hemp seed company for $44 million over ruined crop

A Kentucky-based CBD company filed a $44 million lawsuit against an Oregon hemp seed company, claiming the hempseeds it supplied were bogus and contributed to ruining the company’s 2019 crop. Lexington-based Elemental Processing estimated it lost at least $44 million in profits after HP Farms of Troutdale, Oregon, allegedly supplied it with more than 6 […]

CBD producer sues Oregon hemp seed company for $44 million over ruined crop is a post from: Marijuana Business Daily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs



source https://hempgenixs.com/2019/09/30/cbd-producer-sues-oregon-hemp-seed-company-for-44-million-over-ruined-crop/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cbd-producer-sues-oregon-hemp-seed-company-for-44-million-over-ruined-crop

Water Rights Are Still a Major Concern for California Cannabis Operators

california cannabis water rights

Last week, the California Water Boards requested on Twitter to commercial cannabis cultivators in Mendocino, Trinity, and Humboldt Counties (the “Emerald Triangle”) that, “if you are among the 270 folks who receive a certified letter stating you lack appropriate permits, please respond to our Cannabis Compliance Response Portal.” Water rights have been an ongoing issue for California cannabis operators, particularly in the Emerald Triangle here in Northern California where environmental concerns stemming from water usage abound, particularly by black and grey market operators.

The letters were sent to landowners whose properties “appear … to be used for cannabis cultivation or associated activities,” but for which “there is no record of any person associated with [the] property having enrolled in the State Water Board’s Cannabis Cultivation Program.” The letters further warn recipients that they must obtain proper permission for the water rights utilized for cannabis cultivation and if they fail to do so, threaten fines or loss of state cannabis cultivation permits.

The California Water Boards Cannabis Cultivation Program was approved and put into the state’s regulatory code by the Office of Administrative Law on December 18, 2017 and is intended to “address potential water quality and quantity issues related to cannabis cultivation.” Specifically, for the uninitiated, the Water Boards established a Cannabis Policy that states as follows:

“The Cannabis Policy establishes principles and guidelines (requirements) for cannabis cultivation activities to protect water quality and instream flows. The purpose of the Cannabis Policy is to ensure that the diversion of water and discharge of waste associated with cannabis cultivation does not have a negative impact on water quality, aquatic habitat, riparian habitat, wetlands, and springs. The Cannabis Policy requirements are primarily implemented through the Water Boards Cannabis Cultivation General Order and Cannabis SIUR permits in addition to the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing Program.”

The Water Boards seeks to ensure that discharges to California waters do not adversely affect the quality and uses of our waters via the Cannabis Cultivation General Order’s Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR). The WDR regulates discharges of waste associated with marijuana cultivation in the state, and addresses threats of waste discharge stemming from “irrigation, runoff, over fertilization, pond failure, road construction, grading activities, domestic and cultivation related waste, etc.” All commercial cannabis cultivators must obtain coverage under the Cannabis Cultivation General Order. More information for cultivators can be found on the Boards’ Cannabis Water Quality page.

In addition, the Small Irrigation Use Registration (SIUR) for Cannabis Cultivation requires cannabis cultivators to forbear (or cease) from diverting surface water during the dry season. “The State Water Board has developed the Cannabis SIUR Program as an expedited process for cannabis cultivators to develop and install storage.  The Cannabis SIUR allows for the diversion and storage of up to 20 acre-feet per year and incorporates the requirements of the Cannabis Policy, amongst other requirements, as general conditions.”

Cultivators need to be aware of, and comply with, all regulations pertaining to water rights and usage in California. Relevant information on the Water Boards’ Cannabis Enforcement Unit can be found here.



source https://hempgenixs.com/2019/09/30/water-rights-are-still-a-major-concern-for-california-cannabis-operators/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=water-rights-are-still-a-major-concern-for-california-cannabis-operators

Hemp in California: Counties, cities remain divided on production

(Editor’s note: This is part of an occasional series on California’s hemp industry.) California’s county-by-county regulatory landscape for hemp production is as varied as its actual scenery. In some of its counties, California is one of the last strongholds against hemp production, while in others, efforts to grow the crop are underway or ordinances have […]

Hemp in California: Counties, cities remain divided on production is a post from: Marijuana Business Daily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs



source https://hempgenixs.com/2019/09/30/hemp-in-california-counties-cities-remain-divided-on-production/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hemp-in-california-counties-cities-remain-divided-on-production

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Hemp-CBD Across State Lines: Kansas

kansas hemp cbd

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (“2018 Farm Bill”) legalized hemp by removing the crop and its derivatives from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) and by providing a detailed framework for the cultivation of hemp. The 2018 Farm Bill gives the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) regulatory authority over hemp cultivation at the federal level. In turn, states have the option to maintain primary regulatory authority over the crop cultivated within their borders by submitting a plan to the USDA.

This federal and state interplay has resulted in many legislative and regulatory changes at the state level. Indeed, most states have introduced (and adopted) bills that would authorize the commercial production of hemp within their borders. A smaller but growing number of states also regulate the sale of products derived from hemp.

In light of these legislative changes, we are presenting a 50-state series analyzing how each jurisdiction treats hemp-derived cannabidiol (“Hemp CBD”). Each Sunday, we summarize a new state in alphabetical order. Today, we turn to Kansas.

In 2018, Kansas legislators enacted the Alternative Crop Research Act (“Act”), which authorizes the cultivation of industrial hemp for research purposes only and is overseen by the Kansas Department of Agriculture (“KDA”). To implement the Act, the KDA issued regulations that went into effect on February 8, 2019.

In May 2019, Governor Jeff Colyer signed into law Senate Substitute for House Bill (“HB”) 2167, which authorizes the commercial sale of hemp and hemp products containing less than 0.3% THC, pursuant to the 2018 Farm Bill, and ensures that hemp and hemp products are no longer treated as controlled substances.

Consequently, the Act was officially renamed the “Commercial Industrial Hemp Act” but will remain in effect until the KDA establishes the commercial production of industrial hemp in the state or a federal plan by the USDA allowing for the cultivation and production of commercial industrial hemp is adopted, whichever occurs first.

With this in mind, the following sections address the current rules under the Act and the future regulations under HB 2167.

State License or Permit Status

  • Act: Currently, the KDA requires each individual who is growing, processing, selling and distributing hemp to obtain a license. Note that the rules do not provide whether a license is required to manufacture, sell and distribute Hemp-CBD products. However, in May 2018, Governor Jeff Colyer signed legislation amending the state’s criminal code to exclude CBD from the state’s definition of marijuana, which means that the sale of Hemp-CBD products is authorized if the oil contains no THC.
  • HB 2167: Although HB 2167 gives the KDA the authority to monitor and regulate the commercial production of hemp within the state, the new law does not provide whether a license will be required to sell and distribute Hemp-CBD products. The new law is also unclear about whether certain categories of Hemp-CBD products that may be lawfully manufactured, marketed, distributed, or sold in the state. HB 2167 expressly bans Hemp-CBD smokable products as well as teas, liquids, solids, and other hemp products intended for human consumption containing any ingredient derived from hemp and prohibited by the Kansas Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, the new law also states that it does not explicitly prohibit the use of Hemp-CBD ingredients, such as CBD oil, in such hemp products.

Possession
Kansas does not have Hemp-CBD laws or medical marijuana laws. However, as previously stated, Kansas law removed CBD products free of THC from the state’s definition of marijuana. Unlike CBD-exemption laws enacted in other states, Kansas law permits all adults, not just those with qualified medical conditions, to possess and purchase CBD products containing no THC.

Transportation

  • Act: The KDA requires individuals who transport hemp to obtain a research distributor license. However, the rules do not provide whether a license is required to transport Hemp-CBD products that contain THC.
  • HB 2167: Neither HB 2167 nor the proposed rules from KDA address this issue.

Marketing/Advertising Regulations

  • Act: The Act does not impose restrictions on marketing or advertising of hemp or hemp products under the research program.
  • HB 2167: The new law bans the marketing of all Hemp-CBD products prohibited in the statute and listed above.

In enacting HB 2167, Kansas showed a desire to provide the Kansas hemp community with an opportunity to fulfill its economic potential. However, to reach this objective, the state will need to clarify its policies regarding the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of Hemp-CBD products.

Stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog for developments on hemp and Hemp CBD in Kansas and other states across the country. For previous coverage in this series, check out the links below:



source https://hempgenixs.com/2019/09/29/hemp-cbd-across-state-lines-kansas/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hemp-cbd-across-state-lines-kansas

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Seizures at School: Arizona Federal Court Says IDEA Protections Do Not Extend to Medical Cannabis Use

idea arizona cannabis school

We’ve written a lot about cannabis and the Controlled Substances Act.  From immigration to waste dumping. From the Fair Labor Standards Act to the STATES Act, our articles run the gamut. Not long ago we wrote about a decision by the Second Circuit that may force the DEA to re- or deschedule marijuana after writing about the lawsuit when it was first filed last year. This lawsuit, you may recall, was brought by a group of five plaintiffs comprised of a child who uses cannabis oil successfully to treat life-threatening seizures, another child who treats with cannabis for Leigh Syndrome, a terminal neurological disorder, a former NFL linebacker, an Iraq War veteran, and a nonprofit. As sympathetic a group of plaintiffs as there ever were – and in my eyes equaled by the parents and child in the discussion that follows.

A recent federal court decision addresses the relationship between the Controlled Substances Act, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), and state laws permitting the medical use of cannabis.  The ruling is Albuquerque Public Schools v. Sledge, Civ. No. 18-1029 KK/LF, Civ. No. 18-1041 KK/LF (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2019). (Email me if you’d like a copy of the ruling.) Briefly, IDEA makes available a “free and appropriate public education” (or FAPE) to eligible children with disabilities. IDEA requires that schools provide special education services as outlined in a student’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”). The decision addresses several issues arising under the IDEA, but since this is a cannabis blog and since we are not education lawyers, this post focuses on the cannabis related issues.

Parents seek to have their daughter treated with cannabis oil for seizures that occur at school

P.S.G. (“Student”) was born in 2013. She has Dravet Syndrome and as a result has had life-threatening seizures since infancy. Her doctors have prescribed legal medications that have not always worked and have caused serious side effects including inconsolable screaming and respiratory depression. Student visited the emergency room frequently when these were the only medical treatments she took. In 2016, the New Mexico Department of Health (“NMDOH”) gave Student’s mother (“Mother”) authorization to treat her daughter with cannabis pursuant to New Mexico’s Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act (“CUA”), whose purpose is to allow the use of medical cannabis in some circumstances.

Parents found the administration of CBD three times daily and cannabis oil at the onset of a seizure greatly reduced the frequency and duration of Student’s seizures without any serious side effects.

In 2016, the Albuquerque Public Schools (“APS”) informed Mother that Student could not receive cannabis oil on school grounds. Mother then requested permission from APS for “homebound services.” The APS held a meeting to develop an IEP which proposed Student attend a special education preschool for one hour a day. Student began attending preschool accompanied by Mother, who sat in the classroom every day so she could remove Student from school to administer cannabis oil in the event of a seizure. This continued until Student reached kindergarten age.

In 2018, the APS held another meeting to develop Student’s IEP for the 2018-19 school year – her kindergarten year. Mother wanted Student to receive a public education and did not want to homeschool Student. APS proposed that Student attend full-day kindergarten at a neighborhood school with an one-on-one educational assistant. Mother proposed an abbreviated schedule because she was unable to accompany her daughter to school all day every day and was unwilling to send her daughter to school without the means for her to receive cannabis oil as a rescue medication.  APS rejected Mother’s proposal.

Parents then submitted a request for an IDEA hearing. Parents proposed that their daughter attend kindergarten full-time and receive cannabis as needed from trained school personnel. After receiving evidence over the course of three days, the hearing officer ruled that “[g]iven the child’s need for medication that the school cannot legally administer,” Student’s least restrictive environment was “the homebound setting with socialization opportunities.” The hearing officer described this educational plan as “a hybrid, homebound kindergarten placement” where Mother may attend school at her option with the school nurse administering Epidiolex.

The hearing officer also found that APS failed to provide Student with the services required by IDEA. APS appealed the ruling to the federal district court and argued the hearing officer erred exercising jurisdiction over issues related to medical cannabis and in concluding that Parents met their burden of proving that Student needs cannabis to treat her seizure disorder. APS also alleged that “the IDEA does not require a school district to accommodate the use of an illegal substance to provide a FAPE.”

The federal court rules that the IDEA does not require the Arizona Public Schools to administer or accommodate the administration of cannabis to satisfy its obligation to provide students with a free and public education

The court began its analysis by explaining that with one exception, the possession, use, and distribution of cannabis for any reason is criminalized under federal law. The court further noted there are no federal exemptions for medical use. This meant that applying federal preemption principles, the CUA must give way to federal law. (Where state and federal law conflict, federal law wins.)

The court then addressed Parents’ claim that their daughter may receive cannabis “legally” under the CUA.  First, said the Court, the CUA does not make the possession, distribution or use of cannabis lawful but merely extends qualified immunity to qualified patients and their caregivers from state prosecution. This is different from making cannabis “legal,” and reading the CUA to do so would conflict with federal law (and federal law prevails).  The court also noted that the CUA did not extend its waiver to school staff who administer cannabis.

Next the court ruled that the IDEA cannot be interpreted to require APS to “accommodate” a federal crime to satisfy its obligations to provide student with a FAPE.  In so ruling, the court relied on cases holding that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require the accommodation of medical cannabis use. The court then reasoned that cannabis could not be reasonably deemed a “related service” under the IDEA.

This ruling leaves the parents of a five-year old girl with undesirable options: send her to kindergarten and hope she doesn’t have a seizure since they cannot send her to school with what they know prevents seizures (cannabis oil), or homeschool her and provide her “socialization opportunities.”

In this author’s view, this decision is a sound reading of federal law and establishes the need for reforming marijuana laws at the federal level. The media is abuzz with articles about the so-called “vaping crisis,” but all too often ignore important stories like this in the ongoing conversation about marijuana reform.



source https://hempgenixs.com/2019/09/28/seizures-at-school-arizona-federal-court-says-idea-protections-do-not-extend-to-medical-cannabis-use/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=seizures-at-school-arizona-federal-court-says-idea-protections-do-not-extend-to-medical-cannabis-use

Friday, September 27, 2019

What Should We Do About Vaping?

A single vape cartridge with end cap and tip cap sits on a bright yellow background.

There was a time when glossy magazine ads touted the supposed health benefits of cigarette smoking. For years, mainstream media and public officials routinely aided and abetted the false claims of the tobacco industry until the publication of the U.S. Surgeon General’s 1964 report on Smoking and Health. Cigarette commercials were subsequently banned from television, but tobacco products were never outlawed.



source https://hempgenixs.com/2019/09/27/what-should-we-do-about-vaping/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=what-should-we-do-about-vaping

Early snow threatens Western hemp, sending farmers scrambling

Hemp farmers in the Western states are frantically harvesting their crops as news of an early-season storm threatens cold temperatures and severe wind chill, potentially dumping as much as 50 inches of snow on their fields. Jamie Fitterer, the owner of Montana Hemp Co., said farmers in Bozeman and around the state are “freaking out,” […]

Early snow threatens Western hemp, sending farmers scrambling is a post from: Marijuana Business Daily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs



source https://hempgenixs.com/2019/09/27/early-snow-threatens-western-hemp-sending-farmers-scrambling/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=early-snow-threatens-western-hemp-sending-farmers-scrambling