Photo of Christina Sava

It is widely known that trafficking in controlled substances is a crime under federal law. Traffickers and would-be traffickers be warned, however, that if you do choose to make income from trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances (including cannabis, cocaine, or psychedelic mushrooms), that income is fully taxable by the U.S. government. And, if you have employees helping you produce and sell federal Schedule I or II controlled substances (as many state-legal cannabis businesses do), you owe federal employment taxes as well.

The term tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is most often associated with the delta-9 THC cannabinoid, which is one of over 100 cannabinoids found in both high-THC marijuana and low-THC hemp. Delta-9 THC is also the cannabinoid most often responsible for getting cannabis users “high” and is the cannabinoid that has been explicitly prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

We previously wrote about a hemp industry case against the Texas Department of State Health Services, challenging the state legislature’s smokable hemp ban and the Department’s implementing regulations. Plaintiffs, Texas hemp producers and retailers, argued that H.B. 1325, which banned the in-state manufacture of smokable hemp, but not the possession, consumption, or importation of smokable hemp from other states, was unconstitutional because it was not rationally related to any legitimate government interest (smokable hemp could still be sold and consumed in the state, just not produced by Texas hemp businesses).

California’s cigarette tax and escrow requirements apply to inter-tribal sales of cigarettes, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises v. Bonta. Big Sandy Rancheria Enterprises (“BSRE”), a federally-chartered corporation wholly-owned by the Big Sandy Rancheria Band of Western Mono Indians, brought the case to challenge California’s application of its tobacco directory, licensing, and tax laws to BSRE’s sales of native-manufactured cigarettes to other Indian tribes.

We previously blogged about two cases challenging the constitutionality of FDA’s “Deeming Rule,” the authority by which FDA extended its regulation of tobacco products to electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”).

Both of these cases, Big Time Vapes, Inc. v. FDA and Moose Jooce v. FDA recently hit a dead end when the Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs’ petitions for review.

Given the massive wave of medical and adult use marijuana laws being passed across the country, the average person may think there is no longer any debate as to whether marijuana has legitimate medical applications. On June 10, 2021, however the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard argument on exactly that question. The case has potential to set important precedent not just for marijuana scheduling, but also other Schedule I substances being studied for their therapeutic potential.