ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
Regulatory and Distribution Law Updates for the Alcohol Industry
ALCOHOL LAW ADVISOR
Regulatory and Distribution Law Updates for the Alcohol Industry
California
Subscribe to California's Posts

Navigating the Buzz: How State Agencies Are Addressing Confusion Around Hemp and Low-Dose THC Beverages

by and | Oct 25, 2024 | , , ,

Hemp and low-dose delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) beverages continue to flood the marketplace. Depending on the state, these products can be purchased in liquor stores, gas stations, grocery stores, bars, restaurants, and/or online. Despite their rise in popularity and presumed legality under the 2018 Farm Bill, some state agencies have recently made headlines with decisions to ban these products from being sold by alcohol-licensees in their states.

In this blog post, we walk through some recent examples of how different state alcohol agencies are handling the regulation of hemp and low-dose THC beverages.

Understanding Hemp and Low-Dose THC Beverages

As we mentioned in our previous blog post on this topic, hemp and low-dose THC beverages are nonalcoholic beverages infused with delta-9 THC derived from hemp, distinguishing them from traditional marijuana products. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp and its derivatives, provided they contain no more than 0.3% THC on a dry weight basis. This legal gray area has led to a surge in products that can deliver psychoactive effects while being marketed alongside or as alternatives to alcohol.

State-by-State Overview

The rise of hemp and low-dose THC beverages in the market has prompted state alcohol, health, agriculture, and cannabis agencies to review their regulatory frameworks regarding the sale and distribution of these products. Each state approaches the issue differently, which has resulted in a patchwork of regulations across the country.

  • California: The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) has taken a strict stance on hemp beverages containing THC. On October 3, 2024, the ABC issued an industry advisory stating that alcohol licensed businesses may not carry, market, offer for sale, or sell any industrial hemp products intended for human consumption (including food, beverages, and dietary supplements) that contain a detectable amount of total THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids. Any businesses that do not comply will subject the licensee to disciplinary action. To date, the ABC has already begun enforcement efforts. Recently, ABC agents have been reported visiting licensed locations across the state and seizing hundreds of products from several licensees, removing them from shelves and preventing them from being sold.
  • Massachusetts: On May 30, 2024, the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC) issued an advisory in connection with the joint notice issued by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) and the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) regarding the sale of beverages and food with hemp-derived cannabinoid extracts (CBD) or THC. The ABCC made clear that it is unlawful to manufacture and/or sell food or beverages containing CBD and/or THC. This applies to alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages. Under the advisory, the ABCC directed that products need to be removed immediately, and anyone found in violation faces potential revocation or suspension of its license. The joint notice and advisory each make clear that they only apply to hemp-derived CBD and THC products and are separate from marijuana products regulated by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission.
  • Minnesota: In contrast to California and Massachusetts, Minnesota explicitly [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

California Steps Up Liquor License Enforcement

by and | Sep 11, 2023 |

We always recommend you regularly review your state liquor licenses to ensure you hold the correct licenses for your business needs. However, given recent feedback from California regulators, you may want to expedite such a review. We have learned that California is scrutinizing liquor licenses and enforcing regulations that prohibit licensees from obtaining licenses that could create tier violations.

California recently provided guidance on which industry members can hold a Type 13 Distilled Spirits Importer’s General license. As a reminder, a Type 13 license authorizes licensees to import and sell distilled spirits to other distilled spirits manufacturers, wholesalers, rectifiers and importers within the state. Historically, California issued a Type 13 license to out-of-state supplier-tier companies importing distilled spirits in their name. These companies would use licensed public warehouses for storage before distributing their products to authorized California licensees, such as licensed California wholesalers.

However, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (CA ABC) asserts that CA BPC § 23771 prohibits distilled spirits suppliers from holding a Type 13 license if they have any interest in manufacturing within or outside of the state. This prohibition applies to suppliers who manufacture distilled spirits outside of California or have a parent company that manufactures distilled spirits overseas. The state has said that these suppliers should hold a manufacturer-type license, such as a Type 5 license.

A Type 5 Distilled Spirits Manufacturer’s Agent license is frequently held by an agent of out-of-state distilleries or manufacturers who promotes the products and does missionary work for the out-of-state distillers or manufacturers. They can also solicit sales from licensed distilled spirits manufacturers, rectifiers or distilled spirits wholesalers and hold possession of distilled spirits in public or private warehouses. Although Type 5 licensees cannot import distilled spirits into California, they can sell distilled spirits to other Type 13 license holders who may import into the state.

While we have not seen proactive enforcement from CA ABC on this matter, the issue may arise when or if Type 13 license-holding companies renew a license or file a person-to-person transfer or premises transfer for a current license. CA ABC has indicated that Type 13 license-holding suppliers will not be penalized for holding an improper license; the agency will expect these suppliers to work with it to determine if they should hold a different set of licenses to meet their business needs.

If you have any questions about California ABC liquor licenses, please contact Alva Mather, Nichole Shustack, Alice Chung or McDermott’s alcohol team.



read more

DOJ Attorneys Explain New Cannabis Enforcement Plans at Summit

by | Feb 8, 2018 | , , ,

US Attorneys, state officials and cannabis industry representatives met in Portland, Oregon on February 2 to discuss how to enforcement will change after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced changes to Department of Justice (DOJ) policies on the prosecution of marijuana cases. The answer: a crackdown on illegal overproduction in states where cannabis production is legal and a focus on reducing the amount of cannabis being diverted to states where it is still illegal.

On January 4th, the DOJ released a memo that directed all US Attorneys to enforce “the laws enacted by Congress” and “follow well-established principles when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana activities.” The memo rescinded the Cole Memo and other DOJ guidance that reduced the likelihood of federal prosecution of cannabis businesses in states that permit medical and recreational cannabis use. After the DOJ announcement, the cannabis industry was unsure of how these changes would affect cannabis operations legal under state law and uneasy about the future of the industry. (more…)



read more

En Banc Opinion Could Set Precedent for Tied-House Laws

by | Jun 15, 2017 | , ,

Yesterday, the en banc (full) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the attached opinion in the case of Retail Digital Network v. Prieto, No. 13-56069.

As you may recall, the Retail Digital Network case concerns the legality of sections of California’s tied-house laws, California Business and Professions Code Section 25503(f)-(h), which prohibit manufacturers and wholesalers (and their agents) from giving anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their products.  Retail Digital Network (RDN), which installs advertising displays in retail stores and contracts with parties to advertise their products on the displays, sought a declaratory judgment that Section 25503(f)-(h) violated the First Amendment after RDN’s attempts to contract with alcohol manufacturers failed due to the manufacturers’ concerns that such advertising would violate these tied-house provisions.

The District Court found Section 25503(f)-(h) constitutional under a Ninth Circuit case from 1986, Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, in which the court upheld Section 25503(h).  Then in January 2016, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Actmedia is “clearly irreconcilable” with the Supreme Court’s 2011 opinion in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.  The panel accordingly would have remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings under Sorrell’s allegedly more restrictive First Amendment standard.  But the state requested an en banc (full court) rehearing, which the court granted.

(more…)



read more

Legal, Political and Practical Challenges in Regulating Recreational Marijuana

by | Apr 5, 2017 | , , , , , ,

On March 30, eight bills were introduced by senior members of Congress from both parties to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. The bills were referred to at least five House Committees, as they address federal criminal law, taxation, banking, transportation, immigration, veterans’ affairs, access to federal benefits and other issues. The legislative activity follows establishment of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus in February. Leaders of the new caucus represent four of the eight states where voters have approved recreational use of marijuana by adults.

In the initial press conference held by Cannabis Caucus members and in statements explaining the new legislation, House and Senate members made frequent reference to laws regulating alcohol beverages. Bills introduced earlier in the current session of Congress also call for state-by-state regulation using language similar to the Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment, which authorized each state to regulate the delivery and use of “intoxicating liquors” within its borders.

The failure of national Prohibition of alcohol beverages is often cited as a rationale to legalize recreational marijuana use. Before proceeding toward wider legalization, policymakers should gain a deeper understanding of the history of Prohibition and the regulatory scheme that emerged after repeal. Government regulation is necessary in a complex and pluralistic society of 320 million, but effective marijuana regulation is a tall order.

(more…)



read more

Trump Administration Indicates Plans to Increase Enforcement of Recreational Marijuana Laws

by | Feb 27, 2017 | , ,

To follow up on our prediction last month that the Trump Administration may take a more aggressive stance toward the legalization of marijuana, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated during the February 23 daily briefing that he anticipates greater federal enforcement of marijuana laws.  Spicer emphasized the distinction between medical marijuana (the legalization of which President Trump does not oppose) and recreational marijuana.  In discussing the latter, Spicer invoked the country’s opioid addiction crisis, suggesting a link between recreational marijuana use and such other drugs.

Spicer hinted that the Justice Department’s enforcement of federal drug laws would extend to the nine jurisdictions that have legalized recreational marijuana, potentially putting at risk the schemes many of these states have created–or are in the process of creating–to regulate marijuana.  As of today, the recreational use of marijuana is legal in Alaska, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.  (Note:  Congress has blocked the DC government from using funds to actually implement a system to regulate recreational marijuana, so although technically legal, there is currently no “market” for recreational marijuana in DC.)

If President Trump’s Justice Department does begin to pursue more active enforcement of marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana, it may meet pushback from Congress.  Just last week, four congressmen announced the formation of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus (the Caucus), a bipartisan organization seeking to change the federal government’s attitude toward legalized marijuana and, notably, to leave the legalization question to the states.  In support of this mission, earlier this month Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a member of the Caucus, introduced a bill (HR 975) in the House that would prevent federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (the Act) in states that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.

Likely by design, the bill’s introduction occurred just a day before the confirmation of Jeff Sessions, a vocal opponent of marijuana legalization, as Attorney General.  The bill would add a new section to the Act expressly stating that the Act’s provisions concerning marijuana do not apply to persons acting in compliance with state law regarding the possession or sale of marijuana.  The bill, titled the “Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017,” has been referred to the House Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees.

Of course, whether the bill will gain enough support to pass in Congress and survive a potential Trump veto remains to be seen.  Nevertheless, the timing of the bill’s introduction, the bipartisan support it has garnered to date (half of its current cosponsors are Republicans), and the announcement of the Caucus indicate a growing tension between Congress–including some members of President Trump’s own party–and the Administration with respect to the enforcement of federal marijuana laws.



read more

BLOG EDITOR

Alva C. Mather

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RankedInChambersUSA 2022