On September 20, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted an amendment to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct that clarifies the ethical responsibilities for attorneys under Ohio’s new medical marijuana law (H.B. 523).
Previously, on August 5, 2016, in a non-binding advisory opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Board of Professional Conduct ruled that
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) may issue a decision as soon as this summer regarding the potential downgrading of cannabis to allow for its medical use.
In response to a letter from seven U.S. Senators in December, 2015, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency issued a 26-page response in April, 2016, that many believe indicates
According to a press release from Ohio Governor John Kasich’s office, the Governor signed six bills yesterday, including H.B 523, which authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes and establishes the Medical Marijuana Control Program. H.B. 523 was passed by the Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly on May 25, 2016. According to Ohio law,
House Bill 523 (or HB 523) is now through the General Assembly and on Governor Kasich’s desk for his signature. On May 10, 2016, the Ohio House of Representatives passed HB 523, a bill that would permit a patient, upon the recommendation of a physician, to use medical marijuana to treat a qualifying medical condition.
Federal law has long protected owners of patents, copyrights and trademarks from infringement of those intellectual property rights. Trade secret owners, however, traditionally had to rely on state law to protect their trade secrets from improper use or disclosure. Congress has now given trade secret owners an additional avenue for protecting their intellectual property: the
Those that are considering providing services to clients and customers in the nascent marijuana industry should be cautious in this area. Even though many states have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana to some degree, the fact remains that marijuana is illegal as a controlled substance under federal law, and there are companion laws prohibiting the
This Colorado decision is the most recent in a string of cases that have ruled that employers may take adverse action following a positive drug test result. So far, courts in California, Montana, and Washington have rejected claims by medical marijuana patients who lost their jobs after failing drug tests.
Click here for more information