Two medical marijuana companies are taking steps in federal court to intervene in ongoing lawsuits challenging the Trump administration\u2019s ongoing cannabis rescheduling process by joining the side of the government and opposing the litigation from prohibitionists.<\/p>\n
The new motion\u2014filed on Monday by attorneys for MedPharm Iowa, LLC, which does business as Bud & Mary\u2019s, and Tri-Mountain Pure, LLC\u2014says the businesses \u201cwould be directly harmed\u201d if cannabis reform opponents\u2019 challenges are successful.<\/p>\n
Bud & Mary\u2019s, which operates in Iowa, and Tri-Mountain Pure, which is based in Pennsylvania,\u00a0have both already applied for federal registration using a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) form that the agency made available for cannabis businesses<\/a> seeking protections and benefits that come with rescheduling, the motion says.<\/p>\n The filing claims that the businesses would suffer at least five different kinds of harm if the litigation ends up blocking rescheduling.<\/p>\n First, they said that due to marijuana being partially moved to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)<\/a>, they are no longer subject to the tax penalty known as 280E that disallows companies that deal in Schedule I and II substances from writing off business expenses. If rescheduling is reversed, they would incur \u201cdirect economic harm,\u201d the motion says.<\/p>\n Second, they argue, they would lose the benefit of their pending registrations with DEA \u201cand the business planning they have undertaken in reliance on the final order.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe companies would be forced to postpone or abandon planned initiatives, absorb sunk compliance costs, and continue operating under the significant legal and commercial burdens associated with schedule I status,\u201d the motion from attorney Shane Pennington of Blank Rome LLP says.<\/p>\n Third, reverting cannabis to Schedule I status would impose research-related burdens that directly affect\u201d the companies\u2019 businesses and patients.<\/p>\n \u201cThe classification restricts clinical research, physician collaboration, university partnerships, product development, collection of medical efficacy data, patient access to insurance reimbursement, and participation in state and federal grant programs,\u201d the filing says. \u201cThose restrictions impair innovation and prevent the development of new therapies for the Iowa and Pennsylvania patients Intervenors serve.\u201d<\/p>\n Fourth, a reversal of the federal reform would hurt the companies\u2019 commercial relationships.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough banking access has improved in some respects, marijuana\u2019s schedule I status has made many financial institutions, insurers, payment processors, lenders, secure-cash transporters, investors, and commercial vendors unwilling to work with state-licensed marijuana companies, including Intervenors, or willing to do so only at substantially increased cost,\u201d the motion says. \u201cSchedule I status also limits access to national vendors that provide laboratory equipment, pharmaceutical manufacturing systems, software, logistics services, financing, and other business-critical goods and services.\u201d<\/p>\n Fifth, putting cannabis back in Schedule I would \u201cimpair\u201d the businesses\u2019 \u201cability to recruit and retain specialized personnel.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cHighly qualified scientists, pharmacists, physicians, executives, and other professionals are often reluctant to work for a schedule I marijuana business because of perceived federal legal risks and professional-licensing concerns,\u201d the filing says. \u201cThat limits Intervenors\u2019 ability to attract the talent necessary to expand and improve their patient-focused medical marijuana operations.\u201d<\/p>\n The litigation challenging the federal cannabis rescheduling move is actually comprised of three separately filed lawsuits that have been consolidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.<\/p>\n One suit is led by prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)<\/a>, who claim they are \u201caggrieved\u201d by the reform. Another comes from\u00a0a coalition of anti-marijuana activists, substance misuse professionals, doctors and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation<\/a>. A third challenge was filed by the attorneys general of Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana<\/a>\u2014though the later state later withdrew from the suit<\/a>.<\/p>\n The new motion to intervene says the federal government, which is currently the only party involved in defending rescheduling in the litigation, cannot \u201cadequately\u201d represent the companies\u2019 interests in the dispute.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough Intervenors seek to intervene in support of DOJ, as a government agency, DOJ will necessarily focus its defenses on its own institutional interests and duties. DOJ therefore cannot adequately represent Intervenors\u2019 private commercial interests,\u201d it says. \u201cUnlike DOJ, Intervenors have a specific, focused interest in the transfer of their products to schedule III and the opportunity to register with DEA to ensure their operations do not violate the Controlled Substances Act.\u201d<\/p>\n The filing argues that Bud & Mary\u2019s and Tri-Mountain Pure \u201care not merely bystanders to this litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey are state-licensed medical-marijuana operators that have invested substantial resources in reliance on DOJ\u2019s final order, have applied for DEA registration in the wake of that final order, and will suffer direct economic, regulatory, and operational harm if petitioners succeed in vacating or delaying the final order,\u201d it says. \u201cIntervenors therefore have a concrete interest in intervening to defend DOJ\u2019s final order.\u201d<\/p>\n The development in the litigation comes as DEA this week began an administrative hearing on the marijuana rescheduling proposal<\/a> in which government witnesses and lawyers are highlighting the medical uses and relative safety of cannabis<\/a> while opponents are challenging the process by which officials developed the recommendation for the reform.<\/p>\n Under an action announced by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April, marijuana products regulated by a state medical cannabis license immediately moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, as did any marijuana products that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The ongoing hearing is considering broader cannabis rescheduling, including for recreational products.<\/p>\n The suit from SAM and NDASA challenging rescheduling was signed by attorneys at Torridon Law PLCC, where former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, led DOJ during Trump\u2019s first term in office, is a partner.<\/p>\n SAM had announced in January that it was hiring Barr\u2019s firm to legally combat cannabis rescheduling<\/a> after Tump signed an executive order directing officials to complete the process expeditiously.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee voted to\u00a0block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling<\/a>. Bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment, however, that they don\u2019t expect the legislative effort to block rescheduling to succeed<\/a>.<\/p>\n Separately, SAM and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to block a Trump administration program to cover certain hemp-derived products through Medicare<\/a>. That case was dismissed by a federal judge<\/a> in May, but that decision is being appealed<\/a>.<\/p>\n Read the full motion<\/a> to join the marijuana rescheduling lawsuit below:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n The post Marijuana Companies Seek To Defend Trump\u2019s Rescheduling Move By Intervening In Opponents\u2019 Lawsuits<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Two medical marijuana companies are taking steps in federal court to intervene in ongoing lawsuits challenging the Trump administration\u2019s ongoing cannabis rescheduling process by joining the side of the government and opposing the litigation from prohibitionists. The new motion\u2014filed on Monday by attorneys for MedPharm Iowa, LLC, which does businessContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":459,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86251"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/459"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86251"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86251\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":86252,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86251\/revisions\/86252"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\nRead More: Marijuana Companies Seek To Defend Trump\u2019s Rescheduling Move By Intervening In Opponents\u2019 Lawsuits<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"