Federal authorities would no longer be able to punish banks that work with businesses that grow, process and sell hemp products under an amendment up for consideration in the U.S. Senate this week.
The measure, submitted on Tuesday by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), seeks to include the protections for hemp banking in the large-scale Farm Bill, which is currently on the Senate floor. The legislation, as currently drafted, already includes provisions that would legalize the cultivation of the non-psychoactive marijuana cousin.
Paul’s fellow home-state senator, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has been the leading force for hemp legalization in Congress this year.
“American consumers are buying hemp but thanks to heavy-handed regulation, the only option at scale is importing hemp from foreign producers,” he said in a Senate floor speech on Wednesday. “Enough is enough.”
It is unclear if Paul’s amendment will receive a floor vote.
See the full text of the new hemp banking amendment below:
______ SA 3198. Mr. PAUL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2, to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of subtitle F of title XI, add the following: SEC. 11618. SECURE AND FAIR BANKING ENFORCEMENT. (a) Safe Harbor for Depository Institutions.--A Federal banking regulator may not-- (1) terminate or limit the deposit insurance or share insurance of a depository institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.) or the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) solely because the depository institution provides or has provided financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business; (2) prohibit, penalize, or otherwise discourage a depository institution from providing financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business or to a State or Indian tribe that exercises jurisdiction over hemp-related legitimate businesses; (3) recommend, incentivize, or encourage a depository institution not to offer financial services to the owner, operator, or an individual that is an account holder of a hemp-related legitimate business, or downgrade or cancel financial services offered to an account holder of a hemp- related legitimate business solely because-- (A) the account holder later becomes a hemp-related legitimate business; or (B) the depository institution was not aware that the account holder is the owner or operator of a hemp-related legitimate business; and (4) take any adverse or corrective supervisory action on a loan to an owner or operator of-- (A) a hemp-related legitimate business solely because the business owner or operator is a hemp-related business without express statutory authority, as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act; or (B) real estate or equipment that is leased or sold to a hemp-related legitimate business solely because the owner or operator of the real estate or equipment leased or sold the equipment or real estate to a hemp-related legitimate business. (b) Protections Under Federal Law.-- (1) In general.--In a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian country that allows the cultivation, production, manufacturing, transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, sale, or purchase of hemp pursuant to a law (including regulations) of the State, political subdivision of the State, or the Indian tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country, as applicable, a depository institution and the officers, director, and employees of the depository institution that provides financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business may not be held liable pursuant to any Federal law (including regulations)-- (A) solely for providing the financial services pursuant to the law (including regulations) of the State, political subdivision of the State, or Indian tribe; or (B) for further investing any income derived from the financial services. (2) Forfeiture.--A depository institution that has a legal interest in the collateral for a loan made to an owner or operator of a hemp-related legitimate business, or to an owner or operator of real estate or equipment that is leased or sold to a hemp-related legitimate business, shall not be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative forfeiture of that legal interest pursuant to any Federal law for providing the loan or other financial services solely because the collateral is owned by a hemp-related business. (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall require a depository institution to provide financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business. (d) Requirements for Filing Suspicious Activity Reports.-- Section 5318(g) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(5) Requirements for hemp-related businesses.-- ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph-- ``(i) the term `financial service' means a financial product or service, as defined in section 1002 of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5481); ``(ii) the term `hemp' has the meaning given the term in section 10111 of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018; ``(iii) the term `hemp-related legitimate business' has the meaning given the term in section 11618(e) of the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018; ``(iv) the term `Indian country' has the meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18; and ``(v) the term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). ``(B) Reporting of suspicious transactions.--A financial institution or any director, officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution that reports a suspicious activity related to a transaction by a hemp-related legitimate business shall comply with appropriate guidance issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The Secretary shall ensure that the guidance is consistent with the purpose and intent of this paragraph and does not inhibit the provision of financial services to a hemp-related legitimate business in a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian country that has allowed the cultivation, production, manufacturing, transportation, display, dispensing, distribution, sale, or purchase of hemp, or any other conduct relating to hemp, pursuant to law or regulation of the State, the political subdivision of the State, or Indian tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country.''. (e) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Company.--The term ``company'' means a partnership, corporation, association, (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, State, or any other entity. (2) Depository institution.--The term ``depository institution'' means-- (A) a depository institution as defined in section 3(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)); (B) a Federal credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752); or (C) a State credit union as defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1752). (3) Federal banking regulator.--The term ``Federal banking regulator'' means each of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration, or any Federal agency or department that regulates banking or financial services, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. (4) Financial service.--The term ``financial service'' means a financial product or service, as defined in section 1002 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5481). (5) Hemp.--The term ``hemp'' has the meaning given the term in section 10111. (6) Hemp product.--The term ``hemp product'' means any article which contains hemp, including an article which is a concentrate, an edible, a tincture, a hemp-infused product, or a topical. (7) Hemp-related legitimate business.--The term ``hemp- related legitimate business'' means a manufacturer, producer, or any person or company that-- (A) engages in any activity described in subparagraph (B) pursuant to a law established by a State or a political subdivision of a State; and (B)(i) participates in any business or organized activity that involves handling hemp or hemp products, including cultivating, producing, manufacturing, selling, transporting, displaying, dispensing, distributing, or purchasing hemp or hemp products; or (ii) provides-- (I) any financial service, including retirement plans or exchange traded funds, relating to hemp; or (II) any business services, including the sale or lease of real or any other property, legal or other licensed services, or any other ancillary service, relating to hemp. (8) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code. (9) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a). (10) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means a person or company who manufactures, compounds, converts, processes, prepares, or packages hemp or hemp products. (11) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means a person or company who plants, cultivates, harvests, or in any way facilitates the natural growth of hemp. (12) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States. ______
Congressional Committee Asks JUUL For Documents On Marijuana Partnerships
Is the e-cigarette company JUUL planning on expanding its stake in the marijuana industry?
That’s one question the chair of a congressional subcommittee asked the company in a letter concerning JUUL’s role in the “youth e-cigarette epidemic” earlier this month.
Lawmakers have frequently criticized JUUL for making products—specifically flavored e-cigarette cartridges—that allegedly appeal to young people at a time when rates of cigarette use are steadily declining. But while JUUL was developed by the cannabis vaporizer company PAX, it hasn’t announced plans to further partner with marijuana companies.
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, apparently sees the possibility on the horizon, though.
In a letter sent to JUUL on June 7, the congressman said his panel was investigating youth e-cigarette usage and, specifically, how the company’s marketing tactics might be exacerbating the issue. He requested documents on everything from clinical trials on how JUUL devices divert people away from traditional cigarettes to communications on the company’s rationale for the nicotine concentration of JUUL pods.
Tucked within the extensive request is a question about potential marijuana partnerships. Krishnamoorthi asked for:
“All documents, including memoranda and communications, referring or relating to proposals, plans, and/or intended partnerships or collaborations between JUUL and any cannabis-related companies, including but not limited to Cronos Group.”
It’s not clear where the Cronos-specific mention comes from, but the company has perviously caught the interest of the tobacco industry. The maker of Marlboro cigarettes, Altria Group, invested almost $2 billion in the Canada-based cannabis company in December. Two weeks later, Altria invested $13 billion in JUUL.
Marijuana Moment reached out to JUUL, Cronos and Krishnamoorthi’s office for comment, but representatives did not respond by the time of publication.
If a partnership does emerge, it would likely be met with some controversy, as opponents and proponents of marijuana reform alike have long expressed concern that the tobacco industry would take over the cannabis market and commercialize it in a way that mirrors how it peddled cigarettes.
Of course, given that tobacco use is declining and tobacco companies generally have the infrastructure that would make a pivot to cannabis relatively simple, such a partnership would not be especially surprising.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has made the case several times that tobacco farmers in his state could leverage the federal legalization of industrial hemp and its derivatives by growing the crop to offset profit losses from declining tobacco sales.
Read Rep. Krishnamoorthi’s full letter to JUUL below:
2019-06-07.Krishnamoorthi t… by on Scribd
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia.
Google Announces Ban On Marijuana Apps In Android Play Store
Apps that help connect people with marijuana products are not welcome anymore in the Google Play store, the company announced in a policy update on Wednesday. That includes apps that facilitate cannabis transactions in states where it’s legal.
The updated policy section states that Google Play doesn’t “allow apps that facilitate the sale of marijuana or marijuana products, regardless of legality.” Previously the page didn’t include any specific mention of cannabis.
The revised guidelines go on to list descriptions of “common violations.” Apps can’t allow users “to order marijuana through an in-app shopping cart feature,” help users “in arranging delivery or pick up of marijuana” or facilitate the “sale of products containing THC.”
A google spokesperson explained the change in an email to Marijuana Moment, adding that affected companies can take advantage of a simple workaround.
“These apps simply need to move the shopping cart flow outside of the app itself to be compliant with this new policy,” the spokesperson said. “We’ve been in contact with many of the developers and are working with them to answer any technical questions and help them implement the changes without customer disruption.”
The spokesperson also said that the company recognizes the popularity of cannabis-related apps and hopes they will remain in the Play Store under the amended rules. Google is working directly with developers of affected apps, the spokesperson said.
Another new section of the policies stipulates that apps “that facilitate the sale of tobacco (including e-cigarettes)” are prohibited. Apps that help consumers purchase alcohol are apparently allowed, but not those that “encourage the irresponsible use of alcohol or tobacco.”
The update was first reported by Android Police, which also noted that Apple has previously banned marijuana-related apps such as the social networking platform MassRoots. But Apple lifted that ban in 2015 and has since taken a relatively hands-off approach to the issue.
Some of the best-known cannabis apps—Weedmaps and Eaze—are still available for download on Google Play as of the time of publication. But insiders believe that their essential functions (i.e. the ordering services) will have to be deactivated. Weedmaps alone has been installed more than one million times to date, and more than 50,000 users have downloaded Eaze.
Android Police reported that Google will be working with affected app developers to resolve any compliance issues over the next month.
In a blog post on Wednesday, Google said that it was generally making a series of policy changes to ensure that its app store serves as “a positive, safe environment for children and families.” As TechCrunch pointed out, this comes about five months after Google Play was the subject of an FTC complaint, which alleged that the company wasn’t doing enough to vet apps that appear in the kids section.
The tech industry has had a strained relationship with marijuana businesses, even as a growing number of states have decided to legalize and regulate the sale of cannabis.
Facebook, which recently showed off its artificial intelligence technology that’s capable of identifying images of marijuana, continues to prohibit the commercial advertising of cannabis products, regardless of the legality of the business under state law.
Noncommercial cannabis news sites such as Marijuana Moment and state regulatory bodies like the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission have also been caught up in the anti-marijuana policy despite the fact that they do not promote or sell cannabis products. In some cases, it appears these organizations have been hidden from appearing in search results—a practice known as “shadowbanning.”
The online shopping site eBay also gave cannabis consumers some bad news this week, clarifying that CBD products will continue to be banned globally regardless of individual country laws on the compound.
“Eaze connects adults only to licensed, regulated cannabis retailers,” Elizabeth Ashford, senior director of corporate communications for Eaze, said in an email. “Google’s decision is a disappointing development that only helps the illegal market thrive, but we are confident that Google, Apple and Facebook will eventually do the right thing and allow legal cannabis companies to do business on their platforms. We regret any inconvenience this may cause for customers and patients.”
“Prohibition is over,” she added. “Voters across the country have legalized cannabis.”
Marijuana Moment also reached out to Weedmaps for comment but the company has not yet provided a statement reacting to the Google policy change.
On the flip side, at least one major tech company is testing the regulatory waters after hemp and its derivatives were legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill. The payment processing service Square announced last week that has launched a pilot program designed to give businesses that sell hemp-derived CBD products access to credit card processing services as an alternative to traditional financial institutions that remain wary of working with the industry.
Marijuana might be banned from Google’s app market, but just last year it seemed the company’s executives were pretty bullish about loosening cannabis laws. Google co-founder Sergey Brin joked about supplying employees with joints at a post-election meeting in September.
“I was asking if we could serve joints outside on the patio, but apparently these things take a little while to take effect,” Brin said, referring to the implementation of California’s cannabis legalization measure. “It was a huge, huge disappointment. I’ve been bemoaning that all week, I’ll be honest with you.”
Disclosure: Weedmaps and Eaze are Marijuana Moment advertisers/sponsors.
This story was updated to include comment from Google and Eaze.
Photo courtesy of Rick Proctor.
eBay Says It Will Continue To Ban People From Selling CBD Products
The massive online shopping site eBay says CBD products will continue to be banned globally on its platform, even as other companies like the payment processor Square are working to make it simpler to market hemp-derived goods.
In response to a tweet complaining about cannabidiol oil being removed from the site, the company said last week that the “sale of CBD products is highly regulated in many countries,” and while “they may be legal to buy and sell in some countries, they are regulated by the FDA and enforced by some law enforcement agencies.”
The sale of CBD products is highly regulated in many countries. While they may be legal to buy and sell in some countries, they are regulated by the FDA and enforced by some law enforcement agencies. For this reason, we have decided to prohibit the items globally. Mary
— Ask eBay (@AskeBay) May 24, 2019
“For this reason, we have decided to prohibit the items globally,” an eBay representative wrote.
Compare that stance to the recent announcement from Square, which said last week it has launched a pilot program designed to give CBD businesses access to credit card processing services—something that some companies say they continue to struggle with even though hemp was federally legalized via the 2018 Farm Bill.
A quick search of eBay does turn up several listings for CBD products, including oils, gummies and lotions. But as far as the company is concerned, those sellers are violating a policy that has been a source of frustration for CBD consumers for years.
Community forums discussing the platform’s CBD ban go back to at least 2015, with many challenging eBay’s rationale. But it is the case that while Congress and President Trump acted to legalize hemp and its derivatives late last year, FDA does maintain regulatory authority over CBD and has said it’s currently unlawful to market the cannabis-derived compound as a food item or dietary supplement.
However, FDA is holding a public meeting on Friday to further discuss alternative regulatory pathways that may eventually allow people to sell hemp-derived CBD products. Former FDA Administrator Scott Gottlieb has indicated that the issue may have to be resolved through further congressional action.
But until then, large companies are testing the waters, with companies like CVS Pharmacy saying they will begin selling CBD products in spite of existing federal restrictions.
It doesn’t appear that eBay competitor Amazon has commented on their policy on selling CBD products, but again, a search of the site reveals thousands of hits for a wide range of hemp-based items.
Photo courtesy of Pixabay.