Cannabis law is a relatively new and growing area of the law. Lisa Gora, Shareholder, Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, speaks with Richard Cheng, Member, Weaver Johnston Nelson, and Alexander Malyshev, Partner, Carter Ledyard & Milburn, about this emerging area of the law and its implications for the health care industry. They discuss the patchwork of different cannabis laws among the states, the overlay between federal and state laws when it comes to prescribing, cultivating, and selling cannabis, and obstacles that businesses face from a banking and investment perspective. Lisa is one of the Editors-in-Chief and Richard and Alexander are authors of AHLA’s new title, Health Care and the Business of Cannabis: Legal Questions and Answers.
Watch the full conversation here.
On November 11, 2021, AHLA will also offer a 90-minute live webinar on "Tax Issues Related to Medicinal Cannabis." For more information, please search for “cannabis” at educate.americanhealthlaw.org/catalog.
To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.
Cannabis law is a relatively new and growing area of the law. Lisa Gora, Shareholder, Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, speaks with Richard Cheng, Member, Weaver Johnston Nelson, and Alexander Malyshev, Partner, Carter Ledyard & Milburn, about this emerging area of the law and its implications for the health care industry. They discuss the patchwork of different cannabis laws among the states, the overlay between federal and state laws when it comes to prescribing, cultivating, and selling cannabis, and obstacles that businesses face from a banking and investment perspective. Lisa is one of the Editors-in-Chief and Richard and Alexander are authors of AHLA’s new title, Health Care and the Business of Cannabis: Legal Questions and Answers.
Watch the full conversation here.
On November 11, 2021, AHLA will also offer a 90-minute live webinar on "Tax Issues Related to Medicinal Cannabis." For more information, please search for “cannabis” at educate.americanhealthlaw.org/catalog.
To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.
This episode of AHLA. Speaking of health law is brought to you by HLA members and donors like you today. The authors of the new HLA book, healthcare and the business of cannabis, discuss state and federal laws, the obstacles businesses may face and more on November 11th, 2021. AHLA will also offer a 90 minute live webinar on tax issues related to medical cannabis. For more information, please search for cannabis@educateonamericanhealthlaw.org slash catalog.
Speaker 2:Welcome everyone. My name is Lisa Gora and I'm a shareholder with the law firm of Willens Goldman and Spitzer on located in Woodbridge, New Jersey. Uh, and I am a corporate health care and now kind of as attorney. Um, so I represent, uh, healthcare clients from medical practices to individual physicians, licensed facilities in New Jersey, uh, hospitals. And now that practice has now dovetailed into also the cannabis practice. So welcome everyone again to hos first podcast to discuss the cannabis industry and the somewhat recent phenomenon of cannabis. Only in the past few years have legal scholars began to think of cannabis law as an independent field of law worthy of study in its own, right? Previously when people thought of cannabis law, they would tend to think of criminal laws regulating the use possession and distribution of cannabis. And those laws certainly raise a number of important, interesting issues. However, there's actually much more to cannabis law than just those criminal issues. In fact, cannabis law is one of the more far reaching of legal topics today because it necessarily implicates a number of different areas of law. And that is why we're here today to discuss how cannabis law is the multi-disciplinary area, that implicates that only business law, not only healthcare law, uh, but it also implicates real estate law, intellectual property tax, law banking, investment and securities mergers and acquisitions and healthcare law. Again, and here with me today are two of my cannabis attorney colleagues who both specialize in cannabis as well as other areas of law. So if I can have both Richard Chang and Allen Alexander Mala Chev introduce themselves, um, their areas of practice and where you're located.
Speaker 3:Sure. I'm Lisa, I'll go first. My name is Richard Chang. I am in Dallas, Texas. Um, I got into the cannabis industry about, um, eight years ago in late 2013, historically like Julisa, uh, I've always been a healthcare regulatory and corporate attorney representing, uh, a myriad of different types of healthcare providers and private equity and private investors, um, in everything from, uh, skilled nursing facilities, home health hospice, uh, you know, MSOC, uh, retail medicine. And about, I would say again, eight years ago, uh, had a very fortuitous moment where the firm said, Hey, you're one of those weird healthcare guys. Maybe you can help us figure this out. Um, the client wants to know the legal liabilities for a physician prescribing versus recommending medicinal cannabis and keep in mind, this is 2013 and I'm also in Texas, right? And so I fell into it, uh, and obviously found a very intriguing and have, um, you know, as they say, the rest is history later on joined the Amwell 200 pharma, which at the time had one of the few, uh, national cannabis practices in the country. And then from there, uh, had a very good partner that said, Hey, listen, I'm so I'm so busy with this, you know, with, uh, licensing in my homestay, you're really going to have to take on everything else. So it compelled me and gave me an opportunity to really grow and cut my teeth on a variety of different things. Um, and then subsequently to the, I joined a big global firm and launched the hemp practice group fair. And, um, of course now I'm at an all healthcare and cannabis boutique and represent everything from physicians to labs, to, uh, cultivators all the way down to, uh, retail and everything in between along the supply chain. Uh, and lastly, I, uh, I teach cannabis law as an adjunct that UNG all school
Speaker 2:Great, very, very highly skilled qualified, uh, speakers we have today. So then I'll pass it over to Alex to introduce yourself.
Speaker 4:Hi, uh, my name is Alex[inaudible]. I'm a partner at the car ledgered in New York. Uh, I am a litigator and regulator and lawyer by trade, uh, as with everyone else, nobody started as a cannabis lawyer. Um, New York has traditionally been the place where, um, companies came to fundraise. Uh, while we have had a, um, medical cannabis law on the books for about seven or eight years, uh, it's actually has been very limited. Um, there were only about five, uh, vertically integrated medical cannabis providers initially that extended to 10. Um, that is not the law anymore. We had a very big amendment, uh, earlier this year in April, uh, yesterday we finally got our last, um, board member approved to our regulatory board. So, uh, we are going to launch and it's going to be, uh, very different from what we've had. So we're going into the, um, adopting the, uh, alcohol model for, for cannabis, which is going to be decentralized for adult use. Um, right now we're dealing with people who actually want to participate and apply. That has certainly not been a traditionally what we've done in New York. Again, we come from fundraising, um, a lot of Canadian companies that used to come to the United States, the roll-ups IP kind of work, uh, and, uh, also a lot of hand work. We're now transitioning to actual cannabis licenses and operations in New York, which will be very interested in.
Speaker 2:Great. Well, thank you for that introduction. And just for the sake of the audience, you know, I like to highlight that, you know, Richard, again, it's from Texas here. We have Alex who's from New York, but practices in the New York and New Jersey space. I am from New Jersey. I focus on the cannabis and healthcare practices in New Jersey. And then, uh, Richard is from Texas, but also practices in Oklahoma. So what's, the importance is with that, is that we now understand that there is this cannabis industry, but yet this patchwork of different laws and different processes within each state. So as attorneys, we all understand that we have the, the federal regime that we have sometimes to, um, emphasize for our clients, especially in the healthcare space when you're dealing with hospitals and other licensed facilities who are receiving Medicare and Medicaid. Um, so first and foremost, you, you know, you look at the federal, uh, overlay, the federal laws, then you look at the state laws, each of us are practicing in different states. And so you have to be in tune with the laws of that state. Um, but then also with regards to maybe local laws that each state has. So, um, with that in mind, um, as you heard Richard who practices in Texas and then does work in Oklahoma, um, I have a few questions that I would like to ask them, but before we get into that, I just want to highlight that presently given the Patrick of different laws in the United States, 30, the 36 states have approved medicinal cannabis programs and 19 states have approved recreational programs. So with that in mind, Richard, what is the current status of the legal cannabis market in Texas with regards to medical? Does it have medical, does it also have recreational and you could also shed some light on Oklahoma?
Speaker 3:Sure. Um, not a problem. Lisa in Texas, um, the recreational is, uh, an it does not exist. It is, it has not been talked about, um, very much. Um, I think Texas is going to be one of the last states that really approached the recreational play in the cannabis industry. Um, but too many people surprise, um, in, in Texas, uh, Senate bill 3 39 passed on in June 1st, 2015. So in, in reality, Texas has had a medical marijuana programs for six years now. I started off, it, started off with one qualifying condition and that being intractable epilepsy, uh, it didn't really grow in 2017, 2019. Uh, and of course in Texas, we, uh, the Congress meets every other year on odd years in 2019, they expanded it to seven different qualifying conditions. One, which has, um, it's, I believe it's like neurological degenerative diseases, which has like 30 different categories. That sounds like a WAPA. It's really not, it's still very limited. And the amount of THC that's, um, that's available in, um, in the products is, is at the time it was, it's always been 0.5% and just most recently erased 1%, uh, in the 2021 session. It, it actually, uh, we added a, um, a condition called PTSD and course PTSD is pretty broad and how you define it. And what we're seeing is that, um, typically we're, we were historically, we've looked at, uh, between five to$700, 700, um, enrollees into the program. Uh, and for the longest time, it hovered around 2000, 3000 patients, um, this month alone because of PTSD that, uh, was activated, um, September 1st, uh, it's estimated to be about 1200 and there's, it's, it's, it's predicted to be about a 30% growth rate between now and may. Um, but that's really the, the, the legal status in Texas. Um, the department of public safety oversees it, uh, there's only three licensees in the state of Texas at this moment. Um, it's all with this. Yeah, it's all medicinal. And, uh, it's vertically integrated, which allows the licensees to, uh, to cultivate, to process and to, uh, to, to, to retail. And typically in Texas, um, really two of the three licensees are active. The one of, one of the three is not even active. They'll set up, drop off sites, and sometimes it can be at nonprofit organizations or many times their physician offices. Um, so the physicians, they themselves do not actually dispense. They, uh, what they do is they see the patient. If, if the patient can qualify for the sexist, compassionate use program, it's, what's called or teacup, they go into the system, they registered them into a system what's called the current system. And, um, they become a patient. And of course, whenever they get, they pick up, uh, the, the tincture or the, or, or the lozenge or whatever product they're picking up based off of the prescription that the physicians actually provide. And I do want to emphasize the word prescription, even though there is a nuance. And the reason I say that is because under the Texas occupations to go west 69, it does actually use the word prescription over and over again. So that's the landscape of the Texas medical marijuana program. A lot of the cannabis, um, activity here is centered around hemp. And of course the, uh, the wellness, the wellness products, Delta eight is obviously, um, you know, a topic that's talked about here and, um, people are getting in on that. So, uh, I would say that, um, it's anticipated that the medical marijuana program will increase, but there's also a lot of political. Um, we'll just say some political turmoil in the sense that obviously the three licensees have been granted, these three licenses, which are, which are very expensive and they've invested a lot of money. So there is some pushback with the current licensees say, Hey, DPS, governor Abbott do not issue any more licenses. We got to get our money back and make our money back before you, before you issue any more additional licenses. And of course, other states are interested in, um, in Texas because it's a, it's a big state, has a lot of people and there's potential there.
Speaker 2:Very interesting. Well, um, I think it's worthy to note that then Texas, at least compared to the states that we'll be talking about today is, is certainly more limited than at least New York and Jersey and New Jersey still are in their infancy stages as well. So to, to juxtapose that, which Richard just provided us with the landscape of Texas, let's hear about New York. So Alex, go ahead.
Speaker 4:Sure. Thanks, Lisa. And it's, it's very interesting to hear what Richard said about the three existing licensees, trying to pull up the ladder behind him. Cause that's actually what happened with our initial five licensees about, uh, at this 0.3 or four years ago, uh, when they fought tooth and nail to make sure the other five licenses were not issued, they ultimately lost, uh, they actually filed the losses trying to stop the regulator from issuing the extra licenses. And the argument was very much the same as we're not making any money. Um, you know, why are you going to issue more? Uh, I think, uh, as of the beginning of this year, we had about 200,000 registered patients in the system, a little north of that, which, uh, while certainly a lot, probably more than what's in Texas. Um, it's a very small percentage of, uh, our population. Um, my unofficial survey says there are a lot more than 200,000 pot smokers in the state of New York. Um, so right. Uh, and, uh, that actually had, you know, um, they phased out, um, a lot of the, um, uh, restrictions and, um, you know, criminal possession, um, thresholds, uh, in, in early, around of trying to amend the statute. But in April, uh, we finally had, uh, an amendment that actually, uh, is phasing out. Uh, the current program is transitioning into an all new board. So, um, we had a comprehensive overhaul bill, um, that now allows us to have in parallel a, uh, adult use, which is, um, going to be a big market and a medical, um, the medical providers have actually been allowed to keep their integrated, uh, licenses, um, much like Texas. Those are very expensive. Um, and they would be paying a lot to transition them. There'll be allowed to open up a few co-located, uh, adult use. Uh dispensary's um, but the plan for New York, uh, at least is to have a lot of decentralized licenses, uh, especially at the retail level. Um, and that is also part of new York's push for, uh, social equity. Uh, so they are trying to reverse some of the, um, consequences of the war on drugs. Uh, there's a preference for, uh, people who have been impacted by the war on drugs, on actually, uh, getting some of those retail licenses. Uh, it remains to be seen how it's implemented. Um, a lot of my work centers are sort of on the, uh, fundraising portion and, uh, as you probably know, banking remains a big issue. So while the states are doing their best to maybe minimize, uh, the application cost for some people, uh, making it easier to get those, uh, either in, in New York, they're called social equity licenses in New Jersey. They went with a, um, you know, provisional licenses and, uh, you know, something that allows people to get their foot in the door. Uh, but there's a lot of problems with, uh, you know, the actual operation because, um, as, as you sort of indicated there a lot of tentacles here and, um, I tend to think of cannabis as an industry, as opposed to a practice area. And there's a lot of issues and a lot of, uh, legal issues. Um, one of the big ones is the tax. You know, you can't, uh, whether adult use or medical, uh, you cannot, uh, take a lot of ordinary business deductions, uh, because of, uh, the IRS rules, uh, that have to do with the fact that cannabis remains federally illegal. Uh, in fact, a lot of states replicate that at the state level as well. Um, and that's something that, uh, people who actually want to participate in industry how to understand. So it's an ex it's still expensive. Uh, we're still trying to think through how to, uh, allow people who are not super well capitalized to actually get their foot into the door. Um, as you might know, um, you know, investment usually doesn't really come until you have a license and it's an expensive process to get to that. Um, there's also some limits on, um, the ownership structures that social equity applicants can engage in and, you know, how much control they can see. So it remains to be seen how they actually work that out to actually on the one hand, make it profitable enough for them to stay in business, because there's actually a limit on the number of, um, you know, licenses. And you can, uh, a lot of times to cross ownership, uh, across the, uh, three tiers. Um, so, you know, work in progress. Uh, we, as I said, we just got our, um, last person appointed to the board. That means that the rule writing process is going to start this year, hopefully, um, which means maybe we'll get some licenses next year. Uh, but, um, the ATCs currently, which is, uh, uh, our alternative care care centers. Uh, they're called the New Jersey, right. And New Jersey and in New York, they're just called medical providers. Um, you know, they have a window now to actually get a jump on, uh, they'll probably be able to start dispensing, uh, recreational before anyone else, because, you know, the license is only the first step, right. Uh, and then you have to,
Speaker 2:That's very similar to, to New Jersey. Um, and, and I think out of the states that have already been mentioned, I'm at least happy to know I'm from New Jersey and we're at least the most progressive state out of the states being mentioned, not anywhere near to California in Colorado. Um, but we're certainly now past a little further than New York, where we have a medicinal market, uh, medicinal program where we have about 15 locations for our alternative treatment centers. Um, and then we do have adult use, um, and we've at least, um, sat everybody on our cannabis regulatory commission, the board that regulates adult use, um, and as well have, uh, issued our rules and regulations. Uh, so we hopefully will be seeing adult use sales, you know, some time in the first, uh, of 2022. Um, so certainly within the latter portion of that year, I know we'll be the medical alternative treatment centers that will be able to do that. Um, but just tying back a few things that everyone's already mentioned, I think it's very important for at least terms of this podcast to outline, you know, I liked the word tentacles. I liked, you know, that each person has, uh, uh, outlined that there's obstacles and, and certain implications that anyone in getting involved in this space, whether it's non-healthcare related, whether it is someone such as a physician or a hospital or other licensed facility that wants to get involved in this space, there are those, those various tentacles you have to keep in mind. And one of the things that, that Alex brought up what's tax issues, and that all goes to the federal regime, the federal law. So what I'd like to talk about is despite the legal frameworks created in each state, as we've heard about now regarding the regulation of cannabis activities, cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. So I E it's illegal to possess manufacturer distribute cannabis cause in the eyes of the federal government and pursuant to the federal controlled substances act cannabis is a schedule one drug and therefore there's implications for anyone that is looking to get involved in this space from, you know, the federal overlay of, of the federal laws. So within, with that in mind, um, Richard, even as states have legalized the use sale cultivation or, uh, of medicinal cannabis, does that mean a physician can dispense cannabis for medical use? And this is something that you, you touched on earlier.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Lisa, I mean, I think to your point, I think, um, as a whole, you have to at, um, yeah, you have to consider the fact that it is a schedule, one drug and most physicians, um, not all the, they, they are under various payer contracts. Um, many physicians are, have a DEA registration card. Um, you know, typically physicians, uh, they don't really dispense per se. Uh, that's been my experience. Um, and you, of course you have to look at the word Spence and how it's defined under state law. It could be very different from state to state. Um, I will, you know, if I, if I were to represent the mission, a couple of things I would look at is I would look to see if the state medical board takes any position on what they can and can't do. Um, I would consider the fact that, uh, if the physician is taking, um, payer sources from a federal healthcare program, that is a consideration, um, now granted on the federal level, CMS has never expressly, uh, come out with a very, with, with any particular, um, guidance or any P any particular, uh, position on it. Um, however, if you, you know, if you, if you look at the fine print with every Medicaid contract, with any Medicare certification, you do agree that you are going to comply in here to not violate federal law and by dispensing and, uh, and providing, you know, uh, a schedule, one substance that does, that does put you at risk, in my opinion. Um, now granted, there hasn't been any enforcement actions that I know of on physicians. That's done that, but I think it's, you really do have to look at a couple of things before you just jump into say, Hey, can you, uh, you know, a physician can, or can't dispense, those are all considerations. I think similarly to healthcare law, it's, it's never a black and white answer. Can you working? It's different. It's a very variations of shades of gray and there's higher risks, there's lower risk. Um, and there's also some federal, uh, considerations too, like, um, like the, the Roy Walker farm and know which I think now it's called, uh, um, the blue or the Blumenauer McClintock amendment now, which that, uh, federal source of protection does apply to, um, medical marijuana programs on a state level say, and it's been supported in the Macintosh case in 2016 and ninth circuit that says that if there's a strict compliance with state medical marijuana, uh, programs that, um, the department of justice is prohibited from allocating funds for the purposes of prosecution. So that's something to consider. Um, you know, there's also some other good case law. There's a Walter's case. Ashley's talks about physicians who recommend medical marijuana as opposed to prescribing, um, medical marijuana. That's that in itself is a source or protection that prohibits the DEA from withdrawing, the DEA registration, uh, hence the reason why the recommendation versus the prescription is a sensitive topic with physicians. So that's my position on it.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And I agree with you. I mean, I have those same, um, concerns again, I, I, I, it goes back to, and I want to emphasize what you said is that it's just a risk tolerance game at this point is that there's considerations that as attorneys, we need to provide to our clients that are in the healthcare space, um, and depending upon their risk tolerance, you provide them the information with regards to these guidances, you know, protections that may be available under federal law. However, there's been no enforcement activity, um, taken by any of the federal agencies right now against healthcare entities. Um, but we never know if it, if it will borrow or, or in a few years. So, so that's something that again, the client has to consider. Um, so then even with that in mind, turning from the healthcare perspective to a non-healthcare perspective, um, with regards to the federal and state overlay, uh, when it comes to operating illegal pannus related business in a state where it is legal to sell cultivate transport, recreational cannabis, Alex, what are some of the obstacles that these businesses face from a banking investment perspective and why?
Speaker 4:Sure. Uh, and, uh, the conversation I always have with any of my clients who are seeking to invest in this space is always a scared, straight, uh, portion of the discussion upfront, where I tell them all the horrible things that the federal government can theoretically do to you. And then we discussed sort of exactly what you said, which was their risk tolerance. Um, banking is, is very much intertwined with federal law as are other sort of, you know, areas like, uh, taxation and immigration and sort of everything where you have a three-letter acronym, uh, agency being in charge, you're dealing with the federal government. And, um, for investors, I sort of have developed some checklists that I go through and, uh, you know, everything from, you know, what is your immigration status, right? Are you on natural born us citizen? Are you a, uh, you know, a green card holder or are, you know, are you a foreign investor because, uh, anything to do with immigration, you're dealing with, uh, customs and, uh, you know, immigration and Dave been pretty clear that, you know, as long as it remains federally illegal, uh, those are grounds to deny, you know, either in adjusting the status or maybe even facing a lifetime ban. So, uh, you know, risk tolerances have to implicate that. And, um, you know, that, that really depends on sort of your source of income. And, uh, you know, I can never advise them not to be honest with, with the government, like why you coming? You know, why are you even coming to an investment? You've, I've had lawyer friends being stopped at the border. They were ultimately allowed to enter, but you know, what kind of conference are you going to? Is this like a medical cannabis or recreational cannabis conference? Um, taking a step back banking is also very much regulated. So you talked about the I for, for simplicity, I'll call it a Robach her amendment. And what it does for, for, uh, medical, uh, recreational has traditionally had very much less of a, uh, protection. Um, there's no congressional writer precluding you from being prosecuted. Uh, all the protection had to do with was with the Cole memorandum. So that's a, that's a sort of a term people in the industry know that was guidance by the department of justice to it's, uh, USA's about how to use their prosecutorial discretion. It was never binding, but it outlined sort of a list of, um, issues they should consider about as to whether to prosecute somebody. And that had to do with transportation across state lines, how strictly they're complying with either the medical or the recreational laws of the states and how robust those laws are, you know, is any money getting diverted to cartels, uh, you know, are you selling it to children? Um, are you growing cannabis on, on federal lands? Uh, so once you went through that checklist, uh, they would sort of decide, you know, whether or not to prosecute you, um, that was issued during the Obama administration, uh, shortly thereafter, it was actually incorporated by reference into the guidance that, uh, FinCEN, which is the department of the Treasury's anti money laundering arm uses, uh, DOD remains on the books today. The Cole memo itself actually has got withdrawn by, uh, attorney general sessions when he was an attorney general for about six months. And, uh, he was not a proponent of cannabis and he would drew that guidance and said, it goes back to the discretion of the USA's. Nobody seems to have noticed, uh, nobody seems to have cared. Um, it doesn't appear to anyone changed the way you're doing it. Uh, you know, I think the approach is as, as sort of was explained that by the New Jersey, uh, Supreme court, not too long ago in, in, in, in their discussion of whether you're allowed to, um, reimburse for insurance is a defacto. It seems like the federal government is not enforcing. Like they they've realized that the horse has left the barn. And, um, you're sort of, um, have to deal with the facts on the ground. That being said, there are no protections for recreational. So you're really are dealing with risk tolerance and, uh, debt permeates everything from banking, where you have, uh, monitoring fees that increase the closer you get to the plant. So banks have come up with sort of tiers. You have plan touching where it's, it's sort of very limited, uh, very regulated and very expensive. Then you have sort of the second tier. I like to think of like the picks and shovels, the people who provide the lamps, the landlords, you know, not people actually not licensees, but people who are very close to it. And then you sort of have tier three, which is where all of us sit, which are, you know, the accountants, the lawyers, the, um, people who, uh, you know, provide services. Um, and, uh, it's important, uh, sort of for the banks to know who they're dealing with, uh, banks hate finding out they're banking, somebody in cannabis, uh, without, uh, agreeing to do so up front. Uh, so those are issues that, that sort of ha always have to have to be dealt with. Um, those are also the same tiers that investors look at and, um, you know, look, you're, you're able to invest in, uh, Canadian, publicly traded companies that are listed on the us stock exchange. So while, you know, if we were to put on our law school hats and be in a law school exam and, you know, are we, you know, are those investors, uh, violating us law? Well, you know, NASDAQ seems to have said, no, but, you know, it's a theoretical, you know, supporting, uh, um, cannabis business and then you get into all those issues or, you know, it doesn't apply across, you know, um, outside of the United States. Um, then you sort of get to, uh, you're investing in a business that is cannabis adjacent. Then, uh, you know, that issue came up with sort of PPP loans, uh, which excluded, uh, businesses. Um, all of those issues are sort of considerations of, you know, are you theoretically putting something on the board that you might have to, um, deal with later on? Um, and the closer you get to the plant, the more danger, uh, sort of increases. I will say that while there have been no prosecutions, it would not be accurate to say there, the government is sitting on its hands, the weed maps subpoena out in California was issued. It was very broad. It actually went to both, you know, licensed and unlicensed. Um, dispensary's, uh, that had a lot to do with, uh, basically weed maps, thumbing their nose at the regulator and saying we don't care, uh, when they said don't list on licensed dispensary's, uh, that, uh, you know, you never know, uh, what the federal government does with all the information they collect, but they are collecting information. So there they are keeping an eye out, uh, and, uh, you know, coloring within the lines is still the best advice. I think as lawyers, the most we can do. And, uh, you know, ethically is, is to advise an investor or a doctor or anyone else about look, it's very easy for me to tell you what a federal law is. It's, it's illegal. And I can't really give you much more advice on that, but I can help you comply with state laws and regulations. And that's sort of where we sit and that's the discussion we have with investors or doctors or operators.
Speaker 2:Well, thank you very much. I mean, I think that this has all been really helpful. Um, we are at the end of the time for this podcast. So as just a last note, um, I just wanted to, again, show and have the audience understand why it's so important that anyone that's involved in any type of law may certainly fall into this cannabis industry. At some point, you know, some of the key words that we've heard between both Richard and Alex are, um, that it's, you know, not only physicians and hospitals and licensed care, um, licensed long-term care facilities, ambulatory surgery facilities, um, we have landlords that are holding onto real estate. We have bankers, we have investors, we have other types of ancillary services that are being created in this industry, which is the cannabis industry. And so it's at this point that we think it's imperative that any type of attorney at least understand the fundamental and practical considerations, both legal operational, um, for advising any client that you believe is going to get involved in this space, whether it's from holding a license within your state, with the medicinal cannabis program, the recreational cannabis program, um, whether it's any other type of healthcare entity that you represent. Um, we hope that at least the considerations we've discussed today will provide you with some, uh, practical guidance that you can provide to your clients. Um, and so with that, we also want to, um, provide you with a little information about a publication that HLA just published last summer, it's called the healthcare and the business of cannabis, legal questions and answers because simply, uh, right now it's, it's a moving target, this, this cannabis, uh, law, this cannabis industry, um, as we've heard from both Richard and Alex, there's a lot of, you know, these are the concerns, this is a federal law, but you know, what can we do in order to play in this game? Um, but while, while also complying with the state and local laws, and, um, if you have anyone that's interested in getting involved, certainly I would suggest and recommend, um, looking out for that book, that publication from AHLA. Um, I was the, the editor in chief with a colleague of mine, uh, Jenny Nelson, Carney, uh, and Alex and Richard were both authors within that book. Um, so again, we're happy to have all been here, Richard and Alex, thank you so much for joining me. Have a great day.
Speaker 1:Thank you for listening. If you enjoy this episode, be sure to subscribe to AHLA, speaking of health law, wherever you get your podcasts to learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health community, visit American health law.org.