A new list of Apple products could pose a risk for adults and kids, particularly those who have this type of medical implant.
Apple products make up a significant part of the tech market. Used by millions of people globally, the company is the maker of the world’s most popular smartphone. Recently, Apple issued a couple of health warnings that may be putting adults and children at risk.
Published June 25, the Apple statement reveals that magnets used in several of their products could interfere with medical implants like defibrillators and pacemakers. In the report, the company lists several of their products that should be kept at least 6 inches away from medical implants.
Photo by onsuda/Getty Images
“If you suspect that your Apple product is interfering with your medical device, stop using your Apple product and consult your physician and your medical device manufacturer,” suggests the company.
The magnets appear in a variety of products, commonly used to secure charger connections and device lids. Air Pods, Apple Watches, iPads, and more accessories are included on this list.
Recently, the American Heart Association published a study that looked into Apple devices running interference on pacemakers and defibrillators. Eleven out of 14 devices experienced interference after placing an Apple device near them while planted inpatient or out of their box.
“We have always known that magnets can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic devices, however, we were surprised by the strength of the magnets used in the iPhone 12 magnet technology,” said Dr. Michael Wu, the study’s lead investigator. The strength of these magnets is a risk since a lot of people carry their phones in their shirt’s front pocket.
Another Apple accessory that was deemed risky, this time for children, is AirTags. This iPhone accessory, used to keep track of stuff that can be lost, was deemed dangerous by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) due to how easy it is to access the device’s lithium battery. Apple is currently in conversation with the ACCC in order to resolve this issue.
While on its face the HIA’s position differs from other prominent industry organizations, it essentially advocates for the same thing: safe, regulated products that will afford the hemp industry tremendous financial opportunity.
For the past year, my colleagues and I have written extensively on the murky legality of Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). We have covered everything from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s position on “synthetically derived THC” to the growing number of state bans. You can read more on these issues here:
Today, we turn to the Hemp Industries Association (the HIA)’s recent public announcement, in which the nonprofit expressed its support for the controversial cannabinoid.
Photo by Christina Winter via Unsplash
The HIA statement is significant because it departs from many other hemp organizations’ position on Delta-8 THC. To date, most hemp advocacy groups that have spoken on the matter, including the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, have distanced themselves from Delta-8 THC, which is produced through isomerization, a chemical reaction that combines hemp-derived CBD with a solvent, acid, and heat. This segment of hemp stakeholders, fears the chemically-produced substance may destroy years of efforts convincing lawmakers that hemp is a safe, nonintoxicating, versatile commodity that offers a wide range of commercial opportunities for farmers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.
It is true that most Delta-8 THC sold in the U.S. is largely unregulated, readily accessible to minors and highly coveted for its psychoactive effects. For these reasons, it is easy to see how the controversial cannabinoid could further stigmatize and bring down the entire industry before it has an opportunity to show the plant’s full potential.
While the HIA’s position diverges from other hemp groups’, it isn’t surprising given the organization’s track record of defending the interests of the hemp industry. Since 1994, HIA has initiated four lawsuits, including two filed in the fall of 2020, in which HIA challenges the legality of the DEA’s controversial Interim Final Rule, which, in part, menaces the burgeoning Delta-8 THC industry by broadly stating that “[a]ll synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabidiols remain schedule I controlled substances.” This language is at the root of the legal uncertainty surrounding Delta-8 THC, and DEA has yet to clarify whether it actually takes the position that the conversion of hemp-derived CBD into Delta-8 THC renders the substance a “synthetically derived” THC.
The HIA’s position on the legality of Delta-8 THC consists of an 11-page document drafted by the organization’s attorneys, Rod Kight and Philip Snow, and of a press release, which are briefly summarized as follows:
Photo by Jeff W via Unsplash
Delta-8 THC derived from hemp is federally legal.
The 2018 Farm Bill broadly defines “hemp” to include the whole plant, as well as its cannabinoids and derivatives, that contain no more than 0.3% total THC. In addition, the federal law expressly removes “hemp” from the definition of marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act (the CSA). So even though most Delta-8 THC found on the U.S. market is derived through the isomerization of hemp-derived CBD, the substance is “hemp” because it is a derivative of a derivative of hemp.
Although Delta-8 THC has psychoactive effects and questions remain as to whether it is a “synthetic,” Delta-8 THC should not be treated as a controlled substance because it is not substantially similar to Delta-9 THC in its structure and its psychoactive effects.
Even if Delta-8 THC qualifies as a “synthetically derived THC”, the substance is not a controlled substance because the 2018 Farm Bill defines “hemp” to include its “derivatives”, which by definition are “synthetic.”
In accordance with the legal theory of “lex specialis”, Delta-8 THC is not a controlled substance because the 2018 Farm Bill is more specific than the CSA in that it expressly removes “hemp” from the CSA compared to the CSA, which generically refers to “THC.” As such, the 2018 Farm Bill overrides the contrary general provisions of the CSA. Side Note: Though seemingly sound, the legal arguments made by the HIA are purely theoretical as they have yet to be tested in a court of law.
A regulatory framework is vital to ensure consumer public safety.
Although more scientific studies are needed, history has shown natural cannabinoid consumption has been safe for thousands of years.
The HIA advocates for the regulation of the production of these products with an emphasis on consumer safety grounded in science.
The HIA invites industry leaders to adopt high quality and testing standards and to market these products through transparent and accurate labeling to build consumer confidence and expand the market.
Prohibition further exacerbates the threat to consumer safety created by unregulated markets. The HIA calls on state lawmakers to eschew ineffective bans and favor instead partnering with hemp industry experts to develop hemp policies that safely open markets, fosters innovation, spurs investments, and creates jobs.
So while on its face the HIA’s position differs from other prominent industry organizations, it essentially advocates for the same thing: safe, regulated products that will afford the hemp industry tremendous financial opportunity.
It’s not just the Republicans standing in the way of progress. The truth of the matter is there are still plenty of Democrats who oppose marijuana as well.
Marijuana. It is now more popular in the United States than cigarettes, baseball, and reality television. Somewhere around 90% of the nation’s population believes weed should be legal for adults 21 and older — the same as alcohol and tobacco — and that Uncle Sam should find a way to capitalize on it and force police to focus on actual crime. But what is funny is legal state republicans won’t vote to legalize federally.
So far, around 17 states have legalized it in this manner, so there’s just no stopping it now. Well, not exactly. Regardless of how much steam the cannabis movement is gaining at the state level, the case for pot just can’t seem to find the support it needs federally to finally become a legitimate part of American commerce. Congress is still far too divided for nationwide cannabis legalization to go all the way.
Photo by traffic_analyzer/Getty Images
There seems to be all sorts of bipartisan support for cannabis reform on Capitol Hill. The public gets bombarded every week with pro-weed headlines suggesting that Democrats and Republicans are tirelessly working together to end marijuana prohibition across the U.S. once and for all. While there is a sliver of truth in this news, the reality is it’s just a handful of congressmen focused on changing the federal pot laws. To that end, even those who seem to side with mega marijuana reforms do not necessarily support it all the way. Cannabis advocates have been saying for years that as more states legalize the leaf, Republicans will have no choice but to fall in line.
The truth of the matter is that none of them seem to care too much about where the voters are heading with respect to drug reform. While some Republicans favor limited action, most would not vote to legalize marijuana at the federal level.
“I oppose it,” Montana Senator Steve Daines told Politico. Daines admits that he supports the SAFE Banking Act — a measure that would allow cannabis operations to do business with financial institutions — but he refuses to get behind any effort to end federal marijuana prohibition. “The people in Montana decided they want to have it legal in our state, and that’s why I support the SAFE Banking Act as well — it’s the right thing to do — but I don’t support federal legalization.”
The news source says it talked with a dozen GOP Senators representing states with medical and recreational marijuana laws, and none would commit to voting in favor of nationwide legalization. A few said they were open to the possibility of decriminalization, but certainly not a taxed and regulated market. No way. It means that cannabis advocates must try to find hope in something else, because Republicans do not give two flying squirts if their constituents are pro-weed.
Sen. Joe Manchin. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
It’s not just the Republicans standing in the way of progress. The truth of the matter is there are still plenty of Democrats who oppose marijuana as well. Democratic Senators Jon Tester and Jeanne Shaheen are among them. As far as we know, so are Senators Joe Manchin and Sherrod Brown. Others will likely stand up in opposition if Senator Chuck Schumer ever musters up the guts to introduce that comprehensive cannabis reform bill that he’s been talking about for the past five months.
Schumer came out hot at the beginning of his role as Majority Leader, saying that marijuana reform would be a priority for the Senate. But he’s mostly had his behind handed to him, as Senate Republicans have continued to flex the filibuster to keep any and all legislation from passing. Schumer can’t even get his own party to support bringing an end to this Senate rule to further the whole of the Democratic agenda. Senators Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema won’t go along with it even if he tries.
Let’s be clear, Schumer needs every Democratic member to vote in favor of ending the filibuster to destroy it. He also needs them if he wants to legalize weed. But because a marijuana bill would also require some Republican support — at least 10 votes — it has become painfully evident over the past few months that the Democrats can’t and won’t legalize marijuana this year.
“It doesn’t have to start with ‘don’t smoke,’ but rather the fundamentals of what cannabis is, as a plant within a legal framework.”
As more and more states barrel through cannabis legalization (18 states are recreational, 36 have medical programs), it’s become easier for adults, namely parents, to open up about their use. There’s now even a brand called Dad Grass.
A quick Google search for Father’s Day shows an increasing number of recommendation lists that include cannabis products for dads, but not how to bridge that conversation with their kids. Studies indicate more and more parents are using cannabis and working in the medical and/or recreational industry, and the conversation around cannabis in the home is changing.
Photo by Hero Images/Getty Images
Don’t Deny It
Roger Bloss, interim CEO of MJ Holdings, started using medical marijuana after a car accident left him with chronic pain back in 2009. When he decided to tell his children, they were around 10 and 13-years-old. In his words, he just came out and said it, emphasizing that it was medicine that helped him not only work, but remain a present, doting father.
“Kids are smart, so if you try to hide it, they’ll see it,” says Bloss. “They saw it didn’t turn me into a monster. I never called it marijuana; I was very cautious and mindful that it was medicine.”
Consider Cultural and Community Context
Richard Huang was raised in Taiwan for 10 years before he and his family immigrated to the United States, where he says the societal perception of cannabis is much more negative. The stigma he was taught at home made it harder to form his own opinions until he tried it for himself, and he believes these stigma travel through communities and make it worse.
“We were taught as a child overseas that every drug is a drug,” he says. “Culturally, it’s ok to be drunk, but not ok to be high. It starts from not knowing. Everyone, no matter their ethnicity, are dealing with the same stigma.”
Photo by August de Richelieu via Pexels
His daughter, now 8, has grown up during a time where there’s more information out there than ever, and Huang looks forward to showing her all the good cannabis can do as both a medicine and recreational activity before social pressures inform her opinion.
Take Advantage of Resources
Brian Sekandi, a cannabis recruiting entrepreneur based in Toronto, Canada, realized that despite the size of the industry, which is nationally legal in Canada, there were so few resources for discussing what cannabis use and work looks like in 2021. As more and more families become a part of the legal market, new conversations will need to take place. It’s why Sekandi wrote Kids of Cannabis, a children’s book about the children of cannabis professionals, to get the ball rolling.
“If parents don’t educate their kid on cannabis, someone else will,” he says. “We want parents to own that conversation. It doesn’t have to start with ‘don’t smoke,’ but [rather] the fundamentals of what cannabis is, as a plant within a legal framework.”
Legal marijuana products contain extraordinary levels of THC, which could cause dependence and mental health issues with habitual use.
The marijuana you see in stores today isn’t like what the hippies rolled in the 70s. If you follow cannabis news, you have likely heard some version of that sentiment by a public health official. In 2019, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams claimed that today’s cannabis “ain’t your mother’s marijuana” but was three times stronger than weed in the 1990s. Yes, there is probably too much THC in your marijuana.
Marijuana advocate and Canadian author Dana Larsen actually calculated how strong today’s cannabis would be if you accepted similar lawmaker sentiments throughout history. That includes claims by 2002 White House Drug Czar John Walters, who said that cannabis at the time was 30 times stronger than what baby boomers smoked, and President Joe Biden, who once argued that comparing 1990s weed to cannabis in the 60s was like “comparing buckshot in a shotgun shell to a laser-guided missile.”
Photo by Thought Catalog via Unsplash
Using all of these historical statements would mean that today’s cannabis is 12,600 times stronger than it was in the 60s, according to Larsen’s calculations. And while that is highly unlikely, we shouldn’t discount how and why cannabis potency has changed in the past decade or so.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) released a study last year that examined THC concentrations of weed products sold in legal dispensaries. The report was requested by the Colorado General Assembly. Longitudinal reports like this that are focused on markets in Colorado and Washington provide great insight into the state of legal weed and its effects on consumers, as the two states were the first to legalize recreational cannabis.
Growers in both illicit and legal markets have emphasized THC potency over the past 25 years, as consumers associate higher THC levels with getting the most bang for their buck. A 2016 study found cannabis samples seized by the DEA increase from about 4% THC in the 1990s to approximately 12% in 2014.
Photo by Cavan Images/Getty Images
But the recent CDPHE report noted that cannabis flower in Colorado contained an average of 19.6% THC per gram with potency reaching 35% in some strains. A 2020 study added that over 92% of products sold in retail marijuana stores contain THC levels at 15% or higher. Edible potency actually decreased because Colorado regulators instituted policy changes that set maximum THC concentration to 10 mg per dose, and only allowed 100 mg THC per package.
Those who consumed THC concentrates (i.e. dabbing) used cannabis more frequently day to day compared to flower users.
Previous research found that THC levels in medical marijuana products were two to three times stronger than what doctors recommended for pain relief patients. The study’s authors noted that levels up to 5% THC were sufficient in long-term pain management with minimal side effects.
Photo by Matthew Karila via Unsplash
When THC is too strong, it can lead to dependence problems for users. A recent study noted that 30% of marijuana users have some form of cannabis use disorder. Research published in May 2020 added that high-potency cannabis doubles your risk for developing anxiety disorders.
“Our ability to make unbiased, evidence-based statements on the potential health effects of marijuana products containing high THC concentration is limited until further scientific research can be conducted and the evidence shared or published,” the CDPHE report’s authors concluded. “Therefore, in the best interest of public health, we suggest funding research to answer these questions.”
Yeah, we all sweat more when it’s hot outside. But did you know we also burn more calories compared to colder months? Here’s why.
Some of us welcome the colder months with open arms, knowing that our bodies burn more calories during the winter to stay warm. But now we know that it’s kind of the same thing during the hotter months.
Thanks to Best Life, which dug up an old 2010 Spanish study, we know that it’s not our imagination that way more sweat pours off us when we exert ourselves during the summer. The study, published in the journal Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, found that cyclists who exercised in 104-degree weather burned more fat and increased more muscle than those who did the same exercise at the same intensity at 68 degrees. You don’t say?
“Given that exercise already makes your body temperature rise, your body also burns more calories as it tries to cool your body temperature in extreme heat, a process known as thermoregulation. A person’s average body temperature is between 98°F and 100°F, which is a pretty narrow window. If it falls any lower than 95°F, you could suffer from hypothermia. If it gets any higher than 107.6°F, you could get brain damage or even die. So when you raise your body temperature in extreme heat, your body needs to work harder to achieve homeostasis.”
And of course, if you don’t stay hydrated, over exerting yourself in the heat can be dangerous to your help, causing dizziness, nausea and even fainting. So if you do decide to sweat it out in the summer heat, make sure to take care of yourself. You may want to look killer in a bikini, but your body just wants to be healthy.
Biden doesn’t need Congress to get serious about investigating in medical marijuana. All he must do is instruct the head of the Department of Health and Human Services to get the ball rolling on the marijuana rescheduling process.
President Joe Biden talked a big game with respect to marijuana reform during his campaign. Yet, it turns out that, consistent with the job description of a greasy political figure, none of his pro-pot promises were devised of any substance. Biden said prior to the 2020 election that he was all for expanding cannabis research and legalizing medical marijuana. Yet, his administration just opposed a bill that would force the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to launch clinical trials investigating the benefits of vets using cannabis to tame PTSD and chronic pain.
Earlier this week, a handful of bills pertaining to veterans was discussed by a U.S. Senate committee. One of those measures was designed to study medical marijuana for military veterans. However, a written statement provided by the VA’s Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Health for Community Care, Mark Upton, shows that the Biden Administration is not in favor of such a move.
Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Upton claims the VA is already doing enough to study the medicinal benefits of cannabis for veterans and that the proposal, introduced by Chairman Jon Tester and Senator Dan Sullivan, “is redundant to the extent that VA is already examining risks and benefits of cannabis in treating PTSD and chronic pain.” The medical marijuana study Upton is referring to is one looking into “CBD to treat PTSD where CBD is used as an add-on treatment to standard of care psychotherapy.” Upton says the results of this research should be made available sometime in 2022.
The Biden Administration’s thoughtful opposition to examining medical marijuana for vets is interesting considering that the Democratic Party supports these ideas. The Democratic platform explicitly states that they “will decriminalize marijuana use and reschedule it through executive action on the federal level,” as well as “support legalization of medical marijuana.” But it’s beyond the first 100 days, and we still haven’t seen a semblance of cannabis reform in the executive branch. Even Vice President Kamala Harris admits, “we haven’t yet taken that on.”
Listen, Biden doesn’t need Congress to get serious about investigating in medical marijuana. All he must do is instruct the head of the Department of Health and Human Services to get the ball rolling on the marijuana rescheduling process. This is how cannabis could quickly become a Schedule II drug instead of its current Schedule I — something that Biden claims to support — putting the herb into a drug classification with medicinal function.
Under Biden’s direction, the HHS and the Justice Department would downgrade the Schedule listing of the cannabis plant together. The move would not legalize marijuana; it would simply make it easier to research the pros and cons of the plant and give it a fair shot at becoming a regulated drug under federal controls.
Photo by LPETTET/Getty Images
But if the Biden Administration isn’t even prepared to allow the VA to conduct research, there’s a good chance that medical marijuana isn’t on the president’s radar. Right now, the fate of cannabis reform at the federal level doesn’t seem promising. Although Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to take on nationwide legalization, Republican obstruction will likely stand in the way.
To that end, Schumer and Biden seem to want different outcomes when it comes to cannabis. One wants it fully legal; the other supports ending criminal penalties. It remains to be seen how the two will come to terms on weed once it finally takes center stage. All we know is, for now, medical marijuana and any research possibilities will remain stagnant a while longer.
One of the most popular questions from people who’ve never tried marijuana before is “what does it feels like to be high?”
Marijuana and the way in which it’s viewed has rapidly evolved over the last couple of years. The drug is now legal in different countries and certain parts of the U.S., and with that comes a reevaluation of it, from the creation of new products, to the study of the plant’s medicinal and recreational abilities.
While most of your marijuana questions can be answered by conducting a thorough Google search, it helps when you have a list of questions that guide you and hold your hand. While marijuana has become increasingly popular over the years, if you don’t know someone who introduces you to it and provides you with your first joint, you may have a lot of stereotypes and information to parse through in order to get answers.
Here are 5 seemingly obvious yet common marijuana questions and their (hopefully helpful) answers:
Photo by Alex Moiseev via Unsplash
How does it feel to be high?
One of the most popular questions from people who’ve never tried marijuana before is “what does it feels like to be high?” While every person experiences highs in a different way, with some reporting positive experiences and others not so much, marijuana highs are known for their haziness, their giggly fits, the paranoia that they sometimes produce and the deep conversations that they tend to result in. While the experience is often compared to being drunk, marijuana allows you to retain more physical and mental control. (Check out Weed 101: What Does It Feel Like To Be High? And Differences In Marijuana Highs: Flowers, Edibles and Concentrates)
What are marijuana strains?
Photo by Zummolo/Getty Images
There are different kinds of marijuana strains, producing different highs. While the marijuana world has traditionally split its cannabis into indicas and sativas, this categorization isn’t as accurate as some would like, with most strains nowadays being a hybrid of the two plants. The best way to get an accurate predictor of your high is to ask your budtender about the properties of the weed they’re selling, letting them know of the high that you want to experience.
What’s the difference between vaping vs. smoking weed?
While you’re consuming the same cannabis through both methods, there are differences, and cannabis users tend to pick a lane and stick to it. Flower smokers might prefer the ritual of preparing their joints or packing their bowls, while vape users might enjoy the discretion that comes with their device. The main difference that exists between these two methods is that vapes use their cannabinoids more thoroughly, meaning that you can get high while inhaling less cannabis than if you were smoking flower. Here’s How To Use Every Single Drop Of Liquid From THC Cartridges.
While cannabis is legal in different states across the U.S., if you’re not keeping up with the news it’s tough to keep track of them, especially when you account for medicinal or recreational marijuana. You can find plenty of maps online, like this one, that is updated whenever a state legalizes the herb to let you know which states have medicinal, recreational or mixed legal marijuana systems in place.
Is marijuana bad for your health?
There’s mixed opinions on marijuana and its negative side effects. While some believe that marijuana addiction is not possible, some experts believe that marijuana addiction is real, particularly is users are spending the majority of their time smoking weed do so to the detriment of other more productive activities. Still, this belief is based on the stereotype that people who consume marijuana are rendered useless after doing so, while evidence points to the contrary. More and more people of all ages show that they can use marijuana regularly and still maintain active lifestyles and stable jobs.
The measure now moves to the House for consideration and, based on the vote in the Senate, is likely to pass unless constituents make their voices heard in opposition.
On June 23, 2021, the Oregon Senate approved on a vote of 23-6 a measure (SB 864) that, if passed by the House of Representatives and signed by Governor Kate Brown, will allow cities and counties to raise their portion of the sales tax on marijuana items sold in recreational dispensaries from 3%, as allowed under current law, to 10%. This means that the total tax applied at the time of sale could increase from 20% to 27%, representing a 35% tax hike to Oregon recreational cannabis consumers.
While the bill, if it becomes law, will not automatically result in a tax increase, it will allow the governing bodies of cities and counties to raise the marijuana sales tax within their own jurisdictions, much like current law. However, if past experience is predictive, it is nearly certain that most or all local governments will take the necessary steps to enact the tax increase. Customers who present current, valid OMMP cards at the time of sale will continue to be exempt from this tax.
The measure now moves to the House for consideration and, based on the vote in the Senate, is likely to pass unless constituents make their voices heard in opposition. If you’d like to make your voice heard, you can use this online tool to look up your representative. The legislative session is set to expire on Sunday, June 27, 2021, so time is of the essence.
Kevin Jacoby is an attorney at Green Light Law Group. He has focused his career on advising small to medium-sized businesses both in litigation matters and in all aspects of administrative compliance and employment relations. In addition to business-to-business litigation, Kevin has devoted a significant amount of his practice to administrative law.
The Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits state legislation that discriminates against interstate or international commerce. Our favorite example? Residency requirements in the case of cannabis business ownership.
One interesting thing about cannabis law is how so much of it ties into “first principles”, or bedrock tenets of the U.S. Constitution. We lawyers spend our days papering deals and suing folks (always with good cause) and defending clients from lawsuits (which are always B.S.), so we seldom revisit first principles.
But these principles include massively important things like conflicts in law arising from the Constitution’s Supremacy Cause (favoring the federal government), versus the states’ “reserved” rights under the Tenth Amendment. In the case of today’s blog post, the Constitutional issue is the Dormant Commerce Clause (“DCC”) as it relates to cannabis residency requirements. A federal court in Missouri just put a freeze on those requirements.
Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images
Before I get going on this, I’d like to confirm I’m not a litigator and I’m certainly no great Constitutional law scholar. The closest I get to either of these things is: 1) writing tough letters before handing a file to one of the very smart litigators we are lucky to have at the law firm, and 2) teaching a Cannabis Law & Policy course here at the local law school. Other than that, I mostly give people business advice and help them solve problems out of court.
Anyway, the dormant commerce clause (“DCC”) is a fascinating little point of law we’ve been noodling on this blog since at least 2015. The DCC is sourced from the U.S. Constitution, but is not actually written there. Instead, the DCC is a judicial doctrine that courts have inferred from the (non-dormant) Commerce Clause in Article I. Briefly, the DCC prohibits state legislation that discriminates against interstate or international commerce. Our favorite example? Residency requirements in the case of cannabis business ownership.
In addition to arguing that these nativist requirements are legally questionable, our position generally has been that restrictions on residency are a bad idea. They are terribly hard to draft (and often drafted by lawyers without business chops, to boot); they are harder to enforce; and they seldom achieve their desired, protectionist results. People game them like crazy! But if you goal is to prevent someone from taking a loan from their out-of-state grandmother to launch a small business, or if you want to ensure that minority communities with limited access to capital have an even smaller chance at succeeding, then residency requirements, I suppose, are great.
When we do find ourselves working in residency requirement states (like Washington) what we’ve generally found is that there is simply more work for lawyers and regulators, while industry suffers. In my view, Oregon was basically a fiasco until residency requirements were abolished back in 2016. Everyone ought to follow suit. Eventually, they will. And eventually, cannabis program residency requirements will go the way of federal cannabis prohibition.
Photo by Cavan Images/Getty Images
Anyway, back to this federal court ruling. Given what I’ve written above, I was happy to see this important decision come down a few days ago. On June 21, the U.S. District Court for Western District of Missouri, Central Division, preliminarily enjoined (blocked) the local regulatory body from enforcing that state’s ill-conceived 51% residency ownership requirement. The court’s basic rationale is that Mark Togo, the plaintiff suing to strike down the residency requirement, is likely to prevail at the end of this lawsuit on DCC grounds. Because of this ruling, the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS) is not allowed to enforce the residency requirement against Mr. Togo or anybody else until the case is fully adjudicated or settled.
I’ll be interested to see if DHSS pursues the time-honored administrative strategy of slow-walking transactions during the pendency of litigation, or if the agency will stand down on this bozo rule. The latter course of action is what Maine followed last year. That state was also sued on a DCC theory with respect to its residency requirement. In response, the state (on advice from its lawyers) decided to cease enforcement of residency rules altogether. Presumably, Maine is now like Oregon or California or Nevada or any of the other common sense states that don’t discriminate against their neighbors.
Is the Missouri lawsuit ultimately going to succeed? Hard to say. Like I said, the ruling is promising in that the court feels Mr. Togo is likely to prevail (and the court only required that he post a $10,000 bond, which is small as far as these things go). That said, other plaintiffs in other states have failed. In Oklahoma, for example, a federal judge recently threw out one of these DCC lawsuits by a Washington plaintiff, holding that the state is protected from the lawsuit by the Eleventh Amendment. So it’s possible we are teed up for a circuit split, as the litigators say.
We’ll keep you posted on this interesting topic. In the meantime, for more on cannabis and the dormant commerce clause, check out the following blog posts:
Vince Sliwoski is an attorney at Harris Bricken, a law firm with lawyers in Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Barcelona, and Beijing. This story was originally published on the Canna Law Blog and has been reposted with permission.
