J.B. Pritzker (Democrat) won the election for Governor of Illinois and will be sworn into office in January 2019. Based on Governor-elect Pritzker’s statements on the campaign trail and the current acquisition market in Illinois, the cannabis industry appears to believe that legalized adult use recreational marijuana is a foregone conclusion and that Pritzker will sign a marijuana legalization bill shortly after taking office, which will legalize recreational marijuana in Illinois.

Pritzker has stated that adult use recreational cannabis could generate as much as $700 million per year in annual taxes. Because Illinois has one of the strictest medical marijuana programs in the country, it is uniquely situated to have an explosive recreational market while also avoiding the perceived negative costs of legalization. Illinois has a real opportunity to become a leader in the industry and to also positively address the unfortunate reality that minorities are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated for marijuana possession.

Assuming Pritzker keeps his campaign promises, Illinois’ cannabis industry is set to take off and become one of the largest markets in the country.

This post is authored by Fox Rothschild associate Henry Whitehead:

For marijuana businesses operating in California the rules are still very much in flux, as shown by a new set of regulations proposed by state regulators.  The state Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Public Health, and Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) first proposed a set of marijuana-industry regulations in July 2018 and, after a public comment period, submitted revised proposed regulations on October 19th.  The changes are substantial, and impact topics fundamental to operation of a marijuana business, including the following:

  1. Labeling and Packaging – There are substantial changes to the labelling and packaging requirements for both distributors and retailers. As to retailers, the proposed new regulations state that until January 1, 2020 all packaging containing cannabis goods must be tamper-evident, but does not have to be child resistant.  However, all products must be placed in a resealable, child resistant, and opaque “exit package.”   After January 1, 2020, all product packaging must be child-resistant, and the exit package will no longer need to be child resistant or resealable.
  2. Marijuana Deliveries – The new regulations prohibit marijuana deliveries by companies that do not have state-issued licenses. The regulations do allow for “technology platforms,” like the apps Eaze and Weedmaps, to facilitate sales between licensed dealers and customers, but prohibits profit-sharing based on sales.  This prohibition on profit-sharing could impact Eaze and Weedmaps’ business model going-forward.  The new proposed regulations also make changes to the prior set of proposed regulations relating to marijuana delivery drivers, vehicles, and limit to $5,000 the value of cannabis goods that can be carried by a delivery vehicle at any one time.
  3. Ownership Disclosures – Marijuana businesses operating in compliance with California’s regulatory scheme would be required to disclose substantial information about all parties who have an ownership stake in the business. Under the proposed regulations “all entities and individuals with a financial interest” in the marijuana business shall be disclosed to the BCC, and the proposed regulations include specific definitions of what it means to have a financial interest in a cannabis business.
  4. Licensed Events – The original set of proposed regulations limited temporary cannabis events (where cannabis can be sold and consumed on-site) to county fairgrounds. The new proposed regulations allow such events at other venues that are approved by the local jurisdiction.  This means that, if the regulations are adopted, local authorities will have discretion to determine where cannabis events can be held, which could lead to a higher number of such events.

These are only some of the changes to the original draft set of proposed regulations, which have been sent out for a 15-day comment period that runs through November 5th.  The proposed regulations can be found here.  Fox Rothschild will continue to follow California’s marijuana industry rule-making process, as the state’s regulatory scheme may well become a model for other states considering legalizing adult use of marijuana.

Construction siteAll employers face challenges in navigating issues surrounding legalized marijuana. For construction industry employers, the challenges are particularly difficult given the necessary emphasis on safety.

Last week, my colleague Jeff Polsky, co-chair of Fox’s Labor and Employment Department, recorded a 90-minute webinar for Lorman addressing the issues construction employers face in jurisdictions that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. Jeff discussed developments in state law, conflicts between state and federal laws, drug testing, maintaining a drug-free workplace, and responding to employees’ requests for accommodation of marijuana-related disabilities. You can purchase the webinar here.

Florida’s medical marijuana regulations and laws have been the subject of repeated litigation ever since Amendment Two was passed by voters in 2016.  A recent Florida Court Opinion has ruled in favor of Plaintiffs seeking to expand Florida’s restrictive vertical license law (which requires the license holder to grow, distribute and sell medical marijuana).

Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson ruled that the cap on the number of “medical marijuana treatment centers, (MMTC)” ran afoul of Amendment Two which had no limitation on MMTCs in the Amendment text.

Judge Dodson ruled that the restrictions set forth in the regulations and laws implementing Amendment Two

Directly undermine the clear intent of the amendment, which by its language seeks to prevent arbitrary restriction on the number of MMTCs authorized to conduct business in the state. The amendment mandates the availability and safe use of medical marijuana by qualifying patients.

Additionally, Judge Dodson found that the vertical license model implemented by Florida is unconstitutional because it requires license holders to cultivate, process, and dispense medical marijuana as opposed to providing licenses to those that just want to engage in one part of the medical marijuana process.  Specifically, Judge Dodson found that the language of Amendment Two utilized an “or” when defining MMTCs and Florida’s legislature used an “and” when writing the law defining MMTCs.

Finally, Judge Dodson ruled that limited number of licenses provided by Florida law improperly restricted who could get licenses.  The law ordered health officials to grant licenses to operators who were already up and running in Florida or who were involved in litigation as of January 1, 2017.  Florida’s medical marijuana law also required that a black farmer receive a license and set aside license preferences for the citrus industry (both of these carve outs have been subject to other litigation as well).  Judge Dodson found these restriction amounted to an impermissible “special law”.

Notwithstanding, the dramatic Court Opinion, Judge Dodson declined the Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction.


Dori K. Stibolt is a West Palm Beach, Florida based partner with Fox Rothschild LLP.  She focuses her practice on litigation and labor and employment issues and has taken a special interest in the cannabis business.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

E-Book Cover: Employment Compliance in the Age of Legalized MarijuanaThough cannabis is illegal under federal law, at least 30 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for medical use and nine states, as well as D.C., have legalized it for recreational use—a dichotomy that presents a unique and complex challenge for employers. In a new e-book, Fox attorneys Joseph A. McNelis III, Lee Szor, William Bogot and Joshua Horn provide an overview of federal and state marijuana laws, discuss specific aspects of the employment relationship affected by the legalization of marijuana in certain states, and offer practical guidance for employers on how to navigate this new and developing area of the law.

We invite you to download a PDF of the e-book.

Nevada legalized the recreational adult-use of marijuana on July 1, 2017 and the state has generated millions in tax revenue as a result. Nonetheless, the Nevada Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act (the “Act”) provides that until November 2018, only registered marijuana certificate holders may apply for recreational retail marijuana establishment licenses. The Nevada Department of Taxation (the “Department”) ceased accepting applications at 2017 year’s end.

Nevada state flag on cannabis backgroundThe Act further provides that at least once a year, the Department will determine whether additional marijuana establishments are necessary to support the demand in the state. It was anticipated the Department would begin accepting recreational retail marijuana establishment licenses again in November 2018.

On July 6, 2018, the Department issued a notice of its intent to begin accepting applications for recreational retail marijuana establishment licenses. The notice came sooner than expected, but there’s a catch! The Department is accepting applications under two (2) conditions: (1) the applicant must be a registered medical marijuana establishment certificate holder; and (2) the applicant must be in “good standing” with the Department. The plus side is that such applicants may apply for one (1) or more recreational retail marijuana establishment licenses.

For those prospective applicants meeting the two (2) foregoing conditions, they must act fast. The application acceptance period lasts only ten (10) days – from September 7-20, 2018 (excluding weekend days).

In addition, prospective applicants should not expect to be open for business anytime soon. The application review period begins September 7, 2018 and extends to December 5, 2018. The Department will award conditional licenses no later than December 5, 2018.

There’s another catch! Conditional license holders must be fully operational no later than twelve (12) months following the issuance of a conditional license. If the establishment is not fully operational after twelve (12) months following the issuance of a conditional license, the establishment must surrender the license to the Department, unless an extenuating circumstance applies.

The application can be found on the Nevada Department of Taxation website.

In November 2018, the Department may open up the applicant pool to all persons interested in submitting an application to operate a recreational marijuana establishment – emphasis on may.

Florida’s citrus industry has been ailing and declining for years.  Florida’s recent medical marijuana regulations were designed to help, in part, by providing two medical marijuana licenses for the citrus industry to switch from growing oranges to marijuana.

As I’ve posted before, Florida medical marijuana licensing regulations have been the subject of repeated litigation challenges.  See posts herehere and here.  Now, the most recent challenge involves this citrus preference rule.

Louis Del Favero Orchids (“Orchids”) is challenging the rule.  The orchid company argues that the rule fails to carry out the law, which gives preference for up to two medical marijuana licenses to applicants who own “facilities” that were used to process citrus.

Orchids claims that the rule actually gives preference to applicants who simply own “property” that was once used for citrus-processing which is different than the requirement set forth in the law that preference be given to applicants who own “facilities” that were once used for citrus processing.

Orchids bought Florida property that included a facility once used to process orange juice in an effort to increase their chances to obtain a Florida medical marijuana license.

However, Florida’s Department of Health’s position is that there’s nothing in the law that requires a “facility” to be a structure.


Dori K. Stibolt is a West Palm Beach, Florida based partner with Fox Rothschild LLP.  She focuses her practice on litigation and labor and employment issues and has taken a special interest in the cannabis business.  You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

Jack Praetzellis writes:

Green California Vector IllustrationOn July 1, 2018, California’s Cannabis “transition period” ended for manufactured cannabis products (i.e., edibles).  All manufactured cannabis products must now meet California’s (very) specific labeling and packaging regulations.

California Cannabis Label SymbolAmong other things, the packaging must include THC and CBD content in milligrams along with the Cannabis “universal symbol” (and no, you can’t change the color).

The “don’ts” are more interesting than the “dos”.  Among other things, packaging cannot:

  • Include the name of a county in California unless all of the cannabis in the product was grown there.
  • Imitate candy packaging or labeling and cannot use the terms candy or candies, or otherwise appeal to those under 21.
  • And, in a typically California move, packaging must identify all potential allergens (shellfish, peanuts, etc.).

Manufacturers should take (or, well, should have already taken) a close look at these detailed labeling and packaging requirements.  Although some of these regulations may seem excessive, there are high stakes here.  Failure to comply with any of the host of California’s Cannabis regulations subjects a licensee to discipline (which may include suspension or revocation of the license).  See Cal. Bus & Prof Code §§ 26030-26031.


Jack Praetzellis is an associate in the Litigation Department, resident in the San Francisco office.

Few things are as bi-partisan as constructing a snazzy acronym for federal legislation, and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) did not disappoint with the “Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act”  (“STATES Act”). As its name suggest, the goal of the STATES Act is to protect regulated cannabis businesses and users in states where cannabis has been legalized by amending the Controlled Substances Act.

U.S. Capitol Building
Copyright: mesutdogan / 123RF

The Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801, et seq. (“CSA”) is the federal law that makes the manufacture, distribution, and use of marijuana illegal, and is the main source for the dichotomy between state and federal law concerning cannabis. The proposed legislation seeks to amend the CSA by adding several sections which would essentially exempt state-sanctioned marijuana from the CSA. While the STATES Act would not legalize cannabis on a nationwide level, it would and give states the freedom to legalize cannabis or keep it illegal.

The STATES Act has received so much attention not only because of the sweeping changes it proposes, but also because it has received tacit approval from President Trump, who was previously seen as a roadblock to cannabis legislation. That is due in part to a deal struck between Senator Gardner and the President, which ended with the following pronouncement from Gardner: “President Trump has assured me that he will support a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states’ rights issue once and for all.”

The folks at Leafly have a great breakdown and explanation of the STATES Act, including the following bullet points on what the legislation proposes:

  • The act amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) so that as long as states and tribes comply with a few basic protections, its provisions no longer apply to any person acting in compliance with state or tribal laws relating to marijuana activities.
  • The act states that compliant transactions are not trafficking and do not result in proceeds of an unlawful transaction. This would go a long way towards ending the difficulties cannabis companies have in obtaining banking services.
  • The measure removes industrial hemp from the list of controlled substances under the CSA.
  • The following federal criminal provisions under the CSA continue to apply:
    • Prohibits endangering human life while manufacturing marijuana
    • Prohibits employment of persons under age 18 in drug operations
  • The act prohibits the distribution of marijuana at transportation safety facilities such as rest areas and truck stops.
  • The measure prohibits the distribution or sale of marijuana to persons under the age of 21 other than for medical purposes.

We will continue to monitor and provide updates on this important legislation, which has great implications for cannabis businesses throughout the country.


Joseph McNelis works in Fox Rothschild’s Blue Bell, PA office and focuses his practice on labor and employment matters. Joe also tracks legal developments in the cannabis industry in Pennsylvania and nationwide. Joe can be contacted at 610-397-2332 or jmcnelis@foxrothschild.com.