The Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team will participate in TMA 2021:  From Chance to Change on November 16-17, 2021.  The conference is virtual.

As the tobacco and e-vapor industries have been challenged in many ways this year, TMA gathers stakeholders virtually to share insights and navigate the changes that lie ahead.  …

Bryan Haynes, a partner in the Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team, will present a tobacco and e-vapor regulatory update and participate in a panel discussion at the CSP EduNetworking Tobacco/OTP + CBD Forum in Miami, Florida on November 17 and 19, 2021.

Bryan will discuss the current state of affairs in …

More than a year and a half ago, in March 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its final rule on a graphic-warning requirement for cigarettes. The rule—initially slated to take effect June 18, 2021—would require 11 new textual, health warning statements accompanied by color, “photorealistic” images displayed on the top 50% of the front and rear panels of cigarette packs and top 20% of cigarette ads. The rule’s effective date, however, has been extended multiple times by court order and is currently set for October 11, 2022. So when might tobacco manufacturers need to start producing new cigarette packs and ads?

As of October 20, 2021, the final rule of the U.S. Postal Service (the “USPS”) regarding the treatment of electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”) in the mail is available for public inspection via the link here.  The final rule generally prohibits the mailing of ENDS, subject to certain exceptions, as of the date of its publication in the Federal Register, which we understand will be tomorrow, October 21, 2020.  We also expect that as of October 21st, USPS will publish accompanying implementation materials on its websites.  

Governor Gavin Newsome recently signed California Assembly Bill 45 (AB 45) into law, which, among other things, allows hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) to be included in any food, beverages, and dietary supplements sold in California. This is not only a break from California’s prior position prohibiting CBD from being included in such products even as the State began to tax and regulate its cannabis industry, but it is also in stark contrast with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) current position on the issue.

The Troutman Pepper Tobacco Team will participate in the Food and Drug Law Institute’s Tobacco and Nicotine Products Regulation and Policy Conference.  The event is virtual and will be held October 27–29, 2021.

Join a diverse group of stakeholders – public health advocates, researchers, manufacturers, lawyers, consumer interest groups, …

On October 5, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published in the Federal Register its Final Rule on the content and format of reports intended to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of a tobacco product (“SE Reports”). The rule originally was displayed in January in the Federal Register, but was quickly retracted by the Biden Administration and did not publish.

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).

On Wednesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a jury’s award of $10 million in punitive damages in a wrongful-death case against Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), rejecting the tobacco company’s argument that such relief was precluded by the 1998 master settlement agreement between the Massachusetts Attorney General, PM USA, and other attorneys general and tobacco manufacturers.[1]