San Francisco officials are seeking public input on newly released draft rules for cannabis cafes in line with a California state law enacted last year that authorizes local governments to let marijuana retailers to expand their services.

In July, the city’s Board of Supervisors and mayor approved an ordinance to let marijuana dispensaries serve food and drinks inside their on-site consumption areas. On Friday, the city’s Office of Cannabis posted proposed regulations for how those cannabis cafes will operate.

The draft rules touch on operations plans, employee training, security, deliveries, inventory control and access for medical cannabis patients.

Public feedback is being accepted through September 25.

In late 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 1775, allowing marijuana businesses to offer non-cannabis food and non-alcoholic beverages and host live events such as concerts in their on-site cannabis consumption areas if they get permission from their local government.

The new law officially took effect last January, but it has taken months for local officials in San Francisco and other cities to begin enacting their own ordinances to lay out the rules for how cannabis cafes can operate.

Under the San Francisco proposal, a business would need to obtain a new Cannabis Café Permit as well as a Cannabis Consumption Permit.

Businesses would need to implement written procedures “designed to discourage customers from removing cannabis products intended for on-site consumption from the designated consumption area” or the overall premises.

There would be some restrictions on the name of cannabis cafes, barring those that would be likely to “mislead members of the public into believing cannabis products may legally be sold to persons under 21 years of age” or that would entice minors to attempt to patronize the businesses.

Dispensaries would need to maintain accommodations for medical cannabis patients, which may include providing an area where the can communication confidentially with employees and maintaining an adequate supply of medical marijuana products.

Written comments on the proposed cannabis cafe rules can be sent by email to [email protected] or via mail or in person to Office of Cannabis; 49 South Van Ness; Suite 660; San Francisco, CA 94103.

City officials separately released proposed rules changes to incorporate cannabis cafes into the existing Good Neighbor Policy for marijuana businesses.

They also posted new resources for businesses to check their eligibility to open a cannabis cafe, as well as bulletin and a FAQ on the issue.

Prior to signing the current cannabis cafe law, Newsom vetoed a prior version of the bill, saying that while he appreciated that the intent was to “provide cannabis retailers with increased business opportunities and an avenue to attract new customers,” he felt “concerned this bill could undermine California’s long-standing smoke-free workplace protections.”

To that end, the measure as enacted contains changes to create separation between public consumption spaces and back rooms of businesses where food is prepared or stored in order to better protect the health of workers in line with the governor’s concerns.

The law makes explicitly clear that hemp-based food items or drinks are not considered “non-cannabis” products that could be sold at the cafes. It also says that non-cannabis items “shall be stored and displayed separately and distinctly from all cannabis and cannabis products present on the premises.”

The legislation also allows live musical or other performances on the premises of a cannabis retailer in areas where on-site consumption is allowed.

Ahead of the governor’s signing of the measure, actor Woody Harrelson—who owns a marijuana lounge in West Hollywood called The Woods, alongside co-founders comedian Bill Maher and tennis star John McEnroe—called for its enactment. Whoopi Goldberg also joined in that push, with a video encouraging the governor to sign it.

Earlier this month, Newsom announced that legal marijuana sales have generated nearly $8.4 billion in tax revenue for California communities since voters approved adult-use legalization in 2016.

He also recently signed legislation to more clearly define the types of marijuana packaging and labeling that is prohibited due to appealing to children.

The governor recently took credit for helping to lead the push for the state to legalize marijuana and discussed his own limited experience with using cannabis.

Last October, however, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed certain marijuana microbusinesses to ship medical cannabis products directly to patients via common carriers like FedEx and UPS, stating that the proposal “would be burdensome and overly complex to administer.”

Newsom did sign a bill earlier that month aimed at streamlining research on marijuana and psychedelics.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Last September, the governor also signed a measure into law to put a pause on a recently enacted tax hike on marijuana products.

Meanwhile, a lawmaker spoke to Marijuana Moment about her decision to put her own bill to legalize cannabis dispensary drive-thru windows on hold for now.

California’s treasurer recently said the marijuana legalization law that voters approved a decade ago has been a “complete failure” and should be replaced with a new ballot initiative that prioritizes consumers and small businesses.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump, recently told Marijuana Moment that taxes and regulations on cannabis are “too high.”

Source link

Just weeks after Britain’s new vaping tax takes effect, another major set of nicotine regulations will take effect, adding to what is becoming one of the biggest transformations of the UK’s vaping market in years.

The Government itself has recognised the importance of maintaining a price advantage for vaping over smoking. When designing the duty, it explicitly provided for an accompanying tobacco-duty increase to preserve the financial incentive for smokers to choose vaping rather than cigarettes.

Another layer of regulations is added on October 29th

Adults will also be prohibited from buying—or attempting to buy—these products on behalf of someone under 18. Proxy purchasing can result in a £200 fixed penalty in England, Wales and Scotland and £250 in Northern Ireland, while retailers caught selling directly to minors can face larger penalties if prosecuted.

The new restrictions cannot be considered in isolation

The more difficult question concerns the cumulative effect of Britain’s new vaping policies. The previously discussed October tax does not arrive in isolation. The Government is also considering restrictions affecting vape displays, flavour descriptions, packaging and device appearance. Together, these policies could change not only how much vaping costs, but how easily smokers notice, understand and choose products as alternatives to cigarettes.

ELFBAR extrapolated that response across Britain’s vaping population and estimated that as many as 550,000 adults could potentially increase or resume smoking. Using estimates of smoking’s wider economic burden, the company calculated a theoretical maximum cost of approximately £4.5 billion annually.

That figure should not be interpreted as a prediction. It assumes stated intentions translate into behaviour and that all those affected are former smokers who subsequently resume smoking. Nevertheless, it highlights an unintended consequence policymakers need to consider.

Are lawmakers forgetting what actually matters?

Against that background, the key question surrounding restrictions should not be whether they reduce vaping, but whether they reduce smoking.  Preventing underage sales, proxy purchasing and irresponsible promotion can be pursued without undermining adult access. The 29 October measures largely illustrate that approach.

Timing matters here. From October 1st, vaping becomes more expensive through the VPD. Four weeks later, wider age and promotional controls arrive, while further restrictions on product presentation remain under consideration. Each measure may have a different objective, but smokers experience their cumulative effect.

The test for Britain’s evolving nicotine strategy should therefore be broader than whether fewer people vape. Youth uptake should fall, illegal sellers should face meaningful enforcement and regulated businesses should comply with strict age controls. But adult smoking should fall too – and this should be the priority

If Britain can strengthen youth protections while keeping regulated smoke-free products sufficiently affordable and accessible to compete with cigarettes, the two objectives can reinforce one another. If cumulative restrictions instead discourage switching, encourage relapse or drive consumers towards illicit markets, reducing vaping could come at the expense of reducing the behaviour responsible for vastly greater harm: smoking.

The UK’s Disposable Vape Ban One Year Later: Rising Smoking Rates and Illicit Markets, as Predicted

Source link

“2028 sounds far away. But artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.”

By Adrian A. Holguin, CannaShark Consulting

Last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 2249, a bill that puts a much clearer line around what cannabis packaging, labels and ads can look like. The short version: no child-oriented dragons, unicorns or wizards; nobody who looks under 21; no imagery of candy, cereal, sweets or desserts primarily marketed to children; no child-style bubble or balloon lettering; and no packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to kids.

The new definition takes effect on January 1, 2028.

Most of the coverage stopped there, and I get it. “Rules take effect in sixteen months” doesn’t make anyone spill their coffee. But operators tend to call me after a rule costs more than they expected, so here’s why 2028 is not the date that matters.

First, the basics.

California has banned cannabis packaging that is “attractive to children” since legal sales began, and cartoons on labels are already prohibited. The problem was that the line remained subjective and was applied inconsistently. A 2025 state audit found that Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) rules were not specific enough and that reasonable reviewers sometimes reached different conclusions about similar packaging.

AB 2249 draws a clearer line. It defines “attractive to children” as designed or likely to appeal to anyone under 21, then identifies cartoons; depictions of people under 21; celebrities, influencers, characters and mascots primarily associated with contemporary children’s media or products; fantasy characters such as unicorns, wizards and dragons; imagery of candy, cereal, sweets and desserts primarily marketed to children; child-oriented bubble or balloon lettering; and packaging that mimics a noncannabis product marketed to children.

Cartoon or overly stylized fruit on an edible or vape label is out. A realistic depiction of fruit that accurately reflects an ingredient or production region is allowed.

The bill also authorizes DCC to adopt additional rules for design elements or product characteristics that pose a heightened risk to children, and it requires the department to develop self-assessment resources.

DCC launched its AI-based Cannabis Product Image Analyzer in June. Use it as a screening tool, not a safe harbor: an automated result is advisory, not a final DCC determination.

AB 2249 sets no deadline for additional rulemaking or for the required resources, so operators are still designing against a target that could move.

Now here’s the part that got underplayed.

Packaging isn’t bought like office supplies. Many brands buy it in runs representing six months to a year of inventory because that is how they protect unit economics. Artwork gets locked with the printer weeks or months before the run. Then the boxes sit in a warehouse until they are used.

So play it forward. A brand placing a normal-sized packaging order in early 2027 may be buying stock it expects to use well into 2028. AB 2249 contains no express sell-through safe harbor for old packaging.

Unless DCC issues contrary guidance, the prudent plan is to assume that product offered for sale on January 1, 2028 must comply with the new definition. That may put the artwork deadline in late 2026. In other words, somebody has to decide now whether the mascot stays.

The California Cannabis Industry Association opposed the bill on cost, and that concern is real. A redesign can mean compliance review, new plates, minimum order quantities, retailer notifications and eventually paying someone to destroy old packaging. But the final Senate vote was 38-0, and the Assembly concurred 69-1.

The cost is now a scheduling problem, and scheduling problems are only cheap if you start early.

Handled on the front end, this is a calendar and a manageable cost. Handled on the back end, it becomes destroyed inventory, retailer disruption, potential enforcement and a bill with more zeros. The difference is almost never information. Operators knew the rule was coming. The problem is that “2028” sounds far away.

If you hold a California license, this quarter looks like this: pull every SKU and flag anything with a character, creature, candy cue, child-oriented lettering or stylized fruit. If you have to argue about whether the gummy bear is a cartoon, it probably is.

Get your printer’s real lead times in writing and work backward from January 1, 2028. Start the redesign conservatively, have the final art reviewed, and run it through DCC’s tool as a screen before the plates are cut. Then size your last old-look order to sell through before 2028.

Nobody should build a compliance plan around the hope that the state will be generous with a pallet of dragon gummies.

The state gave you sixteen months. Your printer gave you about six. Plan around the printer.

Adrian A. Holguin, J.D., M.B.A., is founder and president of CannaShark Consulting. He advises cannabis operators and businesses in other highly regulated industries on licensing, compliance, finance and operations, and also serves as an expert witness.

Photo courtesy of Max Pixel.

Source link

Shopping for cannabinoids used to present a clean little fork in the road: THC if you wanted the high, CBD if you did not. The modern shelf is less binary and a lot more interesting.

Today’s formulas pair major and minor cannabinoids around a desired experience. THCV shows up in daytime products. CBC gets folded into mood-minded blends. CBG often rides with CBD in body-focused formulas, while CBN owns the night shift. Some combinations include THC for a noticeable mental lift. Others leave it out entirely.

That means the new skill is not memorizing a wall of acronyms. It is learning to read the combination. Pick the category first, check the cannabinoid amounts and THC content second, and treat the promises on the front of the package as an invitation to inspect the back.

Why Cannabinoid Combinations Are Everywhere

A cannabinoid blend usually has an anchor and a supporting cast, but that anchor is not always CBD or THC. Some formulations begin with one of those familiar cannabinoids and add smaller amounts of rarer ones. Others put a rare cannabinoid in the headline position and use CBD or THC as supporting ingredients.

CBD does not produce a THC-style high by itself. THC changes the equation because it is impairing and mind-altering. That distinction matters more than how many cannabinoids appear on the label.

The rarer cannabinoids increasingly take center stage in product formulation. THCV commonly appears in daytime-positioned products, CBC in mood-focused blends, CBG in body-focused formulas, CBN in nighttime products, and CBDV in newer, less established lines. Those categories describe how products are formulated and marketed. They are shorthand for a shopping aisle, not a promise about what any cannabinoid will do for a particular person.

Rare Cannabinoid Company has built much of its lineup around putting these less familiar cannabinoids at the center of the formula, an approach covered in a previous article.

Many multi-cannabinoid products are also built around the concept of the entourage effect, the idea that cannabinoids, terpenes, and other cannabis compounds may interact when consumed together. It remains a theory under study rather than a settled rule, and more cannabinoids on a label does not automatically mean a stronger or better result.

Understand the Formula, Not Just the Acronym

The easiest way to make sense of the modern cannabinoid shelf is to start with the kind of experience a formula is built around, then look at which cannabinoids are doing the heavy lifting. The acronym matters, but so do the dose, the supporting cannabinoids, the presence of THC, and the product format.

That is especially true with rare cannabinoids, where the marketing often moves faster than the science. Read the blend as a whole, not as a promise attached to one ingredient.

When CBD Leads the Formula 

CBD is the most widely available cannabinoid on the shelf and the familiar starting point for consumers who want to avoid THC-style intoxication. It appears in more formats and more price tiers than anything else in this category, which is why it turns up as both a headline ingredient and a supporting one.

Rare Cannabinoid Company’s CBD Gummies contain 30 mg of CBD per gummy, making CBD the primary cannabinoid in that formulation.

CBD does not always take center stage, though. Rare Cannabinoid Company’s current THCV Uplift Gummies contain 12.5 mg THCV and 10 mg CBD per gummy, while its CBG Relief Gummies and CBN Sleep Gummies contain 30 mg of their featured cannabinoid alongside 10 mg CBD. In those formulas, CBD is part of the supporting cast rather than the headline ingredient.

That is the useful shopping distinction. Sometimes CBD is the main event. Sometimes it is one piece of a broader cannabinoid profile. The milligrams tell you which is which.

When THCV Leads the Formula 

THCV is a very unique cannabinoid that does not appear as frequently as CBD or CBG. When THCV does appear, it is almost always in products for daytime use. THCV is usually positioned for morning use while CBN is for nighttime use. However, remember that individual outcomes may differ. 

Rare Cannabinoid Company’s THCV lineup includes formulas with and without THC. Its THC-free Uplift Gummies contain 12.5 mg THCV and 10 mg CBD per gummy. The THC version contains the same amount of THCV and CBD plus 2.5 mg Delta-9 THC. That THC matters: a formula containing THC can be intoxicating regardless of what other cannabinoids share the gummy.

If you are comparing two THCV products, the THC line on the panel is the first difference to check, because it changes whether the product is intoxicating at all.

When CBC Is in the Mix 

CBC (cannabichromene) shows up mainly in mood-oriented lines.

Rare Cannabinoid Company offers the CBC cannabinoid alone in CBC oil tinctures, with CBD in a one-to-one gummies blend, and also in formulas that combine CBC with THC and CBD. 

That second category is meaningfully different because THC brings intoxication into the picture. Read the formula by what is actually in it rather than by the word on the front of the package.

A previous article looked at Rare Cannabinoid Company edibles that combine THC, CBC, and CBD, an example of how one formula can pull several cannabinoids into the same product without making each cannabinoid interchangeable.

When CBG Leads the Formula 

CBG is one of the few minor cannabinoids that has become common in topicals as well as in gummies and tinctures, and it tends to anchor product lines built around body-focused use. That format range is what separates it from most of the other rare cannabinoids on this list.

Rare Cannabinoid Company’s CBG Relief Gummies contain 30 mg CBG and 10 mg CBD, while its THC version adds 2.5 mg Delta-9 THC.

A previous feature covered the company’s CBG-focused topicals, which combine cannabinoids with ingredients selected for topical use. A topical is applied to the skin, while a gummy or tincture is consumed differently and should not be treated as the same product simply because the cannabinoid acronym matches. It’s important to know that THC is not intoxicating when applied to the skin but can get one high when ingested orally.

When CBN Is in the Mix 

CBN is the most established of the minor cannabinoids within a single category. It has claimed a sizable chunk of the nighttime shelf, and it rarely appears anywhere else, usually in formulas that also contain CBD, THC, or both.

Rare Cannabinoid Company’s CBN Sleep Gummies contain 30 mg CBN and 10 mg CBD, and the company also sells gummies that add 5mg THC per gummy as well as a pure CBN oil tincture.

Check the full cannabinoid panel before treating any nighttime gummy as interchangeable with another. Two products can both lead with CBN and differ substantially in dose, supporting cannabinoids, and whether THC is present. If THC is present, intoxication and impairment are part of the equation.

How to Read the Formula Before You Buy

Start with the cannabinoid you are shopping for. If you are buying a THCV gummy, check how much THCV it actually contains per serving, not merely whether THCV appears somewhere on the label. The same applies to CBG, CBC, CBN, CBDV, or any other cannabinoid featured on the front of the package.

Next, look at the supporting cannabinoids. CBD and THC may be the primary ingredients in one formula and supporting ingredients in another. Some products prominently feature a rare cannabinoid on the front, but the cannabinoid panel or Certificate of Analysis may show that it is present only in a small amount. Understanding the full profile tells you more than the headline ingredient alone.

Then do the milligram math. Pay attention to milligrams per serving, not just the total in the container. A bottle advertising 900 mg tells you nothing on its own. Across 30 gummies that is 30 mg each. Across 60 gummies it is 15 mg each, and the same package looks twice as strong on the front as it is in your hand. Divide before you compare prices, and check whether a serving is one gummy or two. When comparing prices, keep in mind that THC is the most common cannabinoid and generally less expensive to produce. Rarer cannabinoids often cost more because they are less abundant and more difficult to source or produce. 

THC deserves special attention because it can impair judgment, attention, and coordination. Edibles can also take longer to have an effect than inhaled cannabis, which is how people end up taking a second dose before the first one has arrived. Follow the product’s labeled serving directions, allow adequate time for an edible to take effect, and do not drive or operate machinery after consuming an intoxicating product.

Choose a format that makes sense for how the product is intended to be used. A mint, gummy, tincture, and topical are different formats even when some of the cannabinoids overlap. They differ in onset, in how long they last, and in how precisely you can control a dose.

Finally, read the Certificate of Analysis, and read it properly. A COA is a third-party lab report, and the useful ones are specific. Check that the batch or lot number on the report matches the one on the package in front of you, since a COA for a different batch tells you nothing about the product you are holding. Check the date. Check that the lab is independent of the brand. Then compare the cannabinoid panel against the label: the featured cannabinoid should appear in the advertised amount, and the THC figure should match what the packaging claims.

Look at what else the report covers. A thorough COA includes contaminant testing for things like pesticides, heavy metals, residual solvents, and microbials. If a brand publishes a potency panel and nothing else, that is a gap worth noticing. If a product puts THCV, CBG, CBC, CBN, or CBDV front and center and the lab report does not show it, the front of the package has outrun the contents.

The Best Blend Is the One You Understand

Cannabinoid combinations give consumers more choices than the old THC-or-CBD split. You can compare daytime-positioned, mood-oriented, body-focused, and nighttime formulas, then decide whether THC belongs in the mix.

The best labels make the formula legible. They tell you how much of each cannabinoid is present and give you enough information to separate the formulation from the promise.

More initials do not guarantee a better result. But once you know how to read them, the cannabinoid shelf stops looking like chemistry homework and starts looking like choices.

Photos courtesy of Rare Cannabinoid Company

Sponsored Content Disclosure: This article was published as part of a paid commercial arrangement with Rare Cannabinoid Company. It is not independent editorial content. References to cannabinoids, formulations, product features, consumer use cases, or potential effects reflect the company’s perspective unless otherwise noted and have not been independently verified by High Times.

This article is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice. Cannabinoid products can have side effects. CBD can interact with medications, and THC can cause impairment. Do not drive or operate machinery after consuming intoxicating cannabinoids. Speak with a qualified clinician when considering cannabinoids in connection with a health condition or medication.

Source link

Source link

The WNBA has officially removed marijuana from its prohibited substances list while also laying out rules for how players can invest in and promote cannabis companies.

At the same time, however, the women’s basketball league is also adding several psychedelics to the list of banned drugs.

As part of negotiations between the Women’s National Basketball Players Association and WNBA earlier this year, the league offered to remove cannabis from its drug testing protocol. Now, under the terms of the long-form version of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) signed by representatives of both sides, marijuana no longer appears on the prohibited substances list, whereas under the prior CBA it was included under “Drugs of Abuse.”

Prior WNBA policy treated cannabis significantly more restrictively compared to the NBA, as well as multiple other professional sports leagues beyond basketball that have also adopted reforms amid the state legalization movement. First-time offenses generally resulted in treatment referrals, but repeated violations could lead to fines and suspensions.

Under the new rules, players could still be subject to testing for cannabis if they enter the league’s Drugs of Abuse Program, if they are found to have been under the influence “while engaged in activities” for the team or the league or if they have “a dependency or other related issue involving the use of marijuana.”

Those who are referred to a marijuana treatment program and do not comply with the rules would be subject to fines of $300 per day. Any player who exhibits a “pattern of behavior that demonstrates a mindful disregard for her treatment responsibilities” or tests positive for marijuana would face escalating penalties such as a $3,000 fine or suspension for three or more games.

Players could be subject to “reasonable cause” drug testing or administrative proceedings if they are convicted of a felony involving the distribution or marijuana.

At the same time WNBA and the players union are loosening up on marijuana, however, it has also added specific entries for the psychedelics dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, psilocybin and psilocin to the prohibited substances list for the first time.

Also prohibited under the new policy are synthetic cannabinoids, which the document describes as “including, but not limited to, Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (also called delta-8-THC)) and their By-Products.”

Separately, the CBA also addresses players’ investment in and promotion of companies that sell marijuana and hemp-derived CBD products.

It says that players can hold a direct or indirect ownership interest in marijuana companies as long as the interest is passive (meaning no management, governance, voting, or executive role or other operational rights or roles” and they have less than a 50 percent stake in the business.

There is also a requirement for the company to operate “in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,” and the document specifically notes that players may not hold any ownership interest in a business “that produces or sells any products containing any Prohibited Substance or any other Schedule I or II substance under the Controlled Substances Act.”

While marijuana has been classified under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act since 1970, the Trump administration in April announced that it was moving state-licensed medical cannabis, as well as any cannabinoid products approved by the Food and Drug Administration, to Schedule III, where WNBA’s prohibition would presumably no longer apply. Broader reclassification of marijuana to Schedule III will be the topic of a hearing scheduled to begin later this month.

WNBA’s rules for CBD-specific companies are looser than those for marijuana businesses in that they don’t require passive interest or less than 50 percent ownership. The document also says that players can actively promote and endorse that sell CBD products. If the products are produced by a marijuana company, however, players will first need to receive permission from the league and the union.

“Without limiting such approval right of the WNBA and the Players Association, the promotion or endorsement by a player of a CBD Product that is produced or sold by a Marijuana Company (A) will not be permitted if such CBD Product is associated by the Marijuana Company with any Marijuana Product (e.g., the CBD Product is marketed or sold under a brand that also includes or refers to Marijuana Products) or if any proposed promotion creates a reasonable risk of public confusion with any Marijuana Product, and (B) if approved, shall be subject to any terms and conditions imposed by the WNBA and/or the Players Association.”

“For clarity, any investments in or promotions or endorsements of entities that produce or sell products containing a form of cannabis (including, for clarity, a CBD form of cannabis) not expressly permitted…are prohibited,” the agreement that was finalized on May 22 says. “In the event a player engages in a prohibited investment, promotion, or endorsement, then, without limiting other WNBA rights or remedies, the player shall be required to promptly dispose of her ownership interest in the prohibited investment and/or immediately terminate her participation in the prohibited promotion or endorsement, as applicable.”

The league gave some indication about its willingness to accept the changing tides around cannabis in 2024, when the WNBA team New York Liberty entered into a partnership with a CBD beverage company.

Meanwhile, Brittney Griner—a WNBA player who was previously incarcerated in Russia over possession of marijuana—pulled out of an appearance at a cannabis event last year after discovering what she felt was a threatening message in her hotel room.

Conference attendees had hoped to hear from Griner about the nature of her incarceration in Russia, which helped fuel international debate about cannabis prohibition laws domestically and abroad.

How other sports leagues have navigated marijuana policy for players amid the reform movement.

NBA, for its part, removed marijuana from the banned substances list for players in 2023, and it also freed them up to invest in and promote cannabis companies.

The NFL, meanwhile, reached an agreement with its players union in 2024 to further reform its marijuana policies, significantly reducing fines for positive tests while increasing the allowable THC threshold for players. About four years after NFL ended the practice of suspending players over cannabis or other drugs as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the league again revised its Substances of Abuse Policy and Performance Enhancing Substances Policy.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 2024 voted to remove marijuana from its banned substances list for Division I players.

The reform builds on a 2022 change that increased the allowable THC threshold for college athletes, aligning NCAA’s rules with those of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

In 2024, Nevada regulators officially adopted a rule change that will protect athletes from being penalized for using or possessing marijuana in compliance with state law.

The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) blasted the “unfair” ban on marijuana for athletes competing in international sport events, including the Olympics that were underway in Paris at the time of the comments.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart said it was “disappointing” that WADA has maintained the cannabis prohibition based on what he considers a misguided justification.

WADA did carry out a review into its marijuana policy at the request of USADA and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) following the controversial suspension of U.S. runner Sha’Carri Richardson, who was barred from participating in the Olympics in 2021 after she tested positive for THC. Richardson said she used cannabis to cope with the recent passing of her mother.

While UFC announced in late 2023 that it was formally removing marijuana from its modified banned substances list for athletes, the league notified participants that the reform didn’t apply under California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) rules.

UFC advised fighters that they could be subject to a $100 fine by CSAS if they tested over 150 nanograms of THC per milliliter ahead of the UFC 298 event that took place in February.

In 2024, NFL announced it was partnering with Canadian researchers on a clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of CBD for pain management and neuroprotection from concussions—key issues for many football players who experience injuries as part of the game.

Source link

(This is a contributed guest column. To be considered as an MJBizDaily guest columnist, please submit your request here.)

As federal marijuana rescheduling inches closer to reality, operators must confront a fundamental shift in how legal cannabis businesses will be regulated.

Downgrading cannabis to Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances Act signals a transition toward a federal medical model of cannabis. With that comes heightened enforcement around cybersecurity, data privacy, and compliance – requirements that many operators are not yet prepared to meet.

Medical models attract pharmaceutical investment. They also mean patients whose data is among the most highly protected in the United States.

That combination dramatically raises the stakes for cannabis businesses that collect, store, or process data — be it customer information, consumer health information, or even just employee data.

In a Schedule 3 world, cybersecurity compliance is no longer a “nice to have” or a future consideration, it is essential to survival.

What Schedule 3 means for cannabis businesses beyond 280E reform

State-regulated cannabis companies that choose to participate in a federally recognized medical framework may, for the first time, find themselves subject to a complex and overlapping web of federal and state data privacy laws.

These can include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the HITECH Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, state consumer privacy statutes, and sector-specific cybersecurity regulations that were never designed with cannabis businesses in mind.

Violations can result in criminal penalties, civil fines, regulatory investigations, notification obligations, credit monitoring expenses, and the complete loss of consumer trust.

Many cannabis operators underestimate this risk because they assume compliance obligations are tied to where their business is located. In reality, data privacy laws are very often triggered by the domicile of the data subject, not the business itself. A single out-of-state patient, consumer, or online transaction can subject a cannabis company to laws it has never evaluated, let alone complied with.

As the industry matures, participation expands, and federal scrutiny increases, ignorance of these obligations will no longer be defensible.

Marijuana rescheduling means pharmaceutical investment – and competition

At the same time, Schedule 3 opens the door to increased pharmaceutical investment and with it, a more aggressive and competitive regulatory environment. Large, well-capitalized players have strong incentives to protect their investments. This includes challenging the compliance posture of competitors.

One of the easiest ways to undermine a rival is to report potential noncompliance with cybersecurity or data privacy laws to regulators. In many cases, any member of the public can file such a complaint.

This represents a significant shift in risk.

In the past, cannabis compliance failures often resulted in state-level penalties or operational setbacks. In a Schedule 3 environment, cybersecurity failures can escalate quickly, causing large data breaches, drawing in federal regulators and triggering enforcement actions that extend far beyond cannabis-specific agencies.

Cannabis operators need to adapt to data regulations

The reality is that many cannabis businesses are still growing into basic data governance maturity. They are small, independently owned, and may not have a clear understanding of what data they collect, where it is stored, who has access to it, or how long it is retained.

Incident response plans are often informal or nonexistent. Vendor management, particularly point-of-sale systems, delivery platforms, and marketing tools, is frequently overlooked, despite the fact that third-party breaches can create direct liability.

In a Schedule 3 world, these gaps are no longer growing pains; they are existential threats.

How cannabis businesses can adapt information practices

To succeed, the industry must work to implement fair information practices such as collecting only what is necessary, securing it appropriately, training staff to recognize risks, and responding quickly and transparently when breaches occur.

Cybersecurity must be treated as a core compliance function, not an IT afterthought. This includes understanding which laws apply, implementing reasonable safeguards, conducting regular risk assessments, acquiring appropriate insurance, and documenting compliance efforts before something goes wrong.

Want to know if you need to worry about cybersecurity and data privacy compliance?

Use this self-assessment tool to analyze your risk.

Does my cannabis business need to worry about cybersecurity and data privacy?

1. Do you collect any data, including names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., about your employees, vendors, patients, or customers?
2. Do you collect drivers’ license numbers, social security numbers, state ID numbers, or passport numbers, either directly, through a POS system, or through a verification system?
3. Do you collect credit card numbers, debit card numbers, financial information, or bank account information, either directly or through a payment processer?

If you answered yes to any of these three questions, your organization or business has legal obligations related to cybersecurity and data privacy.

Noncompliance with these obligations can result in criminal penalties, regulatory fines, data breaches, and loss of customer trust.

Does my cannabis business need a cybersecurity and data privacy audit?

1. Do you know where your data is stored, how long it is stored, and how it is destroyed?
2. Do you know who to contact and what to do in the event of a data breach?
3. Do you have adequate cyber insurance to cover rebuilding your internal systems and notifying employees, customers, and regulators in the event of a breach?
4. Do you know what fair information practices (FIPs) are, and do you follow them at every step of collecting, storing, using, and destroying data?
5. If a vendor causes a data breach, do you know who is responsible for notifications and remediation?

If you answered no or “I don’t know” to any of these five questions, it’s time for a cybersecurity and data privacy audit.

Consider investing in a review of all vendor contracts, including seed-to-sale, point of sale, payment processing, etc., internal data life cycle policies, public-facing privacy notices, employee training, and insurance to understand your current risk profile and mitigate exposure on future events.

Cannabis cybersecurity protects the ethos of the plant

This moment represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Cannabis has long prided itself on patient advocacy, consumer trust, and community-centered values. Protecting sensitive data is a natural extension of that ethos. If the industry can mature alongside its regulatory environment, it can set a standard that balances innovation, access, and accountability.

Schedule 3 changes the incentives and the risks. Cybersecurity compliance is now a frontline issue for cannabis businesses that want to protect not only their operations, but also the people who rely on the plant.

Victoria Cvitanovic is a psychedelic medicine and cannabis attorney at Rudick Law Group, PLLC specializing in matters such as commercial transactions, regulatory compliance, state licensing, insurance, supply chain logistics, medical malpractice defense, medical board defense and corporate law.

Source link