Skip to Main Content
 
Thought Leadership

Cannabis Law Now Podcast: The ‘CannaBoies' Lawsuit and Why it Matters

 

Published:

February 05, 2024

Related Industry:

Food Systems 

Related Service:

Cannabis 
 
Podcast

    

On October 26, 2023, a group of large cannabis companies based in Massachusetts filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Massachusetts against Merrick Garland, our current U.S. attorney general, alleging that, while Congress has the constitutional power to ban cannabis from interstate commerce, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) exceeds that power by overreaching to ban cannabis from purely intrastate commerce. Essentially, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution give Congress a “general police power” to take over regulation of strictly intrastate commerce. Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case is renowned civil rights trial firm Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, and Joshua Schiller is one of the litigators leading the charge. 

To overcome negative precedent in this area, plaintiffs argue that highly regulated state markets actually reduce interstate cannabis commerce (meaning, heavy state government oversight reduces illicit interstate transactions) and that cannabis isn’t fungible anymore—state-legal products (that are tracked, traced, packaged, labeled, and tested in line with strict state rules) are easily distinguishable from illegal ones. They also argue that Congress long ago abandoned its alleged goal of banning cannabis intrastate for the sake of keeping it out of interstate commerce, using as examples the continually renewed federal spending bills in support of state-legal medical cannabis, the fact that D.C. allows for medical cannabis, and the multiple (now rescinded) Department of Justice memos that essentially let the states take over intrastate cannabis control anyway. 

In this episode, Husch Blackwell's Hilary Bricken and Joshua Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner takes listeners through the intricate in’s and out’s of this potentially landmark lawsuit, why it matters now more than ever for the fate of the cannabis industry, and how Josh believes the federal government will handle the case (while potentially getting in front of the Supreme Court on appeal).

Read the Transcript

This transcript has been auto-generated and may contain transcription errors.

1
00:00:01,750 --> 00:00:06,660
[Music]

2
00:00:03,550 --> 00:00:06,660
[Applause]

3
00:00:09,160 --> 00:00:13,519
welcome I'm your host Hillary Bricken and

4
00:00:11,400 --> 00:00:15,639
this is the Cannabis law Now podcast

5
00:00:13,519 --> 00:00:17,400
where we regularly discuss issues

6
00:00:15,639 --> 00:00:19,439
related to the Cannabis industry

7
00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:22,119
including investment day-to-day

8
00:00:19,439 --> 00:00:24,160
operational issues and potential reform

9
00:00:22,119 --> 00:00:26,039
on the horizon that will impact all

10
00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:27,800
cannabis businesses and investors in the

11
00:00:26,039 --> 00:00:29,759
United

12
00:00:27,800 --> 00:00:30,560
States hey everybody Welcome to the

13
00:00:29,759 --> 00:00:32,880
podast

14
00:00:30,560 --> 00:00:35,079
today with us we have a very exciting

15
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:37,120
guest that I was super glad to net with

16
00:00:35,079 --> 00:00:39,160
his very busy litigation schedule we

17
00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:41,320
have Josh Shiller from boy Schiller

18
00:00:39,160 --> 00:00:42,879
flexner LLP and if you haven't heard of

19
00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:45,039
this Law Firm you've probably been

20
00:00:42,879 --> 00:00:46,760
living under a rock but Josh in

21
00:00:45,039 --> 00:00:48,840
particular is very interesting to me

22
00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:50,480
because he's about to do huge things in

23
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:52,120
cannabis if they've not already been

24
00:00:50,480 --> 00:00:54,000
accomplished with this filing but Josh

25
00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:55,800
is admitted in New York and California

26
00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:58,039
he's a seasoned trial attorney he

27
00:00:55,800 --> 00:01:00,640
litigates all sorts of civil matters in

28
00:00:58,039 --> 00:01:02,840
the US and abroad and this is why he's

29
00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:05,000
on today because he's one of the lawyers

30
00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:07,360
doing the Lord's work representing

31
00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:10,240
plaintiffs in the can of Provisions Inc

32
00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:12,439
at all versus Garland case and this case

33
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:15,320
is important and super notable because

34
00:01:12,439 --> 00:01:17,280
it is the most recent I think legitimate

35
00:01:15,320 --> 00:01:20,000
constitutional challenge against the

36
00:01:17,280 --> 00:01:21,680
feds regarding essentially the fate of

37
00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:24,840
cannabis on the Controlled Substances

38
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:27,280
Act and it was filed in October of 2023

39
00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:28,400
so welcome Josh so happy to have you

40
00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:30,400
thank you very much Hillary for that

41
00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:32,320
wonderful introduction it's nice to be

42
00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:33,720
okay great and for the benefit of our

43
00:01:32,320 --> 00:01:35,200
audience I'm just going to launch right

44
00:01:33,720 --> 00:01:37,079
into these substantive questions

45
00:01:35,200 --> 00:01:39,360
appreciate you talking about it with me

46
00:01:37,079 --> 00:01:41,119
feel free to add anything else off the

47
00:01:39,360 --> 00:01:43,119
script from these questions if you want

48
00:01:41,119 --> 00:01:45,320
to okay just so everybody knows out

49
00:01:43,119 --> 00:01:48,719
there what are the basic claims in this

50
00:01:45,320 --> 00:01:51,560
lawsuit so the the lawsuit is based upon

51
00:01:48,719 --> 00:01:54,439
the Constitutional Powers invested in

52
00:01:51,560 --> 00:01:56,280
both federal government and the states

53
00:01:54,439 --> 00:01:58,159
as the Constitution was originally set

54
00:01:56,280 --> 00:02:00,600
up the federal government has limited

55
00:01:58,159 --> 00:02:02,880
power to enforce Commerce in the United

56
00:02:00,600 --> 00:02:04,920
States when that Commerce involves

57
00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:07,399
transactions that are considered to be

58
00:02:04,920 --> 00:02:09,440
interstate commerce and Interstate means

59
00:02:07,399 --> 00:02:12,080
Commerce that travels amongst or between

60
00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:14,239
the states the the Federal Constitution

61
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:16,599
does not give our federal government the

62
00:02:14,239 --> 00:02:18,160
power to regulate in trust State

63
00:02:16,599 --> 00:02:20,519
Commerce meaning Commerce that is

64
00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:23,800
entirely within a state now there was a

65
00:02:20,519 --> 00:02:25,680
challenge uh back in the early 2000s

66
00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:27,959
based upon the bush administration's

67
00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:29,319
what I like to call the last Act of the

68
00:02:27,959 --> 00:02:31,400
War on Drugs when the Bush

69
00:02:29,319 --> 00:02:33,640
Administration decided when I was in law

70
00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:36,519
school to start raiding medical

71
00:02:33,640 --> 00:02:38,879
marijuana um growers in and I say

72
00:02:36,519 --> 00:02:40,879
Growers because they literally went in

73
00:02:38,879 --> 00:02:43,080
and threw a woman in jail who had 12

74
00:02:40,879 --> 00:02:44,760
pots and to treat her glaucoma in

75
00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:46,920
Oakland but they made a big point about

76
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:49,159
shutting down the California lawful

77
00:02:46,920 --> 00:02:50,519
intrastate market for cannabis or

78
00:02:49,159 --> 00:02:52,480
marijuana I like to use the word

79
00:02:50,519 --> 00:02:54,440
marijuana it's a little more narrow than

80
00:02:52,480 --> 00:02:56,800
cannabis but cannabis obviously has all

81
00:02:54,440 --> 00:02:58,879
kinds of medicial uses but you know the

82
00:02:56,800 --> 00:03:01,200
Supreme Court heard that case and and

83
00:02:58,879 --> 00:03:03,040
it's called gonzale v r and determined

84
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:05,159
that on the basis that the the federal

85
00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:06,720
government's policy at the time and I

86
00:03:05,159 --> 00:03:08,239
say at the time because it's a key

87
00:03:06,720 --> 00:03:10,760
factor in in the way we've written our

88
00:03:08,239 --> 00:03:13,760
complaint was to use their commerce

89
00:03:10,760 --> 00:03:15,879
power to eradicate cannabis or marijuana

90
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:18,159
throughout the entire country from what

91
00:03:15,879 --> 00:03:20,480
they described as a black market for

92
00:03:18,159 --> 00:03:22,959
marijuana and so if they were to allow

93
00:03:20,480 --> 00:03:25,040
entirely inate Market to exist lawfully

94
00:03:22,959 --> 00:03:27,159
under state law they still had concerns

95
00:03:25,040 --> 00:03:29,840
that that cannabis would make its way to

96
00:03:27,159 --> 00:03:31,599
other states and to Black markets and so

97
00:03:29,840 --> 00:03:33,680
the court in a in a decision that was

98
00:03:31,599 --> 00:03:35,360
criticized quite strongly at the time by

99
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:37,760
Justice Thomas and was joined

100
00:03:35,360 --> 00:03:39,799
interestingly Enough by some liberals

101
00:03:37,760 --> 00:03:40,879
and and some conservatives but I say

102
00:03:39,799 --> 00:03:42,799
that only because we have a very

103
00:03:40,879 --> 00:03:44,720
different court now but they determined

104
00:03:42,799 --> 00:03:46,239
that it was a lawful use of the federal

105
00:03:44,720 --> 00:03:48,159
government's power to enforce that

106
00:03:46,239 --> 00:03:51,040
policy it was a legitimate use in other

107
00:03:48,159 --> 00:03:53,040
words now ever since then cannabis has

108
00:03:51,040 --> 00:03:55,200
not gone away the federal government has

109
00:03:53,040 --> 00:03:57,599
taken steps rather to eradicate it but

110
00:03:55,200 --> 00:04:00,120
to make it more lawful more accessible

111
00:03:57,599 --> 00:04:01,959
and to to to take away its own power in

112
00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:03,680
what Justice Thomas recently described a

113
00:04:01,959 --> 00:04:05,879
few years ago in a descent in a

114
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:07,079
prosecution in Florida an appeal from a

115
00:04:05,879 --> 00:04:08,840
prosecution saying that Federal

116
00:04:07,079 --> 00:04:10,680
government's policy these days is half

117
00:04:08,840 --> 00:04:12,599
in and half out and that's not a

118
00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:15,200
legitimate use of the federal Commerce

119
00:04:12,599 --> 00:04:17,479
Clause power and so what we've tried to

120
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:19,400
do in our complaint is illustrate that

121
00:04:17,479 --> 00:04:20,959
with with facts and and when we get to

122
00:04:19,400 --> 00:04:22,560
summary judgment assuming we get to

123
00:04:20,959 --> 00:04:24,560
summary judgment we will be putting

124
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:26,080
forth evidence to show that the federal

125
00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:27,720
government's policy ever since that

126
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:29,800
decision has been inconsistent that the

127
00:04:27,720 --> 00:04:31,840
federal government is allowing these

128
00:04:29,800 --> 00:04:34,560
businesses to lawfully operate

129
00:04:31,840 --> 00:04:37,000
interestate without any concerns about

130
00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:38,759
this so-called black market for cannabis

131
00:04:37,000 --> 00:04:41,080
and in fact we'll also introduce

132
00:04:38,759 --> 00:04:43,199
evidence as we collect it to demonstrate

133
00:04:41,080 --> 00:04:46,479
that the Black Market has been armed if

134
00:04:43,199 --> 00:04:48,960
not reduced by the availability of safe

135
00:04:46,479 --> 00:04:51,720
regulated marijuana products in almost

136
00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:54,039
38 States at this point fantastic I love

137
00:04:51,720 --> 00:04:56,280
the complaint by the way um as soon as I

138
00:04:54,039 --> 00:04:57,280
saw the filing I grabbed it because I

139
00:04:56,280 --> 00:04:59,039
think lawyers that have been in the

140
00:04:57,280 --> 00:05:01,160
industry are very concerned about

141
00:04:59,039 --> 00:05:03,520
differentiating it from Gonzalez versus

142
00:05:01,160 --> 00:05:05,240
ra well we'll talk about that um towards

143
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:08,080
the end but another question just on the

144
00:05:05,240 --> 00:05:10,080
technicalities especially for folks lay

145
00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:12,680
people not attorneys that are listening

146
00:05:10,080 --> 00:05:14,840
to this podcast what relief are these

147
00:05:12,680 --> 00:05:16,759
plaintiffs seeking and if you could talk

148
00:05:14,840 --> 00:05:18,720
a little bit about the plaintiffs what

149
00:05:16,759 --> 00:05:20,560
are they are they retailers uh where are

150
00:05:18,720 --> 00:05:22,720
they located that kind of thing well as

151
00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:24,160
you can tell we took a lot of time in

152
00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:25,880
thought and care and putting it into

153
00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:27,880
this complaint and when we started

154
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:30,080
working on this case about a year and a

155
00:05:27,880 --> 00:05:32,240
half ago we looked at a couple of

156
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:34,759
States because we wanted to understand

157
00:05:32,240 --> 00:05:36,560
how the lawful interestate Market Place

158
00:05:34,759 --> 00:05:38,440
was working and you know we were

159
00:05:36,560 --> 00:05:40,319
primarily being brought concerns from

160
00:05:38,440 --> 00:05:42,120
the industry concerns that I'm sure your

161
00:05:40,319 --> 00:05:45,319
clients have expressed to you the

162
00:05:42,120 --> 00:05:47,199
discriminatory taxes they face under 28e

163
00:05:45,319 --> 00:05:49,600
the unequal treatment they face in

164
00:05:47,199 --> 00:05:51,639
getting insurance policies and having to

165
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:53,759
employ extra security and having to

166
00:05:51,639 --> 00:05:56,000
mostly be cash operated businesses you

167
00:05:53,759 --> 00:05:57,680
know top to bottom getting mortgages

168
00:05:56,000 --> 00:05:59,520
getting small business loans the normal

169
00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:01,280
things that small businesses in America

170
00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:03,720
depend upon that our federal government

171
00:06:01,280 --> 00:06:05,520
subsidizes and uses well I mean tax is

172
00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:07,240
not a subsidy but it's a penalty as

173
00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:09,080
these companies face it we knew what the

174
00:06:07,240 --> 00:06:11,280
concerns were but we wanted to look at

175
00:06:09,080 --> 00:06:13,360
the case from a and deconstruct it and

176
00:06:11,280 --> 00:06:16,120
say where is a good example of an

177
00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:19,000
interestate Market that is lawfully run

178
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:21,639
that is well regulated where we can

179
00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:23,599
demonstrate people as examples of this

180
00:06:21,639 --> 00:06:25,759
growing entrepreneurial American

181
00:06:23,599 --> 00:06:27,440
industry and we ultimately decided on

182
00:06:25,759 --> 00:06:28,840
the Western District of Massachusetts

183
00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:30,840
because we had a number of reasons we

184
00:06:28,840 --> 00:06:32,199
wanted to use Massachusetts as an

185
00:06:30,840 --> 00:06:33,800
example you know it's not the most

186
00:06:32,199 --> 00:06:35,599
recent state but it's been around for a

187
00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:38,039
while it took them a while to get their

188
00:06:35,599 --> 00:06:40,400
products regulated and on the shelves

189
00:06:38,039 --> 00:06:42,400
and they have a very strong lawful

190
00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:44,520
market and so we wanted to also take a

191
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:46,280
slice of the industry and and show the

192
00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:47,919
court the different kinds of companies

193
00:06:46,280 --> 00:06:49,560
and how they're being affected and so we

194
00:06:47,919 --> 00:06:51,599
have a we have a distributor we have an

195
00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:54,000
MSO and we have a farmer we have an

196
00:06:51,599 --> 00:06:55,879
interesting aspect of different pieces

197
00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:57,160
of the industry I I like to say that

198
00:06:55,879 --> 00:06:59,400
each one of them tells their own

199
00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:00,759
entrepreneurial American story and each

200
00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:02,919
each one of them is able to demonstrate

201
00:07:00,759 --> 00:07:05,039
in different ways and in similar ways

202
00:07:02,919 --> 00:07:07,120
that the harms that they face in main

203
00:07:05,039 --> 00:07:08,680
not just starting their own their small

204
00:07:07,120 --> 00:07:10,479
businesses but maintaining them

205
00:07:08,680 --> 00:07:12,560
successfully you would ask me about the

206
00:07:10,479 --> 00:07:15,120
relief and the relief is to seek an

207
00:07:12,560 --> 00:07:17,840
injunction not to reclassify or

208
00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:19,680
declassify or tell the FDA what to do

209
00:07:17,840 --> 00:07:22,240
because we can't do that but we can ask

210
00:07:19,680 --> 00:07:26,039
a judge to say the the use of the

211
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:28,240
Commerce Clause power as applied by the

212
00:07:26,039 --> 00:07:31,039
FDA as a schedule two drug and the use

213
00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:34,120
to enforce that against businesses that

214
00:07:31,039 --> 00:07:37,240
are otherwise lawfully operating inate

215
00:07:34,120 --> 00:07:38,759
is an unconstitutional exercise of the

216
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:40,560
Commerce Clause power and therefore

217
00:07:38,759 --> 00:07:42,879
we'll have an injunction against it now

218
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:44,440
that is very narrow and very limited it

219
00:07:42,879 --> 00:07:46,800
doesn't mean that the federal government

220
00:07:44,440 --> 00:07:48,599
can't still you know prevent interstate

221
00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:50,240
commerce it can't arrest truck drivers

222
00:07:48,599 --> 00:07:52,120
who are driving over borders it can

223
00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:54,000
still do that and I would maintain to

224
00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:55,560
you that after our case I mean I I think

225
00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:57,440
the federal government if we're

226
00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:58,800
successful will likely work towards a

227
00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:00,840
structure where they may decide

228
00:07:58,800 --> 00:08:02,639
ultimately to regulate marijuana or

229
00:08:00,840 --> 00:08:04,120
leave it entirely to the States but as

230
00:08:02,639 --> 00:08:06,319
long as they leave it entirely to the

231
00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:08,759
states the effect of our lawsuit should

232
00:08:06,319 --> 00:08:11,400
be to get rid of all of the penalties

233
00:08:08,759 --> 00:08:12,960
imposed by Federal Regulation and so

234
00:08:11,400 --> 00:08:15,000
while we're aiming to help folks in

235
00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:16,759
Massachusetts our goal really is to help

236
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:18,440
everybody in the country who who is

237
00:08:16,759 --> 00:08:21,319
operating these businesses and investing

238
00:08:18,440 --> 00:08:25,240
in and federal penalties including the

239
00:08:21,319 --> 00:08:27,479
Draconian impact of 28 right right well

240
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:29,440
that would be a a side effect it's not

241
00:08:27,479 --> 00:08:31,000
the the main target for this case but

242
00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:33,399
for those businesses who who want to

243
00:08:31,000 --> 00:08:35,080
know how to work to get the benefits of

244
00:08:33,399 --> 00:08:37,000
our case if we're successful you know we

245
00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:39,479
are talking to lots of clients since we

246
00:08:37,000 --> 00:08:41,039
filed in before about how to take

247
00:08:39,479 --> 00:08:42,680
administrative steps you know something

248
00:08:41,039 --> 00:08:44,720
I'm sure you're familiar with but the

249
00:08:42,680 --> 00:08:46,200
the process of a tax appeal is different

250
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:48,399
because you can't bring a class action

251
00:08:46,200 --> 00:08:50,080
on behalf of taxpayers right they all

252
00:08:48,399 --> 00:08:53,240
have to exhaust their administrative

253
00:08:50,080 --> 00:08:54,720
remedies and appeal individually and so

254
00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:56,320
some businesses we've spoken with are

255
00:08:54,720 --> 00:08:58,160
already taking steps to do that

256
00:08:56,320 --> 00:09:00,040
anticipating or hoping that we win and I

257
00:08:58,160 --> 00:09:01,920
could see one of the effects of this

258
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:03,399
case if we're successful ultimately is

259
00:09:01,920 --> 00:09:05,200
that there will be a number of companies

260
00:09:03,399 --> 00:09:07,200
that will be looking to the federal

261
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,800
government for a very large tax refund

262
00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:09,839
and that would be a fun day in court if

263
00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:12,680
we get

264
00:09:09,839 --> 00:09:15,360
there I would wholeheartedly applaud

265
00:09:12,680 --> 00:09:18,000
that you know moving on um I think many

266
00:09:15,360 --> 00:09:20,720
people are not accustomed to just the

267
00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:22,920
length of litigation regardless of the

268
00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:25,360
subject matter what do you think the

269
00:09:22,920 --> 00:09:27,800
basic procedural timeline is here for

270
00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:29,800
this case and and personally what do you

271
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:31,200
expect to happen in the District Court

272
00:09:29,800 --> 00:09:33,120
which ladies and gentlemen is the

273
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:35,000
federal court where the initial filing

274
00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:36,839
takes place so we've agreed on a

275
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:38,839
briefing schedule with the federal

276
00:09:36,839 --> 00:09:40,800
government this week and they are going

277
00:09:38,839 --> 00:09:42,360
to file either an answer to our

278
00:09:40,800 --> 00:09:44,600
complaint or a motion to dismiss they

279
00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:46,440
haven't indicated yet on January 23rd

280
00:09:44,600 --> 00:09:48,360
and we'll respond to that in March and

281
00:09:46,440 --> 00:09:50,480
if it's a motion to dismiss it will be

282
00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:52,000
fully briefed by the first week of April

283
00:09:50,480 --> 00:09:53,440
and then there may be a hearing I would

284
00:09:52,000 --> 00:09:55,560
expect an oral argument in the hearing

285
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:57,079
on that you know maybe as soon as May if

286
00:09:55,560 --> 00:09:58,720
that doesn't happen and they file an

287
00:09:57,079 --> 00:10:00,839
answer then what we would be seeking to

288
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:02,519
do is is to go to summary judgment you

289
00:10:00,839 --> 00:10:03,959
know within a reasonable period of time

290
00:10:02,519 --> 00:10:05,880
and because this isn't a case where

291
00:10:03,959 --> 00:10:08,320
we're going to be taking depositions or

292
00:10:05,880 --> 00:10:10,120
we're going to be looking at emails this

293
00:10:08,320 --> 00:10:11,880
is really about the facts that I don't

294
00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:13,800
think are going to be in dispute what is

295
00:10:11,880 --> 00:10:15,800
the federal government doing now versus

296
00:10:13,800 --> 00:10:17,880
15 years ago and what are these states

297
00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:20,000
doing now versus 15 years ago and how

298
00:10:17,880 --> 00:10:21,480
are they lawfully regulating these

299
00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:23,120
businesses and how are these businesses

300
00:10:21,480 --> 00:10:24,440
benefiting their communities that's not

301
00:10:23,120 --> 00:10:27,040
going to be controversial stuff it's

302
00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:29,079
going to be simple a demonstration of

303
00:10:27,040 --> 00:10:30,760
what's going on in this industry and the

304
00:10:29,079 --> 00:10:32,480
Eder government will have a legal basis

305
00:10:30,760 --> 00:10:34,240
to argue against us but if if they

306
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:36,079
answer and we we get to summary judgment

307
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:38,000
you know this case could be decided next

308
00:10:36,079 --> 00:10:39,720
year that would be the FastTrack if a

309
00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:41,120
motion to dismiss is granted then we

310
00:10:39,720 --> 00:10:42,880
could be appealing that and that

311
00:10:41,120 --> 00:10:44,560
decision could be the vehicle that gets

312
00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:46,560
through the appell at courts although I

313
00:10:44,560 --> 00:10:48,040
would rather obviously have a summary

314
00:10:46,560 --> 00:10:49,720
judgment record because I think it's a

315
00:10:48,040 --> 00:10:51,600
better demonstration of the evidence

316
00:10:49,720 --> 00:10:53,360
obviously and it's more for the courts

317
00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:55,279
to consider but you know assuming that

318
00:10:53,360 --> 00:10:57,079
we get pass a motion to dismiss I still

319
00:10:55,279 --> 00:10:59,399
think that summary judgment next year is

320
00:10:57,079 --> 00:11:01,480
possible with the appeal the following

321
00:10:59,399 --> 00:11:03,560
year because either side will appeal

322
00:11:01,480 --> 00:11:05,560
either a victory for or against the

323
00:11:03,560 --> 00:11:07,480
injunctive relief that we're seeking and

324
00:11:05,560 --> 00:11:09,480
and so if we get to the a year and a

325
00:11:07,480 --> 00:11:11,399
half from now we're preparing for

326
00:11:09,480 --> 00:11:12,959
argument in the first Department I mean

327
00:11:11,399 --> 00:11:14,600
the first uh circuit and I think we've

328
00:11:12,959 --> 00:11:17,560
done very very well you know that's a

329
00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:19,680
relatively streamlined time frame for a

330
00:11:17,560 --> 00:11:21,959
federal case in litigation but I compare

331
00:11:19,680 --> 00:11:23,560
it in in some ways to the um the gay

332
00:11:21,959 --> 00:11:25,480
marriage and the marriage equality cases

333
00:11:23,560 --> 00:11:27,160
that we brought after Proposition 8

334
00:11:25,480 --> 00:11:29,079
which at that point in time the record

335
00:11:27,160 --> 00:11:30,880
was already made by the initial caseing

336
00:11:29,079 --> 00:11:32,839
California which depended heavily on a

337
00:11:30,880 --> 00:11:34,560
state court record that had been tried

338
00:11:32,839 --> 00:11:36,560
several years earlier but the government

339
00:11:34,560 --> 00:11:38,360
when we litigated that case agreed with

340
00:11:36,560 --> 00:11:40,519
us that those cases should proceed

341
00:11:38,360 --> 00:11:42,079
quickly to summary judgment you know I

342
00:11:40,519 --> 00:11:44,160
wouldn't be surprised if the government

343
00:11:42,079 --> 00:11:46,279
was was able to agree with us on on that

344
00:11:44,160 --> 00:11:48,040
issue here and and present you know

345
00:11:46,279 --> 00:11:50,440
their view of the facts and their view

346
00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:54,200
of the law it could be a very easy case

347
00:11:50,440 --> 00:11:56,000
to get to an argument okay and any

348
00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:58,040
personal feelings about what the

349
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:59,320
District Court's going to do here on

350
00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:01,959
that motion practice whether it's a

351
00:11:59,320 --> 00:12:03,880
motion to dismiss or nsj well we're

352
00:12:01,959 --> 00:12:05,720
hopeful that the court will give us an

353
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:08,079
opportunity to present the evidence at

354
00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:11,160
summary judgement and looking at the

355
00:12:08,079 --> 00:12:13,279
evidence will feel empowered to say you

356
00:12:11,160 --> 00:12:15,320
know this is a different case than the r

357
00:12:13,279 --> 00:12:17,040
v Gonzalez case for these reasons the

358
00:12:15,320 --> 00:12:19,399
federal government's policy isn't the

359
00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:21,920
same and I think if the court can get to

360
00:12:19,399 --> 00:12:23,959
where I am with that issue then the

361
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:26,399
court can independently assess whether

362
00:12:23,959 --> 00:12:28,399
the policy is still being enforced in a

363
00:12:26,399 --> 00:12:31,279
legitimate and rational way because the

364
00:12:28,399 --> 00:12:33,360
impact of inate Commerce is quite strong

365
00:12:31,279 --> 00:12:35,240
you know and that Legacy of cases going

366
00:12:33,360 --> 00:12:37,360
back to the 1940s has always been

367
00:12:35,240 --> 00:12:39,279
something that legal Scholars like to

368
00:12:37,360 --> 00:12:40,600
debate the validity of because again you

369
00:12:39,279 --> 00:12:42,160
have to start with the principle that

370
00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:43,920
the federal government does not have the

371
00:12:42,160 --> 00:12:46,560
Constitutional authority to regulate

372
00:12:43,920 --> 00:12:48,760
interestate commerce and so why should

373
00:12:46,560 --> 00:12:50,720
that limited exception continue to be

374
00:12:48,760 --> 00:12:52,600
applied in this important and growing

375
00:12:50,720 --> 00:12:54,519
industry in America and if the court is

376
00:12:52,600 --> 00:12:56,639
able to consider that and the impact on

377
00:12:54,519 --> 00:12:58,160
its communities I think it could reach a

378
00:12:56,639 --> 00:12:59,560
different decision than the courts did

379
00:12:58,160 --> 00:13:01,920
in California

380
00:12:59,560 --> 00:13:03,720
fair enough fair enough now this is

381
00:13:01,920 --> 00:13:05,720
highly speculative but you've been there

382
00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:07,480
before do you think this has the chops

383
00:13:05,720 --> 00:13:10,399
to make it before The Supreme Court of

384
00:13:07,480 --> 00:13:12,680
the United States in a basically quasi

385
00:13:10,399 --> 00:13:14,440
Gonzalez versus ra 2.0 there would

386
00:13:12,680 --> 00:13:17,360
certainly be an argument for the court

387
00:13:14,440 --> 00:13:19,399
to hear this case if for example The

388
00:13:17,360 --> 00:13:21,120
District Court Andor the first

389
00:13:19,399 --> 00:13:23,040
Department sorry the first I keep saying

390
00:13:21,120 --> 00:13:25,160
that I'm a New York lawyer the first

391
00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:27,800
circuit takes our case and grants the

392
00:13:25,160 --> 00:13:29,720
injunction or upholds it then you know

393
00:13:27,800 --> 00:13:31,000
one could argue that there's a split

394
00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:34,399
between the Supreme Court's prior

395
00:13:31,000 --> 00:13:36,480
decision which is unusual right and the

396
00:13:34,399 --> 00:13:39,120
and the uh the circuit Court's decision

397
00:13:36,480 --> 00:13:41,839
but you know we think that this court

398
00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:44,040
which is ideologically run by a group of

399
00:13:41,839 --> 00:13:45,959
conservatives you know primarily but

400
00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:47,839
Justice Thomas has has been consistent

401
00:13:45,959 --> 00:13:50,240
on this issue and his criticism of that

402
00:13:47,839 --> 00:13:53,040
prior decision for 20 years and so we

403
00:13:50,240 --> 00:13:55,480
think we have his vote now is he able to

404
00:13:53,040 --> 00:13:57,240
get three others to vote to to hear the

405
00:13:55,480 --> 00:13:58,880
case I think he will be able to do that

406
00:13:57,240 --> 00:14:00,160
I think these kinds of issues are very

407
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:02,199
important but also they're very

408
00:14:00,160 --> 00:14:04,839
interesting to Justice Gorsuch and I

409
00:14:02,199 --> 00:14:06,920
imagine to some of the other Federalists

410
00:14:04,839 --> 00:14:10,680
on the bench as well and you know

411
00:14:06,920 --> 00:14:11,920
talking about this 1940 precedent that

412
00:14:10,680 --> 00:14:13,560
all the lawyers know because they went

413
00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:15,279
to law school and I'm talking about

414
00:14:13,560 --> 00:14:17,399
wickard versus filburn and then of

415
00:14:15,279 --> 00:14:18,839
course Gonzalez F and what we got out of

416
00:14:17,399 --> 00:14:21,000
the ninth circuit and ultimately the

417
00:14:18,839 --> 00:14:23,680
Supreme Court can you give me maybe the

418
00:14:21,000 --> 00:14:27,759
top two or three biggest distinctions

419
00:14:23,680 --> 00:14:29,360
between Gonzalez versus re and now so in

420
00:14:27,759 --> 00:14:30,839
Wicker is a case that lawyers are

421
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:32,240
familiar with it's very controversial

422
00:14:30,839 --> 00:14:34,399
and fun to debate when you're a young

423
00:14:32,240 --> 00:14:36,560
lawyer studying the Constitution that

424
00:14:34,399 --> 00:14:39,199
said that you know a farmer in the

425
00:14:36,560 --> 00:14:40,759
midwest wasn't allowed to use the wheat

426
00:14:39,199 --> 00:14:43,399
he grew on his property for his own

427
00:14:40,759 --> 00:14:45,639
personal use and consumption during a

428
00:14:43,399 --> 00:14:47,800
crisis that the government determined

429
00:14:45,639 --> 00:14:49,519
was necessary a wheat pricing crisis

430
00:14:47,800 --> 00:14:51,120
that caused the government to say we're

431
00:14:49,519 --> 00:14:53,240
going to limit every farmer in America

432
00:14:51,120 --> 00:14:54,920
to 20 bushels of wheat you know I'm sure

433
00:14:53,240 --> 00:14:56,959
that decision seemed very unfair to that

434
00:14:54,920 --> 00:14:59,079
farmer now as it does today to many

435
00:14:56,959 --> 00:15:00,120
people who look at the limited power of

436
00:14:59,079 --> 00:15:02,079
the federal government under our

437
00:15:00,120 --> 00:15:03,680
constitution what I've said consistently

438
00:15:02,079 --> 00:15:05,600
is we're not trying to overturn any

439
00:15:03,680 --> 00:15:08,360
precedent we're just trying to get the

440
00:15:05,600 --> 00:15:10,079
court to examine the current policy and

441
00:15:08,360 --> 00:15:11,440
I think although I'm not familiar with

442
00:15:10,079 --> 00:15:13,199
too many cases where the federal

443
00:15:11,440 --> 00:15:15,519
government's policy has changed so

444
00:15:13,199 --> 00:15:17,360
dramatically over time that a case has

445
00:15:15,519 --> 00:15:19,440
been you know reconsidered or considered

446
00:15:17,360 --> 00:15:21,639
in a different way you know one of the

447
00:15:19,440 --> 00:15:23,800
arguments that I think we have strong

448
00:15:21,639 --> 00:15:26,079
ability to present as a factual record

449
00:15:23,800 --> 00:15:28,279
they said all wheat is the same it's a

450
00:15:26,079 --> 00:15:31,240
fungible commodity whether you buy wheat

451
00:15:28,279 --> 00:15:32,880
in Oregon or Arizona or Wisconsin it's

452
00:15:31,240 --> 00:15:35,160
all the same and you know I think they

453
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:37,199
were right about that on the other hand

454
00:15:35,160 --> 00:15:38,920
they reached the same conclusion that

455
00:15:37,199 --> 00:15:41,319
all marijuana is the same and it's a

456
00:15:38,920 --> 00:15:43,560
fungible product when they ruled against

457
00:15:41,319 --> 00:15:46,319
the medical marijuana industry in

458
00:15:43,560 --> 00:15:48,079
California early 2000s I think the

459
00:15:46,319 --> 00:15:49,680
industry has changed a lot I mean all

460
00:15:48,079 --> 00:15:51,600
you have to do is go into one of these

461
00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:53,639
stores today and see all of the

462
00:15:51,600 --> 00:15:55,199
different kinds of medicinal products

463
00:15:53,639 --> 00:15:57,519
that that are there whether it's a

464
00:15:55,199 --> 00:16:00,639
retail store or a medical facility there

465
00:15:57,519 --> 00:16:03,920
are gummies for sleep in there are um

466
00:16:00,639 --> 00:16:06,240
vaporizer devices of All Sorts there are

467
00:16:03,920 --> 00:16:07,639
potato chips I mean there's lots of

468
00:16:06,240 --> 00:16:09,519
things I'm never going to try in these

469
00:16:07,639 --> 00:16:11,319
stores but there there are unique

470
00:16:09,519 --> 00:16:13,399
products in each state and they're very

471
00:16:11,319 --> 00:16:14,880
different the marijuana you buy in

472
00:16:13,399 --> 00:16:17,160
California it's very different than the

473
00:16:14,880 --> 00:16:18,680
marijuana you buy in Massachusetts and

474
00:16:17,160 --> 00:16:21,000
and that's a good thing it's like wine

475
00:16:18,680 --> 00:16:23,639
in a way it deres its strength its

476
00:16:21,000 --> 00:16:25,399
potency and its flavors and effects in

477
00:16:23,639 --> 00:16:27,120
part from the dirt where it's grown and

478
00:16:25,399 --> 00:16:29,680
so that's one way we can distinguish

479
00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:32,279
that those two prior cases but uh

480
00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:34,639
ultimately our focus is really on the

481
00:16:32,279 --> 00:16:36,360
use of the power okay was the Federal

482
00:16:34,639 --> 00:16:38,720
government's protection of pricing of

483
00:16:36,360 --> 00:16:39,839
wheat legitimate at the time you know I

484
00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:41,639
don't think we need to go back and

485
00:16:39,839 --> 00:16:43,720
debate that issue but at least at the

486
00:16:41,639 --> 00:16:45,800
time it was recognized it was important

487
00:16:43,720 --> 00:16:47,519
because they thought if some farmers are

488
00:16:45,800 --> 00:16:49,360
able to do what this farmer is doing

489
00:16:47,519 --> 00:16:50,680
they're not going to buy any more wheat

490
00:16:49,360 --> 00:16:53,319
and then the price is really going to

491
00:16:50,680 --> 00:16:55,120
continue to be depressed now we think

492
00:16:53,319 --> 00:16:57,880
that the federal government is no longer

493
00:16:55,120 --> 00:17:00,480
intent on eradicating the black market

494
00:16:57,880 --> 00:17:02,360
for marijuana that it doesn't have to

495
00:17:00,480 --> 00:17:05,559
have that purpose in Mind by having

496
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:07,919
these effects imposed upon lawfully

497
00:17:05,559 --> 00:17:09,559
operating Interstate businesses because

498
00:17:07,919 --> 00:17:12,520
we think that those businesses are

499
00:17:09,559 --> 00:17:14,559
actually reducing the amount of criminal

500
00:17:12,520 --> 00:17:17,319
activity in the industry because they

501
00:17:14,559 --> 00:17:19,799
are providing a safe regulated product

502
00:17:17,319 --> 00:17:21,600
for dads and moms to go buy after they

503
00:17:19,799 --> 00:17:23,839
buy a bottle of wine on a Friday

504
00:17:21,600 --> 00:17:26,039
afternoon it reduces the the need or the

505
00:17:23,839 --> 00:17:28,600
desire for anyone to do a black market

506
00:17:26,039 --> 00:17:30,600
transaction and so the more that these

507
00:17:28,600 --> 00:17:32,200
fact that they're in 38 States really

508
00:17:30,600 --> 00:17:33,880
shows that the majority of the country

509
00:17:32,200 --> 00:17:35,640
feels that these products are safe

510
00:17:33,880 --> 00:17:37,799
enjoys consuming these products and

511
00:17:35,640 --> 00:17:40,400
wants them to be lawfully regulated and

512
00:17:37,799 --> 00:17:42,039
available do you think that the feds

513
00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:43,720
would argue though that there are

514
00:17:42,039 --> 00:17:45,559
certain states where it's not tight

515
00:17:43,720 --> 00:17:47,520
enough there's too much Diversion the

516
00:17:45,559 --> 00:17:49,360
program's not strong enough maybe in

517
00:17:47,520 --> 00:17:51,200
line with one of the previous

518
00:17:49,360 --> 00:17:52,760
enforcement memos that came out from the

519
00:17:51,200 --> 00:17:54,440
Department of Justice because I know

520
00:17:52,760 --> 00:17:56,159
Massachusetts is a great jurisdiction

521
00:17:54,440 --> 00:17:57,679
they're tightly regulated they do their

522
00:17:56,159 --> 00:17:59,440
best to prevent diversion but there are

523
00:17:57,679 --> 00:18:01,360
other states in admittedly probably

524
00:17:59,440 --> 00:18:03,159
California that have diversion problems

525
00:18:01,360 --> 00:18:04,679
and I would throw Oregon in there too

526
00:18:03,159 --> 00:18:06,600
that's common knowledge do you think

527
00:18:04,679 --> 00:18:08,480
that's going to come out as a curveball

528
00:18:06,600 --> 00:18:10,640
well I think it will I mean I they will

529
00:18:08,480 --> 00:18:12,200
argue that there's still a problem there

530
00:18:10,640 --> 00:18:14,000
um you know in response to that I can

531
00:18:12,200 --> 00:18:16,760
say two things I mean if you read like

532
00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:19,080
in the last six weeks New York made a

533
00:18:16,760 --> 00:18:21,240
substantial effort to crack down on on

534
00:18:19,080 --> 00:18:23,320
these illegal shops that are highly

535
00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:25,480
criticized and whether or not that

536
00:18:23,320 --> 00:18:27,400
cannabis is coming from Oregon in

537
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:28,880
California I think is debatable you know

538
00:18:27,400 --> 00:18:31,080
I walked in one of these shops when I

539
00:18:28,880 --> 00:18:32,520
was in in New York and in September just

540
00:18:31,080 --> 00:18:34,000
to see and I I've had a couple people in

541
00:18:32,520 --> 00:18:35,600
the industry tell me they're making it

542
00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:36,880
look like it's coming from California

543
00:18:35,600 --> 00:18:38,520
because they want you to believe it's

544
00:18:36,880 --> 00:18:40,280
the same product but it's really just a

545
00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:42,600
fake I don't know whether that's true or

546
00:18:40,280 --> 00:18:44,720
not what I do know is you can tell what

547
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:46,559
the real products are and as a consumer

548
00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:48,640
if you want to help our case don't buy

549
00:18:46,559 --> 00:18:50,080
those illegal products let the state

550
00:18:48,640 --> 00:18:51,720
government shut them down they're not

551
00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:53,520
good for the lawful businesses they're

552
00:18:51,720 --> 00:18:55,480
not good for the industry they're not

553
00:18:53,520 --> 00:18:57,760
good for you but if you buy the the

554
00:18:55,480 --> 00:18:59,039
products that are regulated and stamped

555
00:18:57,760 --> 00:19:00,480
locally and you know where they're

556
00:18:59,039 --> 00:19:02,200
coming from you know that that Community

557
00:19:00,480 --> 00:19:03,799
is benefiting from your transaction

558
00:19:02,200 --> 00:19:05,080
there I think that if the federal

559
00:19:03,799 --> 00:19:07,200
government makes that argument we can

560
00:19:05,080 --> 00:19:09,799
say look these states have the power and

561
00:19:07,200 --> 00:19:11,559
they have the incentive to shut down all

562
00:19:09,799 --> 00:19:13,159
illegal activity in particular if it's

563
00:19:11,559 --> 00:19:14,840
going out of state and you know there's

564
00:19:13,159 --> 00:19:16,799
been a commitment by several States

565
00:19:14,840 --> 00:19:18,880
including California and Oregon to

566
00:19:16,799 --> 00:19:21,120
ultimately try to figure out the

567
00:19:18,880 --> 00:19:23,080
problems with illegal interstate

568
00:19:21,120 --> 00:19:24,600
commerce if and when they have the power

569
00:19:23,080 --> 00:19:26,679
to do that if the federal government

570
00:19:24,600 --> 00:19:28,559
decides to step back I think there are

571
00:19:26,679 --> 00:19:29,960
lots of solutions but but saying they

572
00:19:28,559 --> 00:19:31,440
need to continue to treat these

573
00:19:29,960 --> 00:19:33,320
businesses throughout the country as

574
00:19:31,440 --> 00:19:35,159
illegal businesses just because there's

575
00:19:33,320 --> 00:19:36,919
some leakage there are ways to deal with

576
00:19:35,159 --> 00:19:39,000
the leakage without causing these

577
00:19:36,919 --> 00:19:40,880
penalties on the lawful businesses I

578
00:19:39,000 --> 00:19:43,159
like it okay I have two more questions

579
00:19:40,880 --> 00:19:44,640
for you before I let you go number one

580
00:19:43,159 --> 00:19:47,159
what are the downsides if you don't

581
00:19:44,640 --> 00:19:48,880
Prevail is industry left status quo are

582
00:19:47,159 --> 00:19:50,840
they left worse off what do you think

583
00:19:48,880 --> 00:19:53,159
there's no downsides I mean if we get

584
00:19:50,840 --> 00:19:55,640
thrown out or if we never get back to

585
00:19:53,159 --> 00:19:57,200
the Supreme Court then we've tried and

586
00:19:55,640 --> 00:19:58,880
you know we have a group of people

587
00:19:57,200 --> 00:20:00,360
committed and support supporting this

588
00:19:58,880 --> 00:20:02,520
the level of support continues every

589
00:20:00,360 --> 00:20:04,440
week we encourage people to to advocate

590
00:20:02,520 --> 00:20:06,640
for us and to support the case if they

591
00:20:04,440 --> 00:20:08,360
want to you know we'll have tried the

592
00:20:06,640 --> 00:20:10,559
reason that we brought the case now is

593
00:20:08,360 --> 00:20:12,240
because in part because we're looking at

594
00:20:10,559 --> 00:20:14,000
the court differently than we were four

595
00:20:12,240 --> 00:20:15,720
or five years ago and in part because

596
00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:17,360
the facts while the facts have been

597
00:20:15,720 --> 00:20:19,360
there for a while I think they're very

598
00:20:17,360 --> 00:20:21,640
strong right now and we have a

599
00:20:19,360 --> 00:20:23,440
legislative record that is just it's

600
00:20:21,640 --> 00:20:25,039
almost unbearable to take because for

601
00:20:23,440 --> 00:20:27,200
seven years I keep getting told by

602
00:20:25,039 --> 00:20:29,679
people in the industry the the solution

603
00:20:27,200 --> 00:20:32,240
is right around the corner it's going to

604
00:20:29,679 --> 00:20:34,120
happen next year and we just see it we

605
00:20:32,240 --> 00:20:36,480
see all these attempts to do reasonable

606
00:20:34,120 --> 00:20:38,360
things to get bipartisan laws past that

607
00:20:36,480 --> 00:20:40,240
have an overwhelming amount of support

608
00:20:38,360 --> 00:20:41,799
that never make it to the cutting floor

609
00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:44,440
and now we have a speaker who's

610
00:20:41,799 --> 00:20:46,799
notoriously spoken against marijuana and

611
00:20:44,440 --> 00:20:49,240
so he's sort of got his thumb on the

612
00:20:46,799 --> 00:20:53,559
scales and um you know while these other

613
00:20:49,240 --> 00:20:55,520
efforts including um you know um re

614
00:20:53,559 --> 00:20:57,600
reclassifying the the scheduling of the

615
00:20:55,520 --> 00:20:58,720
drug would have a great impact we hope

616
00:20:57,600 --> 00:21:01,919
those things happen happen but they

617
00:20:58,720 --> 00:21:04,000
won't achieve the full satisfaction of

618
00:21:01,919 --> 00:21:07,679
what we can achieve with Federal with

619
00:21:04,000 --> 00:21:09,679
getting rid of federal criminalization

620
00:21:07,679 --> 00:21:11,400
entirely right and I just want to

621
00:21:09,679 --> 00:21:14,520
emphasize to listeners even if a

622
00:21:11,400 --> 00:21:16,559
reschedule to three occurs we still have

623
00:21:14,520 --> 00:21:18,320
a whole state-based adult use and

624
00:21:16,559 --> 00:21:20,760
medicinal Market that deserves

625
00:21:18,320 --> 00:21:22,840
protection and we probably can't rely on

626
00:21:20,760 --> 00:21:24,840
lawmakers to ensure that or it's going

627
00:21:22,840 --> 00:21:27,559
to get really weird otherwise but I

628
00:21:24,840 --> 00:21:30,000
digress do you want the FDA to regulate

629
00:21:27,559 --> 00:21:31,400
marijuana so that you can only do it

630
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:34,240
through a prescription that would be

631
00:21:31,400 --> 00:21:36,799
worse I with you Josh that is not the

632
00:21:34,240 --> 00:21:38,559
regulator of my choice Miss scenario but

633
00:21:36,799 --> 00:21:40,679
okay last question it's a bit of a silly

634
00:21:38,559 --> 00:21:43,799
one and it's a touchy Fey one but I I

635
00:21:40,679 --> 00:21:45,600
gotta hear it from you why take on this

636
00:21:43,799 --> 00:21:47,520
case especially in light of all the

637
00:21:45,600 --> 00:21:50,240
other civil rights matters your firm has

638
00:21:47,520 --> 00:21:52,279
worked on why take this one well we love

639
00:21:50,240 --> 00:21:53,679
these cases we love these these hard

640
00:21:52,279 --> 00:21:55,720
cases particularly with growing

641
00:21:53,679 --> 00:21:57,600
Industries like we did with DraftKings

642
00:21:55,720 --> 00:21:59,520
several years ago saving them from the

643
00:21:57,600 --> 00:22:00,880
office of the New York attorney general

644
00:21:59,520 --> 00:22:02,720
and the crosshairs of many other

645
00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:04,480
attorneys generals but you know with a

646
00:22:02,720 --> 00:22:05,720
new industry and I call it a new

647
00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:08,240
industry even though it's been around

648
00:22:05,720 --> 00:22:10,279
for 20 years it's new to where it is in

649
00:22:08,240 --> 00:22:12,480
many states and I think it's a really an

650
00:22:10,279 --> 00:22:13,799
important case because in America we

651
00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:15,840
don't have a lot of other than

652
00:22:13,799 --> 00:22:17,919
technology new industries that have been

653
00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:20,120
invented in the last 20 years and this

654
00:22:17,919 --> 00:22:22,200
is a growing industry that I think the

655
00:22:20,120 --> 00:22:24,360
rest of the world is also recognizing I

656
00:22:22,200 --> 00:22:26,679
mean all of North America has legal

657
00:22:24,360 --> 00:22:28,520
cannabis now so why should our federal

658
00:22:26,679 --> 00:22:30,799
government continue to impose these

659
00:22:28,520 --> 00:22:32,320
problems and impede the growth of this

660
00:22:30,799 --> 00:22:34,279
industry which is contributing to

661
00:22:32,320 --> 00:22:37,200
communities in ways that farming hasn't

662
00:22:34,279 --> 00:22:38,880
been sustained it's a way to rehabili

663
00:22:37,200 --> 00:22:40,559
some communities around the country that

664
00:22:38,880 --> 00:22:42,279
have suffered where industry has left

665
00:22:40,559 --> 00:22:44,240
for 100 years and not come back and

666
00:22:42,279 --> 00:22:46,480
hopefully the courts will recognize this

667
00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:47,559
I genuinely think Congress does I just

668
00:22:46,480 --> 00:22:49,159
think the problem is that they're

669
00:22:47,559 --> 00:22:51,480
Congress and so they can't get

670
00:22:49,159 --> 00:22:52,679
reasonable things done efficiently and

671
00:22:51,480 --> 00:22:54,320
if they could this would have been done

672
00:22:52,679 --> 00:22:56,080
a long time ago you know we think that

673
00:22:54,320 --> 00:22:57,440
this is the kind of there's just a need

674
00:22:56,080 --> 00:22:59,320
at this point I mean I've been looking

675
00:22:57,440 --> 00:23:01,159
at this case for about 5 years as the

676
00:22:59,320 --> 00:23:02,880
industry really started to grow after

677
00:23:01,159 --> 00:23:04,679
California and and and certainly

678
00:23:02,880 --> 00:23:06,440
Colorado was the leader but California

679
00:23:04,679 --> 00:23:08,279
really opened up a huge amount of

680
00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:09,799
industry and we've seen a lot of people

681
00:23:08,279 --> 00:23:11,159
follow and so we want to protect these

682
00:23:09,799 --> 00:23:13,400
industries we want to protect this

683
00:23:11,159 --> 00:23:14,960
entrepreneural American Spirit and we we

684
00:23:13,400 --> 00:23:16,320
see this as a really important case even

685
00:23:14,960 --> 00:23:18,080
though it's a commercial one you know

686
00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:19,840
it's not a pro bono case but it's it's

687
00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:22,039
an important industry and they are

688
00:23:19,840 --> 00:23:24,720
really suffering for what I would call

689
00:23:22,039 --> 00:23:27,000
unnecessary and discriminatory practices

690
00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:28,799
fair enough well Josh thank you so much

691
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:31,200
for your time I think we all better off

692
00:23:28,799 --> 00:23:33,200
from having heard it directly from you

693
00:23:31,200 --> 00:23:35,840
very exciting lawsuit I wish you the

694
00:23:33,200 --> 00:23:37,799
best of luck and we'll certainly yeah

695
00:23:35,840 --> 00:23:40,520
we'll certainly be watching thanks than

696
00:23:37,799 --> 00:23:40,520
very nice to meet

697
00:23:41,880 --> 00:23:47,000
you and that concludes today's episode

698
00:23:44,320 --> 00:23:50,650
of the Cannabis law Now podcast until

699
00:23:47,000 --> 00:23:54,600
next time staylor stay

700
00:23:50,650 --> 00:23:57,600
[Music]

701
00:23:54,600 --> 00:23:57,600
alive

Professional:

Hilary Bricken

Partner