Hemp Is Legal But Still Has Challenges: A Q&A With Patrick Goggin of California Hemp Council
Patrick Goggin, who is also a senior attorney at the San Francisco-based Hoban Law Group, has joined the council newly formed to continue the work of Vote Hemp after last year's Farm Bill took hemp off the Controlled Substances Act.
April 29, 2019 at 06:32 PM
4 minute read
Shortly after becoming a licensed attorney, Patrick Goggin decided to devote his career to hemp legalization. Earlier this year, Goggin became the general counsel of the California Hemp Council, or CHC, in an effort to lobby the state to pass hemp-friendly legislation.
Goggin, who is also a senior attorney at the San Francisco-based Hoban Law Group, spoke to Corporate Counsel about the CHC and the current challenges surrounding hemp in California.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Corporate Counsel: What does the CHC do?
Patrick Goggin: The CHC was just formed earlier this year. It is a continuation of the work we've been doing over the years with the leadership of Vote Hemp. Vote Hemp is a national advocacy organization. I've been on the board of directors of Vote Hemp going back to 2005. It helped push legislation at the federal level and at the state level, but in particular California, since 2005. The challenge has been that we've been operating on a shoestring budget over the years and through the 2018 legislative session. We realized that we needed an ongoing lobbying presence in Sacramento to be protecting and pushing hemp's interest.
CC: Is a lot of the opposition to legalized hemp based on misinformation about the product?
PG: That is a definitely a big part of the issue. That all said, there was a big change this past December when the 2018 Farm Bill was passed and hemp was fully removed from The Controlled Substances Act. Prior to that, it had been authorized for production in states that had passed hemp statutes for research purposes. It was a half-step.
A lot of the need for our work is to educate both the politicians, regulators and also folks in the normal commercial space that just don't understand the distinctions between hemp and other strains. Frankly, there is a lot of confusion about the FDA's position on hemp and CBD from cannabis. What we're dealing with now is a transition from having to deal with the DEA asserting that it's a drug to dealing with the USDA and the FDA in regulating it appropriately and clarifying the different lanes for the product.
CC: Besides educating officials on hemp policy, what are your other responsibilities as the general counsel of the CHC?
PG: A lot of it is with various stakeholders on legislation that is going to be able to get through to a governor's signature. A lot of the job is to shepherd that bill through by continuing to adapt, revise and evolve it to ensure passage.
The other part is that we're dealing a lot of issues surrounding the California Department of Public Health. We've got two pieces of legislation moving this year. One of them is refining our agriculture code to conforming more closely to the 2018 Farm Bill. The other piece is with the Department of Public Health on the extract side, and that involves getting the CDPH jurisdiction over it. We've got a long road to go to get that agency to buy in for regulating hemp as a normal food. We want to treat hemp as a food and a dietary supplement and not in the same lane as marijuana.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture is just getting ready to issue applications for hemp registrations. A lot of counties have put moratoriums in place until that happens. At the Hoban Law Group, I represent a lot of farmers and businesses that are interested or in the midst of production. A lot of work is dealing with local municipalities both with the board of supervisors by dealing with the moratoriums or going in and education the departments of public health. I also interact with the county agriculture commissioners. They're the ones who are delegated authority by the CDFA to process applications.
When it comes to hemp, a lot of the issues need to be addressed at the local level. Education is a big part of it, as well as getting in and distinguishing hemp from the other side of cannabis.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Olympic Aspirations to Legal Innovation: Tom Dunlop's Journey to Founding Summize
8 minute read'Am I Spending Time in the Right Place?' SPX Technologies CLO Cherée Johnson on Living and Leading With Intent
9 minute readMary O'Carroll on Her Move to Goodwin: Law Firms Are at the Heart of Industry Disruption
How I Made General Counsel: 'Keep Betting on Yourself Against the Odds,' Says Maryam Abdul-Kareem of Arcellx
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250